Most people will just be using them on physical processors, and so this "change" changes nothing...
It is a change; and it will affect real people and businesses. Here is an example that isnt about mega-bucks, just a small firm that builds a custom application for the finance sector.
A friend of mine uses virtualisation to speed up QA, simultaneously running through the installation of the application on a number of different installations of Windows / SQL Server. I doubt his firm can afford the virtual licenses for him to continue that practise, so he will need to spend a few more days doing mundane testing all of the various combinations that the application needs to support.
I find that very difficult to believe that MS is trying to reduce costs for anyone.
I am sure that if Microsoft went to the trouble of conducting an analysis, which is highly likely, no division manager would approve the licensing scheme if it was known to reduce revenue.
The example given in the article is pure speculation of how this licensing model could be benefiticial to someone,..
Armstrong said the new provision won't necessarily lead him to run SQL Server on [virtualised] machines...
... and then goes on to mention that this would only benefit him in a parallel universe.
My guess is that most people who virtualise end up running more virtual processors than they have physical processors. Looks like even Microsoft agrees that is one of the main benefits of virtualisation.
This will definately increase licensing of Server 2003, and the net effect may even increase licensing of applications.
Your argument is based on video being about force-fed entertainment; that only applies to media companies that must push ahead to stay competitive, and other situations where innovation is driving business. The studio exec is rightly concerned about the viability of the format in the market, which encompasses the needs of users.
When I buy a DVD, I want to know that the packaging and format is not going to be replaced in a few years. For example, I rarely buy DVD-Audio's because the next generation of players may not include support for this format because a better format gains a stronger hold on the market. I may need to replace those albums.
Many people have 15 year old VHS tapes of weddings and holidays in their cupboards. They would not have used VHS tapes to record these experiences if they were thought the tapes would not work in the next player.
Mom and Pop are not concerned about the latest and greatest; they just want to sit back and enjoy the video every once in a while. And unless Mom and Pop purchased VHS players, we would still be using reels -- home recordings make a format viable. And software to easily create DVD's from home recorders has only recently emerged. I doubt standard DVD will be going away any time soon.
I agree that more identification hoops, and other usability nightmares, would occur if this was just dumped on the banks.
A simple solution is to see how phishing would be prevented in the real world. I see two real-world issues: fraud, and trademark infringement.
If a fake Citibank office popped up beside my local milk-bar, bearing all the marks of a Citibank, I would expect helicopters to appear shortly after the signs went up.
When a bank does not protect its branding, online or offline, it should not be allowed to operate, because by operating, customers are at risk of being fleeced.
So to ensure banks dont push the problem onto the client, banks should be required to protect their trademarks adequately, otherwise they loose the right to trade online, and/or need to reapply under a different name to become a financial institution. The repercusions would need to be carefully considered. To address the problem, financial institutions may join forces, or could outsource the brand protection to companies that have bots that scan the web or something similar.
Also, I would like to see clear statements from the bank on how they handle fraud, and what assurances they will give customers that are the subject of fraud. It should be like a privacy policy -- informing the client of what actions they will take, and when they will re-imburse the client. Obviously, they dont make claims like this because they are not statistically immune to those types of fraud. They should be!
Americans should ask themselves: what would stop America annexing ?
Previously, people in other nations believe the American people and its structure of government would make this impossible. Now we know that is not true.
We all know that Mutually Assured Destruction is not useful with respect to America; they have their fingers in so many pies that they can cause nations to crumble by simply removing their finger. A number of posts have been along the lines of "the UN is nothing without the US". Americans should not be proud that they have become more powerful than the institution put into place to prevent WWIII.
It does not matter that the UN has become ineffectual. The League of Nations also became ineffectual because it was shown to be weak. Now America has created the same problem. Bad dictators know that they are not accountable to the UN; its the US they need to keep onside. And the attrocities go un-noticed unless America has an economic interest.
A proud nation needs to be very careful; all it takes is a charismatic leader to conquer the world.
In related news, the RIAA is appealing the ruling and is including the judge in the long list of defendants. When questioned about the legal basis for suing a judge, a RIAA spokeperson made it clear that judges are not above these new laws.
Re:Dictator jails political activist
on
RIAA Sues a Child
·
· Score: 1
And then, 10 years on, they find themselves in the same position as Sabre Holdings: convincing themselves they made they right decision to go with MySQL.
I am not so sure that we should be barracking for Microsoft on this one. Microsoft could be involved in this, playing Eolas like they are assumed to have played SCO. Microsoft can afford the settlement and pay a license on the patent, and would willingly pay if it was a set back to Open Source.
At the moment they look like a knight in shining armour, defending the web from silly patents; that alone is sufficient reason for everyone to look deeper.
Well, content owners will NEVER be pleased, what they'd like you to do is pay $$$$$ and keep the stuff.
The content owners have no use for keeping the stuff. Their objectives are to ensure they have plenty of gravy, and sufficient funds to keeping the entertainment creation industry prosperous.
If you dont think what the entertainment industry is turning out works that are worth purchasing, entertain yourself in other ways. The best way to do this is to create your own works, and let others enjoy it freely.
What some people seem to forget, is that the projected sales figures come from how well a movie/whathaveyou is received, and what mindshare it occupies for how long. Then, when the sales dont match, they blame p2p.
Author's should do more book readings, or something.
I jest, but with todays wealth of information available freely online, I dont see why there should be so many new books that publishers are trying to sell. We should be using older works as references rather than writing new versions of everything, constantly. For example, a grade 10 maths book should fall into public domain eventually, and be corrected as required. This would mean the children of today could see the history of grade 10 maths as well as the content.
Lecturers would then need to go back to research, rather than rehash, and without the revenue stream of textbooks, lecturers would have a bit more incentive to do a bit of innovation.
A few CDs you just want to own, cherish, and put in the CD rack for the prestige of owning it. They are rarely used. For everything else, a high quality rip is wonderful..
There is one difference that Google Library has vs Brick and Mortar. If / When Google Library becomes ubiquitous, Google will be able to hold publishers or other sellers to ransom.
For example, Google could:
Only offer "Buy this book" links to Froogle,
Only offer "Buy this book" links to the publisher,
Alter the results, giving preference to books listed by publishers or online seller,
Introduce purchasing of e-books,
Purchase a number of physical copies of popular books, and lease an e-book of it online to paying customers
Become an e-book publisher
While I believe that the current management of Google will do no evil, management in other companies would be fools to accept this as an axiom. So, publishers need to keep their distribution channels many, and in competition.
I dont give my salary to the local library because in this age, that is not the most viable means of getting the knowledge to the people. I rarely use the library.
However, I do build simple PCs for people without one, because they can usually afford the internet as a replacement for cable TV or some other luxury entertainment item.
A librarian is an archivist. The sooner they can stop grotty hands being all over their books in order to keep the public purse strings open, the better.
I am not sure if this is new to SeaMonkey 1.0 Alpha, but I am very impressed to see that the GRE installer no longer needs to close down all Gecko based clients in order to install itself on Windows. I expect that it will need to shutdown a GRE it replaces, but I always use different directories for each version.
After 10 years of not being actively protected? Dont be silly. Linus himself said he would not go down this path 10 years ago.
Now I dont presume for a single minute that Linus has changed his tune; he just wants to make the best OS around and doesnt want trademark problems affecting him or others; the simplest strategy is to control the trademark legally. Sadly, he has delegated this problem to others, a legalase lieutenant so to speak, and they have blissfully ignored the fact that while it is a great idea to trademark the name, that approach is not backwards compatible.
So, another approach needs to be found. Here in australia, with the ACCC, stupid trademark concerns like those that occured in America, are not a problem.
act is not a synonym for legal action. In the fictitious example you cite, the appropriate response would be to inform the ACCC that this "Linux OS" is being falsely presented as Linux. Remember that as a result of this trademark decision, Linux is now equated with an Operating System that uses the linux source code. It is precisely this wide definition that would provide the legal justification for the ACCC shutting down an OS that was clearly not being described properly.
A less emotive example would be a manufacturer attempting to produce cardboard tissues. It doesnt matter whether Klennex has a trademark or not, cardboard is not a good material to wipe noses with.
Less obvious abuses may require an advertising campaign or a peaceful protest outside of the offices of the offender; the actions required will depend on the situation the LUGs see as unacceptable.
Now that the law is no longer involved, common sense can now fill the void, and Linux companies can keep their money, and pay the wages of the people that put their sweat into the quality of the name. In 10 years time, someone who attempts to slander "Linux" will be ridiculed on the front pages of APC.
This is good news. Nobody can use trademark law to their advantage here in Australia. Nobody needs to be concerned about trademarks. Everyone can go back to using the word as they wish.
The bad news is that bad people can use Linux however they like. This will mean that the Aussie LUGs will need to keep an eye out for slander and libel, and act.
The end goal was to prevent trademark disputes, yet people in favour of the trademark want to spend money keeping the trademark application process going. Why?
Slashdot Mirror
It is a change; and it will affect real people and businesses. Here is an example that isnt about mega-bucks, just a small firm that builds a custom application for the finance sector.
A friend of mine uses virtualisation to speed up QA, simultaneously running through the installation of the application on a number of different installations of Windows / SQL Server. I doubt his firm can afford the virtual licenses for him to continue that practise, so he will need to spend a few more days doing mundane testing all of the various combinations that the application needs to support.
I am sure that if Microsoft went to the trouble of conducting an analysis, which is highly likely, no division manager would approve the licensing scheme if it was known to reduce revenue.
The example given in the article is pure speculation of how this licensing model could be benefiticial to someone,
My guess is that most people who virtualise end up running more virtual processors than they have physical processors. Looks like even Microsoft agrees that is one of the main benefits of virtualisation.
This will definately increase licensing of Server 2003, and the net effect may even increase licensing of applications.
Your argument is based on video being about force-fed entertainment; that only applies to media companies that must push ahead to stay competitive, and other situations where innovation is driving business. The studio exec is rightly concerned about the viability of the format in the market, which encompasses the needs of users.
When I buy a DVD, I want to know that the packaging and format is not going to be replaced in a few years. For example, I rarely buy DVD-Audio's because the next generation of players may not include support for this format because a better format gains a stronger hold on the market. I may need to replace those albums.
Many people have 15 year old VHS tapes of weddings and holidays in their cupboards. They would not have used VHS tapes to record these experiences if they were thought the tapes would not work in the next player.
Mom and Pop are not concerned about the latest and greatest; they just want to sit back and enjoy the video every once in a while. And unless Mom and Pop purchased VHS players, we would still be using reels -- home recordings make a format viable. And software to easily create DVD's from home recorders has only recently emerged. I doubt standard DVD will be going away any time soon.
The KDE project and Trolltech have carefully protected the future of all software developed on top of the Free QT license.
In the event of a buyout, QT will be re-licensed under a BSD license.
This agreement was negotiated very soon after Trolltech was formed.
I agree that more identification hoops, and other usability nightmares, would occur if this was just dumped on the banks.
A simple solution is to see how phishing would be prevented in the real world. I see two real-world issues: fraud, and trademark infringement.
If a fake Citibank office popped up beside my local milk-bar, bearing all the marks of a Citibank, I would expect helicopters to appear shortly after the signs went up.
When a bank does not protect its branding, online or offline, it should not be allowed to operate, because by operating, customers are at risk of being fleeced.
So to ensure banks dont push the problem onto the client, banks should be required to protect their trademarks adequately, otherwise they loose the right to trade online, and/or need to reapply under a different name to become a financial institution. The repercusions would need to be carefully considered. To address the problem, financial institutions may join forces, or could outsource the brand protection to companies that have bots that scan the web or something similar.
Also, I would like to see clear statements from the bank on how they handle fraud, and what assurances they will give customers that are the subject of fraud. It should be like a privacy policy -- informing the client of what actions they will take, and when they will re-imburse the client. Obviously, they dont make claims like this because they are not statistically immune to those types of fraud. They should be!
Americans should ask themselves: what would stop America annexing ?
Previously, people in other nations believe the American people and its structure of government would make this impossible. Now we know that is not true.
We all know that Mutually Assured Destruction is not useful with respect to America; they have their fingers in so many pies that they can cause nations to crumble by simply removing their finger. A number of posts have been along the lines of "the UN is nothing without the US". Americans should not be proud that they have become more powerful than the institution put into place to prevent WWIII.
It does not matter that the UN has become ineffectual. The League of Nations also became ineffectual because it was shown to be weak. Now America has created the same problem. Bad dictators know that they are not accountable to the UN; its the US they need to keep onside. And the attrocities go un-noticed unless America has an economic interest.
A proud nation needs to be very careful; all it takes is a charismatic leader to conquer the world.
In related news, the RIAA is appealing the ruling and is including the judge in the long list of defendants. When questioned about the legal basis for suing a judge, a RIAA spokeperson made it clear that judges are not above these new laws.
Adds an interesting twist to it, doesn't it?
And then, 10 years on, they find themselves in the same position as Sabre Holdings: convincing themselves they made they right decision to go with MySQL.
The website with the most hits, wins the fight.
I am not so sure that we should be barracking for Microsoft on this one. Microsoft could be involved in this, playing Eolas like they are assumed to have played SCO. Microsoft can afford the settlement and pay a license on the patent, and would willingly pay if it was a set back to Open Source.
At the moment they look like a knight in shining armour, defending the web from silly patents; that alone is sufficient reason for everyone to look deeper.
Check out XUL. It is good enough to write a browser, Jabber client, or complete bookshop.
Check out some of the UI functionality here.
Here, let me help you land safely.
Try using Slashdots darling search engine
http://www.google.com/search?q=seamonkey
and you could see how Slashdot thinks about SeaMonkey, just to make sure you have the group-think thing on your side.
http://slashdot.org/search.pl?query=seamonkey
I am using SeaMonkey 1.0a, and it looks lovely. Did you try one of the many other browsers available for Linux before you had a conniption?
Well, content owners will NEVER be pleased, what they'd like you to do is pay $$$$$ and keep the stuff.
The content owners have no use for keeping the stuff. Their objectives are to ensure they have plenty of gravy, and sufficient funds to keeping the entertainment creation industry prosperous.
If you dont think what the entertainment industry is turning out works that are worth purchasing, entertain yourself in other ways. The best way to do this is to create your own works, and let others enjoy it freely.
What some people seem to forget, is that the projected sales figures come from how well a movie/whathaveyou is received, and what mindshare it occupies for how long. Then, when the sales dont match, they blame p2p.
Author's should do more book readings, or something.
I jest, but with todays wealth of information available freely online, I dont see why there should be so many new books that publishers are trying to sell. We should be using older works as references rather than writing new versions of everything, constantly. For example, a grade 10 maths book should fall into public domain eventually, and be corrected as required. This would mean the children of today could see the history of grade 10 maths as well as the content.
Lecturers would then need to go back to research, rather than rehash, and without the revenue stream of textbooks, lecturers would have a bit more incentive to do a bit of innovation.
A few CDs you just want to own, cherish, and put in the CD rack for the prestige of owning it. They are rarely used. For everything else, a high quality rip is wonderful..
For example, Google could:
- Only offer "Buy this book" links to Froogle,
- Only offer "Buy this book" links to the publisher,
- Alter the results, giving preference to books listed by publishers or online seller,
- Introduce purchasing of e-books,
- Purchase a number of physical copies of popular books, and lease an e-book of it online to paying customers
- Become an e-book publisher
While I believe that the current management of Google will do no evil, management in other companies would be fools to accept this as an axiom. So, publishers need to keep their distribution channels many, and in competition.I dont give my salary to the local library because in this age, that is not the most viable means of getting the knowledge to the people. I rarely use the library.
However, I do build simple PCs for people without one, because they can usually afford the internet as a replacement for cable TV or some other luxury entertainment item.
A librarian is an archivist. The sooner they can stop grotty hands being all over their books in order to keep the public purse strings open, the better.
I am not sure if this is new to SeaMonkey 1.0 Alpha, but I am very impressed to see that the GRE installer no longer needs to close down all Gecko based clients in order to install itself on Windows. I expect that it will need to shutdown a GRE it replaces, but I always use different directories for each version.
Please follow these simple instructions.
Kind regards,
Chair manufacturer in Redmond, WA
After 10 years of not being actively protected? Dont be silly. Linus himself said he would not go down this path 10 years ago.
Now I dont presume for a single minute that Linus has changed his tune; he just wants to make the best OS around and doesnt want trademark problems affecting him or others; the simplest strategy is to control the trademark legally. Sadly, he has delegated this problem to others, a legalase lieutenant so to speak, and they have blissfully ignored the fact that while it is a great idea to trademark the name, that approach is not backwards compatible.
So, another approach needs to be found. Here in australia, with the ACCC, stupid trademark concerns like those that occured in America, are not a problem.
act is not a synonym for legal action. In the fictitious example you cite, the appropriate response would be to inform the ACCC that this "Linux OS" is being falsely presented as Linux. Remember that as a result of this trademark decision, Linux is now equated with an Operating System that uses the linux source code. It is precisely this wide definition that would provide the legal justification for the ACCC shutting down an OS that was clearly not being described properly.
A less emotive example would be a manufacturer attempting to produce cardboard tissues. It doesnt matter whether Klennex has a trademark or not, cardboard is not a good material to wipe noses with.
Less obvious abuses may require an advertising campaign or a peaceful protest outside of the offices of the offender; the actions required will depend on the situation the LUGs see as unacceptable.
Now that the law is no longer involved, common sense can now fill the void, and Linux companies can keep their money, and pay the wages of the people that put their sweat into the quality of the name. In 10 years time, someone who attempts to slander "Linux" will be ridiculed on the front pages of APC.
This is good news. Nobody can use trademark law to their advantage here in Australia. Nobody needs to be concerned about trademarks. Everyone can go back to using the word as they wish.
The bad news is that bad people can use Linux however they like. This will mean that the Aussie LUGs will need to keep an eye out for slander and libel, and act.
The end goal was to prevent trademark disputes, yet people in favour of the trademark want to spend money keeping the trademark application process going. Why?
I think you will find the artist will tell you to sod off, and go back to using Adobe Illustrator on an iBook, and emailing you an SVG file.