Its sad that this has to happen, but maybe it will send a message to the public. The problem with most of our (in USia) government is that it is more concerned with preserving the status quo, not for helping (or at least not hindering) true inovation and discoveries.
It is my belief that if God had not intended for us to make discoveries via stem cell research (or insert your favorite "That research is against God's will!" here), then He would not have given us the intelligence to do so. I don't think using genetic engineering to create "designer children" is right but I do think that preventing that same research, that could discover cures to diseases, is wrong.
First of all, there is the Great Dumbening of American children that has to be playing a part. I know the entire LEGO enterprise isn't based on selling to children in America, but there must be a large chunk of cashflow slowly being strangled to death as we teach out children that using your imagination and thinking too hard is a terrible thing to do. Lego, being a toy based nearly 100% on imagination is naturally a victim of this.
Damned straight. Toys today are mini entertainment devices. Children aren't playing with them; the toys play and the kids just watch. Legos were (are) my favorite toy from age 6 through today (age 19). Although I never have time to do so anymore, I could keep busy for hours with a big bucket of Legos.
We must also not forget what copyright is: a temporary monopoly over the reproduction of a work. After the copyright expired, the work becomes part of the public domain. Nothing more. When "digital rights" systems are thrown in, that temporary monopoly becomes perpetual. And when you make it illegal to break those systems, perpetual becomes perminant.
Let's say a DVD's copyright expires (assuming Congress doesn't extend it again). You STILL can't use DeCSS on that DVD because there are other DVD's whose copyright has not expired yet. This is the consumer threat to digital rights management. Its a great benefit for the publishers though... keep releasing works "protected" by the same system and EVERYTHING becomes perpertually locked away. And keep claiming that these "circumvention devices" be forbidden because they can break the protection of works that are still under copyright.
But remember, Professor Felton is a respecrted intellectual in his field (from Princeton University, which is also respected). He's not one of those "evil hackers" from 2600 or Russia. If the FBI busts him, there'll be a huge outlash against the DMCA, the RIAA, and the FBI. Much more than for Dmitry.
In addition to that, the Court seems to be saying that, since Pavlovich "knew" his actions would affect the profits of Hollywood, that the movie industry had a guarantee or right to profit. That is the complete opposite of capitalism. Profits are the rewards of risks that a business takes but are certainly not guaranteed. In fact, most buisinesses eventually fail. This sets a very dangerous precident. Let's say my business fails because Company X advertises a competing product. Can I now sue Company X for imparing my ability to profit?
The feeling I always got when watching Voyager was: tired.
Same here. At one time, I was a HUGE Trek fan (take a look ay my username!), but both DS9 and Voyager lost my intrest. DS9 became hard to follow when the eppisodes became very sequential. The best thing about TNG was that you can, more or less, watch the eppisodes in any order and not get lost in references to past eppisodes. When you can't watch the show each week (and forget to tape it), its very hard to watch.
Voyager... How many times did Janeway loose the ship to some alien who threw them off and took control? Using that theme once is fine, but it was rehashed over and over again. I was hoping that they'd get home around the middle of the series and stop the "lost in space" storyline.
The Blue Ribbon Campaign never ended. I've had a Blue Ribbon on my web pages since 1995. The problem is that its has lost its steem. It was a "shocking" news story when a good number of web pages, personal AND commerical, replaced their front pages with a black one and a blue ribbon (even the Prodigy service had a blue ribbon on their pages). The times have changed, however. Getting support and posting the ribbon en mass is more difficult. More total pages = lower percent of pages with ribbon = less effect.
But here's another twist... MS doesn't support OEM software, the OEM does. That's why OEMs can get the software for less than retail. If the OEM has to support the OS, then they should have full control over what the user sees when they start the computer up.
I went a step further and asked that my senators vote against the upcoming confirmation of Robert S. Muller, III for the director of the FBI. If you're not already aware, Muller is the lead Federal prosecutor in the case against Dimitry. If enough letters are received with this same opinion, it might be enough pressure to force him to back down.
But we can do something. We can start our own Anti-FUD campaign and target everything.
Start writing letters to the editor with subjects such as:
US Government holds foreign visitor hostage.
Internet filters prevent learning about breast cancer.
Your children can't succeed in school.
New CDs won't play on your older CD player.
Etc, etc. You can bend the truth, sensationalize, whatever it takes to get the point accross. But stay professional, or you'll look like those "scary hackers".
I challenge all readers of Slashdot to take an hour a month to write to their governmental representatives and local newspapers.
I have been writing, faxing, and phoning my representatives in the senate and house regularly. Such as this one on its way to the mailbox...
Dear Senator Corzine:
I am writing to you to urge you to vote against the confirmation of Robert S. Muller, III for director of the FBI.
As of today, Wednesday, July 25, 2001, Mr. Muller continues to hold Russian programmer Dmitry Sklyarov prisoner in a Las Vegas jail after his arrest on July 16 on charges of violating the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Since then, the complaint against Dmitry by Adobe Systems, Inc. has been withdrawn. However, Dmitry is still being held as a political prisoner in the United States, away from his home and family, without even been given his right to bail.
The arrest of Dmitry is questionable itself. He has been charged with writing a program that violated the DMCA while in Russia. He had committed no illegal actions in the United States. As Americans, we would be appalled if an American was being held unjustly in a Russian jail. Why are we allowing the same thing to happen to a Russian on our soil?
With all the recent press coverage of the problems inside the FBI, do we really want to have someone that is willing to unjustly hold a foreign national as its leader? Please reject Robert S. Muller, III's confirmation for director of the FBI.
NPR/PBS has always (IMHO) had "better" news coverage than the rest simply because they're "not really for profit" broadcasters and whose viewers (and supporters) tend to be better educated than the norm and demand a more objective broadcast. Kinda like the New York Times verses USA Today.
- A visitor to this country is jailed because of something he did in his own country infuriated an American corporation.
- Same visitor did not commit ANY illegal acts in this country.
- Visitor's said actions were very much legal in his own country.
- This story is not even mentioned by the news media.
At least you got a f*ing refund. I got a little notice from the IRS stating that I would not be receiving the refund that Bush promised to ALL taxpayers. I am a student and because of that, I am still someone else's dependant (I can not claim myself on my tax return). Even though I paid over $1000 in Federal income tax last year, I have been denied this so-called universal refund. If Bush is going to ruin the fiscal well-being of the country, I'd at least like to have a little of my hard earned money back from him. But, NOOOOOOOOOOOOO...
So, first he steals the Presidency. Then he lies to us. And this man is the President of the United States? Bush is already the most corrupt president in history, and he's not even a year into his term.
The problem is economies of scale. In order for these companies to make money, they need to be big. The need to push volume, just like a brick-and-mortar supermarket does. This is a problem with a lot of "dot.com" startups. They start out too big. Its like opening a chain of 100 small shops plus the infrastructure to support them. You need to start small and then work up to a larger operation, not start big and hope to attract enough customers to keep you afloat.
The problem comes when you don't have sufficient guards against abuse. That essentially means a regulatory body with the power to act in the best interests of the consumer.
Even with the power to do so, the regulatory body still must actually do something about, and many times they aren't willing to do that. Take for example the auto inspection fiasco in New Jersey. Former Governor Whittman (now head of the federal EPA), in all her infinate wisdom, decided to privatize the auto inspection system. This coincided with new federal regulations requiring more advanced tests (including driving the car at high speeds on a dynanometer). A company called Parsons Infrastructure, who have taken over privatized government functions for other states in the past, was selected to replace Motor Vehicles for inspections. Parsons promiced to provide the new system at an unrealisticlly low price which the Divison of Motor Vehciles claimed was not at all possible. But, Whittman continued forward with the plan.
Parsons never met any deadline that they agreed to. The state should have fined them as per their contract, but instead, the state kept giving them more money to complete the project. Time and time again, the state kept saying "Now, make sure you don't do that again! And here's more money for you." instead of really doing anything about it. When the system was finally in place, they produced another disaster. The new test was about three times as long as the old one and the equipment continuously broke down, resulting in 5 hour long waits to inspect your car. Only now, about two years after the new inspection system was put into place are they finally beginning to get it right. However, now the EPA says that we don't need to have this new test after all.
My conclusion? Burocracy is bad. Privitization is even worse.
If you've got a lot of money to burn and want to try hand have shrink wrap licenses declared unenforcable, here's a recipe (remeber that IANAL):
-Buy a commercial software (ie: Microsoft Office) title at a store that will not allow you to return/exchange opened software (ie: CompUSA)
-Decide to not agree to the license.
-Try to return said title and fail.
-Contact the publisher and say "Hey! I don't agree with your license. It says to return the software to where I bought it from. They won't take it back because I opened it. What are you going to do about that?" and have them say "Humph! Nothing!"
-Sue the publisher over the license.
-Appeal.
-Appeal the appeal.
With a little luck, you'll get shrink wrap licenses ruled invalid. Then watch Congress pass a law that says that they are...
I've never heard of this cable company (I'm a USian) but my local telco, Verizon, uses "Always on, never dialed" to advertise their DSL service. I'm sure that the contract says that service isn't guaranteed but they seem to be advertising a service that would be always available. A little false advertising??
It's a "meeting of the minds" sort of thing. They agree to let you use their software, and you, in turn, agree to be bound by their restrictions. Don't like their restrictions? Fine, don't use their software.
One interpritation of "meeing of the minds" says that unilatteral contracts, such as EULA's, aren't a "meeting of the minds" at all. They're a "take it or leave it" sort of thing. "Meeting of the minds" implies some sort of negotiation, which you can't do with a EULA.
Besides, if the restrictions are illegal, the contact can't be enforced.
They can put whatever they want in their EULA but can they actually enforce it? IANAL, but...
This claim (can't be used with GPL'ed software) is forbidden by the Clayton Antitrust Act. It basically says that you can not forbid a customer from using a competator's product. This is like saying that you can't use third-party ink cartiges in your printer without voiding the warrantee. Since this claim is illegal, this part of the EULA in unenforcable and, possibly, the entire EULA.
They also seem to be claiming ownership to output created with their SDK, which is another intresting tidbit.
On the brighter side, this might be enough ammunition to break up Microsoft for good.
It also should be noted that the major victims of Microsofts earlier "update addiction" policies were businesses. The change of formatting between Word95 and Word97 does not really bother John Doe. However, when there are 500 John Does who are responsible for there time, somebody takes notice, and tries to correct the problem (the only way they know how). If one business makes the leap to.NET, other businesses will be compelled to follow either for reasons of cooperation or competition.
Exactly. The upgrade push is what Microsoft will use. It will be something like "You won't need to worry about upgrades anymore,.NET will do it for you!" In fact, they probablly won't provide upgrades anyway anymore. Since they're getting a steady flow of fees, they won't need to make needless upgrades anymore. Basic functionally between Office 95, Office 97, Office 2000, and Office XP is almost identical. The only difference is the default file types. Who really uses the new "features" each verison adds? They all are backward compatable, but who is going to remember (or bother) to Save As the file typle that the organization has agreed upon?
It also should be noted that the major victims of Microsofts earlier "update addiction" policies were businesses. The change of formatting between Word95 and Word97 does not really bother John Doe. However, when there are 500 John Does who are responsible for there time, somebody takes notice, and tries to correct the problem (the only way they know how). If one business makes the leap to.NET, other businesses will be compelled to follow either for reasons of cooperation or competition.
Exactly. The upgrade push is what Microsoft will use. It will be something like "You won't need to worry about upgrades anymore,.NET will do it for you!" In fact, they probablly won't provide upgrades anyway anymore. Since they're getting a steady flow of fees, they won't need to make needless upgrades anymore. Basic functionally between Office 95, Office 97, Office 2000, and Office XP is almost identical. The only difference is the default file types. Who really uses the new "features" each verison adds? They all are backward compatable, but who is going to remember (or bother) to Save As the file typle that the organization has agreed upon?
Not to mention that your data is completely out of your control, which asks the question if your data is even yours anymore. MSN already tried to leverage the idea that everything produced using their service became theirs. Don't be shocked if this is part of their plan. The MSN attempt was just testing the waters. Which brings up entirely new privacy issues. Who says that they won't be selling your data to marketers? Or if The Man wants to see if you've been doing something illegal. Your data could be being sifted though without your knowledge... The Man gets the warrant against Microsoft, not you.
What about the recent SCOTUS decision about using heat sensors to discover pot grows? theoretically, this could even be used for the exact same thing. This stuff gives me the creeps.
Heat sensors were being used to look inside houses while these satalites photograph what is out in the open. Legally, its called "plain sight". Anything that can been seen out in the open can be used against you. For example, the police pull over a car for running a red light. The police can not open and search the trunk to find the money the people in the car just robbed from a nearby bank (unbeknownst to the police). Now, if the loot was in the back seat and the police officer could see it though the window (in "plain sight") he could use it as evidence and arrest the people in the car for the robbery. He still can't open the trunk to find the 20 killos of coke in it (unless he received a warrant, received consent from the driver, or had evidence suggesting there were drugs in it).
It would be another story if the satalites could "see" inside building (ie: infared heat sensor).
Let's say that I have a web site that is mrgardensucks.com, criticizing the poor quality of the Mr. Garden lawn rake I purchased from mrgarden.com*. This should be OK since mrgardensucks.com is obviously meant to criticize the company. No one should be confused between mrgarden.com and mrgardensucks.com.
Now, let's say that I create a web site that is mgrarden.com to sell gardening supplies. This site's address is a typo of mrgarden.com and intends to deceive consumers that have typed the address incorrectly.
* This is intended to be a fictional company and product. If there is a real Mr. Garden company, its purely coincidental.
Slashdot Mirror
Its sad that this has to happen, but maybe it will send a message to the public. The problem with most of our (in USia) government is that it is more concerned with preserving the status quo, not for helping (or at least not hindering) true inovation and discoveries.
It is my belief that if God had not intended for us to make discoveries via stem cell research (or insert your favorite "That research is against God's will!" here), then He would not have given us the intelligence to do so. I don't think using genetic engineering to create "designer children" is right but I do think that preventing that same research, that could discover cures to diseases, is wrong.
Oh, and here's the article, login free.
First of all, there is the Great Dumbening of American children that has to be playing a part. I know the entire LEGO enterprise isn't based on selling to children in America, but there must be a large chunk of cashflow slowly being strangled to death as we teach out children that using your imagination and thinking too hard is a terrible thing to do. Lego, being a toy based nearly 100% on imagination is naturally a victim of this.
Damned straight. Toys today are mini entertainment devices. Children aren't playing with them; the toys play and the kids just watch. Legos were (are) my favorite toy from age 6 through today (age 19). Although I never have time to do so anymore, I could keep busy for hours with a big bucket of Legos.
We must also not forget what copyright is: a temporary monopoly over the reproduction of a work. After the copyright expired, the work becomes part of the public domain. Nothing more. When "digital rights" systems are thrown in, that temporary monopoly becomes perpetual. And when you make it illegal to break those systems, perpetual becomes perminant.
Let's say a DVD's copyright expires (assuming Congress doesn't extend it again). You STILL can't use DeCSS on that DVD because there are other DVD's whose copyright has not expired yet. This is the consumer threat to digital rights management. Its a great benefit for the publishers though... keep releasing works "protected" by the same system and EVERYTHING becomes perpertually locked away. And keep claiming that these "circumvention devices" be forbidden because they can break the protection of works that are still under copyright.
But remember, Professor Felton is a respecrted intellectual in his field (from Princeton University, which is also respected). He's not one of those "evil hackers" from 2600 or Russia. If the FBI busts him, there'll be a huge outlash against the DMCA, the RIAA, and the FBI. Much more than for Dmitry.
But maybe this would be good?
In addition to that, the Court seems to be saying that, since Pavlovich "knew" his actions would affect the profits of Hollywood, that the movie industry had a guarantee or right to profit. That is the complete opposite of capitalism. Profits are the rewards of risks that a business takes but are certainly not guaranteed. In fact, most buisinesses eventually fail. This sets a very dangerous precident. Let's say my business fails because Company X advertises a competing product. Can I now sue Company X for imparing my ability to profit?
The feeling I always got when watching Voyager was: tired.
Same here. At one time, I was a HUGE Trek fan (take a look ay my username!), but both DS9 and Voyager lost my intrest. DS9 became hard to follow when the eppisodes became very sequential. The best thing about TNG was that you can, more or less, watch the eppisodes in any order and not get lost in references to past eppisodes. When you can't watch the show each week (and forget to tape it), its very hard to watch.
Voyager... How many times did Janeway loose the ship to some alien who threw them off and took control? Using that theme once is fine, but it was rehashed over and over again. I was hoping that they'd get home around the middle of the series and stop the "lost in space" storyline.
The Blue Ribbon Campaign never ended. I've had a Blue Ribbon on my web pages since 1995. The problem is that its has lost its steem. It was a "shocking" news story when a good number of web pages, personal AND commerical, replaced their front pages with a black one and a blue ribbon (even the Prodigy service had a blue ribbon on their pages). The times have changed, however. Getting support and posting the ribbon en mass is more difficult. More total pages = lower percent of pages with ribbon = less effect.
But here's another twist... MS doesn't support OEM software, the OEM does. That's why OEMs can get the software for less than retail. If the OEM has to support the OS, then they should have full control over what the user sees when they start the computer up.
I went a step further and asked that my senators vote against the upcoming confirmation of Robert S. Muller, III for the director of the FBI. If you're not already aware, Muller is the lead Federal prosecutor in the case against Dimitry. If enough letters are received with this same opinion, it might be enough pressure to force him to back down.
But we can do something. We can start our own Anti-FUD campaign and target everything.
Start writing letters to the editor with subjects such as:
US Government holds foreign visitor hostage.
Internet filters prevent learning about breast cancer.
Your children can't succeed in school.
New CDs won't play on your older CD player.
Etc, etc. You can bend the truth, sensationalize, whatever it takes to get the point accross. But stay professional, or you'll look like those "scary hackers".
I challenge all readers of Slashdot to take an hour a month to write to their governmental representatives and local newspapers.
I have been writing, faxing, and phoning my representatives in the senate and house regularly. Such as this one on its way to the mailbox...
Dear Senator Corzine:
I am writing to you to urge you to vote against the confirmation of Robert S. Muller, III for director of the FBI.
As of today, Wednesday, July 25, 2001, Mr. Muller continues to hold Russian programmer Dmitry Sklyarov prisoner in a Las Vegas jail after his arrest on July 16 on charges of violating the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Since then, the complaint against Dmitry by Adobe Systems, Inc. has been withdrawn. However, Dmitry is still being held as a political prisoner in the United States, away from his home and family, without even been given his right to bail.
The arrest of Dmitry is questionable itself. He has been charged with writing a program that violated the DMCA while in Russia. He had committed no illegal actions in the United States. As Americans, we would be appalled if an American was being held unjustly in a Russian jail. Why are we allowing the same thing to happen to a Russian on our soil?
With all the recent press coverage of the problems inside the FBI, do we really want to have someone that is willing to unjustly hold a foreign national as its leader? Please reject Robert S. Muller, III's confirmation for director of the FBI.
NPR/PBS has always (IMHO) had "better" news coverage than the rest simply because they're "not really for profit" broadcasters and whose viewers (and supporters) tend to be better educated than the norm and demand a more objective broadcast. Kinda like the New York Times verses USA Today.
- A visitor to this country is jailed because of something he did in his own country infuriated an American corporation.
- Same visitor did not commit ANY illegal acts in this country.
- Visitor's said actions were very much legal in his own country.
- This story is not even mentioned by the news media.
And this is America, the land of the free?
Ok, slightly off topic rant...
At least you got a f*ing refund. I got a little notice from the IRS stating that I would not be receiving the refund that Bush promised to ALL taxpayers. I am a student and because of that, I am still someone else's dependant (I can not claim myself on my tax return). Even though I paid over $1000 in Federal income tax last year, I have been denied this so-called universal refund. If Bush is going to ruin the fiscal well-being of the country, I'd at least like to have a little of my hard earned money back from him. But, NOOOOOOOOOOOOO...
So, first he steals the Presidency. Then he lies to us. And this man is the President of the United States? Bush is already the most corrupt president in history, and he's not even a year into his term.
The problem is economies of scale. In order for these companies to make money, they need to be big. The need to push volume, just like a brick-and-mortar supermarket does. This is a problem with a lot of "dot.com" startups. They start out too big. Its like opening a chain of 100 small shops plus the infrastructure to support them. You need to start small and then work up to a larger operation, not start big and hope to attract enough customers to keep you afloat.
The problem comes when you don't have sufficient guards against abuse. That essentially means a regulatory body with the power to act in the best interests of the consumer.
Even with the power to do so, the regulatory body still must actually do something about, and many times they aren't willing to do that. Take for example the auto inspection fiasco in New Jersey. Former Governor Whittman (now head of the federal EPA), in all her infinate wisdom, decided to privatize the auto inspection system. This coincided with new federal regulations requiring more advanced tests (including driving the car at high speeds on a dynanometer). A company called Parsons Infrastructure, who have taken over privatized government functions for other states in the past, was selected to replace Motor Vehicles for inspections. Parsons promiced to provide the new system at an unrealisticlly low price which the Divison of Motor Vehciles claimed was not at all possible. But, Whittman continued forward with the plan.
Parsons never met any deadline that they agreed to. The state should have fined them as per their contract, but instead, the state kept giving them more money to complete the project. Time and time again, the state kept saying "Now, make sure you don't do that again! And here's more money for you." instead of really doing anything about it. When the system was finally in place, they produced another disaster. The new test was about three times as long as the old one and the equipment continuously broke down, resulting in 5 hour long waits to inspect your car. Only now, about two years after the new inspection system was put into place are they finally beginning to get it right. However, now the EPA says that we don't need to have this new test after all.
My conclusion? Burocracy is bad. Privitization is even worse.
If you've got a lot of money to burn and want to try hand have shrink wrap licenses declared unenforcable, here's a recipe (remeber that IANAL):
-Buy a commercial software (ie: Microsoft Office) title at a store that will not allow you to return/exchange opened software (ie: CompUSA)
-Decide to not agree to the license.
-Try to return said title and fail.
-Contact the publisher and say "Hey! I don't agree with your license. It says to return the software to where I bought it from. They won't take it back because I opened it. What are you going to do about that?" and have them say "Humph! Nothing!"
-Sue the publisher over the license.
-Appeal.
-Appeal the appeal.
With a little luck, you'll get shrink wrap licenses ruled invalid. Then watch Congress pass a law that says that they are...
I've never heard of this cable company (I'm a USian) but my local telco, Verizon, uses "Always on, never dialed" to advertise their DSL service. I'm sure that the contract says that service isn't guaranteed but they seem to be advertising a service that would be always available. A little false advertising??
It's a "meeting of the minds" sort of thing. They agree to let you use their software, and you, in turn, agree to be bound by their restrictions. Don't like their restrictions? Fine, don't use their software.
One interpritation of "meeing of the minds" says that unilatteral contracts, such as EULA's, aren't a "meeting of the minds" at all. They're a "take it or leave it" sort of thing. "Meeting of the minds" implies some sort of negotiation, which you can't do with a EULA.
Besides, if the restrictions are illegal, the contact can't be enforced.
They can put whatever they want in their EULA but can they actually enforce it? IANAL, but...
This claim (can't be used with GPL'ed software) is forbidden by the Clayton Antitrust Act. It basically says that you can not forbid a customer from using a competator's product. This is like saying that you can't use third-party ink cartiges in your printer without voiding the warrantee. Since this claim is illegal, this part of the EULA in unenforcable and, possibly, the entire EULA.
They also seem to be claiming ownership to output created with their SDK, which is another intresting tidbit.
On the brighter side, this might be enough ammunition to break up Microsoft for good.
It also should be noted that the major victims of Microsofts earlier "update addiction" policies were businesses. The change of formatting between Word95 and Word97 does not really bother John Doe. However, when there are 500 John Does who are responsible for there time, somebody takes notice, and tries to correct the problem (the only way they know how). If one business makes the leap to .NET, other businesses will be compelled to follow either for reasons of cooperation or competition.
.NET will do it for you!" In fact, they probablly won't provide upgrades anyway anymore. Since they're getting a steady flow of fees, they won't need to make needless upgrades anymore. Basic functionally between Office 95, Office 97, Office 2000, and Office XP is almost identical. The only difference is the default file types. Who really uses the new "features" each verison adds? They all are backward compatable, but who is going to remember (or bother) to Save As the file typle that the organization has agreed upon?
Exactly. The upgrade push is what Microsoft will use. It will be something like "You won't need to worry about upgrades anymore,
It also should be noted that the major victims of Microsofts earlier "update addiction" policies were businesses. The change of formatting between Word95 and Word97 does not really bother John Doe. However, when there are 500 John Does who are responsible for there time, somebody takes notice, and tries to correct the problem (the only way they know how). If one business makes the leap to .NET, other businesses will be compelled to follow either for reasons of cooperation or competition.
.NET will do it for you!" In fact, they probablly won't provide upgrades anyway anymore. Since they're getting a steady flow of fees, they won't need to make needless upgrades anymore. Basic functionally between Office 95, Office 97, Office 2000, and Office XP is almost identical. The only difference is the default file types. Who really uses the new "features" each verison adds? They all are backward compatable, but who is going to remember (or bother) to Save As the file typle that the organization has agreed upon?
Exactly. The upgrade push is what Microsoft will use. It will be something like "You won't need to worry about upgrades anymore,
MY data is one SOMEONE ELSE's machine.
Not to mention that your data is completely out of your control, which asks the question if your data is even yours anymore. MSN already tried to leverage the idea that everything produced using their service became theirs. Don't be shocked if this is part of their plan. The MSN attempt was just testing the waters. Which brings up entirely new privacy issues. Who says that they won't be selling your data to marketers? Or if The Man wants to see if you've been doing something illegal. Your data could be being sifted though without your knowledge... The Man gets the warrant against Microsoft, not you.
What about the recent SCOTUS decision about using heat sensors to discover pot grows? theoretically, this could even be used for the exact same thing. This stuff gives me the creeps.
Heat sensors were being used to look inside houses while these satalites photograph what is out in the open. Legally, its called "plain sight". Anything that can been seen out in the open can be used against you. For example, the police pull over a car for running a red light. The police can not open and search the trunk to find the money the people in the car just robbed from a nearby bank (unbeknownst to the police). Now, if the loot was in the back seat and the police officer could see it though the window (in "plain sight") he could use it as evidence and arrest the people in the car for the robbery. He still can't open the trunk to find the 20 killos of coke in it (unless he received a warrant, received consent from the driver, or had evidence suggesting there were drugs in it).
It would be another story if the satalites could "see" inside building (ie: infared heat sensor).
Let's say that I have a web site that is mrgardensucks.com, criticizing the poor quality of the Mr. Garden lawn rake I purchased from mrgarden.com*. This should be OK since mrgardensucks.com is obviously meant to criticize the company. No one should be confused between mrgarden.com and mrgardensucks.com.
Now, let's say that I create a web site that is mgrarden.com to sell gardening supplies. This site's address is a typo of mrgarden.com and intends to deceive consumers that have typed the address incorrectly.
* This is intended to be a fictional company and product. If there is a real Mr. Garden company, its purely coincidental.