The browser's "user agent" header sent to a general interest site like Google would seem a far better way. Admittedly that would be skewed by Mac users using being "forced" to access Google from Windows in a work environment, but still. Why would this skew the results? Don't corporate isntallations count as installations?
This number seems like a lot of bunk. 16% of people say what? They don't worry about viruses? Or they can't get them? From the summary (and not the article, so I have even less faith in info in the summary that isn't even backed up in the article) it could mean 16% are running DOS, so they aren't worrying about viruses. Yeah for bunk data!
Why should we offer people money to recycle something when it will cost money to recycle it? If recycling is truly cost effective and helps, it should pay for itself (such as with aluminum recycling). Most recycling costs money, which means not only is it not saving money, it also is costing energy (which comes from non-renewable sources such as coal or oil).
If you want to recycle, that's great. But why should we encourage people by paying them to do something that costs us money to begin with?
He wasn't "forced" to resign, he chose to resign. The administration explained the pressure they were receiving, and when he heard about this, he CHOSE to resign to help the university avoid the possible consequences. They didn't threaten to fire him if he didn't resign, he chose to resign to help the university.
I really get sick of saying this, but it's true, even when you it's a favorable outcome for your side. So the show was pirated and became popular, that in no way means it became popular because it was pirated. Even without the piracy, it may have become just as popular, because it's a good show (I'm assuming here, since I haven't seen it). If it had done poorly, would the cause be that it was pirated? There is no more to say the show did well because of piracy anymore than to say it did well because Coke with Lime came out at the same time. Two things happened, but they may not be realted at all, even if you want to think they are.
Cease and desist letters are basically a warning. You send them to the person saying you believe what they are doing is illegal and you would like them to stop, and if they don't stop you may take legal action. They are basically a way to settle things without suing. Of course oftentimes they are used more as a threat than a warning ("Do what we want or we will sue you for millions of dollars") in the hopes the people would rather stop doing whatever it is they are doing than go through a court case they may or may not win (but will cost money either way).
In short, there is nothing wrong with C&D letters. They should be the first step someone takes when they find someone infringing their copyright, trademark or the like. But they shouldn't be used as a way to scare people away from legal activities, which they often are.
Of course this ignores the purpose of PDFs, which is to have a standard format to ensure the document appears how it should on all platforms. Sure, you can reformat everything for your web site, and hope it shows up how you want it on the other end in whatever odd browser and resolution the end user is using, or if presentation is important, you can make a PDF and make sure it appears correctly.
I'm no Intel Fanboy, but let's look at points one and two, shall we. The third point was bad originally and the response even worse.
intel fanboy myth 1 AMD can't pump out the volume Dell needs Bzzt incorrect, AMD won't BEND Over, Kiss dell's shiny metal ass, and ship 95% of it's early production volume to dell so dell can 'trump' competitors. Intel has an entire devision dedicated to bending over backwards and kissing ass.
So AMD can't ship the amounts Dell wants without hurting other places, and Intel can? Intel may have a division dedicated to "kissing ass" as you say, but that means they can supply dell the chips they need when they want them and still supply other places as well. AMD can't do this, or simply won't, which still means they can't do it, just they willfully can't do it.
Intel fanboy myth 2 AMD processors are less stable Bzzt wrong again, AMD CPUs have had as clean or better a 'stability' track record as Intel. 'but my windows crashes more using amd' This isn't a CPU issue, it's a software vendor issue, usually related to 3rd party drivers for sound cards etc, although if you buy a cheap chipset, instead of a quality one, the chipset could bring stability issues into the system, but plenty of tiwanese intel chipsets can be had too, and can cause as much system instability.
So using AMD processors can cause more crashes than using Intel processors. It may be the fault of third party drivers, but that still means systems with AMD processors are more unstable than system with Intel processors, which is a bad thing. You may be willing to blow this off but the average user isn't. Just like people blame Windows for crahses caused by programs, spyware, viruses, and third party drivers, they blame AMD when a system with their processors crashes because it has the processor in it. Sure, it's Joe Blow Companies fault for the bad drivers, but they don't crash in an Intel machine.
No, it's happening because people want things cheaply. The companies want to make money, but they realize if they raise their prices less people will buy what they are selling. So they look to other sources of revenue. Cable could be completely without commercials, but to do so they would have to double or triple their monthly fee (at least), which would drive people away. We can get rid of advertising and pay more up front or pay less up front and get advertising. Most people would choose the latter.
I don't know what the hell you're doing on your system, but I run my system quite fine not running as admin. For the times I do need admin, I just use RunAs. The whole myth about having to run as admin is just that, a myth. Yes, there are some programs that require you to run as admin, and those programs should be fixed. It is not a vulnerability in Windows if a program requires admin access.
What you have stolen is defined by the worth of the object. And worth is defined by how much someone is willing to pay for it. If we assume that a new care is only worth the cost of materials, then the Mona Lisa is worth nothing, because that is about what is would cost to reproduce even new. An antique may have cost 30 cents to make in 1850, but is that all it is worth now? Certainly not.
A CD sells for $15 or so. Yes, the material may only be worth $2, but the worth is $15, because that is what people will pay for it. Saying a CD isn't worht $15 is obviously wrong, because many people (in fact, I would guess most people) will pay that for it, and that is how you measure worth.
But you certainly go after someone who is the go between for the person selling bootleg CDs. If my job is to find people who want bootleg CDs and take them to the guy selling them, then I am most certainly involved and will be prosecuted. If the job of my page is to find people who want bootleg MP3 and take them to the MP3 (not even the page or site the MP3 is on, but the MP3 itself) how am I not involved?
While Microsoft certainly helped in the downfall of Netscape, most of the death of Netscape was because they didn't release any new versions. I used to love Netscape, but after version4 (I think it was 4) there was literally years before they released another version. In this time, IE not only caught up to Netscape, but far exceeded it in quality. IE being free certainly helped, but even if it had cost the same as Netscape, it still would have beaten it to a bloody pulp, because Netscape quit upgrading it's product. MS has doen a lot of things, but Netscape is more responsible for their death than MS is.
2. Unix systems use a wide range of email applications and web browsers, almost all of which have fewer holes than IE/OE. No Unix mail client will execute an attachment for you; you have to save it, enable the execution flag, and then run it yourself. How does not executing an attachment make it more secure? All it does is make it less usable. What people fail to understand is that the user WANT to open these attachements that contain viruses. They want to see the cute little movie or program that Uncle Bob sent them. It doesn't matter if they just have to click on the attachment of if they have to save it, mark it executable, and then click on it. Either way, they are going to do it because they want to see what the attachment is. The problem isn't that it's easy to open an attachment but that the user doesn't understand why it could be dangerous to open it. Adding a step or 2 to the process won't help solve the actual problem.
Well, the big difference I see is that there was no distribution in the Sony case. It allowed someone to make a copy, that's all. Grokster does not allow you to make a copy, it allows you to distribute copies to a theoretically unlimited amount of people. You're computer allows you to make a copy of a DVD (and I believe the jury is still out whether making a copy for yourself is legal). Grokster allows you to distribute that copy to other people.
Plus, even if the Sony case had covered distribution, the scale is different which makes the cases different. Making a degrading copy that can be given to one person is different than making a perfect copy that can be given to an unlimited amount of people. Scale does make a difference in the law, which is why stealing 5 dollars is a different crime than stealing 5 million dollars.
The main thing here is that he didn't point out bugs in software, he published code that would take advantage of these bugs. For all the people making the car comparison, he didn't notice a problem that would let you unlock a car without the key, he made something that would take advantage of the problem and let you unlock any car without the key. There's a big difference between publishing bugs you find, and actually publishing code that will take advantage of the bug. Even example exploit code serves as a blueprint for any person who wants to modify it to do something worse with it.
I have no problem with saying there is a bug in software and giving information about it. I do have a problem with someone releasing code that take advantage of said bug.
No, wouldn't use an MS product to run an nuke plant or airport. Of course I wouldn't use Linux or any OSS either. I would use something specifically designed for that purpose and extremely well tested for that purpose. Of course that doesn't prove anything one way or another. Windows crashes. Linux crashes. Software crashes. OF course when is happens to MS people take pride in the fact when it crashes, and when it happens to OSS people say "but it doesn't crash as much as MS".
But this would fall easily into aiding and abetting a crime. It is illegal for me to make a directory of drug dealers and encourage people to come see me so I can give them the name and number of the dealer closest to them. Same thing if I kept up with everyone selling stolen property and pointed people to the best place to get a stolen stereo. So why would keeping track of where to get stolen movies (and let's not argue semantics, you can call them borrowed or shared or whatever you want) and directing people to them be legal? Being a go between in a crime is illegal, and this isn't any different.
You steal a Ford or you steal a Ferrari, is it the same crime?
Should the value of the car change the sentence?
Yes, the value of the car should change the sentence. If I steal $5, should I get the same sentence as if I stole $10,000? Of course not, because the scale of the crime is different. These people didn't try to steal 1 credit card number, or even a thousand cc#s. They tried to steal an infinite amount of numbers. If this program hadn't been caught, they would have had access to every single card number to go through Lowes. That is a HUGE amount of numbers. So yes, they should be punished more than someone who tried to steal1 number, because it is an entirely different class of crime.
You are right that most things on a computer are not intuitive, but dragging the disk drive to the trash to eject the disk is non-sensical. The trash icon has a specific connotation, that it gets rid of things. That is where you put things you no longer want or need. To drag the disk drive to the trash icon to most people would imply you are either deleting the disk itself or the files on the disk. The action isn't just intuitive, it is counter to what you would expect to happen. It would be like saying "to run that file in windows, drag it over the start button", sure, technically it can be rationalized to be correct, but it is not what anyone would expect to happened based on how the icon operates.
But the same can be done with pen and paper. I can write a letter and sign your name at the bottom. This is why it is determined in a court of law where all the facts can be shown and weighed.
The other option is that anything can said on the internet, no matter the truthfulness or intent of it. I could put up a website about how zerguy is a child molesting crack addict and make sure everyone you know reads it. I could ruin your life with allegations I know are false, and there would be nothing you could do about it.
Except I would have paid, but didn't have to. If I had not been able to download that movie, I would have rented it or watched it on PPV. I didn't do either because I downloaded it and watched it. They lost revenue because I was able to download it instead of watching it another way. Not everyone purchases movies, many people rent them, see them in theatres, or watch them on PPV. This is where the money is lost because people can download the movie. Sure, the hardcore people will still buy the movie, and the apathetic people who never would have bought it still won't, but there is ahuge portion of people in the middle who want to see the movie, and will pay for it if they have to, but would rather see it for free.
Actually, the middle ground does exist. I have downloaded movies that I was on the fence about seeing. I have then not rented or bought the movie because I already saw it and it didn't impress me enough to see it again. But they certainly lost at the very least a rental, if not a movie ticket from me being able to download the movie. I know many people who saw the Matrix Reloaded by downloading it and hated it. While they had little hope for the movie and had heard the terrible reviews, they took the time and effort to find and download a good copy of it, and keep the copy after they had watched it. These people would have seen the movie if they couldn't download it, regardless of how they felt afterward. If you care enough to find and download the movie and keep a copy using your disk space, there is a good chance you would have at least rented the movie or watched it on PPV.
And don't worry, they are going after the people who mint and sell bootlegs (just as they have been for years). But just because they are going after them doesn't mean they should ignore you while you trade movies with other people online. Having someone worse than you in no way makes what you are doing any better.
As a Cloudmaker (the group that participated in the AI game now known as The Beast) I was disappointed by the I Love Bees "game". While the story was certainly interesting, and that is what kept me in it for as long as I was, the game aspect seemed to be sorely lacking. Almost everything was taking bits of text or audio that was given to people then figuring out how to assemble them so that they make sense. It was less of a game, and more of a story that the reader had to assemble from parts. Sure, those parts were scattered around through different readers, but there really wasn't much of a challenge. A large part of the draw of The Beast for me was the actual puzzle aspect. Figuring out what answers Eliza wanted. Having to take chess moves, enter them into a chess program to find the best counter-move, and then have that be the password. Puzzles that forced huge amounts of people to brainstorm together to come up with the answers.
I Love Bees may be a good marketing tool. And it may be a good story. But it failed as a game for me.
The best solution is the simplest, why do they have administrator access to install this stuff? While my environemnt isn't as large (only around 350 systems) I have almost no problems with spyware, because the average user doesn't have administrator access. The average user doesn't need administrator access, and if they do, you are doing something wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
The browser's "user agent" header sent to a general interest site like Google would seem a far better way. Admittedly that would be skewed by Mac users using being "forced" to access Google from Windows in a work environment, but still.
Why would this skew the results? Don't corporate isntallations count as installations?
This number seems like a lot of bunk. 16% of people say what? They don't worry about viruses? Or they can't get them? From the summary (and not the article, so I have even less faith in info in the summary that isn't even backed up in the article) it could mean 16% are running DOS, so they aren't worrying about viruses. Yeah for bunk data!
Why should we offer people money to recycle something when it will cost money to recycle it? If recycling is truly cost effective and helps, it should pay for itself (such as with aluminum recycling). Most recycling costs money, which means not only is it not saving money, it also is costing energy (which comes from non-renewable sources such as coal or oil).
If you want to recycle, that's great. But why should we encourage people by paying them to do something that costs us money to begin with?
He wasn't "forced" to resign, he chose to resign. The administration explained the pressure they were receiving, and when he heard about this, he CHOSE to resign to help the university avoid the possible consequences. They didn't threaten to fire him if he didn't resign, he chose to resign to help the university.
I really get sick of saying this, but it's true, even when you it's a favorable outcome for your side. So the show was pirated and became popular, that in no way means it became popular because it was pirated. Even without the piracy, it may have become just as popular, because it's a good show (I'm assuming here, since I haven't seen it). If it had done poorly, would the cause be that it was pirated? There is no more to say the show did well because of piracy anymore than to say it did well because Coke with Lime came out at the same time. Two things happened, but they may not be realted at all, even if you want to think they are.
Cease and desist letters are basically a warning. You send them to the person saying you believe what they are doing is illegal and you would like them to stop, and if they don't stop you may take legal action. They are basically a way to settle things without suing. Of course oftentimes they are used more as a threat than a warning ("Do what we want or we will sue you for millions of dollars") in the hopes the people would rather stop doing whatever it is they are doing than go through a court case they may or may not win (but will cost money either way).
In short, there is nothing wrong with C&D letters. They should be the first step someone takes when they find someone infringing their copyright, trademark or the like. But they shouldn't be used as a way to scare people away from legal activities, which they often are.
Of course this ignores the purpose of PDFs, which is to have a standard format to ensure the document appears how it should on all platforms. Sure, you can reformat everything for your web site, and hope it shows up how you want it on the other end in whatever odd browser and resolution the end user is using, or if presentation is important, you can make a PDF and make sure it appears correctly.
I'm no Intel Fanboy, but let's look at points one and two, shall we. The third point was bad originally and the response even worse.
intel fanboy myth 1 AMD can't pump out the volume Dell needs Bzzt incorrect, AMD won't BEND Over, Kiss dell's shiny metal ass, and ship 95% of it's early production volume to dell so dell can 'trump' competitors. Intel has an entire devision dedicated to bending over backwards and kissing ass.
So AMD can't ship the amounts Dell wants without hurting other places, and Intel can? Intel may have a division dedicated to "kissing ass" as you say, but that means they can supply dell the chips they need when they want them and still supply other places as well. AMD can't do this, or simply won't, which still means they can't do it, just they willfully can't do it.
Intel fanboy myth 2 AMD processors are less stable Bzzt wrong again, AMD CPUs have had as clean or better a 'stability' track record as Intel. 'but my windows crashes more using amd' This isn't a CPU issue, it's a software vendor issue, usually related to 3rd party drivers for sound cards etc, although if you buy a cheap chipset, instead of a quality one, the chipset could bring stability issues into the system, but plenty of tiwanese intel chipsets can be had too, and can cause as much system instability.
So using AMD processors can cause more crashes than using Intel processors. It may be the fault of third party drivers, but that still means systems with AMD processors are more unstable than system with Intel processors, which is a bad thing. You may be willing to blow this off but the average user isn't. Just like people blame Windows for crahses caused by programs, spyware, viruses, and third party drivers, they blame AMD when a system with their processors crashes because it has the processor in it. Sure, it's Joe Blow Companies fault for the bad drivers, but they don't crash in an Intel machine.
No, it's happening because people want things cheaply. The companies want to make money, but they realize if they raise their prices less people will buy what they are selling. So they look to other sources of revenue. Cable could be completely without commercials, but to do so they would have to double or triple their monthly fee (at least), which would drive people away. We can get rid of advertising and pay more up front or pay less up front and get advertising. Most people would choose the latter.
I don't know what the hell you're doing on your system, but I run my system quite fine not running as admin. For the times I do need admin, I just use RunAs. The whole myth about having to run as admin is just that, a myth. Yes, there are some programs that require you to run as admin, and those programs should be fixed. It is not a vulnerability in Windows if a program requires admin access.
What you have stolen is defined by the worth of the object. And worth is defined by how much someone is willing to pay for it. If we assume that a new care is only worth the cost of materials, then the Mona Lisa is worth nothing, because that is about what is would cost to reproduce even new. An antique may have cost 30 cents to make in 1850, but is that all it is worth now? Certainly not.
A CD sells for $15 or so. Yes, the material may only be worth $2, but the worth is $15, because that is what people will pay for it. Saying a CD isn't worht $15 is obviously wrong, because many people (in fact, I would guess most people) will pay that for it, and that is how you measure worth.
But you certainly go after someone who is the go between for the person selling bootleg CDs. If my job is to find people who want bootleg CDs and take them to the guy selling them, then I am most certainly involved and will be prosecuted. If the job of my page is to find people who want bootleg MP3 and take them to the MP3 (not even the page or site the MP3 is on, but the MP3 itself) how am I not involved?
While Microsoft certainly helped in the downfall of Netscape, most of the death of Netscape was because they didn't release any new versions. I used to love Netscape, but after version4 (I think it was 4) there was literally years before they released another version. In this time, IE not only caught up to Netscape, but far exceeded it in quality. IE being free certainly helped, but even if it had cost the same as Netscape, it still would have beaten it to a bloody pulp, because Netscape quit upgrading it's product. MS has doen a lot of things, but Netscape is more responsible for their death than MS is.
2. Unix systems use a wide range of email applications and web browsers, almost all of which have fewer holes than IE/OE. No Unix mail client will execute an attachment for you; you have to save it, enable the execution flag, and then run it yourself.
How does not executing an attachment make it more secure? All it does is make it less usable. What people fail to understand is that the user WANT to open these attachements that contain viruses. They want to see the cute little movie or program that Uncle Bob sent them. It doesn't matter if they just have to click on the attachment of if they have to save it, mark it executable, and then click on it. Either way, they are going to do it because they want to see what the attachment is. The problem isn't that it's easy to open an attachment but that the user doesn't understand why it could be dangerous to open it. Adding a step or 2 to the process won't help solve the actual problem.
Well, the big difference I see is that there was no distribution in the Sony case. It allowed someone to make a copy, that's all. Grokster does not allow you to make a copy, it allows you to distribute copies to a theoretically unlimited amount of people. You're computer allows you to make a copy of a DVD (and I believe the jury is still out whether making a copy for yourself is legal). Grokster allows you to distribute that copy to other people.
Plus, even if the Sony case had covered distribution, the scale is different which makes the cases different. Making a degrading copy that can be given to one person is different than making a perfect copy that can be given to an unlimited amount of people. Scale does make a difference in the law, which is why stealing 5 dollars is a different crime than stealing 5 million dollars.
The main thing here is that he didn't point out bugs in software, he published code that would take advantage of these bugs. For all the people making the car comparison, he didn't notice a problem that would let you unlock a car without the key, he made something that would take advantage of the problem and let you unlock any car without the key. There's a big difference between publishing bugs you find, and actually publishing code that will take advantage of the bug. Even example exploit code serves as a blueprint for any person who wants to modify it to do something worse with it.
I have no problem with saying there is a bug in software and giving information about it. I do have a problem with someone releasing code that take advantage of said bug.
No, wouldn't use an MS product to run an nuke plant or airport. Of course I wouldn't use Linux or any OSS either. I would use something specifically designed for that purpose and extremely well tested for that purpose. Of course that doesn't prove anything one way or another. Windows crashes. Linux crashes. Software crashes. OF course when is happens to MS people take pride in the fact when it crashes, and when it happens to OSS people say "but it doesn't crash as much as MS".
But this would fall easily into aiding and abetting a crime. It is illegal for me to make a directory of drug dealers and encourage people to come see me so I can give them the name and number of the dealer closest to them. Same thing if I kept up with everyone selling stolen property and pointed people to the best place to get a stolen stereo. So why would keeping track of where to get stolen movies (and let's not argue semantics, you can call them borrowed or shared or whatever you want) and directing people to them be legal? Being a go between in a crime is illegal, and this isn't any different.
You steal a Ford or you steal a Ferrari,
is it the same crime?
Should the value of the car change the sentence?
Yes, the value of the car should change the sentence. If I steal $5, should I get the same sentence as if I stole $10,000? Of course not, because the scale of the crime is different. These people didn't try to steal 1 credit card number, or even a thousand cc#s. They tried to steal an infinite amount of numbers. If this program hadn't been caught, they would have had access to every single card number to go through Lowes. That is a HUGE amount of numbers. So yes, they should be punished more than someone who tried to steal1 number, because it is an entirely different class of crime.
You are right that most things on a computer are not intuitive, but dragging the disk drive to the trash to eject the disk is non-sensical. The trash icon has a specific connotation, that it gets rid of things. That is where you put things you no longer want or need. To drag the disk drive to the trash icon to most people would imply you are either deleting the disk itself or the files on the disk. The action isn't just intuitive, it is counter to what you would expect to happen. It would be like saying "to run that file in windows, drag it over the start button", sure, technically it can be rationalized to be correct, but it is not what anyone would expect to happened based on how the icon operates.
But the same can be done with pen and paper. I can write a letter and sign your name at the bottom. This is why it is determined in a court of law where all the facts can be shown and weighed.
The other option is that anything can said on the internet, no matter the truthfulness or intent of it. I could put up a website about how zerguy is a child molesting crack addict and make sure everyone you know reads it. I could ruin your life with allegations I know are false, and there would be nothing you could do about it.
Except I would have paid, but didn't have to. If I had not been able to download that movie, I would have rented it or watched it on PPV. I didn't do either because I downloaded it and watched it. They lost revenue because I was able to download it instead of watching it another way. Not everyone purchases movies, many people rent them, see them in theatres, or watch them on PPV. This is where the money is lost because people can download the movie. Sure, the hardcore people will still buy the movie, and the apathetic people who never would have bought it still won't, but there is ahuge portion of people in the middle who want to see the movie, and will pay for it if they have to, but would rather see it for free.
Actually, the middle ground does exist. I have downloaded movies that I was on the fence about seeing. I have then not rented or bought the movie because I already saw it and it didn't impress me enough to see it again. But they certainly lost at the very least a rental, if not a movie ticket from me being able to download the movie. I know many people who saw the Matrix Reloaded by downloading it and hated it. While they had little hope for the movie and had heard the terrible reviews, they took the time and effort to find and download a good copy of it, and keep the copy after they had watched it. These people would have seen the movie if they couldn't download it, regardless of how they felt afterward. If you care enough to find and download the movie and keep a copy using your disk space, there is a good chance you would have at least rented the movie or watched it on PPV.
And don't worry, they are going after the people who mint and sell bootlegs (just as they have been for years). But just because they are going after them doesn't mean they should ignore you while you trade movies with other people online. Having someone worse than you in no way makes what you are doing any better.
For my thoughts on this issue, please head to dumbasa.post. There's lots of iCANN info there.
As a Cloudmaker (the group that participated in the AI game now known as The Beast) I was disappointed by the I Love Bees "game". While the story was certainly interesting, and that is what kept me in it for as long as I was, the game aspect seemed to be sorely lacking. Almost everything was taking bits of text or audio that was given to people then figuring out how to assemble them so that they make sense. It was less of a game, and more of a story that the reader had to assemble from parts. Sure, those parts were scattered around through different readers, but there really wasn't much of a challenge. A large part of the draw of The Beast for me was the actual puzzle aspect. Figuring out what answers Eliza wanted. Having to take chess moves, enter them into a chess program to find the best counter-move, and then have that be the password. Puzzles that forced huge amounts of people to brainstorm together to come up with the answers.
I Love Bees may be a good marketing tool. And it may be a good story. But it failed as a game for me.
The best solution is the simplest, why do they have administrator access to install this stuff? While my environemnt isn't as large (only around 350 systems) I have almost no problems with spyware, because the average user doesn't have administrator access. The average user doesn't need administrator access, and if they do, you are doing something wrong.