I wouldn't really expect a "former FBI agent" to look at things this way, but here's how I see it. You're *always* going to have countries who don't respect your own nation's laws. They may pay "lip service" to them, or co-operate occasionally, when they're in the middle of other political negotiations with you. But ultimately, that's the whole POINT of dividing the globe up into nations. If we could ALL agree on what was worth prosecuting and what was legal, we'd be just fine with a big "one world government". (And scarily enough, some people still advocate just that!)
Most of the "Internet crime" you hear about happens because proper measures weren't taken to prevent it. The mass thefts of credit card numbers by hackers, for example? It's either the rare "inside job" (like the AOL employees who tried that one time), or more often, security weaknesses that an outsider exploited to get to the data. Demanding more "accountability" by requiring an Internet that people "sign in to" to identify themselves? That's pointless, and absolutely destroys a big part of what makes the net great; its anonymous, de-centralized nature.
Anyone intelligent enough to find and bypass security weaknesses on corporate servers is also smart enough to find ways to sign on a "new Internet" using other people's credentials.
And in any case, it STILL does little or nothing to fix the fact that other nations still DON'T CARE that one of their own citizens just hacked a business in YOUR country!
The "rest of the world's laws" are no more a "stumbling block" with Internet crime than they are with any other crime. All you can do as a nation is devise secure systems to make these foreign crimes more difficult to pull off in the first place. (The U.S. govt. does this all the time with our cash money. Each bill has its own unique serial number, and many many forms of counterfeit protection are put into them.)
The "benefits" of SAP are quite debatable. I'd say that's true for practically ALL of these "enterprise class" applications that try to tackle the problem of integration of incoming sales orders, corporate accounting, shipping, human resources, etc. etc.
It's "beneficial" for the consultants who get highly paid to train employees on how to use the software, and for the people who customize the software for each business that takes them up on a purchase. But beyond that, it's unclear that it's *really* an efficient, worthwhile solution.
From past experience, I've observed a trend where these companies (whether it's Oracle, SAP, or you name it) make big promises, a company "bites" (knowing that the problems outlined really ARE big issues they'd LOVE to solve), and then the vendor proceeds to bleed millions of dollars out of their new customer. Eventually, something is constructed/customized that accomplishes SOME of the original goals, but does so in a rather clunky, bug-infested manner, while other items on the "want list" get bumped to "future stages of implementation" (which often never really get completed, because they're too costly and complicated). By this time, upper level management is forced to cost-justify the monstrosity, so they do their best to keep their jobs (and pride) by praising the software as a "big improvement" or "big step towards greater efficiency". Vendor then makes sure to quote them on that, and moves to the next sucker... uh, I mean customer.
IMHO, as disappointing as most Microsoft products are, they built their empire on the exact OPPOSITE philosophy. They promised "relatively inexpensive, out of the box" solutions to problems. Microsoft has never been about customizing their software for individual clients while charging by hours spent on them, nor do they tie customers to "maintenance contracts". They simply develop applications they feel will appeal to the majority of PC users out there, and make corrections and additions as they go, largely based on the collective feedback they receive.
So sure, you have silly things like people running around in large numbers, waving their MCSE certifications, expecting they should command top salaries because of them. But it's probably no more "silly" than companies scrambling to hire "experienced SAP implementation specialists" - when in reality, it just means you have people who helped muddle through the process of selling the stuff to previous customers. (You have no idea if they've ever done any customization work relevant to YOUR company's specific needs.)
These "format wars" aren't even really about competition, in the traditional sense of "multiple companies battling it out to see who has the product offering most favored by the consumer". The fact is, the general public barely bought into EITHER HD-DVD or Blu-Ray disc. They're still buying regular old DVDs!
This was merely a case of some businesses getting behind a potential future "standard" for a media format, while others went with another concept. 95%+ of the public rejected BOTH options as too costly and unnecessary at this time (or simply out of ignorance of what "value" such a thing would add for them).
The only way EITHER of these DVD replacements would get off the ground was with enough of a financial backing, coupled with a continuing trend of the consumer purchasing new HD-compatible television sets (which is underway, but nowhere near "mass adoption" yet). Quite a few people out there made a big investment in a large-screen projection TV that wasn't HD capable, not all THAT long ago. Those are the ones who will hesitate to buy again, until their existing set dies.
It's only common sense that to become a worthwhile "standard" for the general public, the vast majority of manufacturers have to AGREE on implementing it. I see nothing wrong with Sony's "let's just pay someone to go with the one we'd like" approach. The public will STILL be able to buy Blu-Ray players AND discs from a number of manufacturers. It's not like we're ALL stuck with Sony as our only option now. Standards adoption is ALWAYS a lengthy, expensive process for manufacturers to undergo. The money is going to either be spent on A) flooding the market with low-cost product using the standard, to encourage widespread adoption, B) advertising campaigns educating the consumer that the product exists. and then convincing them that they really do want it, or C) working deals with the competition to get everyone on the same page. Looks to me like choice "C" made a lot of sense here -- since there simply weren't a lot of differentiating factors between the 2 formats that the general consumer would care about. (Either way they go, they get to watch their movies in high-definition in a device that works just like their old DVD player did.)
No.... "theft" really does NOT mean you obtained something illegally, REGARDLESS of whether another person was deprived of it. What you forget in your example is, sneaking onto a train, bus, etc. occupies a SEAT. You've taken that physical space away from being available for a paying customer, who was supposed to receive it in return for the purchased ticket.
It's arguable that there were "plenty of empty seats, so nobody was short of one anyway". But you had no way of knowing that would definitely be the case at the time you chose to sneak on-board. Furthermore, by occupying the space on the vehicle, you might have inadvertently caused some measure of inconvenience for a paid customer that you didn't even realize you caused. (Perhaps someone with difficulty walking wanted a seat close to a door, which you sat down in - forcing them to move closer to the rear of the bus or train?)
In the case of music or software copying, there was simple nothing physical deprived from ANY party (assuming you didn't steal the blank media used to store the data!).
Nah, I don't really agree. At one time, I would have sided with you on this one. But at least from what I've observed, coffee shops have evolved in recent years to become much more like restaurants. The idea of a coffee shop being a social hang-out is dying off. (Just like restaurants, they also figured out people are only going to drink so much coffee during a visit.) When you encourage people to hang around playing board or card games, reading books, etc. - you wind up with a place that's half full of people who are done buying things, instead of freeing the space up for the next round of customers-to-be, who are all ready to buy that first cup of joe when they walk in.
On the other hand, what I think *is* happening that encourages free wi-fi is a restaurant (or coffee shop) design with a variation of the traditional restaurant theme. Places like Panera Bread Company are good examples. They give just enough of a "personal touch" (things like calling your first name when your food/drink order is up, instead of giving you a number) to make people feel welcome there. They encourage the feel of "We give you more reasons to come here than the competitors do!" with bonuses like free wi-fi and wall outlets conveniently placed at the booths. Yet they still lay everything out so you feel a little "uncomfortable" if you spend TOO much time there. You have that distinct sense that you're taking up space that other customers want, and they're taking notice of you. They carefully avoid things like placing too many couches around their restaurants, since those encourage the concept of sitting around longer. They don't provide any reading material or other visual cues that it's "ok" to spend the rest of the afternoon there. Yet, you do feel like it's "the norm" to go ahead and pull out your laptop and check your email while you're eating your sandwich. THIS is the balance that makes it all fit together.
Take a look at many of the "classic" toys made from wood, rope and metal chains. They're all deceptively simple-looking things, until you pick them up and start playing around with them. Then you realize the hidden challenge to them. Cracker Barrel restaurants sell modern "replicas" of many of these puzzle games... things where you have to remove a pole from a knot of rope, for example - or twist things around to unlink a chain. Many of the classic Asian toys were like this too. Simple but ingeniously designed. My friend brought back a flying bird from Japan, for example. It was powered by a rubber band. Very basic deal where you turned a plastic crank in the back of the bird to wind up the rubber-band and then let go. But it was still clever how they managed to create flapping wings that were powered that way, all in a toy that only cost a few bucks to make. It flew really well too. I remember it accidentally landing on our roof several times!
The problem is, the big gaming companies would literally go out of business if they had to wait for each time something that unique and creative was developed. In the 80's, none of it existed yet, so everything somebody wrote seemed like a "first" (unless they were purposely copying off another newly release title). I think most of the concepts were done by the 90's though -- so you had to find other ways to sell a game title. That meant constant improvements on graphics and sound. (Literally, yes, you COULD sell a load of copies of Pac-Man all over again, if you really beefed up the graphics and sound, and made it into some weird 3D, first-person maze runner with really scary ghosts chasing after you, etc. etc. It sure wouldn't be original, but it'd generate sales since it's based on a tried-and-true game formula, but with a whole new "look and feel".)
Your dad sounds like a logical man. I wouldn't say it's "crazy" at all, to be able to separate the technical aspects of a system (DEC's products in this case) from bad sales tactics, from the people trying to sell one to him.
I've done enough corporate purchasing (and known others doing the same) to know that it's a popular tactic to throw in some freebies, in an attempt to sway you towards accepting a given quote (or even to simply sway you towards remembering to give a specific vendor a chance, every time you need to do a new purchase).
I've worked for places that have a corporate policy telling you that you simply can't accept ANY of these gifts, but I think that's too simplistic a rule.
The fact is, when you're the one doing all the research, collecting bids and finally going through with an order, you deserve whatever free "bonus item(s)" might come your way in that process, AS LONG AS you don't let it sway you from finding the best deal for your employer. I've been in situations where I attempted to get the "lowest bid" for software licensing, only to have 2 or 3 vendors quote me equal prices at the end. If one gave me a free pen and pencil set or whatever, then sure - they got the bid. Why not? Everything else was truly equal.
On the other hand, I absolutely despise getting what I'm led to believe is the "final price" for something, only to have the vendor modify it in some way after I get approval. That's guaranteed to make me look at alternatives. (IMHO, if I have to face my boss and say "Guess what? I screwed up, and it will actually cost $Y instead of $X for this item. Is that still ok?", I'd just as soon start over with a different vendor. Getting approval twice is really no more difficult on a different item/different vendor than on the same one twice.)
Very true.... but we've still got the problem with the "mass media" only SELECTIVELY embracing "Internet/new media".
Sure, they're happy to read the blogs and regurgitate information gleaned from them, when it suits their agenda and provides a likely boost to their ratings.
But don't forget, the Internet is slowly *killing* most traditional media. The newspaper subscriptions are in decline, and even classified advertising money that once went to them is largely gone, with the advent of sites like Craigslist and eBay.
Television is being viewed fewer number of hours per week by the typical American, with that "missing time" largely being reported as being used for "web surfing and email" instead.
So the "Internet-culture" is not so much the friend or ally of mass media. It's really more of their enemy. They're not so much opposed to the *technology* itself as the "culture" developing around it. Ideally, they'd probably love the net to be just as widespread as it is. (As you pointed out, it makes their reporting jobs easier - and surely cuts expenses in numerous ways for them.) They just don't care for the "Internet evangelists", making it "cool and trendy" to do everything online instead of absorbing "old school, passive forms of media" like they pedal to the public. Now, tell me again exactly which segment it was primarily supporting Ron Paul??
Call it a "rant" if you must, but had I the mod points, I would have liked to mod that comment from +4 to +5.
It hits the nail on the proverbial head.
The fact that some people would want the tax "rebate" money Bush is proposing, yet fully understand what bad fiscal policy the whole thing is does NOT in any way, shape or form make them a hypocrite. I consider myself in this camp, and it's NOT a simple matter of throwing my hands up in the air, saying "It's beyond fixing, so want mine out of the mess!"
It's an understanding that the American people are WAY over-taxed at the Federal level. As a Libertarian myself, I'd love to see the entire IRS dismantled/abolished. If that's too "pie in the sky" to ever really happen, ok. Then I'd settle for removal of many of the govt. offices that are unnecessary and inefficient. I'd agree with such ideas as dumping NASA and privatizing space exploration, and probably even scaling back the FDA. Homeland Security would be gone in a flash, for sure. Given that mentality, it's perfectly logical I'd take any money back I can get from the feds! I'd rather have what I earned for myself than letting them mis-use it!
This is a great plan, except there probably needs to be some kind of time-frame, after which a feedback becomes visible again, if the other party never bothers to leave feedback....
I don't think you necessarily want to try to force, or even encourage, a situation where each transaction needs to have feedback left for it. Some people do so much buying/selling on eBay, the feedback system becomes quite time-consuming. These people would rather not leave feedback at all on most "normal" transactions, only commenting on an especially good or bad one.
I think adding at least a 30-day "delay" before an invisible feedback turns visible would discourage a lot of "retaliation" feedback, because the "cooling off" period would cause a lot of people to just move on and not bother with it.
The problem I see with the entire "computer security" issue is that there are lucrative jobs and big money to be had, hawking it to people.
The best examples I can think of of genuinely valid and useful security practices all involve things that don't cost much, if anything. (EG. TrueCrypt 5.0 is free software, yet you can encrypt a whole notebook computer's drive with boot-time password protection with it. This adds an obvious and practical layer of security. Configuring a proxy server to disallow downloading of files with "high risk" extensions on them, such as.scr files, costs you nothing but a few minutes of your time, yet can prevent all sorts of potential issues for your Windows users in a corporate setting.)
Yet, like you say, the people at the top of the corporate ladder, who have the most to risk from security breaches (but conversely, have the least "technical knowledge" about such situations) want to essentially "pay for scapegoats". Free, practical security solutions don't give you someone you can demote/fire, file a lawsuit against, or at least point a finger at as responsible if something does go wrong. A highly paid "security consultant" or "I.T. Security Specialist" in the firm, however, can be the "fall guy", and an expensive network appliance that's supported under a paid contract? Again, there's a place to direct blame.
Heh.... I'm 36 and I actually have my kid full-time, post-divorce. But otherwise, sure - that'd be me. If I actually get a break from taking care of the kid and I'm not working, you can bet I'm trying to find some time to sit alone in a dark house, playing some PS3 game or computer game! It's a nice way to unwind a little bit, and get away from household chores and everything else you're usually stuck doing.
It'd be even better if my current g/f was into more games herself, but unfortunately, she tends to play the latest "PopCap" type games... Dress Shop, Diner Dash, etc. etc. Not exactly my thing. She did get into the Tony Hawk Pro Skater games, but frankly, *I* suck at those (even though I had a lot of fun playing the first 3 of so that came out, back in the day).
I think our views are pretty much alike. I'm a registered Libertarian myself, but I think the "traditional Republican candidate" (as defined, perhaps, by Ronald Reagan?) and Libertarian views aren't all that far apart. (Probably, the main difference would lie in specific "individual rights" issues like drug legalization?)
The problem I see is, today's "standard issue Republican" seems to be all about a bigger, more powerful federal govt. with more rights to monitor, investigate and catalog citizens - and this mission of "squashing any and all terrorist threats" at all costs.
Given that, I just don't see a candidate *besides* Ron Paul I can give my vote to. This election, I'm just not feeling that concern about "making sure a lesser of the evils" is elected, because I see serious problems with any of the Republican or Democratic candidates in the running. I can't, in good conscience, cast my vote for someone with a political agenda so counter to what I feel this nation needs to get "back on track".
(I know this discussion is not supposed to go into Democratic candidates, but I have to digress for a second here and comment that Obama is running an "interesting" campaign right now. He seems to really be pushing that idea that a vote for him equates to a vote for "real change" in govt. Ironically, Ron Paul is the one proposing the REAL changes, not Obama. I have to wonder if Obama is sapping away a number of votes from Ron Paul with this strategy? I've talked to quite a few college students who are sold on Obama purely out of their distaste for the current state of things and his promises of upsetting the "status quo" if he's elected. Yet what real "change" is Obama planning to make? His policies pretty much mirror a traditional Democrat's promises. He's for some kind of national healthcare system, just as Hillary is. He's not talking of an immediate end to the war in Iraq, or a promise of repealing the Patriot Act. He's still proposing concepts that will surely raise all of our taxes during his presidency.)
Mark, I don't think I'm one of the ones "driving you crazy". I tend to agree with you. Sites like "Pirate Bay" never cease to amaze me, really, because they run such large, "out in the open/in your face" operations, pretending they're invincible.
I'm among the first to argue that *ethically speaking*, I have no problem with "casual piracy", more accurately labeled as "non-profit copyright infringement". I'd also be a big advocate for some serious change in our current copyright law. (I've said for years, copyright shouldn't be protecting people's works from infringement for nearly as long as it does right now. Look how often a software publisher quits offering a title because it's for an obsolete game system or piece of hardware, and yet - it's still illegal to copy it for someone wanting it for collector's purposes?)
In the U.S., it wasn't until President Clinton signed changes into law in the late 90's that copyright infringement was even considered a CRIMINAL act, if it couldn't be shown that there was an *intent of financial gain* from said infringement. I think that was a VERY bad move.
Still, the law is what the law is. People wishing to smoke marijuana despite it being illegal don't openly flaunt it, walking down the street with a joint in their mouth. Yet, that's exactly what sites like Pirate Bay were doing with their web sites.
It's interesting you say that.... I've noticed that as a general rule, I wind up more efficient when I actually DO wait for the computer to complete something I requested of it. I'm not talking about huge projects such as compiling a large piece of software, of course. Rather, I'm thinking of several jobs I've had in the past where I was asked to do a number of software installations or updates to a group of machines, or perhaps was going back and forth between a couple of machines I needed to get configured and tested for different customers or tasks.
Inevitably, I'd get the lecture from a boss about how I'm just "wasting time" waiting for a command to finish, or a specific update to report that it applied successfully, when I could be moving on to the next one, starting another command or procedure. The problem with that is, it tends to be "penny wise but pound foolish". Sure, it keeps you from sitting idle for more than 2 seconds, looking at a status bar -- but it's easy to make a mistake too, because you don't catch some error message that flashed by. It's easy to lose track after a little while too. "Did I already do update patch X on all 3 systems, or did I accidentally skip to Y on one of these?" The time you "save" by bouncing back and forth between 2 or more machines can EASILY be more than wasted by a single screw-up you do as you're mechanically clicking things from screen to screen.
A good computer tech will get a lot of info about the health of a PC by paying close attention to what it does as programs are loaded on it, too. If you notice small pauses during an attempt to do a disk write, or hear a "click, click click" noise, that's a strong indicator you're dealing with a failing hard drive. People who just kick off installations and move on to the next thing as fast as possible don't ever catch that stuff.
Of course, this sort of story was just BEGGING for the trolls to come out..... but I'm going to reply to this one, just because it's a fundamental part of the issue at hand, really.
American society is SUPPOSED to be all about individual rights and freedoms for YOU and ME. The "catch" has always been, great responsibility comes along with great freedom. People who want part 2, but not part 1 of that equation lead us to the vast majority of our society's ills.
The very idea of the "dollar" boils down to a symbol of one's work/labor. Our system does revolve around this "dollar", in the sense that one is supposed to work for THEIR OWN good/benefit. Money is not supposed to just be freely handed to a person, nor should a person be put in a situation where their labor doesn't result in the earning of dollars. (EG. Government demanding free labor of its citizens "for the greater good" or indentured servitude to another individual.)
People's laziness and attempts to "bypass" this have led us to calls for "socialized medicine" and other such "solutions" that ultimately don't work, and undermine our whole political system. I'm afraid I have to largely side with one of the first people who replied to this story. They said our best policy is going to be a simple "pay as you go" one. Anything else maintains the downward-spiral we're all in today; where prices keep soaring, driven by insurance providers needing to make their profits as "middle men" and healthcare providers needing enough "padding" in each bill to cover the costs of all those who can't pay for the services they're expecting to receive anyway.
We have to "reset" medicine to a point where people pay a fair price for their care, but nobody gets a subsidized "free ride" either. No more going to a hospital and being billed $18 for a band-aid. No more requiring "permission" of an insurance company before getting one's needs attended to either. Just a simple understanding that our Constitution nowhere guarantees "free medical care for all". (Note that this doesn't mean interns and doctors wishing to volunteer certain percentages of their time to charitable causes couldn't still opt to provide some level of care to the needy.)
Huh? Who made you the official spokesperson for the needs of business users everywhere?
I imagine this will see excellent sales among business users, regardless of the "integrated battery". A Core 2 Duo at 1.8Ghz isn't exactly "poor performing". My Macbook Pro is the first generation model with the original Core Duo (not Core 2) CPU in it. It still performs quite well for me, so I'd expect to see similar overall performance from the Macbook Air.
Furthermore, as Apple pointed out, the thickest portion of this notebook is THINNER than the thinnest part of Sony's Vaio slim notebook line. The battery life is rated as high as 5 hours. The keyboard isn't some "compact" model with keys too closely spaced together, and the display is a full 13.3" instead of some 11" or 12" compromise.
Considering the fact that notebooks are largely non user-serviceable to begin with, the need to mail this off for battery replacement shouldn't be a huge change for most laptop users. (When's the last time your full-size HP, Toshiba or Gateway laptop malfunctioned, and you were able to swap out the defective motherboard or video or display with parts picked up at your local retailer, huh?)
Judging by how many notebooks I see in service with totally non-functional, worn out batteries in them - I think for many people, it's not even a priority..... They don't like the price of new li-ion batteries anyway, so they do without when the original wears out. If you have you car and airline charger/adapter, along with your AC power adapter, the ability to plug it in wherever you go still makes your portable computer pretty darn portable.
Not to mention, a "Dell" monitor is imperceptibly different in design than a monitor of same type and screen-size made by any number of other manufacturers. The LCD panels in Dell panels are made by companies like Ben-Q, for example. The supporting electronics are probably OEM'd from other vendors too.
One has to wonder if the shop would pursue a lawsuit with the same fervor if said display that caught fire was one of those Chinese off-brands like "Niko", with a far more difficult-to-contact business?
IMHO, Napster shouldn't have been held liable for any of the copyright infringements happening on their network - because they simply provided peer-to-peer sharing software that people could use for "good" or for "bad", at their own choosing. Napster was the equivalent of a gun manufacturer, providing a product that can obviously be used for lawful AND unlawful purposes, depending on who has the gun and what they choose to do with it. (If we treated the gun makers like we treated Napster, police and our military would be stuck being armed with nothing more than nightsticks and a can of pepper spray.)
On the other hand, we're ALSO saying that a person who puts up files for downloading on their computer is NOT guilty of infringing any of the copyrights until the files are actually downloaded. That seems pretty clear-cut to me. As others have already stated here, you could potentially pass new legislation saying "attempted infringement" has certain legal penalties, but such legislation is not at issue here. They're simply claiming he DID infringe because he had files on his PC, available for public downloading.
YOU say this guy is "obviously guilty" - yet the fact remains, he's not obviously guilty at all of the specific crime he's being charged with. You simply can't make that claim without a download log of some sort proving another party connected to his server and completed a download of at least one of those files.
All I'm saying is, my experience illustrates that you can't really call these carriers "open" at all.
An open carrier would never implement a subsidy lock on a cellphone in the first place!
But if they did, it should be something *anybody* can get unlocked, without jumping through hoops to get it done. (EG. It should make no difference if I'm the former "account holder" or not. The phone has their corporate logo printed all over it, proving it was issued by them initially. Its serial number should be in their database if they feel some need to confirm that. I'm simply someone wishing to use the phone, and am being blocked from doing so by the subsidy lock they opted to place on it!)
As for the 90-day limitation, yes - again, I think that's B.S. As you said yourself, the reps aren't even the ones doing the unlocking for you. They're simply passing your request on to a 3rd. party, giving this 3rd. party permission to issue the code back to you. So how many "resources" are they really investing in me, if I'm simply asking them to have someone ELSE give me that code in email?
Do you *really* think today's society has more "creeps" in it than previous generations??
I'd argue that the numbers haven't changed a bit. The only thing that HAS changed, really, is our communications abilities. Just as before the advent of motorized transportation, most people had very little idea about social differences in communities other than their own, we're learning a LOT more about all the "fetishes", "variants of normal", and "alternate lifestyles" of people with the advent of "Internet access for all".
Right now, if I really wanted to, I could probably search around IRC and other chat rooms on the net for 30 or 45 minutes, and eventually find some little group of individuals exchanging child porn, or a group devoted to teens hooking up with older men, or you name it. This doesn't prove that society has more creeps in it today than in the past. It just means that now, they have a visibility that wasn't present before, because of the new methods of communications they employ.
By the same token, law enforcement has leveraged the Internet as a means to warn people of those convicted of such crimes. 20 or 30 years ago, if a child molester lived on your block, chances are you never knew (or it was just some unsubstantiated rumor floating around). Now, you can do a lookup on a web page and get a map showing their exact location.
What do you mean AT&T/Cingular and T-Mobile are "open" carriers?
Just last week, I had to fight to get my boss's Motorola W400 phone unlocked. He had it subscribed with T-Mobile originally, but after his contract ran out, he got a new (cheap) phone with an AT&T contract. He didn't like the free phone they included, so he wanted to swap SIM cards and use the W400 on his new AT&T contract.
Immediately, the phone balked, complaining it was subsidy locked and prompted for a PIN code to unlock it.
T-Mobile will agree to give you the unlock code for the phone, but they don't make it easy. I had to find out my boss's last 4 digits of his social security number, his account number and billing address first. Then I could call, pretending I was him (because otherwise, they wouldn't even talk to me at cust. service). After a long wait on hold and being transferred to some other dept. that wasn't reachable directly by pressing a touch-tone at the initial prompts, I was informed I'd have to wait 24 hours for the code to be emailed to me. On top of all that, I was informed that they'd only provide these unlock codes to people who called within the first 90 days of cancellation. After that, too bad.....
I really don't see the iPhone as a "big step backwards" at all. If anything, it does a small twist on the "status quo" of receiving a carrier-locked phone with a service contract. You do pay full price for the phone up-front, which would *normally* mean you should receive an "unlocked" phone, BUT in the iPhone's case, you receive a phone locked to a carrier offering you special rate plans JUST for it, and service with customized capabilities (visual voicemail) just for it.
I'd be a lot more upset with the iPhone if it was locked to AT&T, *and* I was stuck activating it in the traditional manner (forced to get it turned on at the point of purchase, after a credit check is done and a salesperson tries to upsell/harass me for a while, etc. etc.), *and* I had to pick from one of the exact same plans they offer for all their other phones.
I work in a small business where despite being the in-house I.T. person myself, I also manage an outsourced consultant that I can bring in, on-demand, at an hourly rate. The combination of the two seems to work pretty well for us. I can take care of the vast majority of issues that pop up during the typical week, responding very quickly (since I'm right here, after all). If a printer jams, I can walk over and un-jam it. If someone has a question on how to change some behavior in Excel or do an advanced search in Outlook, I can walk over and help them out right away. These are things it'd be very ineffective to try to outsource.
On the other hand, we have the occasional larger-size project to do. (Perhaps it's a roll-out of a big software upgrade?) These are the times where it makes sense to me to call in the outside help, so I have an extra set of hands to help get the upgrade completed without turning it into a job that'd take all weekend long to complete. (And as we all know, two heads are better than one when you hit a strange problem, and brainstorming is required to figure out how to get past it.) The consultant may be expensive, considering what he's paid per hour of his time to be here.... but it's FAR cheaper than retaining another full-time I.T. person on staff, having to pay their benefits, etc., just because you have 10 or 15 situations per year where they'd come in really handy.
I'd say Gates was *neither*. He was a shrewd businessman who was able to recognize an opportunity and run with it, back in the 80's - and it paid off for him in spades.
The cries about him being a "monopolist" are somewhat misplaced, IMHO. Show me ANY C.E.O. of a successful, global business today who wouldn't want his/her company to achieve a similar market-share, if they could only figure out a way to do it! Yes, Microsoft made some questionable business deals, but again, I'd say that's "par for the course" in today's big businesses. I'm pretty confident you could find equally, if not MORE "evil" business dealings here or there with Monsanto, Xerox, General Electric, IBM, Cisco, Toyota, or yes, even Apple. You name the company. If they're very successful, then at least *somebody* in the inner workings has done something "corrupt" at some point in time. It's human nature.
On the other end of the spectrum, no, he hasn't been much of a "visionary" either. He correctly envisioned an America with "a PC on every desk", more or less. But beyond that, the claims of his "ability to predict the tech. future" is more marketing than reality. Everyone wants to think they're investing in a company that's "cutting edge" and committed to continuous improvements. This is especially key in the software industry, where essentially, you're paying to license the use of someone's idea/concept of making your computer perform a certain set of tasks. I didn't expect Gates to do much besides making very broad, generalized "predictions" at this keynote, and it looks like it played out just like I suspected.
Slashdot Mirror
I wouldn't really expect a "former FBI agent" to look at things this way, but here's how I see it. You're *always* going to have countries who don't respect your own nation's laws. They may pay "lip service" to them, or co-operate occasionally, when they're in the middle of other political negotiations with you. But ultimately, that's the whole POINT of dividing the globe up into nations. If we could ALL agree on what was worth prosecuting and what was legal, we'd be just fine with a big "one world government". (And scarily enough, some people still advocate just that!)
Most of the "Internet crime" you hear about happens because proper measures weren't taken to prevent it. The mass thefts of credit card numbers by hackers, for example? It's either the rare "inside job" (like the AOL employees who tried that one time), or more often, security weaknesses that an outsider exploited to get to the data. Demanding more "accountability" by requiring an Internet that people "sign in to" to identify themselves? That's pointless, and absolutely destroys a big part of what makes the net great; its anonymous, de-centralized nature.
Anyone intelligent enough to find and bypass security weaknesses on corporate servers is also smart enough to find ways to sign on a "new Internet" using other people's credentials.
And in any case, it STILL does little or nothing to fix the fact that other nations still DON'T CARE that one of their own citizens just hacked a business in YOUR country!
The "rest of the world's laws" are no more a "stumbling block" with Internet crime than they are with any other crime. All you can do as a nation is devise secure systems to make these foreign crimes more difficult to pull off in the first place. (The U.S. govt. does this all the time with our cash money. Each bill has its own unique serial number, and many many forms of counterfeit protection are put into them.)
The "benefits" of SAP are quite debatable. I'd say that's true for practically ALL of these "enterprise class" applications that try to tackle the problem of integration of incoming sales orders, corporate accounting, shipping, human resources, etc. etc.
It's "beneficial" for the consultants who get highly paid to train employees on how to use the software, and for the people who customize the software for each business that takes them up on a purchase. But beyond that, it's unclear that it's *really* an efficient, worthwhile solution.
From past experience, I've observed a trend where these companies (whether it's Oracle, SAP, or you name it) make big promises, a company "bites" (knowing that the problems outlined really ARE big issues they'd LOVE to solve), and then the vendor proceeds to bleed millions of dollars out of their new customer. Eventually, something is constructed/customized that accomplishes SOME of the original goals, but does so in a rather clunky, bug-infested manner, while other items on the "want list" get bumped to "future stages of implementation" (which often never really get completed, because they're too costly and complicated). By this time, upper level management is forced to cost-justify the monstrosity, so they do their best to keep their jobs (and pride) by praising the software as a "big improvement" or "big step towards greater efficiency". Vendor then makes sure to quote them on that, and moves to the next sucker... uh, I mean customer.
IMHO, as disappointing as most Microsoft products are, they built their empire on the exact OPPOSITE philosophy. They promised "relatively inexpensive, out of the box" solutions to problems. Microsoft has never been about customizing their software for individual clients while charging by hours spent on them, nor do they tie customers to "maintenance contracts". They simply develop applications they feel will appeal to the majority of PC users out there, and make corrections and additions as they go, largely based on the collective feedback they receive.
So sure, you have silly things like people running around in large numbers, waving their MCSE certifications, expecting they should command top salaries because of them. But it's probably no more "silly" than companies scrambling to hire "experienced SAP implementation specialists" - when in reality, it just means you have people who helped muddle through the process of selling the stuff to previous customers. (You have no idea if they've ever done any customization work relevant to YOUR company's specific needs.)
These "format wars" aren't even really about competition, in the traditional sense of "multiple companies battling it out to see who has the product offering most favored by the consumer".
The fact is, the general public barely bought into EITHER HD-DVD or Blu-Ray disc. They're still buying regular old DVDs!
This was merely a case of some businesses getting behind a potential future "standard" for a media format, while others went with another concept. 95%+ of the public rejected BOTH options as too costly and unnecessary at this time (or simply out of ignorance of what "value" such a thing would add for them).
The only way EITHER of these DVD replacements would get off the ground was with enough of a financial backing, coupled with a continuing trend of the consumer purchasing new HD-compatible television sets (which is underway, but nowhere near "mass adoption" yet). Quite a few people out there made a big investment in a large-screen projection TV that wasn't HD capable, not all THAT long ago. Those are the ones who will hesitate to buy again, until their existing set dies.
It's only common sense that to become a worthwhile "standard" for the general public, the vast majority of manufacturers have to AGREE on implementing it. I see nothing wrong with Sony's "let's just pay someone to go with the one we'd like" approach. The public will STILL be able to buy Blu-Ray players AND discs from a number of manufacturers. It's not like we're ALL stuck with Sony as our only option now. Standards adoption is ALWAYS a lengthy, expensive process for manufacturers to undergo. The money is going to either be spent on A) flooding the market with low-cost product using the standard, to encourage widespread adoption, B) advertising campaigns educating the consumer that the product exists. and then convincing them that they really do want it, or C) working deals with the competition to get everyone on the same page. Looks to me like choice "C" made a lot of sense here -- since there simply weren't a lot of differentiating factors between the 2 formats that the general consumer would care about. (Either way they go, they get to watch their movies in high-definition in a device that works just like their old DVD player did.)
No.... "theft" really does NOT mean you obtained something illegally, REGARDLESS of whether another person was deprived of it. What you forget in your example is, sneaking onto a train, bus, etc. occupies a SEAT. You've taken that physical space away from being available for a paying customer, who was supposed to receive it in return for the purchased ticket.
It's arguable that there were "plenty of empty seats, so nobody was short of one anyway". But you had no way of knowing that would definitely be the case at the time you chose to sneak on-board. Furthermore, by occupying the space on the vehicle, you might have inadvertently caused some measure of inconvenience for a paid customer that you didn't even realize you caused. (Perhaps someone with difficulty walking wanted a seat close to a door, which you sat down in - forcing them to move closer to the rear of the bus or train?)
In the case of music or software copying, there was simple nothing physical deprived from ANY party (assuming you didn't steal the blank media used to store the data!).
Nah, I don't really agree. At one time, I would have sided with you on this one. But at least from what I've observed, coffee shops have evolved in recent years to become much more like restaurants. The idea of a coffee shop being a social hang-out is dying off. (Just like restaurants, they also figured out people are only going to drink so much coffee during a visit.) When you encourage people to hang around playing board or card games, reading books, etc. - you wind up with a place that's half full of people who are done buying things, instead of freeing the space up for the next round of customers-to-be, who are all ready to buy that first cup of joe when they walk in.
On the other hand, what I think *is* happening that encourages free wi-fi is a restaurant (or coffee shop) design with a variation of the traditional restaurant theme. Places like Panera Bread Company are good examples. They give just enough of a "personal touch" (things like calling your first name when your food/drink order is up, instead of giving you a number) to make people feel welcome there. They encourage the feel of "We give you more reasons to come here than the competitors do!" with bonuses like free wi-fi and wall outlets conveniently placed at the booths. Yet they still lay everything out so you feel a little "uncomfortable" if you spend TOO much time there. You have that distinct sense that you're taking up space that other customers want, and they're taking notice of you. They carefully avoid things like placing too many couches around their restaurants, since those encourage the concept of sitting around longer. They don't provide any reading material or other visual cues that it's "ok" to spend the rest of the afternoon there. Yet, you do feel like it's "the norm" to go ahead and pull out your laptop and check your email while you're eating your sandwich. THIS is the balance that makes it all fit together.
Take a look at many of the "classic" toys made from wood, rope and metal chains. They're all deceptively simple-looking things, until you pick them up and start playing around with them. Then you realize the hidden challenge to them. Cracker Barrel restaurants sell modern "replicas" of many of these puzzle games... things where you have to remove a pole from a knot of rope, for example - or twist things around to unlink a chain. Many of the classic Asian toys were like this too. Simple but ingeniously designed. My friend brought back a flying bird from Japan, for example. It was powered by a rubber band. Very basic deal where you turned a plastic crank in the back of the bird to wind up the rubber-band and then let go. But it was still clever how they managed to create flapping wings that were powered that way, all in a toy that only cost a few bucks to make. It flew really well too. I remember it accidentally landing on our roof several times!
The problem is, the big gaming companies would literally go out of business if they had to wait for each time something that unique and creative was developed. In the 80's, none of it existed yet, so everything somebody wrote seemed like a "first" (unless they were purposely copying off another newly release title). I think most of the concepts were done by the 90's though -- so you had to find other ways to sell a game title. That meant constant improvements on graphics and sound. (Literally, yes, you COULD sell a load of copies of Pac-Man all over again, if you really beefed up the graphics and sound, and made it into some weird 3D, first-person maze runner with really scary ghosts chasing after you, etc. etc. It sure wouldn't be original, but it'd generate sales since it's based on a tried-and-true game formula, but with a whole new "look and feel".)
Your dad sounds like a logical man. I wouldn't say it's "crazy" at all, to be able to separate the technical aspects of a system (DEC's products in this case) from bad sales tactics, from the people trying to sell one to him.
I've done enough corporate purchasing (and known others doing the same) to know that it's a popular tactic to throw in some freebies, in an attempt to sway you towards accepting a given quote (or even to simply sway you towards remembering to give a specific vendor a chance, every time you need to do a new purchase).
I've worked for places that have a corporate policy telling you that you simply can't accept ANY of these gifts, but I think that's too simplistic a rule.
The fact is, when you're the one doing all the research, collecting bids and finally going through with an order, you deserve whatever free "bonus item(s)" might come your way in that process, AS LONG AS you don't let it sway you from finding the best deal for your employer. I've been in situations where I attempted to get the "lowest bid" for software licensing, only to have 2 or 3 vendors quote me equal prices at the end. If one gave me a free pen and pencil set or whatever, then sure - they got the bid. Why not? Everything else was truly equal.
On the other hand, I absolutely despise getting what I'm led to believe is the "final price" for something, only to have the vendor modify it in some way after I get approval. That's guaranteed to make me look at alternatives. (IMHO, if I have to face my boss and say "Guess what? I screwed up, and it will actually cost $Y instead of $X for this item. Is that still ok?", I'd just as soon start over with a different vendor. Getting approval twice is really no more difficult on a different item/different vendor than on the same one twice.)
Very true.... but we've still got the problem with the "mass media" only SELECTIVELY embracing "Internet/new media".
Sure, they're happy to read the blogs and regurgitate information gleaned from them, when it suits their agenda and provides a likely boost to their ratings.
But don't forget, the Internet is slowly *killing* most traditional media. The newspaper subscriptions are in decline, and even classified advertising money that once went to them is largely gone, with the advent of sites like Craigslist and eBay.
Television is being viewed fewer number of hours per week by the typical American, with that "missing time" largely being reported as being used for "web surfing and email" instead.
So the "Internet-culture" is not so much the friend or ally of mass media. It's really more of their enemy. They're not so much opposed to the *technology* itself as the "culture" developing around it. Ideally, they'd probably love the net to be just as widespread as it is. (As you pointed out, it makes their reporting jobs easier - and surely cuts expenses in numerous ways for them.) They just don't care for the "Internet evangelists", making it "cool and trendy" to do everything online instead of absorbing "old school, passive forms of media" like they pedal to the public. Now, tell me again exactly which segment it was primarily supporting Ron Paul??
Call it a "rant" if you must, but had I the mod points, I would have liked to mod that comment from +4 to +5.
It hits the nail on the proverbial head.
The fact that some people would want the tax "rebate" money Bush is proposing, yet fully understand what bad fiscal policy the whole thing is does NOT in any way, shape or form make them a hypocrite. I consider myself in this camp, and it's NOT a simple matter of throwing my hands up in the air, saying "It's beyond fixing, so want mine out of the mess!"
It's an understanding that the American people are WAY over-taxed at the Federal level. As a Libertarian myself, I'd love to see the entire IRS dismantled/abolished. If that's too "pie in the sky" to ever really happen, ok. Then I'd settle for removal of many of the govt. offices that are unnecessary and inefficient. I'd agree with such ideas as dumping NASA and privatizing space exploration, and probably even scaling back the FDA. Homeland Security would be gone in a flash, for sure. Given that mentality, it's perfectly logical I'd take any money back I can get from the feds! I'd rather have what I earned for myself than letting them mis-use it!
This is a great plan, except there probably needs to be some kind of time-frame, after which a feedback becomes visible again, if the other party never bothers to leave feedback....
I don't think you necessarily want to try to force, or even encourage, a situation where each transaction needs to have feedback left for it. Some people do so much buying/selling on eBay, the feedback system becomes quite time-consuming. These people would rather not leave feedback at all on most "normal" transactions, only commenting on an especially good or bad one.
I think adding at least a 30-day "delay" before an invisible feedback turns visible would discourage a lot of "retaliation" feedback, because the "cooling off" period would cause a lot of people to just move on and not bother with it.
The problem I see with the entire "computer security" issue is that there are lucrative jobs and big money to be had, hawking it to people.
.scr files, costs you nothing but a few minutes of your time, yet can prevent all sorts of potential issues for your Windows users in a corporate setting.)
The best examples I can think of of genuinely valid and useful security practices all involve things that don't cost much, if anything. (EG. TrueCrypt 5.0 is free software, yet you can encrypt a whole notebook computer's drive with boot-time password protection with it. This adds an obvious and practical layer of security. Configuring a proxy server to disallow downloading of files with "high risk" extensions on them, such as
Yet, like you say, the people at the top of the corporate ladder, who have the most to risk from security breaches (but conversely, have the least "technical knowledge" about such situations) want to essentially "pay for scapegoats". Free, practical security solutions don't give you someone you can demote/fire, file a lawsuit against, or at least point a finger at as responsible if something does go wrong. A highly paid "security consultant" or "I.T. Security Specialist" in the firm, however, can be the "fall guy", and an expensive network appliance that's supported under a paid contract? Again, there's a place to direct blame.
Heh.... I'm 36 and I actually have my kid full-time, post-divorce. But otherwise, sure - that'd be me. If I actually get a break from taking care of the kid and I'm not working, you can bet I'm trying to find some time to sit alone in a dark house, playing some PS3 game or computer game! It's a nice way to unwind a little bit, and get away from household chores and everything else you're usually stuck doing.
It'd be even better if my current g/f was into more games herself, but unfortunately, she tends to play the latest "PopCap" type games... Dress Shop, Diner Dash, etc. etc. Not exactly my thing. She did get into the Tony Hawk Pro Skater games, but frankly, *I* suck at those (even though I had a lot of fun playing the first 3 of so that came out, back in the day).
And lucky for RMS, he doesn't have too many close, personal friends to communicate with ... so it should be only a minor inconvenience.
I think our views are pretty much alike. I'm a registered Libertarian myself, but I think the "traditional Republican candidate" (as defined, perhaps, by Ronald Reagan?) and Libertarian views aren't all that far apart. (Probably, the main difference would lie in specific "individual rights" issues like drug legalization?)
The problem I see is, today's "standard issue Republican" seems to be all about a bigger, more powerful federal govt. with more rights to monitor, investigate and catalog citizens - and this mission of "squashing any and all terrorist threats" at all costs.
Given that, I just don't see a candidate *besides* Ron Paul I can give my vote to. This election, I'm just not feeling that concern about "making sure a lesser of the evils" is elected, because I see serious problems with any of the Republican or Democratic candidates in the running. I can't, in good conscience, cast my vote for someone with a political agenda so counter to what I feel this nation needs to get "back on track".
(I know this discussion is not supposed to go into Democratic candidates, but I have to digress for a second here and comment that Obama is running an "interesting" campaign right now. He seems to really be pushing that idea that a vote for him equates to a vote for "real change" in govt. Ironically, Ron Paul is the one proposing the REAL changes, not Obama. I have to wonder if Obama is sapping away a number of votes from Ron Paul with this strategy? I've talked to quite a few college students who are sold on Obama purely out of their distaste for the current state of things and his promises of upsetting the "status quo" if he's elected. Yet what real "change" is Obama planning to make? His policies pretty much mirror a traditional Democrat's promises. He's for some kind of national healthcare system, just as Hillary is. He's not talking of an immediate end to the war in Iraq, or a promise of repealing the Patriot Act. He's still proposing concepts that will surely raise all of our taxes during his presidency.)
Mark, I don't think I'm one of the ones "driving you crazy". I tend to agree with you. Sites like "Pirate Bay" never cease to amaze me, really, because they run such large, "out in the open/in your face" operations, pretending they're invincible.
I'm among the first to argue that *ethically speaking*, I have no problem with "casual piracy", more accurately labeled as "non-profit copyright infringement". I'd also be a big advocate for some serious change in our current copyright law. (I've said for years, copyright shouldn't be protecting people's works from infringement for nearly as long as it does right now. Look how often a software publisher quits offering a title because it's for an obsolete game system or piece of hardware, and yet - it's still illegal to copy it for someone wanting it for collector's purposes?)
In the U.S., it wasn't until President Clinton signed changes into law in the late 90's that copyright infringement was even considered a CRIMINAL act, if it couldn't be shown that there was an *intent of financial gain* from said infringement. I think that was a VERY bad move.
Still, the law is what the law is. People wishing to smoke marijuana despite it being illegal don't openly flaunt it, walking down the street with a joint in their mouth. Yet, that's exactly what sites like Pirate Bay were doing with their web sites.
It's interesting you say that.... I've noticed that as a general rule, I wind up more efficient when I actually DO wait for the computer to complete something I requested of it. I'm not talking about huge projects such as compiling a large piece of software, of course. Rather, I'm thinking of several jobs I've had in the past where I was asked to do a number of software installations or updates to a group of machines, or perhaps was going back and forth between a couple of machines I needed to get configured and tested for different customers or tasks.
Inevitably, I'd get the lecture from a boss about how I'm just "wasting time" waiting for a command to finish, or a specific update to report that it applied successfully, when I could be moving on to the next one, starting another command or procedure. The problem with that is, it tends to be "penny wise but pound foolish". Sure, it keeps you from sitting idle for more than 2 seconds, looking at a status bar -- but it's easy to make a mistake too, because you don't catch some error message that flashed by. It's easy to lose track after a little while too. "Did I already do update patch X on all 3 systems, or did I accidentally skip to Y on one of these?" The time you "save" by bouncing back and forth between 2 or more machines can EASILY be more than wasted by a single screw-up you do as you're mechanically clicking things from screen to screen.
A good computer tech will get a lot of info about the health of a PC by paying close attention to what it does as programs are loaded on it, too. If you notice small pauses during an attempt to do a disk write, or hear a "click, click click" noise, that's a strong indicator you're dealing with a failing hard drive. People who just kick off installations and move on to the next thing as fast as possible don't ever catch that stuff.
Of course, this sort of story was just BEGGING for the trolls to come out..... but I'm going to reply to this one, just because it's a fundamental part of the issue at hand, really.
American society is SUPPOSED to be all about individual rights and freedoms for YOU and ME. The "catch" has always been, great responsibility comes along with great freedom. People who want part 2, but not part 1 of that equation lead us to the vast majority of our society's ills.
The very idea of the "dollar" boils down to a symbol of one's work/labor. Our system does revolve around this "dollar", in the sense that one is supposed to work for THEIR OWN good/benefit. Money is not supposed to just be freely handed to a person, nor should a person be put in a situation where their labor doesn't result in the earning of dollars. (EG. Government demanding free labor of its citizens "for the greater good" or indentured servitude to another individual.)
People's laziness and attempts to "bypass" this have led us to calls for "socialized medicine" and other such "solutions" that ultimately don't work, and undermine our whole political system. I'm afraid I have to largely side with one of the first people who replied to this story. They said our best policy is going to be a simple "pay as you go" one. Anything else maintains the downward-spiral we're all in today; where prices keep soaring, driven by insurance providers needing to make their profits as "middle men" and healthcare providers needing enough "padding" in each bill to cover the costs of all those who can't pay for the services they're expecting to receive anyway.
We have to "reset" medicine to a point where people pay a fair price for their care, but nobody gets a subsidized "free ride" either. No more going to a hospital and being billed $18 for a band-aid. No more requiring "permission" of an insurance company before getting one's needs attended to either. Just a simple understanding that our Constitution nowhere guarantees "free medical care for all". (Note that this doesn't mean interns and doctors wishing to volunteer certain percentages of their time to charitable causes couldn't still opt to provide some level of care to the needy.)
Huh? Who made you the official spokesperson for the needs of business users everywhere?
I imagine this will see excellent sales among business users, regardless of the "integrated battery". A Core 2 Duo at 1.8Ghz isn't exactly "poor performing". My Macbook Pro is the first generation model with the original Core Duo (not Core 2) CPU in it. It still performs quite well for me, so I'd expect to see similar overall performance from the Macbook Air.
Furthermore, as Apple pointed out, the thickest portion of this notebook is THINNER than the thinnest part of Sony's Vaio slim notebook line. The battery life is rated as high as 5 hours. The keyboard isn't some "compact" model with keys too closely spaced together, and the display is a full 13.3" instead of some 11" or 12" compromise.
Considering the fact that notebooks are largely non user-serviceable to begin with, the need to mail this off for battery replacement shouldn't be a huge change for most laptop users. (When's the last time your full-size HP, Toshiba or Gateway laptop malfunctioned, and you were able to swap out the defective motherboard or video or display with parts picked up at your local retailer, huh?)
Judging by how many notebooks I see in service with totally non-functional, worn out batteries in them - I think for many people, it's not even a priority..... They don't like the price of new li-ion batteries anyway, so they do without when the original wears out. If you have you car and airline charger/adapter, along with your AC power adapter, the ability to plug it in wherever you go still makes your portable computer pretty darn portable.
Not to mention, a "Dell" monitor is imperceptibly different in design than a monitor of same type and screen-size made by any number of other manufacturers. The LCD panels in Dell panels are made by companies like Ben-Q, for example. The supporting electronics are probably OEM'd from other vendors too.
One has to wonder if the shop would pursue a lawsuit with the same fervor if said display that caught fire was one of those Chinese off-brands like "Niko", with a far more difficult-to-contact business?
I think in reality, most people are saying BOTH.
IMHO, Napster shouldn't have been held liable for any of the copyright infringements happening on their network - because they simply provided peer-to-peer sharing software that people could use for "good" or for "bad", at their own choosing. Napster was the equivalent of a gun manufacturer, providing a product that can obviously be used for lawful AND unlawful purposes, depending on who has the gun and what they choose to do with it. (If we treated the gun makers like we treated Napster, police and our military would be stuck being armed with nothing more than nightsticks and a can of pepper spray.)
On the other hand, we're ALSO saying that a person who puts up files for downloading on their computer is NOT guilty of infringing any of the copyrights until the files are actually downloaded. That seems pretty clear-cut to me. As others have already stated here, you could potentially pass new legislation saying "attempted infringement" has certain legal penalties, but such legislation is not at issue here. They're simply claiming he DID infringe because he had files on his PC, available for public downloading.
YOU say this guy is "obviously guilty" - yet the fact remains, he's not obviously guilty at all of the specific crime he's being charged with. You simply can't make that claim without a download log of some sort proving another party connected to his server and completed a download of at least one of those files.
All I'm saying is, my experience illustrates that you can't really call these carriers "open" at all.
An open carrier would never implement a subsidy lock on a cellphone in the first place!
But if they did, it should be something *anybody* can get unlocked, without jumping through hoops to get it done. (EG. It should make no difference if I'm the former "account holder" or not. The phone has their corporate logo printed all over it, proving it was issued by them initially. Its serial number should be in their database if they feel some need to confirm that. I'm simply someone wishing to use the phone, and am being blocked from doing so by the subsidy lock they opted to place on it!)
As for the 90-day limitation, yes - again, I think that's B.S. As you said yourself, the reps aren't even the ones doing the unlocking for you. They're simply passing your request on to a 3rd. party, giving this 3rd. party permission to issue the code back to you. So how many "resources" are they really investing in me, if I'm simply asking them to have someone ELSE give me that code in email?
Do you *really* think today's society has more "creeps" in it than previous generations??
I'd argue that the numbers haven't changed a bit. The only thing that HAS changed, really, is our communications abilities. Just as before the advent of motorized transportation, most people had very little idea about social differences in communities other than their own, we're learning a LOT more about all the "fetishes", "variants of normal", and "alternate lifestyles" of people with the advent of "Internet access for all".
Right now, if I really wanted to, I could probably search around IRC and other chat rooms on the net for 30 or 45 minutes, and eventually find some little group of individuals exchanging child porn, or a group devoted to teens hooking up with older men, or you name it. This doesn't prove that society has more creeps in it today than in the past. It just means that now, they have a visibility that wasn't present before, because of the new methods of communications they employ.
By the same token, law enforcement has leveraged the Internet as a means to warn people of those convicted of such crimes. 20 or 30 years ago, if a child molester lived on your block, chances are you never knew (or it was just some unsubstantiated rumor floating around). Now, you can do a lookup on a web page and get a map showing their exact location.
What do you mean AT&T/Cingular and T-Mobile are "open" carriers?
Just last week, I had to fight to get my boss's Motorola W400 phone unlocked. He had it subscribed with T-Mobile originally, but after his contract ran out, he got a new (cheap) phone with an AT&T contract. He didn't like the free phone they included, so he wanted to swap SIM cards and use the W400 on his new AT&T contract.
Immediately, the phone balked, complaining it was subsidy locked and prompted for a PIN code to unlock it.
T-Mobile will agree to give you the unlock code for the phone, but they don't make it easy. I had to find out my boss's last 4 digits of his social security number, his account number and billing address first. Then I could call, pretending I was him (because otherwise, they wouldn't even talk to me at cust. service). After a long wait on hold and being transferred to some other dept. that wasn't reachable directly by pressing a touch-tone at the initial prompts, I was informed I'd have to wait 24 hours for the code to be emailed to me. On top of all that, I was informed that they'd only provide these unlock codes to people who called within the first 90 days of cancellation. After that, too bad.....
I really don't see the iPhone as a "big step backwards" at all. If anything, it does a small twist on the "status quo" of receiving a carrier-locked phone with a service contract. You do pay full price for the phone up-front, which would *normally* mean you should receive an "unlocked" phone, BUT in the iPhone's case, you receive a phone locked to a carrier offering you special rate plans JUST for it, and service with customized capabilities (visual voicemail) just for it.
I'd be a lot more upset with the iPhone if it was locked to AT&T, *and* I was stuck activating it in the traditional manner (forced to get it turned on at the point of purchase, after a credit check is done and a salesperson tries to upsell/harass me for a while, etc. etc.), *and* I had to pick from one of the exact same plans they offer for all their other phones.
I absolutely agree with MrCrassic's post.
.... but it's FAR cheaper than retaining another full-time I.T. person on staff, having to pay their benefits, etc., just because you have 10 or 15 situations per year where they'd come in really handy.
I work in a small business where despite being the in-house I.T. person myself, I also manage an outsourced consultant that I can bring in, on-demand, at an hourly rate. The combination of the two seems to work pretty well for us. I can take care of the vast majority of issues that pop up during the typical week, responding very quickly (since I'm right here, after all). If a printer jams, I can walk over and un-jam it. If someone has a question on how to change some behavior in Excel or do an advanced search in Outlook, I can walk over and help them out right away. These are things it'd be very ineffective to try to outsource.
On the other hand, we have the occasional larger-size project to do. (Perhaps it's a roll-out of a big software upgrade?) These are the times where it makes sense to me to call in the outside help, so I have an extra set of hands to help get the upgrade completed without turning it into a job that'd take all weekend long to complete. (And as we all know, two heads are better than one when you hit a strange problem, and brainstorming is required to figure out how to get past it.) The consultant may be expensive, considering what he's paid per hour of his time to be here
I'd say Gates was *neither*. He was a shrewd businessman who was able to recognize an opportunity and run with it, back in the 80's - and it paid off for him in spades.
The cries about him being a "monopolist" are somewhat misplaced, IMHO. Show me ANY C.E.O. of a successful, global business today who wouldn't want his/her company to achieve a similar market-share, if they could only figure out a way to do it! Yes, Microsoft made some questionable business deals, but again, I'd say that's "par for the course" in today's big businesses. I'm pretty confident you could find equally, if not MORE "evil" business dealings here or there with Monsanto, Xerox, General Electric, IBM, Cisco, Toyota, or yes, even Apple. You name the company. If they're very successful, then at least *somebody* in the inner workings has done something "corrupt" at some point in time. It's human nature.
On the other end of the spectrum, no, he hasn't been much of a "visionary" either. He correctly envisioned an America with "a PC on every desk", more or less. But beyond that, the claims of his "ability to predict the tech. future" is more marketing than reality. Everyone wants to think they're investing in a company that's "cutting edge" and committed to continuous improvements. This is especially key in the software industry, where essentially, you're paying to license the use of someone's idea/concept of making your computer perform a certain set of tasks. I didn't expect Gates to do much besides making very broad, generalized "predictions" at this keynote, and it looks like it played out just like I suspected.