So how long before I'm not permitted by law to modify data which I have paid for...
Unless something's changed in the last 18 months or so, I thought the DMCA already did that (in the US). It prohibited the breaking of encryption schemes that are used to enforce copyright, and I don't believe it had any provisions for fair-use based exceptions. So while you may have bought a song from iTunes, and you paid for and own the data (in this case, the file), you are not legally allowed to remove the original compressed 128k audio data from it's DRM wrapper. You ARE allowed to burn it to a CD of coruse, as per the license...but at that point to get a compressed file usable in a non-iPod player, you'd have to recompress it, and double lossy compression is no fun.
Has this changed?
And on a side note, in most cases you no longer pay for data, but rather you pay for a license to use said data, and the data is included in the bargain. So, for instance, you don't pay for a copy of Microsoft Office...you pay for the priveledge of using MS Office, and Microsoft provides you with a disc containing it. Same with iTunes...you don't really pay for the file, you pay for the license to download and (within the limits of the agreement) play the song, and the file is provided to you.
And before you think I don't agree with you, I feel that, especially in the cases of entertainment-related data (music and movies) that this is bullshit, and that we need to bring back the idea of fair use.
I think you might have missed the point. Yes, on new machines it comes pre-installed...but a majority of us do not have new machines that came pre-installed with SP2. For instance, my laptop came with WinXP Pro SP1, and my desktop came with 98, but of course I have a copy of XP I bought when it first came out (no updates whatsoever) to install on it. I'd say many of us are in the same boat. In which point we would need to do what you said, which is download it from Windows Update. Which would, of course, be a "special step on it's own."
And unless you are bright enough to turn on a firewall and perform other such measures prior to connecting to the internet to download said service pack, during that entire download your system is going to be vulnerable. I'm smart enough to do this...I'll assume you are as well. But many people are not.
The point is that if you install WinXP from any non-SP2 CD (which is most of the ones that are out there), and hook it up to the internet, it is by default configured to be extremely vulnerable to attack. And that is a "bad thing". Microsoft did eventually figure this out, but not until SP2.
The funny thing is this Super Shuffle actually looks like a decent little MP3 player. If they had just had a smidge of creativity in the design department they would probably be applauded.
But, as anybody who has read the article can tell, these things look like they were meant to be marketed right next to the fake Rolexes and Oakleys at the swap meet.
Okay, guys, quick hint on moderating. A post can't very well be "-1 Overrated" if it has not, as of that point, been "rated." Redundant, flamebait, troll, or offtopic (as this one is) perhaps. But not overrated. But if you are the first person rating it, it can't yet be overrated.
Unless I'm wrong...and feel free to correct me if I am.
"No, we don't want Linux to remain a fringe OS. We just want to see FOSS desktop linux, if it takes a bit longer to happen, oh well."
The problem is, it will probably will never happen with that attitude. Here's why.
"And that knowledge being; don't waste your money, there is better, free, more trustworthy apps out there."
Let's look at the marketing plan for any given piece of software:
1. Make piece of software that performs specific function.
2. ??????
3. PROFIT!
Know what step 2 is? "Make it easy and enjoyable to use." And that is what most FOSS apps miss, and it's not because of any failing of the open source community. It's just that for the average guy writing the code, there is no real point in it. You make a piece of software to get the job done, and you're good to go. Without the motivation of actually getting paid for your work, there isn't a lot of point in putting in the effort to polish it. You'll use it, fellow geeks will use it, and all will be well. You aren't concerned about market share or profit margins. And again, this is not a bad thing.
But the average computer user does care about the interface. In fact, they generally care about the interface more than the function. Same way the average car buyer doesn't care to know how to rebuild an engine or how much horsepower their car has...they just want to get in it and drive to work.
That's why the average computer user will pay more for software that does less but is easier to use. Or more intuitive. Because while there may be a perfectly functional FOSS alternative, in 99 cases out of 100 it will be, to some extent or another, less intuitive/harder to use.
Guess what. This probably isn't going to change, either. In fact, as more non-geeks get computers, it will probably just get worse. So unless the FOSS movement starts putting more effort into the polish on their software (not likely, because that's the kind of thing that people/companies are motivated by...you know, *money* to do), or the average computer user stops caring about such things (also not likely, as we can all hopefully admit...Pontiac Aztek aside, there isn't much market for ugly cars developing over time), FOSS will never catch on on the desktop.
Want to test this? Try getting your mom, or your wife, or one of your non-geek friends (the less geeky, the better) to use an open source app. In 9 cases out of 10, they will end up rejecting it like a bad organ transplant. That's why larger companies actually pay people who's sole purpose, more or less, is figuring out how to get people to want to keep using their software. Industrial Psychologist-type people. It's not just because your mom doesn't know better.
"That being said, maybe not charging $25-$30 for a craptacular CD would improve their sales... Viable and profitable alternatives for legal music distribution are staring the RIAA right in the face and they just don't seem to care!"
Where the hell are you shopping? The current price point for audio CD's tends to be 9.99 to 13.99...evena couple of years ago you weren't paying more than 17.99 to 18.99*, and that was RETAIL...you know, Sam Goody prices. It was usually less than that at any big-box store, or at amazon.com.
Personally, while it bugs me that the artist isn't seeing much of it, I think 9.99 to 12.99 isn't such a bad price point for a CD. I'd like it a little cheaper, or I'd like the artist to get more, but as long as you aren't buying absolute crap 10 bucks isn't bad.
Don't get me wrong...I have still downloaded music, and I don't like the RIAA. Just sick of everybody overstating the price of CDs when the labels have, over the last couple years, actually started responding to this problem.
As for the complaint that all music the major labels put out is crap...well, they aren't making you buy that crap, are they? And if it's worth downloading, it obviously isn't as crappy as you are claiming...at least not to those downloading it. Maybe the ratio isn't great, but for every 40 or 50 Britneys, there is a Mike Ness in there. And if you don't like Mike Ness, well, I don't much care...insert the name of a band you do.
And if you don't like any bands? Or you only like the local band that plays in the coffee shop? Well, then why the hell do you care so much about this stuff?
* - I am, of course, talking about US dollars...maybe you're not. But I doubt the average CD is going for 25-30 bucks even in Canadian dollars. Or Australian dollars. Apologies in advance if I'm wrong.
Um...I'll admit I didn't read the article, but doesn't the post say that Dell already has?
That said, I'd say that Apple's support of Blu-ray doesn't do all the much to confirm it's dominance on the desktop...I'd say Dell's support is much more important there. And Disney's support is probably worth more that the rest of them combined. Maybe not in the computer arena, but then again with people now expecting their computers to use the same media as their other AV equipment, maybe it does.
Can someone tell me honestly what's wrong here? Intel are the ones who have control over their product. They get to sell their products and define how much it sells for. Why are governments getting involved?
Obviously if a company is buying more of a competitor's products then they're buying less of yours, so your own are more expensive to them because they are buying in lower quantities. that is simple grade school economics."
The problem arises when somebody tries to use their position as the established leader to keep other companies from establishing a marketshare, thus using their dominance to maintain a monopoly. Not as much of a problem with Intel as it would be with a company like Microsoft (as AMD is a very strong competitor), but still not a good idea to let bad practices get started.
Again, basing your prices off how many of YOUR chips they buy is okay. What this alleges is taht they are also factoring in how many of the competitor's chips they buy, which is not. How many AMD chips a company buys is none of Intel's business, and shouldn't affect prices.
Simple example. Company A makes 100,000 computers, and uses Intel for 50,000 and AMD for 50,000. They should be charged the exact same rate as Company B, which makes only 50,000 computers but uses Intel for all of them. The accusation is that Intel would instead charge Company B a lower rate, because while they purchase the same volume they don't purchase any from AMD.
As somebody else said, the carrot is legal, the stick is not.
...they'll make you use their own crappy software as well. I remember when I (briefly) tried out the NetMD. Actually liked the player, even though having to re-compress MP3s to ATRAC kinda blew. But the software Sony bundled with it was the ONLY piece of software I've ever had actually CRASH Windows XP. I mean blue-screen had to hard-power off and reboot crash. Now there is some fine software right there.
Or you had the option of using Real Player to sync it. Like choosing between watching Beastmaster or Beastmaster II.
"The only solution I can see is for more corporate involvement , sponsorship, and ultimately leadership"
Which is unlikely to happen as long as replacing "s" with "$" is considered to be the height of coolness in a community. Unlikely to be offered, or accepted.
It's kinda silly, when you think about it, to think that someday your software might one day dominate in a world that is more or less populated with corporations (or at least people trying to make money...after all, code doesn't feed kids) when your entire philosophy is anti-commercial and anti-corporate. Seems like if you win you still lose.
Unless you believe that someday all money-making corporations with disappear...and in the real world that ends up looking more like Soviet Russia than Star Trek.
"Netscape? Strong brandname? Yes people who have been on the net for awhile know of them, but the way I see it the Netscape PR department have their work cut out for them to match the media buzz that surrounded FF 1.0 release, let alone convince people they should switch from IE/FF (back) to Netscape."
Anybody who has been around long enough to really remember Netscape more than likely has a negative image of them. At best they can hope to capture some users who vaguely remember having heard the name but never actually used it...because if they used any of the later versions of Netscape they will likely avoid this one like the plague.
The two computers at the entrance of my university library for some reason had Netscape installed on them for accessing the online catalog. I would walk right past them and go out of my way to get onto one of the sit-down computers, and instead access the catalog with IE (and now most of those have Firefox on them). Because while IE might be evil, Netscape was just plain bad.
"I agree. One of the more glaringly obvious problems is using critical FOSS resources to do Microsoft's jobs for them. It's beyond crazy. Here you have a pitifully underfunded and obviously understaffed project, supposedly for free and open source software, yet devoting the lions share of effort to helping make Windows better and therefore microsoft more money. A company that could snap it's fingers and hire 500 extra full time devs tomorrow."
There are other ways of looking at this. For one, and this is probably not the case and you are not likely to agree, maybe they are donating their time and effort to the cause of making the average computer user's experience better, and sine the average computer user is going to be on windows, they are working where the most good would be done.
Or there is the classic "they'll see how good Firefox is and switch to an open source OS" argument. Not bloody likely, unless you are looking SERIOUSLY long term. Firefox IS proving that an open source app can be user friendly, polished, and do the job better than commercial software, and thus showing the promise of a future open source OS. But as of right now, there is no open source OS that is as easy for the average user to get going and use as Firefox is. So nobody is going to be converting just yet. But again, looking long term, it IS a start.
Lastly, maybe developing primarly for Windows, but also making sure it runs on linux and mac is their way of targeting the largest user base, but making sure that said users can have the same experience across platforms. Telling them they should fish only in the open source pond makes you sound just as bad as Bill Gates, who generally wants developers to fish only in the Windows pond. By developing most apps with only linux in mind, and leaving windows users with ports that generally come off as clunky and unpolished, you are making open source look bad to Windows users, and generally reducing the chance of them ditching Windows. By developing directly towards Windows, and doing it well, they are making open source look good. If more apps were developed in this way, eventually the only thing anybody would be using of Microsoft's would be the OS.
That's not good enough for you? Well guess what, THAT is step one towards shrinking their desktop market share. Because once you ensure that the only thing a user is using from Microsoft is Windows, and by offering all their other apps on Mac/Linux, you are making it MUCH more likely that a user will switch. Until you do that, a majority of users *never will*.
"what you do off the clock is and should be none of your employer's business"
I can think of one good exception, and that is if whatever you are doing is illegal.
Why is that, especially if what they are doing is not on company time and doesn't affect the company directly? Well, if you get arrested, suddenly you won't be showing up for work, will you? Then they will have to go through the cost/trouble of replacing you.
So any illegal activities you indulge in off the clock are you're employer's business...not insofar as they are required to report you or try to get you to stop, but insofar as they should very much be able to fire your ass.
Yes, and after we ban hunting we should ban baseball. After all, it's quite possible to kill somebody by swinging a baseball bat at their head with great force and accuracy, is it not? Also, anybody who can drive a car at all well can drive it INTO people. Clearly this is a menace to society.
Maybe I didn't come across quite right...I was trying to make two points. One is that more activities than just video games can help train kids to be more effective killers. I was also going for how silly it would be to ban all of them (hunting and baseball, for instance).
Until the laws are returned to something reasonable (like the original 28 years with no automatic extensions), I will continue to freely flaunt these laws without a touch of guilt. If they are going to abuse the system, I'm going to ignore it.
I think this is the prevailing attitude around here, not the "music should be free" or "it's not stealing anyway." And this is why most of us don't really care much for copyright holders, especially of the music and movie persuasion.
The second they started pounding nails into the coffin of fair use in the US (DMCA combined with CSS on video DVDs and all the various crackpot attempts to block copying on audio CDs), combined with extending copyright for such insane lenghts of time as to destroy the very idea of public domain (is anything in the public domain in the US? The Bible, maybe? And I hear Moses was filing for an extension...) has created the general "screw me? well screw you right back" attitude from the populace.
But it is interesting to see how many "me too" trends there are in spam. Up until about 2 years ago, I never received a 419 scam, but now I get at least one a week. Up until about a year ago, I never received a rolex email(typically the domain of brick and mortar(ok, urine soaked streetcorner) drifters), but now I get a few a day.
Strangely, I was getting the occasional 419 a couple years ago or more, but they were always adapted...never actually mentioned Nigeria. Now almost every one I see (and I see at least one a day because they are the one thing that seems to get through the filtering on my server) is ripped right from the "classic" Nigerian template.
Maybe they're just getting too lazy to come up with shit.
I think the best way to fight spam is through education. Start getting the word out somehow that this guy really isn't from nigeria, that that supplement won't make your penis bigger, etc. Maybe if people stop falling for this shit (and people do, or it would have stopped long ago) lowlifes will stop sending it out. Perhaps if AOL, MSN, and the like replaced their "Hey, welcome to our mail service...aren't we great?" with something more like "Welcome to MSN...in case you're new to the internet, here are some things you should know." Might seem redundant and silly, but so are the ones they really send, so what's the difference.
Hell, I'm almost tempted to start spamming with informative emails telling all these people that the OTHER spam they're getting is bullshit. Maybe that would work.
Then again, even if you got the word to everybody on the internet, the next minute another sucker would be born...and a million Nigerians would be out there trying to find him.
Well kinda. I would more see the saving of P2P technology as the winning one battle in the overall war. I, however, am NOT one of those people who just feels music should be free. The "war" in my opinion is to force the recording industry to recognize that technology has changed and start adjusting their business practices and technology to reflect that. Paying 14-18 bucks for a plastic disc with an hour of prerecorded music on it just doesn't seem so reasonable anymore...at least to me.
And for that matter, neither does getting all the compressed digital music you want for free, and NEITHER does charging individuals tens of thousands of dollars for losses that are, at best, theoretical.
By that I mean that most of the music I have downloaded I have either a)bought eventually anyway or b)gotten sick of and deleted. I don't believe I am alone on this. Most people I know tend to download music they either would never pay money for anyway, or could not afford anyway. Thus the _actual_ loss is much smaller than they claim. But that is a whole different argument.
Slashdot Mirror
So how long before I'm not permitted by law to modify data which I have paid for...
Unless something's changed in the last 18 months or so, I thought the DMCA already did that (in the US). It prohibited the breaking of encryption schemes that are used to enforce copyright, and I don't believe it had any provisions for fair-use based exceptions. So while you may have bought a song from iTunes, and you paid for and own the data (in this case, the file), you are not legally allowed to remove the original compressed 128k audio data from it's DRM wrapper. You ARE allowed to burn it to a CD of coruse, as per the license...but at that point to get a compressed file usable in a non-iPod player, you'd have to recompress it, and double lossy compression is no fun.
Has this changed?
And on a side note, in most cases you no longer pay for data, but rather you pay for a license to use said data, and the data is included in the bargain. So, for instance, you don't pay for a copy of Microsoft Office...you pay for the priveledge of using MS Office, and Microsoft provides you with a disc containing it. Same with iTunes...you don't really pay for the file, you pay for the license to download and (within the limits of the agreement) play the song, and the file is provided to you.
And before you think I don't agree with you, I feel that, especially in the cases of entertainment-related data (music and movies) that this is bullshit, and that we need to bring back the idea of fair use.
I think you might have missed the point. Yes, on new machines it comes pre-installed...but a majority of us do not have new machines that came pre-installed with SP2. For instance, my laptop came with WinXP Pro SP1, and my desktop came with 98, but of course I have a copy of XP I bought when it first came out (no updates whatsoever) to install on it. I'd say many of us are in the same boat. In which point we would need to do what you said, which is download it from Windows Update. Which would, of course, be a "special step on it's own."
And unless you are bright enough to turn on a firewall and perform other such measures prior to connecting to the internet to download said service pack, during that entire download your system is going to be vulnerable. I'm smart enough to do this...I'll assume you are as well. But many people are not.
The point is that if you install WinXP from any non-SP2 CD (which is most of the ones that are out there), and hook it up to the internet, it is by default configured to be extremely vulnerable to attack. And that is a "bad thing". Microsoft did eventually figure this out, but not until SP2.
The funny thing is this Super Shuffle actually looks like a decent little MP3 player. If they had just had a smidge of creativity in the design department they would probably be applauded.
But, as anybody who has read the article can tell, these things look like they were meant to be marketed right next to the fake Rolexes and Oakleys at the swap meet.
First rule of Soulseek:
Never, ever talk about Soulseek.
Okay, guys, quick hint on moderating. A post can't very well be "-1 Overrated" if it has not, as of that point, been "rated." Redundant, flamebait, troll, or offtopic (as this one is) perhaps. But not overrated. But if you are the first person rating it, it can't yet be overrated.
Unless I'm wrong...and feel free to correct me if I am.
All their base are about to belong to the government.
"No, we don't want Linux to remain a fringe OS. We just want to see FOSS desktop linux, if it takes a bit longer to happen, oh well."
The problem is, it will probably will never happen with that attitude. Here's why.
"And that knowledge being; don't waste your money, there is better, free, more trustworthy apps out there."
Let's look at the marketing plan for any given piece of software:
1. Make piece of software that performs specific function.
2. ??????
3. PROFIT!
Know what step 2 is? "Make it easy and enjoyable to use." And that is what most FOSS apps miss, and it's not because of any failing of the open source community. It's just that for the average guy writing the code, there is no real point in it. You make a piece of software to get the job done, and you're good to go. Without the motivation of actually getting paid for your work, there isn't a lot of point in putting in the effort to polish it. You'll use it, fellow geeks will use it, and all will be well. You aren't concerned about market share or profit margins. And again, this is not a bad thing.
But the average computer user does care about the interface. In fact, they generally care about the interface more than the function. Same way the average car buyer doesn't care to know how to rebuild an engine or how much horsepower their car has...they just want to get in it and drive to work.
That's why the average computer user will pay more for software that does less but is easier to use. Or more intuitive. Because while there may be a perfectly functional FOSS alternative, in 99 cases out of 100 it will be, to some extent or another, less intuitive/harder to use.
Guess what. This probably isn't going to change, either. In fact, as more non-geeks get computers, it will probably just get worse. So unless the FOSS movement starts putting more effort into the polish on their software (not likely, because that's the kind of thing that people/companies are motivated by...you know, *money* to do), or the average computer user stops caring about such things (also not likely, as we can all hopefully admit...Pontiac Aztek aside, there isn't much market for ugly cars developing over time), FOSS will never catch on on the desktop.
Want to test this? Try getting your mom, or your wife, or one of your non-geek friends (the less geeky, the better) to use an open source app. In 9 cases out of 10, they will end up rejecting it like a bad organ transplant. That's why larger companies actually pay people who's sole purpose, more or less, is figuring out how to get people to want to keep using their software. Industrial Psychologist-type people. It's not just because your mom doesn't know better.
"That being said, maybe not charging $25-$30 for a craptacular CD would improve their sales... Viable and profitable alternatives for legal music distribution are staring the RIAA right in the face and they just don't seem to care!"
Where the hell are you shopping? The current price point for audio CD's tends to be 9.99 to 13.99...evena couple of years ago you weren't paying more than 17.99 to 18.99*, and that was RETAIL...you know, Sam Goody prices. It was usually less than that at any big-box store, or at amazon.com.
Personally, while it bugs me that the artist isn't seeing much of it, I think 9.99 to 12.99 isn't such a bad price point for a CD. I'd like it a little cheaper, or I'd like the artist to get more, but as long as you aren't buying absolute crap 10 bucks isn't bad.
Don't get me wrong...I have still downloaded music, and I don't like the RIAA. Just sick of everybody overstating the price of CDs when the labels have, over the last couple years, actually started responding to this problem.
As for the complaint that all music the major labels put out is crap...well, they aren't making you buy that crap, are they? And if it's worth downloading, it obviously isn't as crappy as you are claiming...at least not to those downloading it. Maybe the ratio isn't great, but for every 40 or 50 Britneys, there is a Mike Ness in there. And if you don't like Mike Ness, well, I don't much care...insert the name of a band you do.
And if you don't like any bands? Or you only like the local band that plays in the coffee shop? Well, then why the hell do you care so much about this stuff?
* - I am, of course, talking about US dollars...maybe you're not. But I doubt the average CD is going for 25-30 bucks even in Canadian dollars. Or Australian dollars. Apologies in advance if I'm wrong.
Um...I'll admit I didn't read the article, but doesn't the post say that Dell already has?
That said, I'd say that Apple's support of Blu-ray doesn't do all the much to confirm it's dominance on the desktop...I'd say Dell's support is much more important there. And Disney's support is probably worth more that the rest of them combined. Maybe not in the computer arena, but then again with people now expecting their computers to use the same media as their other AV equipment, maybe it does.
"...someone could come along and sell a piece of cheese as a CPU..."
Cyrix is still making processors?
Sorry, that's actually an insult to most of the better cheeses.
And I'm allowed to bash Cyrix...I actually owned one of their processors once (hanging head in shame now).
Can someone tell me honestly what's wrong here? Intel are the ones who have control over their product. They get to sell their products and define how much it sells for. Why are governments getting involved?
Obviously if a company is buying more of a competitor's products then they're buying less of yours, so your own are more expensive to them because they are buying in lower quantities. that is simple grade school economics."
The problem arises when somebody tries to use their position as the established leader to keep other companies from establishing a marketshare, thus using their dominance to maintain a monopoly. Not as much of a problem with Intel as it would be with a company like Microsoft (as AMD is a very strong competitor), but still not a good idea to let bad practices get started.
Again, basing your prices off how many of YOUR chips they buy is okay. What this alleges is taht they are also factoring in how many of the competitor's chips they buy, which is not. How many AMD chips a company buys is none of Intel's business, and shouldn't affect prices.
Simple example. Company A makes 100,000 computers, and uses Intel for 50,000 and AMD for 50,000. They should be charged the exact same rate as Company B, which makes only 50,000 computers but uses Intel for all of them. The accusation is that Intel would instead charge Company B a lower rate, because while they purchase the same volume they don't purchase any from AMD.
As somebody else said, the carrot is legal, the stick is not.
...see that fine line between shrewd business practices and predatory, monopolistic racketeering?
See how you and Microsoft are on the same side of it?
That's a bad thing.
...they'll make you use their own crappy software as well. I remember when I (briefly) tried out the NetMD. Actually liked the player, even though having to re-compress MP3s to ATRAC kinda blew. But the software Sony bundled with it was the ONLY piece of software I've ever had actually CRASH Windows XP. I mean blue-screen had to hard-power off and reboot crash. Now there is some fine software right there.
Or you had the option of using Real Player to sync it. Like choosing between watching Beastmaster or Beastmaster II.
Yeah, I know. It was late. After an hour or two I figured nobody notice. Guess I was wrong (hangs head in shame).
" It looks like they used it to make that half assed flash animation. I'll buy one for my boss ;-)"
There is a difference between half-assed and just plain bad.
This wasn't half-assed. I think they were actually trying.
1: Design slick-looking flash demo 2: ????? 3: Profit!!
...is that there isn't much need for Astronauts in our new service-based economy, so they're gonna have a hell of a time finding a new job.
"The only solution I can see is for more corporate involvement , sponsorship, and ultimately leadership"
Which is unlikely to happen as long as replacing "s" with "$" is considered to be the height of coolness in a community. Unlikely to be offered, or accepted.
It's kinda silly, when you think about it, to think that someday your software might one day dominate in a world that is more or less populated with corporations (or at least people trying to make money...after all, code doesn't feed kids) when your entire philosophy is anti-commercial and anti-corporate. Seems like if you win you still lose.
Unless you believe that someday all money-making corporations with disappear...and in the real world that ends up looking more like Soviet Russia than Star Trek.
"Netscape? Strong brandname? Yes people who have been on the net for awhile know of them, but the way I see it the Netscape PR department have their work cut out for them to match the media buzz that surrounded FF 1.0 release, let alone convince people they should switch from IE/FF (back) to Netscape."
Anybody who has been around long enough to really remember Netscape more than likely has a negative image of them. At best they can hope to capture some users who vaguely remember having heard the name but never actually used it...because if they used any of the later versions of Netscape they will likely avoid this one like the plague.
The two computers at the entrance of my university library for some reason had Netscape installed on them for accessing the online catalog. I would walk right past them and go out of my way to get onto one of the sit-down computers, and instead access the catalog with IE (and now most of those have Firefox on them). Because while IE might be evil, Netscape was just plain bad.
"I agree. One of the more glaringly obvious problems is using critical FOSS resources to do Microsoft's jobs for them. It's beyond crazy. Here you have a pitifully underfunded and obviously understaffed project, supposedly for free and open source software, yet devoting the lions share of effort to helping make Windows better and therefore microsoft more money. A company that could snap it's fingers and hire 500 extra full time devs tomorrow."
There are other ways of looking at this. For one, and this is probably not the case and you are not likely to agree, maybe they are donating their time and effort to the cause of making the average computer user's experience better, and sine the average computer user is going to be on windows, they are working where the most good would be done.
Or there is the classic "they'll see how good Firefox is and switch to an open source OS" argument. Not bloody likely, unless you are looking SERIOUSLY long term. Firefox IS proving that an open source app can be user friendly, polished, and do the job better than commercial software, and thus showing the promise of a future open source OS. But as of right now, there is no open source OS that is as easy for the average user to get going and use as Firefox is. So nobody is going to be converting just yet. But again, looking long term, it IS a start.
Lastly, maybe developing primarly for Windows, but also making sure it runs on linux and mac is their way of targeting the largest user base, but making sure that said users can have the same experience across platforms. Telling them they should fish only in the open source pond makes you sound just as bad as Bill Gates, who generally wants developers to fish only in the Windows pond. By developing most apps with only linux in mind, and leaving windows users with ports that generally come off as clunky and unpolished, you are making open source look bad to Windows users, and generally reducing the chance of them ditching Windows. By developing directly towards Windows, and doing it well, they are making open source look good. If more apps were developed in this way, eventually the only thing anybody would be using of Microsoft's would be the OS.
That's not good enough for you? Well guess what, THAT is step one towards shrinking their desktop market share. Because once you ensure that the only thing a user is using from Microsoft is Windows, and by offering all their other apps on Mac/Linux, you are making it MUCH more likely that a user will switch. Until you do that, a majority of users *never will*.
"what you do off the clock is and should be none of your employer's business"
I can think of one good exception, and that is if whatever you are doing is illegal.
Why is that, especially if what they are doing is not on company time and doesn't affect the company directly? Well, if you get arrested, suddenly you won't be showing up for work, will you? Then they will have to go through the cost/trouble of replacing you.
So any illegal activities you indulge in off the clock are you're employer's business...not insofar as they are required to report you or try to get you to stop, but insofar as they should very much be able to fire your ass.
Yes, and after we ban hunting we should ban baseball. After all, it's quite possible to kill somebody by swinging a baseball bat at their head with great force and accuracy, is it not? Also, anybody who can drive a car at all well can drive it INTO people. Clearly this is a menace to society.
Maybe I didn't come across quite right...I was trying to make two points. One is that more activities than just video games can help train kids to be more effective killers. I was also going for how silly it would be to ban all of them (hunting and baseball, for instance).
Until the laws are returned to something reasonable (like the original 28 years with no automatic extensions), I will continue to freely flaunt these laws without a touch of guilt. If they are going to abuse the system, I'm going to ignore it.
I think this is the prevailing attitude around here, not the "music should be free" or "it's not stealing anyway." And this is why most of us don't really care much for copyright holders, especially of the music and movie persuasion.
The second they started pounding nails into the coffin of fair use in the US (DMCA combined with CSS on video DVDs and all the various crackpot attempts to block copying on audio CDs), combined with extending copyright for such insane lenghts of time as to destroy the very idea of public domain (is anything in the public domain in the US? The Bible, maybe? And I hear Moses was filing for an extension...) has created the general "screw me? well screw you right back" attitude from the populace.
But it is interesting to see how many "me too" trends there are in spam. Up until about 2 years ago, I never received a 419 scam, but now I get at least one a week. Up until about a year ago, I never received a rolex email(typically the domain of brick and mortar(ok, urine soaked streetcorner) drifters), but now I get a few a day.
Strangely, I was getting the occasional 419 a couple years ago or more, but they were always adapted...never actually mentioned Nigeria. Now almost every one I see (and I see at least one a day because they are the one thing that seems to get through the filtering on my server) is ripped right from the "classic" Nigerian template.
Maybe they're just getting too lazy to come up with shit.
I think the best way to fight spam is through education. Start getting the word out somehow that this guy really isn't from nigeria, that that supplement won't make your penis bigger, etc. Maybe if people stop falling for this shit (and people do, or it would have stopped long ago) lowlifes will stop sending it out. Perhaps if AOL, MSN, and the like replaced their "Hey, welcome to our mail service...aren't we great?" with something more like "Welcome to MSN...in case you're new to the internet, here are some things you should know." Might seem redundant and silly, but so are the ones they really send, so what's the difference.
Hell, I'm almost tempted to start spamming with informative emails telling all these people that the OTHER spam they're getting is bullshit. Maybe that would work.
Then again, even if you got the word to everybody on the internet, the next minute another sucker would be born...and a million Nigerians would be out there trying to find him.
Isn't this exactly what we asked for?
Well kinda. I would more see the saving of P2P technology as the winning one battle in the overall war. I, however, am NOT one of those people who just feels music should be free. The "war" in my opinion is to force the recording industry to recognize that technology has changed and start adjusting their business practices and technology to reflect that. Paying 14-18 bucks for a plastic disc with an hour of prerecorded music on it just doesn't seem so reasonable anymore...at least to me.
And for that matter, neither does getting all the compressed digital music you want for free, and NEITHER does charging individuals tens of thousands of dollars for losses that are, at best, theoretical.
By that I mean that most of the music I have downloaded I have either a)bought eventually anyway or b)gotten sick of and deleted. I don't believe I am alone on this. Most people I know tend to download music they either would never pay money for anyway, or could not afford anyway. Thus the _actual_ loss is much smaller than they claim. But that is a whole different argument.