A lot of the comments here seem to be referring to the use of Patriot missiles in the Mideast as a working missile defense system. The Patriot is an anti-aircraft missile that was pressed into service in that role as an emergency measure. The news coverage of the Scuds compared to their military value (outside of being a weapon of terror or propaganda) was way out of proportion, and I would bet the same was true of the coverage of the Patriot's success as a missile defense system. At the time, a lot of people were surprised that it had any success at all. Having worked for many defense contractors and on the Patriot system itself, I would think that the Patriot systems we've seen could only be considered the stepping off point for what the contractors have in mind as the real system.
I'm not saying that such a system will be successful or will even work at all (or especially that it is a good use of funds). But neither should the Patriot be considered as a anything more than a makeshift, temporary anti-missile defense system.
"the safety of Firefox would disapeer if Microsoft adopted it for their main webrowser in Windows."
I respectfully disagree. Your argument is one that can never be proven and is akin to saying that all code is poorly written (or written the same) and that anything and everything will be susceptible if enough people focus on it. This is not true.
The problems in IE came about in large part by MS's decision to place marketing ahead of engineering. They raced to incorporate IE into the OS to confound the anti-trust prosecution they were facing, and we've all been living with the consequences ever since. They have a history of sacrificing software integrity for the sake of commercial success. Their goal is not to produce bulletproof, secure software; their goal is to produce good-enough software that continues their desktop monopoly.
Assuming you're not trolling, what the EU courts are trying to do is reverse the marketplace damages caused by MS using illegal business practices. They hope to allow other developers to create software that they know will work with Windows. They never asked for source code, nor can I see why they would want it.
As far as fining them, I seem to recall something about a two million per day penalty, which I believe MS is ignoring as usual, or stalling with this source code business that no one asked for in the first place.
What people here seem to forget is that this same thing should be happening here in the US if the court rulings were fairly enforced.
The courts have already given MS way too much leeway on this, IMHO.
Do you agree that criminals should be held accountable for their crimes after having been found guilty in court(s)?
Remember: no one has asked MS for their source code in the first place. They're throwing that out there to cloud the issue and attempt to avoid giving the courts the API documentation that they're required to give.
Why would microsoft ever do such a thing? Why would MS ever release real documentation?
Um, because they're being required to by the courts? Remember, no one is asking them for their source code. The court order was to get accurate documentation for APIs.
Of course, I'm not saying MS will release their documentation, only stating why they should.
IMHO this is one more example of MS flouting the courts' intentions. They should take off the gloves and start freezing MS assets until they comply.
I wish I had mod points to give you for highlighting this with the original source material. Not that I expect it to matter to those who are in a lather of righteous indignation and can't be bothered to consider the history and rationale of why MS is in this position in the first place.
You've summarized my feelings on this issue perfectly. Well said.
About the only difference is that I can never remember following some one's homepage link. I like reading the topics and people's views; I'm much less interested in learning about the people who post.
Get over it. I have a high user ID because I browsed here forever before getting one. And you know what? I've submitted only a few topics and have been surprised that some were so readily accepted. I think the way the article is submitted has far less to do with it than the nature of the referenced article itself. If it's an interesting topic that fits with the general focus of Slashdot topics, I don't care who submits it. (Maybe because I almost never bother to check out their own sites or links anyway.)
"There used to be. It was called copyright law. Then large numbers of selfish people decided they were above the law, and it ceased to be as effective at fighting copyright infringement. You can't really blame the media industry for fighting back (though you certainly can challenge their methods and fight to defend your legitimate rights as a user of the content)."
Hmmm, your post seems to have gotten scrambled during transmission. I'll fix it up for you.
There used to be. It was called copyright law. Then a bunch of corporations decided that the law wasn't good enough and we didn't really need a public domain. You can't really blame consumers for fighting back (though you can certainly challenge their methods).
Oops! Hit Submit instead of Preview.
What I was about to say:
"I always feel big and powerful for being able to imagine big things like the solar system. It truly makes one appreciate being human, when we can create such big ideas, travel so far, and sit astride a light year looking down at it like a plaything."
I don't understand your perspective. To say "we can create such big ideas" makes it sound like the universe is something that wasn't around until we thought of it as some great idea. I think the parent poster's point is that we still have no real inkling about the true nature of these "big ideas." Similarly, your pride at being able to "travel so far" is seen as a source of frustration to someone who feels that we've barely left the realm of our home planet when there is an infinite area yet to explore. And I really don't know what you mean by "sit astride a light year and look down at it like a plaything." The only thing most Slashdotters are sitting astride is an office chair, and too often they're looking down at something they shouldn't be playing with so much as it is.
Anyway, I don't really mean to criticize, I guess I'm just surprised by your perspective and apparent arrogance at describing the parent poster's perspective as abjectly pitiful thinking.
Wasn't it Arthur C. Clarke who said "Nothing teaches you humility like astronomy?" I always thought that was profound, but apparently those thoughts don't apply to everybody.
I read yesterday that a class-action (naturally) lawsuit has been filed in California. I don't have a link handy, but you could probably find it easily yourself. The problem is that these sorts of lawsuits rarely give the companies enough financial discomfort to make any real difference. The lawyers can get rich, of course, but nothing really changes from my experience. (I still have a copy of Bill Lockyer's letter congratulating me on getting my claim share on the record labels' price fixing settlement. And what a difference that has made. NOT!)
....is seeing the low user IDs of the posters that are brought out on this topic. Nothing like some Usenet news to bring the elders out into the light. (Not that I'm any young buck myself.)
But as another poster said, it was really the spammers that ruined Usenet. They stomped through like a swarm of lotu, locus....er, bugs..and then left it in ruins.
In addition to what the poster above has said, I remember reading that the vast majority of air pollution comes from vehicular emissions. So yes, the air pollution will still come from power plants, but the total amount of air pollution could be greatly reduced. (You can add your own obvious caveats, of course.)
I must be one of the few people who work in a secure environment. We have security rules drilled into our heads routinely, and to a lot of us they're just common sense. Yes, there are people in IT who install unauthorized shareware, but if anyone introduces a virus to the network, whether in IT or not, it's easy to find out where it originated. That person is then made a spectacle of (only as a side effect) by the response staff as they lock down the person's workspace and haul away their PC like it was radioactive. Management, as you might imagine, finds little humor in these events. An occurence like this is a reflection on management (as far as upper management is concerned), and the risk and lost productivity can cost the boss his or her job. Thus, anyone who does this more than once probably doesn't have much network access after that, assuming they even have a job at that point. (Violating the security policy can be cause for termination, and it is enforced.)
Just my two cents.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, there went my mod points, but it had to be said.
I'm not saying that such a system will be successful or will even work at all (or especially that it is a good use of funds). But neither should the Patriot be considered as a anything more than a makeshift, temporary anti-missile defense system.
MS is about market share. They do that very well.
I respectfully disagree. Your argument is one that can never be proven and is akin to saying that all code is poorly written (or written the same) and that anything and everything will be susceptible if enough people focus on it. This is not true.
The problems in IE came about in large part by MS's decision to place marketing ahead of engineering. They raced to incorporate IE into the OS to confound the anti-trust prosecution they were facing, and we've all been living with the consequences ever since. They have a history of sacrificing software integrity for the sake of commercial success. Their goal is not to produce bulletproof, secure software; their goal is to produce good-enough software that continues their desktop monopoly.
Interesting idea, but if it is I'd say in this case it's backfiring (based on most of the reviews I'm reading here).
As far as fining them, I seem to recall something about a two million per day penalty, which I believe MS is ignoring as usual, or stalling with this source code business that no one asked for in the first place.
What people here seem to forget is that this same thing should be happening here in the US if the court rulings were fairly enforced.
The courts have already given MS way too much leeway on this, IMHO.
Remember: no one has asked MS for their source code in the first place. They're throwing that out there to cloud the issue and attempt to avoid giving the courts the API documentation that they're required to give.
Um, because they're being required to by the courts? Remember, no one is asking them for their source code. The court order was to get accurate documentation for APIs.
Of course, I'm not saying MS will release their documentation, only stating why they should.
IMHO this is one more example of MS flouting the courts' intentions. They should take off the gloves and start freezing MS assets until they comply.
I wish I had mod points to give you for highlighting this with the original source material. Not that I expect it to matter to those who are in a lather of righteous indignation and can't be bothered to consider the history and rationale of why MS is in this position in the first place.
To put it briefly: not only no, but hell no!
About the only difference is that I can never remember following some one's homepage link. I like reading the topics and people's views; I'm much less interested in learning about the people who post.
Get over it. I have a high user ID because I browsed here forever before getting one. And you know what? I've submitted only a few topics and have been surprised that some were so readily accepted. I think the way the article is submitted has far less to do with it than the nature of the referenced article itself. If it's an interesting topic that fits with the general focus of Slashdot topics, I don't care who submits it. (Maybe because I almost never bother to check out their own sites or links anyway.)
Hmmm, your post seems to have gotten scrambled during transmission. I'll fix it up for you.
There used to be. It was called copyright law. Then a bunch of corporations decided that the law wasn't good enough and we didn't really need a public domain. You can't really blame consumers for fighting back (though you can certainly challenge their methods).
There, much better.
I guess I'll side with ol' Bennie Franklin, who said something like "Anyone who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither."
Oops! Hit Submit instead of Preview. What I was about to say: "I always feel big and powerful for being able to imagine big things like the solar system. It truly makes one appreciate being human, when we can create such big ideas, travel so far, and sit astride a light year looking down at it like a plaything." I don't understand your perspective. To say "we can create such big ideas" makes it sound like the universe is something that wasn't around until we thought of it as some great idea. I think the parent poster's point is that we still have no real inkling about the true nature of these "big ideas." Similarly, your pride at being able to "travel so far" is seen as a source of frustration to someone who feels that we've barely left the realm of our home planet when there is an infinite area yet to explore. And I really don't know what you mean by "sit astride a light year and look down at it like a plaything." The only thing most Slashdotters are sitting astride is an office chair, and too often they're looking down at something they shouldn't be playing with so much as it is. Anyway, I don't really mean to criticize, I guess I'm just surprised by your perspective and apparent arrogance at describing the parent poster's perspective as abjectly pitiful thinking.
Wasn't it Arthur C. Clarke who said "Nothing teaches you humility like astronomy?" I always thought that was profound, but apparently those thoughts don't apply to everybody.
I read yesterday that a class-action (naturally) lawsuit has been filed in California. I don't have a link handy, but you could probably find it easily yourself. The problem is that these sorts of lawsuits rarely give the companies enough financial discomfort to make any real difference. The lawyers can get rich, of course, but nothing really changes from my experience. (I still have a copy of Bill Lockyer's letter congratulating me on getting my claim share on the record labels' price fixing settlement. And what a difference that has made. NOT!)
....is seeing the low user IDs of the posters that are brought out on this topic. Nothing like some Usenet news to bring the elders out into the light. (Not that I'm any young buck myself.) But as another poster said, it was really the spammers that ruined Usenet. They stomped through like a swarm of lotu, locus....er, bugs..and then left it in ruins.
In addition to what the poster above has said, I remember reading that the vast majority of air pollution comes from vehicular emissions. So yes, the air pollution will still come from power plants, but the total amount of air pollution could be greatly reduced. (You can add your own obvious caveats, of course.)
Check your spelling next time. That's Texas you're thinking of, not California.
I must be one of the few people who work in a secure environment. We have security rules drilled into our heads routinely, and to a lot of us they're just common sense. Yes, there are people in IT who install unauthorized shareware, but if anyone introduces a virus to the network, whether in IT or not, it's easy to find out where it originated. That person is then made a spectacle of (only as a side effect) by the response staff as they lock down the person's workspace and haul away their PC like it was radioactive. Management, as you might imagine, finds little humor in these events. An occurence like this is a reflection on management (as far as upper management is concerned), and the risk and lost productivity can cost the boss his or her job. Thus, anyone who does this more than once probably doesn't have much network access after that, assuming they even have a job at that point. (Violating the security policy can be cause for termination, and it is enforced.) Just my two cents.