At that point, the ISP can either: [several non-optimal remedies presented]
Or, they could do the right thing, and just reprogram their routers to dynamically bandwidth-limit the 'hogs' whenever there is bandwidth contention. Doing this would avoid pissing off their customers, save them lots of time and money that would have otherwise been spent harrassing their clientele, and solve the hogging problem.
... but oh yeah, they're a cable company. They couldn't come up with a technical solution if you wrapped it around a gold brick and beat them with it.
Except this doesn't solve the problem that was presented, which was that there is a point where high bandwidth users are being subsidized by everyone else because they are using so much bandwidth that the ISP is losing money. You solution keeps bandwidth for other people during peek times, but it doesn't either limit the bandwidth, or get the bandwidth paid for.
I find it amazing that a few weeks ago there was the article about another ISP raising prices unilaterally and everyone was in arms about it. Now Rogers try to just raise it on the people that use the bandwidth and everyone is up in arms about it. Someone has to pay for the bandwidth used by hogs, and these are the two options. ISPs aren't giving away bandwidths, they are trying to make money.
I would never rent a car. I think it is overly expensive. So I can legally go to their lot, take a car, use it for a few hours, and then return it, correct? They have lost nothing, as they can still rent it (it obviosuly wasn't being rented or it wouldn't have been in the lot), and I woulnd't have paid for it anyway. As long as I return it with the same amount of gas, and do no damage to it, I am perfectly within my rights, correct?
No, because I am still stealing the car. I have no rights to use that car because it does not belong to me. you have no rights to use that software, because it does no belong to you. You have the right to download the trial only because it has been granted to you by the author. just because you wouldn't pay for something doesn't mean you have all rights to use it.
I think that the mistake that these guys are making, and they will find it out pretty soon, is that the people who pirate their software will not use their software if they where forced to pay for it, The reality is that people who pirate their software are an assent in mindshare.
The people are appling the same logic the gambler uses when he curses himself for not betting $100 instend of $10 think that he has just lost $90.
All that is going to happen is that their punters are going to go somewhere else.
Btw someone will crack this is ten seconds anyway.
To some extent you are right. But many of the people that pirate software do so because they need that software. I'm not saying they need that particular package, but they need something that does those functions. Not everyone that pirates Adobe Photoshop needs Photoshop, but they need some kind of graphics tool. Many of these people if they can't pirate a tool will purchase a tool that does the same thing, but is less expensive. They may not buy Photoshop, but they'll buy PaintShop Pro. Probably 50% of pirates pirate because they need software that does something, if they can't pirate, they will have to purchase, and this is a good thing.
If someone bought an e-mail address from anyone other than the owner of that e-mail address, then they are purchasing stolen goods. A purchase of stolen goods conveys no legitimate property right (and, if you knew that the goods were stolen -- which is the case when someone purchases a list of e-mail addresses stolen from the Net -- the purchase makes the purchaser an accessory after the fact).
And this is exactly where it gets silly. If your email address is available to the public, then you are giving it away for people to use. If some people send you something you don't want, they haven't "stolen" your address, you gave it to them, by fact you put in out for public consumption. If I look up your phone number in the phone book and call you, I haven't stolen your phone number. If I then sell your number to someone else, they haven't stolen it either. Same goes with your address. If I drive by your house, right down your address, and send you mail, I haven't stolen anything. If something is offered for public use (such as an email address), that goes for the entire public. And yes, email addresses are for public use, that is why there is no authorization needed to send mail to someone. If you want to authorize people before they can talk to you, use ICQ, not email.
Opt-out of how many messages? One person estimates [robertstech.com] that, should bulk email become an accepted method of advertising, we could expect to see on the order of 300,000 spams per month per address.
I don't have time to opt-out of 300,000/month. Do you?
Except that even he admits he is making up those numbers. He is assuming 1/2 of all small businesses will spam, which has no basis in fact. He also is assuming that there is no opt-out program.
Asume that all spam has an opt-out program and assume that all people use this opt-out program. That means soon there would be no spam because everyone would be on the opt-out list, except people who wanted it. That's as plausible as his made up scenario.
Besides the issue of using your resources, spam typically is sent through open SMTP relays, SOCKS or HTTP proxies (and thus the spammers are stealing other people's bandwidth to send the spam), and uses forged return-paths and from addresses, so bounces are typically directed at legitimate networks and/or mail-server HDDs. Spam runs have been documented in several cases to have overloaded companies' networks. If you were paying for bandwidth by the megabyte, a spam run with bounces to your mail servers could definitely cost you. There's definitely theft involved in spam.
That isn't the type of spam being discussed here. You think MSN is sending their spam through an open relay somewhere? As I said, there should be legitimate ways to opt-out and legitimate reply addresses. Most people think fo spam as any unwanted email, including getting your email from a list that they bought. I have no problem with this as long as there is a way to opt-out of it (like telemarketers). The type of spam you are talking about is completely separate from what the actual article is talking about.
As much as I dislike spam, saying it is theft because it uses your resources is silly. By that theory, if I send you an email using the address you have listed at/., without first asking your permission, I am stealing from you. Email is made so you don't have to have permission to use it. If it's theft for spammers to send you email without you asking, why isn't it theft for anyone else to do it?
I think spam would be fine as long as there is a working way to opt-out. If I get something and am able to say "don't send me anymore", and it works and they don't, then I have no problem with it.
I can already see the posts piling up about how this proves that the government is in MS's pockets. I hate to break the news to you, but all this proves is that everyone has to follow the laws. I don't like the decision, but if the law states that only trials involving the feds are open, then that is what it states. You can't ignore this law and still try to punish people (or MS in this case) for ignoring laws. I don't like the law and think it should be changed, but I can't fault MS for using the law. If we expect MS to follow the law (which is what this is all about) we can't complain when the follow the law, even if it is to their own advantage.
If Amazon had an outlet in Iran that was selling them, then yes, they could. The difference is that there was an American company selling the product for them (so it was actually marketed to Americans). Yes, technically they only sold the keys, but without the key, it's useless. That's like saying "I only sell the pages of the book, Russians sell the cover, so it's not bound by American laws." If you use an Americans company to sell your software to Americans, you become bound by American laws.
fail to see a single incidence the BSD code modified and closed the has hurt the BSD community. Well if we talk about software being taken from BSD, used, and the source dissappears for ever, there is probably no better example than Microsoft [microsoft.com]. Their network stack owes a lot to BSD, but has any of it been passed back? No.
This isn't an example of someone or something being hurt. Lack of gain doesn't equal injury. Nothing has been gained from MS not releasing their code, but nothing has been lost. Just because they didn't help you by releasing their code, that doesn't mean they have hurt you.
While I agree the terms aren't all that great, the changes are both good and bad, not the horrible tragedy the article makes them out to be. Cable is going up to "full speed" (with no explanation of what that is), and is probably done because of the restrictions with DSL. It's a lot easy to get cable speed up high than DSL, and I can't blame them for emphasizing DSL over cable (as long as they offer both, who cares?).
The lowest plan will include move MB and be cheaper on DSL (while cable prices stay the same). The extra MB charge will also drop. This is nothing but good.
The 1GB plan is a bad value no matter which service you use apparently.
The 3GB plan will be increasing by $6 for DSL and $15 for cable, but the excess MB prices is dropping. Seems this is worse for cable, not DSL.
The 5GB and 10GB is staying the same except the excess MB charge is dropping. Seems this is good for everyone.
Seems like DSL is actually getting off pretty good here. Yes, they don't get the "full speed", but they get a price break at the lowest level, and the one service that is going up is going up less than cable. And all excess MB charges are going down for both services. Maybe it's because I'm not from Australia and don't know anything about Telstra, but this seems like a more toward being better, not worse.
By this logic, accepting resumes by email is bad, because not everyone has email or an electronic version of their resume. If the company uses Word, it is completely acceptable for them to expect you (who wishes something of the company, ie them to give you a job) to comply with what they use. Don't have word? Print out your resume and send it the old fashioned way. If you are asking to be employed by a company, you have to play by their rules.
Well if I was making this decision, I would state that ALL code MUST be released GPL AND then the university itself can decide if it would like to release it under any other license. Some code would be released under no other licenses (not much I would suspect) while most code would probably also be released under some other licenses such as BSD (if the uni doesn't want money) or a licensing deal to indivdual applicants where the university would charge them to give them the software under another license. If this happened ALL software developed in any university would be available for all to use provided that they redistribute any modifications they make to the original code, and each university could decide either globally or per project if they wished to try and make money from it by allowing other uses of the code. If it is release PD or BSD only than the university cannot make any money from it. Say that MS wants some code written in a Uni, but they aren't willing to take it under the GPL, then they will have to crawl up to the university and say "we would like a XXX licensed copy of the software, what can we do for you to get it?". The universities should have the power to control how money is made of their work (and to take a share if they wish) but they should also have to give as open access to the information/code as possible while not losing the right to control proprietary money making off their software. How much could TCP-IP have made by now?
The problem is that the GPL is not truely free. It is "free" with restrictions. People seem to forget there are actual individuals who want to put out non-GPL software, as well as corps. If something is paid for with public money, it should be FREE, that is free for anyone. That includes people who want to GPL, people who don't want to GPL, and corporations (since they pay taxes as well, they have to be considered). I think the GPL is a fine license if you want to use it, but people shouldn't be forced into using it. If this software is paid for with public money, it should be free for anyone to use in any application they want, and that should include releasing closed-course software. The GPL just doesn't allow that kind of freedom.
This article seems to be stuck on the whole "they should release it open source like Linux" idea. I agree that Universities shouldn't be privatizing their ideas and making gobs of money off them by selling them to private interests. But I think they should give them away so everyone can use them, and the only way to do that is to make them public domain (or possibly something like the BSD license). I know everyone will say the GPL is the best way to go, but as they article said, this is for the public good, and that includes people who don't want to use the GPL. If you want to use this code is a closed source app you wouldn't be able to benefit from this (and that includes individuals as well as corporations). I think if they are going to release it, make it PD or BSD, that way the greatest number of people can benefit from it. GPL is a good license, but it's not the freedom something like this requires. This requires the greatest amount of freedom, not freedom with restrictions that your stuff has to be free as well.
This stuff doesn't surprise me at all. Companies are in the business of making money. If they report every intrusion that happens, that means other people find out about them (potentially). If people find out, they may be less likely to use that company (or their website or whatever) than if they believe there was never a compromise. I think companies should be forced to report it when there is a compromise that includes user information or something like that, but if it is just a web-site defacement (with no possibility of anything else) I would probably not let it get out either. Add onto that fact that some PHB automatically will assume it is the admins fault, even if they were told not to patch it/didn't have enough money to do it right/were ignored on their suggestions, that measn the less people who know about the exploit, the better off you are. I don't agree with the policy, but it is certainly understandable.
While I tend to agree with your post somewhat, I can think of a few places where piracy negatively affects software. First, if it's only wrong to pirate software for profit, where do things such as games fit in? Obviously, I'm not playing Wizardry 8 for profit, so does that make it okay for me to pirate it? What about small helper apps? Is anti-cirus software okay, since we all need it, and I don't use it to make any money?
Second, I think piracy hurts small companies a lot more than large ones. When someone needs to make a few changes to some pictures they took, what do they do? They d/l a copy of Photoshop and use that. You are right in thinking this doesn't hurt Adobe much, since the person probably couldn't afford to buy Photoshop to begin with. It does hurt Paint Shop Pro (or another Photoshop competitor). Instead of paying $700 for Photoshop, this person could have bought Paint Shop Pro, which has most of the features of Photoshop, and used that. But since they priated a copy of Photoshop, they didn't buy anything at all. This is where I think piracy hurts the most. Not only does it take some money away from the large companies, but it keeps people from trying the small companies and buying them.
Well, we can seperate the music vs. software question right off, because they are two completely different sets of circumstances. The questions at the base may be similar, but the situations of the two are completely different.
Now, for the people saying the only people making money off software are CEOs, I have to ask if you have ever worked in a commercial development environment? Are you saying all the developers working for MS and Oracle aren't getting paid? All the developers working on Quake 4 aren't really getting paid? Last I heard, the developers working in these companies were making quite a nice living (it may not be what you think they should be making, but it certainly isn't nothing).
People seem to forget there is more to making something than material assets. The main assets of a software company is personel. That is where the majority of their money is spent, whether it be for R&D people, coders, bug-testers, marketing people, etc. Believe it or not, this all costs money and lots of it. So yes, that CD full of software only costs $3 to make and ship, but it costs a lot more to develop and support. So rationalizing stealing something (and yes, taking something you don't have a right to is stealing, whether it is digital or material) by saying that the wrong people are making the money is a joke. If you don't like how a company works, you take a moral stand and you don't use their product. You can claim stealing it is a moral stand, but all it is is stealing cloaked in a veil of righteousness.
Seriously, to register a derogatory domain name and point it to someone else's webpage is effectively slander"
No, slander is an oral act; you're thinking of libel.
Besides, if I say some brand "sucks", that is an opinion and certainly covered under the 1st amendment. If I put up a sign in my front yard that "Brand XYZ Sucks", I'm ALLOWED to do that, correct? Why does the web get a special set of rules?
It is closed to putting a sign that says "General Motors Sucks, this sign supported by Ford". The question isn't whether than can link to Ford's sight (I think they can), but whether they can do it in a way that suggests that Ford owns ans operates the profane website. If they just put a link to Ford.com on the page, I would say it is okay. But the sight pointed directly at ford.com (if I'm not mistaken). There is no way for an average person to know that Ford doesn't own the domain. Linking is okay, deceptive linking when it could harm a person or company is not.
My university (one of the top in the US, supposedly) just started teaching the intro CS class (for non-coders) using C#. Why? God only knows. They used to teach it in Java- they switched from Pascal very early on, which was probably a bad choice. But now Java is superbly well-documented, and becoming an industry standard. C# may become an industry standard, but only because MS is behind it. So now that course is essentially Windows-only. (The standard data structures and systems programming courses are, of course, still done on Unix- by now, of course, in the form of RedHat 7)
I have to agree with this. It is WAY to early to start using C# for anything other than experimenting with.NET. HEll, it's not even officially released and in use yet. Why you would use it for teaching purposes in a college at this stage is beyond me.
There are quite a few people who push Linux as the best and only solution. These people are dorks. However, most of us react more strongly to MS products being pushed as the best and only solutions because:
- MS software pricing is an obscenity.
- Linux companies haven't used illegal coercion to make their products the market leaders.
- Until recently, people did not choose Linux-based solutions simply because they had the word "Linux" in them.
- the possibility of single-vendor lock-in is virtually nonexistent for Linux.
You do realize that most of your points have very little, if anything, to do with what the best solution is?
-Pricing has some effect, but is usually far from the determing factor. If the best solution is more expensive, people will usually go with it because it still is the best solution.
-Whether or not MS or any Linux company has used illegal coercion has zero effect on whether they are the best solution. How they got to be the best doesn't change the fact they are the best solution for the job at that moment
-Why people don't (or didn't) choose Linux matters less than none. If Linux is the best solution, it should get chosen for that, not because people in general don't like Linux. Hell, people shouldn't choose MS because they dislike Linux either. The best should be chosen, period.
-Future lock-in does have some effect on the decision, but not a lot. Since this is something in the future, that could or could or could not happen, it has to be considered, but should be far from the deciding factor.
The biggest part of the decision should be decided by what is actually the best product for the job. In many companies, MS is the best solution, simply because that is what the company (both IT and non-IT know). If they knew other OSes, then those would probably be the best solution. No OS is right for every job. What is right should be based on the job, not on the OS.
In the end isn't stemming the flow of unwanted spam essentially the same thing [as the Great Firewall of China]?
No. In the case of the Great Firewall of China (and Saudi Arabia), a third party is attempting to block information people want. As such, the sheer number of minds applied to circumventing those artificial barriers all but assures they will be overcome.
Contrast with spam filtering, where a third party is attempting to block information people don't want, with the full support and agreement from said people. This makes the number of sociopaths trying to circumvent the barriers vanishingly small. Moreover, because people support the blocks, the number of people willing to report spammers who penetrate security is considerably higher (as opposed to the China/Saudi situation, where there's likely a silent agreement that the authorities are not informed when the barriers are breached).
But obviously some people want spam. Thsi stuff is profitable. IF it wasn't it would have ended a long time ago. Spammers may be slimy, but they aren't stupid. If it costs them 5 cents per email (which I am completely making up, it's probably lower, but for this arguement, we'll say 5 cents) and they only get an increase in hits and sales which equals out to 2 cents per email, they would quit doing it. It's like the X10 ads, everyone complains about how they hate them, but they work. When they started doing them, the traffic on their site skyrocketed. So some people obviously do want them, they use them. Same thing with spam. If no one wanted it, then no one would click on the link and give them money.
You car is nothing but bundled parts, but you can sell each part. why should software be different.
"This item part of a package. Not for resale" this doesn't apply to consumer resale, only business.
But this is consumer resale. Softman isn't a person, it is a company. This wasn't Joe Blow seeling off his used parts of Abode Photoshop suite, this was a company that purchased the suites specifically to resell them seperately.
Normally, I would say this is a good decision, but in this case I can't really support it. I agree you should be able to seel unused software. If you haven't opened it, you should be able to sell it. But if you look at this case, they are buying BUNDLED software, and then breaking it up and selling it. This has been illegal for normal good for many years. Notice all the stuff you buy that says "This item part of a package. Not for resale" or something there-abouts. Why should software be any different?
If you buy a copy of Adobe Photoshop, don't open it, and want to resell it, I'm right there with you. If you buy an Adobe package, take what you want from it, and sell the rest, I'm not down with that. This should be a case of standard rules applying to software as well as regular goods.
I can understand how the GPL can be seen as restrictive to corporations but I don't consider corporations to be a part of the public. The GPL is ideal if you mean to help human beings. If you want to benefit non human beings like corporations they you would have to go with BSD or something.
I say stick with the GPL it's better for the public.
Public Domain (or even the BSD license) isn't just about helping corporations. People seem to forget individuals put out closed source programs too. People seem willing to ignore these people who put out closed source products (maybe because they want to sell them later, or maybe they just aren't willing to share their code) and assume it's always big corps. The GPL (IMO) is used in a lot of cases specifically to try and exclude anyone that wants to be closed source. IT isn't about "helping people", it's about trying to get as many people to use open source as much as possible. If something is maybe "for the people", it shoudl be as free as possible. That means small developers, or even corporations, should be able to use it. The GPL stops them from doing this by replacing restrictions on what they can do with the code. If it's PD or BSD, everyone has the freedom to use it how they want. If someone wants to use it closed-source, they can. If you want to use it GPLed, you can. It's fairer for everyone.
in my mind, the eventual disposition of the IP rights depend on where the funding for the research came from. in public institutions, like state schools, this should be clear: they're public institutions, funded by public money, so the public should get the benefits. that's simply an evolution of the original concept of public educations: we give money to educational institutions so society as a whole can benefit. in private institutions, it's less clear, since the public money (almost all private universities still get lots of public money) is usually a minority. but lots of big companies help fund research in public schools and still expect to get the results, and that doesn't make sense.
I agree with this idea, but I don't think the GPL is the ideal way to go. If we REALLY want this stuff to be for the people, it should be public domain. The GPL places limits on what you can do with it (yes, I know it also gives you additional rights you normally wouldn't have, but it is still less than public domain). These things are really property of the people, and that means the people should be able to do anything they want with them, including use them in closed source software. Saying they should be free, as long as you follow these restrictions isn't really free. Universities shouldn't be in the business of open-source or closed-source software. They should be in the process of learning and discovery. They shouldn't advocate open or closed source.
Re:Stopping piracy
by WolfWithoutAClause on 08:30 AM November 24th, 2001 (Score:2)
(User #162946 Info) http://slashdot.org/
"But the average user (IMHO) does just the opposite."
That's begging the question, and I don't agree that is true, but even if it were, it might still be the case that the record company sales go up as a result of Napster and its ilk (and the only evidence I saw showed that Napster increased sales).
The point about these tools is that they allow more people who might not otherwise have heard the music to listen. If they like what they hear- they are more likely to buy. It's free advertising, and not only that, it's positive advertising (posvertising), rather than force-down-your-throat way (adversising).
What's better having an audience of 10 people of which 5 buy or 20 people of which 6 buy?
I agree that Napster may still increase cd sales. There is no real evidence either way. The evidence you saw showed that record sales increased, and Napster existed. There is no way to draw a correlation between the two without a control group (of which there is none). The record companies will show you data that says record sales increased less than they would have without Napster. That is CD sales have been increasing 10% a year, and since Napster they are only increasing 5% a year (the numbers of complete figments, I am just using them as an example). This doesn't prove Napster is hurting CD sales either (for the same reason I stated before).
My main point is that everything seems to point to the anecdotal evidence of people buying more cds because of Napster, but most of the evidence I see points the other way. This is to say it has to be that way, that's just my opinion. I see as many people, most probably more, getting their music from the internet instead of paying for it. and many people who find new music on the net use the net to get more of it. I know I have done that personally. You find a new band you like, and it's a lot easier to hop online and download the rest of the CD rather than going and spending $20 for it. Again, not everyone does this, but I believe it is a majority.
You are assuming that the majority of people who find music on the net go and buy the CD. I see the evidence pointing the other way. They get their music for free of the net, and when they find a cool new band on the net, they download them also off the net instead of buying it. But there's no way to say for sure, since there is no control group.
Slashdot Mirror
At that point, the ISP can either: [several non-optimal remedies presented]
Or, they could do the right thing, and just reprogram their routers to dynamically bandwidth-limit the 'hogs' whenever there is bandwidth contention. Doing this would avoid pissing off their customers, save them lots of time and money that would have otherwise been spent harrassing their clientele, and solve the hogging problem.
... but oh yeah, they're a cable company. They couldn't come up with a technical solution if you wrapped it around a gold brick and beat them with it.
Except this doesn't solve the problem that was presented, which was that there is a point where high bandwidth users are being subsidized by everyone else because they are using so much bandwidth that the ISP is losing money. You solution keeps bandwidth for other people during peek times, but it doesn't either limit the bandwidth, or get the bandwidth paid for.
I find it amazing that a few weeks ago there was the article about another ISP raising prices unilaterally and everyone was in arms about it. Now Rogers try to just raise it on the people that use the bandwidth and everyone is up in arms about it. Someone has to pay for the bandwidth used by hogs, and these are the two options. ISPs aren't giving away bandwidths, they are trying to make money.
I would never rent a car. I think it is overly expensive. So I can legally go to their lot, take a car, use it for a few hours, and then return it, correct? They have lost nothing, as they can still rent it (it obviosuly wasn't being rented or it wouldn't have been in the lot), and I woulnd't have paid for it anyway. As long as I return it with the same amount of gas, and do no damage to it, I am perfectly within my rights, correct?
No, because I am still stealing the car. I have no rights to use that car because it does not belong to me. you have no rights to use that software, because it does no belong to you. You have the right to download the trial only because it has been granted to you by the author. just because you wouldn't pay for something doesn't mean you have all rights to use it.
I think that the mistake that these guys are making, and they will find it out pretty soon, is that the people who pirate their software will not use their software if they where forced to pay for it, The reality is that people who pirate their software are an assent in mindshare.
The people are appling the same logic the gambler uses when he curses himself for not betting $100 instend of $10 think that he has just lost $90.
All that is going to happen is that their punters are going to go somewhere else.
Btw someone will crack this is ten seconds anyway.
To some extent you are right. But many of the people that pirate software do so because they need that software. I'm not saying they need that particular package, but they need something that does those functions. Not everyone that pirates Adobe Photoshop needs Photoshop, but they need some kind of graphics tool. Many of these people if they can't pirate a tool will purchase a tool that does the same thing, but is less expensive. They may not buy Photoshop, but they'll buy PaintShop Pro. Probably 50% of pirates pirate because they need software that does something, if they can't pirate, they will have to purchase, and this is a good thing.
If someone bought an e-mail address from anyone other than the owner of that e-mail address, then they are purchasing stolen goods. A purchase of stolen goods conveys no legitimate property right (and, if you knew that the goods were stolen -- which is the case when someone purchases a list of e-mail addresses stolen from the Net -- the purchase makes the purchaser an accessory after the fact).
And this is exactly where it gets silly. If your email address is available to the public, then you are giving it away for people to use. If some people send you something you don't want, they haven't "stolen" your address, you gave it to them, by fact you put in out for public consumption. If I look up your phone number in the phone book and call you, I haven't stolen your phone number. If I then sell your number to someone else, they haven't stolen it either. Same goes with your address. If I drive by your house, right down your address, and send you mail, I haven't stolen anything. If something is offered for public use (such as an email address), that goes for the entire public. And yes, email addresses are for public use, that is why there is no authorization needed to send mail to someone. If you want to authorize people before they can talk to you, use ICQ, not email.
Opt-out of how many messages? One person estimates [robertstech.com] that, should bulk email become an accepted method of advertising, we could expect to see on the order of 300,000 spams per month per address. /month. Do you?
I don't have time to opt-out of 300,000
Except that even he admits he is making up those numbers. He is assuming 1/2 of all small businesses will spam, which has no basis in fact. He also is assuming that there is no opt-out program.
Asume that all spam has an opt-out program and assume that all people use this opt-out program. That means soon there would be no spam because everyone would be on the opt-out list, except people who wanted it. That's as plausible as his made up scenario.
Besides the issue of using your resources, spam typically is sent through open SMTP relays, SOCKS or HTTP proxies (and thus the spammers are stealing other people's bandwidth to send the spam), and uses forged return-paths and from addresses, so bounces are typically directed at legitimate networks and/or mail-server HDDs. Spam runs have been documented in several cases to have overloaded companies' networks. If you were paying for bandwidth by the megabyte, a spam run with bounces to your mail servers could definitely cost you. There's definitely theft involved in spam.
That isn't the type of spam being discussed here. You think MSN is sending their spam through an open relay somewhere? As I said, there should be legitimate ways to opt-out and legitimate reply addresses. Most people think fo spam as any unwanted email, including getting your email from a list that they bought. I have no problem with this as long as there is a way to opt-out of it (like telemarketers). The type of spam you are talking about is completely separate from what the actual article is talking about.
As much as I dislike spam, saying it is theft because it uses your resources is silly. By that theory, if I send you an email using the address you have listed at /., without first asking your permission, I am stealing from you. Email is made so you don't have to have permission to use it. If it's theft for spammers to send you email without you asking, why isn't it theft for anyone else to do it?
I think spam would be fine as long as there is a working way to opt-out. If I get something and am able to say "don't send me anymore", and it works and they don't, then I have no problem with it.
I can already see the posts piling up about how this proves that the government is in MS's pockets. I hate to break the news to you, but all this proves is that everyone has to follow the laws. I don't like the decision, but if the law states that only trials involving the feds are open, then that is what it states. You can't ignore this law and still try to punish people (or MS in this case) for ignoring laws. I don't like the law and think it should be changed, but I can't fault MS for using the law. If we expect MS to follow the law (which is what this is all about) we can't complain when the follow the law, even if it is to their own advantage.
If Amazon had an outlet in Iran that was selling them, then yes, they could. The difference is that there was an American company selling the product for them (so it was actually marketed to Americans). Yes, technically they only sold the keys, but without the key, it's useless. That's like saying "I only sell the pages of the book, Russians sell the cover, so it's not bound by American laws." If you use an Americans company to sell your software to Americans, you become bound by American laws.
Well if we talk about software being taken from BSD, used, and the source dissappears for ever, there is probably no better example than Microsoft [microsoft.com]. Their network stack owes a lot to BSD, but has any of it been passed back? No.
This isn't an example of someone or something being hurt. Lack of gain doesn't equal injury. Nothing has been gained from MS not releasing their code, but nothing has been lost. Just because they didn't help you by releasing their code, that doesn't mean they have hurt you.
While I agree the terms aren't all that great, the changes are both good and bad, not the horrible tragedy the article makes them out to be. Cable is going up to "full speed" (with no explanation of what that is), and is probably done because of the restrictions with DSL. It's a lot easy to get cable speed up high than DSL, and I can't blame them for emphasizing DSL over cable (as long as they offer both, who cares?).
The lowest plan will include move MB and be cheaper on DSL (while cable prices stay the same). The extra MB charge will also drop. This is nothing but good.
The 1GB plan is a bad value no matter which service you use apparently.
The 3GB plan will be increasing by $6 for DSL and $15 for cable, but the excess MB prices is dropping. Seems this is worse for cable, not DSL.
The 5GB and 10GB is staying the same except the excess MB charge is dropping. Seems this is good for everyone.
Seems like DSL is actually getting off pretty good here. Yes, they don't get the "full speed", but they get a price break at the lowest level, and the one service that is going up is going up less than cable. And all excess MB charges are going down for both services. Maybe it's because I'm not from Australia and don't know anything about Telstra, but this seems like a more toward being better, not worse.
By this logic, accepting resumes by email is bad, because not everyone has email or an electronic version of their resume. If the company uses Word, it is completely acceptable for them to expect you (who wishes something of the company, ie them to give you a job) to comply with what they use. Don't have word? Print out your resume and send it the old fashioned way. If you are asking to be employed by a company, you have to play by their rules.
The problem is that the GPL is not truely free. It is "free" with restrictions. People seem to forget there are actual individuals who want to put out non-GPL software, as well as corps. If something is paid for with public money, it should be FREE, that is free for anyone. That includes people who want to GPL, people who don't want to GPL, and corporations (since they pay taxes as well, they have to be considered). I think the GPL is a fine license if you want to use it, but people shouldn't be forced into using it. If this software is paid for with public money, it should be free for anyone to use in any application they want, and that should include releasing closed-course software. The GPL just doesn't allow that kind of freedom.
This article seems to be stuck on the whole "they should release it open source like Linux" idea. I agree that Universities shouldn't be privatizing their ideas and making gobs of money off them by selling them to private interests. But I think they should give them away so everyone can use them, and the only way to do that is to make them public domain (or possibly something like the BSD license). I know everyone will say the GPL is the best way to go, but as they article said, this is for the public good, and that includes people who don't want to use the GPL. If you want to use this code is a closed source app you wouldn't be able to benefit from this (and that includes individuals as well as corporations). I think if they are going to release it, make it PD or BSD, that way the greatest number of people can benefit from it. GPL is a good license, but it's not the freedom something like this requires. This requires the greatest amount of freedom, not freedom with restrictions that your stuff has to be free as well.
This stuff doesn't surprise me at all. Companies are in the business of making money. If they report every intrusion that happens, that means other people find out about them (potentially). If people find out, they may be less likely to use that company (or their website or whatever) than if they believe there was never a compromise. I think companies should be forced to report it when there is a compromise that includes user information or something like that, but if it is just a web-site defacement (with no possibility of anything else) I would probably not let it get out either. Add onto that fact that some PHB automatically will assume it is the admins fault, even if they were told not to patch it/didn't have enough money to do it right/were ignored on their suggestions, that measn the less people who know about the exploit, the better off you are. I don't agree with the policy, but it is certainly understandable.
While I tend to agree with your post somewhat, I can think of a few places where piracy negatively affects software. First, if it's only wrong to pirate software for profit, where do things such as games fit in? Obviously, I'm not playing Wizardry 8 for profit, so does that make it okay for me to pirate it? What about small helper apps? Is anti-cirus software okay, since we all need it, and I don't use it to make any money?
Second, I think piracy hurts small companies a lot more than large ones. When someone needs to make a few changes to some pictures they took, what do they do? They d/l a copy of Photoshop and use that. You are right in thinking this doesn't hurt Adobe much, since the person probably couldn't afford to buy Photoshop to begin with. It does hurt Paint Shop Pro (or another Photoshop competitor). Instead of paying $700 for Photoshop, this person could have bought Paint Shop Pro, which has most of the features of Photoshop, and used that. But since they priated a copy of Photoshop, they didn't buy anything at all. This is where I think piracy hurts the most. Not only does it take some money away from the large companies, but it keeps people from trying the small companies and buying them.
Well, we can seperate the music vs. software question right off, because they are two completely different sets of circumstances. The questions at the base may be similar, but the situations of the two are completely different.
Now, for the people saying the only people making money off software are CEOs, I have to ask if you have ever worked in a commercial development environment? Are you saying all the developers working for MS and Oracle aren't getting paid? All the developers working on Quake 4 aren't really getting paid? Last I heard, the developers working in these companies were making quite a nice living (it may not be what you think they should be making, but it certainly isn't nothing).
People seem to forget there is more to making something than material assets. The main assets of a software company is personel. That is where the majority of their money is spent, whether it be for R&D people, coders, bug-testers, marketing people, etc. Believe it or not, this all costs money and lots of it. So yes, that CD full of software only costs $3 to make and ship, but it costs a lot more to develop and support. So rationalizing stealing something (and yes, taking something you don't have a right to is stealing, whether it is digital or material) by saying that the wrong people are making the money is a joke. If you don't like how a company works, you take a moral stand and you don't use their product. You can claim stealing it is a moral stand, but all it is is stealing cloaked in a veil of righteousness.
Seriously, to register a derogatory domain name and point it to someone else's webpage is effectively slander"
No, slander is an oral act; you're thinking of libel.
Besides, if I say some brand "sucks", that is an opinion and certainly covered under the 1st amendment. If I put up a sign in my front yard that "Brand XYZ Sucks", I'm ALLOWED to do that, correct? Why does the web get a special set of rules?
It is closed to putting a sign that says "General Motors Sucks, this sign supported by Ford". The question isn't whether than can link to Ford's sight (I think they can), but whether they can do it in a way that suggests that Ford owns ans operates the profane website. If they just put a link to Ford.com on the page, I would say it is okay. But the sight pointed directly at ford.com (if I'm not mistaken). There is no way for an average person to know that Ford doesn't own the domain. Linking is okay, deceptive linking when it could harm a person or company is not.
My university (one of the top in the US, supposedly) just started teaching the intro CS class (for non-coders) using C#. Why? God only knows. They used to teach it in Java- they switched from Pascal very early on, which was probably a bad choice. But now Java is superbly well-documented, and becoming an industry standard. C# may become an industry standard, but only because MS is behind it. So now that course is essentially Windows-only. (The standard data structures and systems programming courses are, of course, still done on Unix- by now, of course, in the form of RedHat 7)
.NET. HEll, it's not even officially released and in use yet. Why you would use it for teaching purposes in a college at this stage is beyond me.
I have to agree with this. It is WAY to early to start using C# for anything other than experimenting with
There are quite a few people who push Linux as the best and only solution. These people are dorks. However, most of us react more strongly to MS products being pushed as the best and only solutions because:
- MS software pricing is an obscenity.
- Linux companies haven't used illegal coercion to make their products the market leaders.
- Until recently, people did not choose Linux-based solutions simply because they had the word "Linux" in them.
- the possibility of single-vendor lock-in is virtually nonexistent for Linux.
You do realize that most of your points have very little, if anything, to do with what the best solution is?
-Pricing has some effect, but is usually far from the determing factor. If the best solution is more expensive, people will usually go with it because it still is the best solution.
-Whether or not MS or any Linux company has used illegal coercion has zero effect on whether they are the best solution. How they got to be the best doesn't change the fact they are the best solution for the job at that moment
-Why people don't (or didn't) choose Linux matters less than none. If Linux is the best solution, it should get chosen for that, not because people in general don't like Linux. Hell, people shouldn't choose MS because they dislike Linux either. The best should be chosen, period.
-Future lock-in does have some effect on the decision, but not a lot. Since this is something in the future, that could or could or could not happen, it has to be considered, but should be far from the deciding factor.
The biggest part of the decision should be decided by what is actually the best product for the job. In many companies, MS is the best solution, simply because that is what the company (both IT and non-IT know). If they knew other OSes, then those would probably be the best solution. No OS is right for every job. What is right should be based on the job, not on the OS.
No. In the case of the Great Firewall of China (and Saudi Arabia), a third party is attempting to block information people want. As such, the sheer number of minds applied to circumventing those artificial barriers all but assures they will be overcome.
Contrast with spam filtering, where a third party is attempting to block information people don't want, with the full support and agreement from said people. This makes the number of sociopaths trying to circumvent the barriers vanishingly small. Moreover, because people support the blocks, the number of people willing to report spammers who penetrate security is considerably higher (as opposed to the China/Saudi situation, where there's likely a silent agreement that the authorities are not informed when the barriers are breached).
But obviously some people want spam. Thsi stuff is profitable. IF it wasn't it would have ended a long time ago. Spammers may be slimy, but they aren't stupid. If it costs them 5 cents per email (which I am completely making up, it's probably lower, but for this arguement, we'll say 5 cents) and they only get an increase in hits and sales which equals out to 2 cents per email, they would quit doing it. It's like the X10 ads, everyone complains about how they hate them, but they work. When they started doing them, the traffic on their site skyrocketed. So some people obviously do want them, they use them. Same thing with spam. If no one wanted it, then no one would click on the link and give them money.
"This item part of a package. Not for resale" this doesn't apply to consumer resale, only business.
But this is consumer resale. Softman isn't a person, it is a company. This wasn't Joe Blow seeling off his used parts of Abode Photoshop suite, this was a company that purchased the suites specifically to resell them seperately.
If you buy a copy of Adobe Photoshop, don't open it, and want to resell it, I'm right there with you. If you buy an Adobe package, take what you want from it, and sell the rest, I'm not down with that. This should be a case of standard rules applying to software as well as regular goods.
I say stick with the GPL it's better for the public.
Public Domain (or even the BSD license) isn't just about helping corporations. People seem to forget individuals put out closed source programs too. People seem willing to ignore these people who put out closed source products (maybe because they want to sell them later, or maybe they just aren't willing to share their code) and assume it's always big corps. The GPL (IMO) is used in a lot of cases specifically to try and exclude anyone that wants to be closed source. IT isn't about "helping people", it's about trying to get as many people to use open source as much as possible. If something is maybe "for the people", it shoudl be as free as possible. That means small developers, or even corporations, should be able to use it. The GPL stops them from doing this by replacing restrictions on what they can do with the code. If it's PD or BSD, everyone has the freedom to use it how they want. If someone wants to use it closed-source, they can. If you want to use it GPLed, you can. It's fairer for everyone.
I agree with this idea, but I don't think the GPL is the ideal way to go. If we REALLY want this stuff to be for the people, it should be public domain. The GPL places limits on what you can do with it (yes, I know it also gives you additional rights you normally wouldn't have, but it is still less than public domain). These things are really property of the people, and that means the people should be able to do anything they want with them, including use them in closed source software. Saying they should be free, as long as you follow these restrictions isn't really free. Universities shouldn't be in the business of open-source or closed-source software. They should be in the process of learning and discovery. They shouldn't advocate open or closed source.
by WolfWithoutAClause on 08:30 AM November 24th, 2001 (Score:2)
(User #162946 Info) http://slashdot.org/
"But the average user (IMHO) does just the opposite."
That's begging the question, and I don't agree that is true, but even if it were, it might still be the case that the record company sales go up as a result of Napster and its ilk (and the only evidence I saw showed that Napster increased sales).
The point about these tools is that they allow more people who might not otherwise have heard the music to listen. If they like what they hear- they are more likely to buy. It's free advertising, and not only that, it's positive advertising (posvertising), rather than force-down-your-throat way (adversising).
What's better having an audience of 10 people of which 5 buy or 20 people of which 6 buy?
I agree that Napster may still increase cd sales. There is no real evidence either way. The evidence you saw showed that record sales increased, and Napster existed. There is no way to draw a correlation between the two without a control group (of which there is none). The record companies will show you data that says record sales increased less than they would have without Napster. That is CD sales have been increasing 10% a year, and since Napster they are only increasing 5% a year (the numbers of complete figments, I am just using them as an example). This doesn't prove Napster is hurting CD sales either (for the same reason I stated before).
My main point is that everything seems to point to the anecdotal evidence of people buying more cds because of Napster, but most of the evidence I see points the other way. This is to say it has to be that way, that's just my opinion. I see as many people, most probably more, getting their music from the internet instead of paying for it. and many people who find new music on the net use the net to get more of it. I know I have done that personally. You find a new band you like, and it's a lot easier to hop online and download the rest of the CD rather than going and spending $20 for it. Again, not everyone does this, but I believe it is a majority.
You are assuming that the majority of people who find music on the net go and buy the CD. I see the evidence pointing the other way. They get their music for free of the net, and when they find a cool new band on the net, they download them also off the net instead of buying it. But there's no way to say for sure, since there is no control group.