Well, I encourage you to find out more about how trademarks work if you don't believe you should be able to trademark a location (or as some people complain about, dictionary words, like Apple or Windows).
You can trademark almost anything; the point being to distinguish the source of a product. However, a trademark only covers a limited set of businesses, so you could likely trademark "Java" for use in branding furniture and would not have an issue with Sun. (though no guarantees it's available for use in that area, because I didn't exactly do a complete browse of the PTO trademark database)
Sun does have a bunch of different trademarks on the lone word "Java", the original one (74631125) looks like it covers:
"IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. G & S: computer programs for use in developing and executing other computer programs on computers, computer networks, and global communications networks, and instruction manuals sold therewith; computer programs for use in navigating, browsing, transferring information, and distributing and viewing other computer programs on computers, computer networks and global communications networks, and instruction manuals sold therewith."
So basically, don't try to sell software that's labeled as "Java" without running afoul of Sun. That's not restricting the use of Java in any other area, so the trademark does exactly what it is intended to do: avoid confusion over the source of a software product labeled "Java".
Your comments are a lot more true than many people realize. Specialized hardware always wins.
Define "win".
Seriously, while I agree that accelerated hardware can outperform specialized hardware from a performance perspective, that is not all there is to "winning". Ask Sony about Betamax.
Specialized cores may be useful, but it will only be useful in some (high volume or high value add) applications. Take networking equipment. If you strip down a core router (high value add), I'm sure the vast majority of the silicon is custom logic, mostly ASICs. However, if you strip down a branch router (where the volumes are 100X+ that of core routers, but still not high), you will find commodity silicon and differentiation in software. It's cell phones and other consumer devices where one is back to having custom accelerated hardware, because the volumes justify the savings that can be achieved over millions of units.
There is also a point to be made for software defined radios. While specialization may produce small decoding cores, the flexibility of performing decoding in software (and being able to do processing for many encoding schemes) may reduce the number of cores required to the point where a faster general purpose machine will outperform (from a total cost perspective) a specialized solution. It also has the potential advantage of being field upgradeable, something dedicated hardware cannot do.
Winning is relative, as there are many viable markets where hardware acceleration loses due to business realities.
Trying to spoof using a hardcoded solution out of a fab is borderline impossible - I agree. However, you seem to presume that the only method of spoofing is to have (hardcoded) hardware that is identical. Given some (albeit not complete) knowledge of how analog electronics work, I'm not sure that is the only method of achieving such a result.
It seems to me one could build analog electronics that allows signal parameters (frequency, rise time, etc.) to be electronically tuned based on the detected signal... after all, if they can identify a signal with high accuracy, then the traits to be spoofed may be distinguishable enough to be accurately measured.
Given a sufficiently powerful software defined radio, a tunable amplifier and a tunable antenna, I don't think this is impossible. It's a heck of a lot more expensive than a WLAN card, for sure. It's also a problem that a neural network is used for identification, since neural networks are a notoriously poor analysis tool from which to extract usable rules. However, given their sample size and lack of other info in the article (of other methods of forecast analysis), it is difficult to say whether the required system is so complicated that it is an intractable problem to reverse engineer the measured characteristics. I'm not convinced it is.
Like almost any form of security, encrypting a HDD does not provide complete protection against any form of attack. This is one aspect of protection, just like a stability control program in a vehicle adds to the seatbelts, anti-lock brakes, and airbags to protect you in a vehicle accident.
What one needs to analyze in a security sense is what threat model you are attempting to protect against. In the case of an encrypted partition, you are protecting data "at rest". This provides NO protection against someone who can get access to a system while the system is operating (ACLs will provide some protection there unless you're 'rooted')... however, mounting the encrypted HDD (due to a system being shut down because it was physically stolen) is effectively impossible.
For a home user, protecting data "at rest" on a Linux machine is probably one important aspect of security. The chance that someone breaks into the home and attempts to guess the password or hack the machine while it is running is pretty low, whereas breaking in to remove items from your home (including your computer) is much more likely. Encrypting the data "at rest" protects my identity (meaning tax forms, etc.) from being exposed under that situation.
I realize that doesn't help if the machine is broken into while it is running, but a good/etc/hosts.allow and firewall/NAT in front of the machine makes me a hard target. Impossible? I'll never make that claim. Hard? Certainly. Worth serious effort? Probably not.
Seagate's solution is hardware based, meaning the encryption functions are performed on the drive, separate from the operating system. Even the password or user ID is encrypted and stored in an inaccessible area on the drive, providing much stronger security than today's software-based encryption solutions.
A system with Momentus FDE comes fully enabled for encrypting all the data on the drive, so there are no time-consuming installation and configuration requirements as with software; users simply enter their ID, and if authenticated, they have full access to their data. Since the user ID is entered before the operating system can load, it's essentially impossible for any spyware-like code to have visibility of the key.
So I would say for a DVR manufacturer, this helps prevent things from being recorded and then the drive pulled to steal the video.
Your comment presumes facts which are not in evidence. In particular, it presumes that only you possess and disclose your personal information.
I do not have a My Space account; however, you CAN associate me with people on My Space: You can find my picture and my name. You could make a reasonable guess at the specific city/town/village I live in and a number of my interests. You might even have a guess or two at where I work. I'm not sure if my last name has been mentioned there, but it wouldn't surprise me. If it was, you could wield Google and add more details, such as the post-secondary school(s) I attended and even one of my past jobs. Consider what is then in public records (property, licenses, etc.) and the phone book. ALL of that information is out on the Web and NONE of it is information I have placed there.
It's not nearly as simple as you make it out to be. Abstinence does not provide protection. To presume otherwise is incorrect.
"This Court reviewed the various price-fixing cases under the Sherman Act beginning with United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Association, 166 U.S. 290 , 17 S.Ct. 540, and United States v. Joint Traffic Association, 171 U.S. 505 , 19 S.Ct. 25, and said '... it has since often been decided and always assumed that uniform [310 U.S. 150, 213] price-fixing by those controlling in any substantial manner a trade or business in interstate commerce is prohibited by the Sherman Law, despite the reasonableness of the particular prices agreed upon.'"
"Under the Sherman Act a combination formed for the purpose and with the effect of raising, depressing, fixing, pegging, or stabilizing the price of a commodity in interstate or foreign commerce is illegal per se"
Dell has long been the leader because they have been able to ship easily configurable PCs quickly and dependably to their customers. Now anyone can do that.
Actually, having just NOT purchased from Dell, I think it goes further than anyone being able to provide easy configuration. It may not be conscious, but Dell is actively working against easy configuration.
A few years ago, it was easy to get what you wanted - start by selecting the processor, and select upgrade options from there.
No longer.
Today, you can't start with a hardware choice, but must start with a BRAND (XPS or whatver they all are), then pray that brand can provide what you actually want. Simply stated, exploring different configurations on a Dell is HARD, as it takes time and backtracking. Any mix of mid-range to high end hardware and a lower end processor can't even occur. Hunting for a reasonably priced configuration at Dell is not worth the effort.
I just purchased my first non-Dell in 5 years, and it was a result of their lack of flexibility in ordering (and tying in items I didn't want to purchase - think Windows Media Center Edition). Bring back the ease of configuration and I may purchase there again, but it won't happen with their current configuration system and choices.
This is NOT the IRS playing the media, this is based on a company filing a report with the SEC... following the legally established rules (see 13(l)) that the company must "disclose to the public on a rapid and current basis such additional information concerning material changes in the financial condition or operations..."
Actually, $350M isn't all that much. A financial analysis looks something like this:
Assume JBoss is growing at a rate equivalent to the S&P 500 (10.5%) - I'm trying to be conservative here and not get overblown about growth (since values are very sensitive to growth).
Assume RHAT wants to at least maintain its return on equity of it's stock, currently 19%. So the earnings rate on the purchase is 19% - 10.5% = 8.5%
At $350M, that means JBoss has at least $30M in profit ($350M *.085) for this to make sense.
If JBoss is growing at 20% per year and you want a 5% risk premium (accounting for uncertainty in the future of the market for middleware), then the earnings rate becomes 4% (19% + 5% - 20%), which means $14M in current income at JBoss to have it make sense for RHAT.
You can see how growth causes leverage in a price... since:
value = earnings / (required return rate - growth rate) ... this division is part of the reason why stocks who have high growth expectations are very hard to value (at least using this method, especially when the denominator becomes negative) and why they fall so quickly from high stock prices when their earnings slow. This is why other (more complicated) models may use a higher growth rate in close years, but force the growth rate to slow in later years to the market rate - it helps to avoid the crazy value multiplication that can occur in the simple models.
The meaning of the 2nd amendment is not clear. Therefore, the presumption that it protects "the people" is incorrect (and not how the Supreme Court has decided on laws violating the 2nd amendment to the Consitution).
Really, the 9% represents something like 1.3B and the 6% something like 3.5B. But business is far broader than what an income statement shows. (I also agree that Dell is an amazing company, but again, that's only one of many pieces of the puzzle)
In truth, I'd rather have recognizable, defendable, and sustainable differentiation in the market, combined with engineers that can develop new products (and proven experts to market them). Operational efficiency (Dell's primary, and perhaps only, mode of differentiation) isn't a good mode of differentiation (it was against the existing players, but new entrants can learn from Dell and eliminate Dell's advantage). From that perspective, Apple is in a better long-term position. On the other hand, Dell's scale and cash flow (both better than Apple) provides it ample opportunity to adapt and make necessary changes. IMHO, Gateway isn't the issue; nor is HP. Lenovo could be a challenge, but it depends on how that card plays out (and I doubt Lenovo wants a price war with Dell, so I doubt Lenovo is a core threat to Dell's current business). I expect Dell's largest threat is not one of the players we would think of as the potential challenger today.
Dell's problem is that their slowing growth and trouble hitting targets is indicative of their lack of differentiation that they can convert into profits. It is also indicative of the main problem in many technologies: People buy what is 'good enough'... and frankly, a $500 PC is 'good enough' for everyone except the die-hards. Ironically, Dell is now performing the same actions everyone uses when they complain about IBM (getting profit growth through expense cutting). The problem in Dell's case is that they are sacrificing customer service in the process of growing profits, which (as the article points out) could snowball into further problems for the company.
The net of all of this is that it depends... and in the cases of stock, depends on what you're paying for the profits (or what the companies invested to produce the profits, or however you'd like to phrase it to have the appropriate perspective).
When a document is on my computer, only people who can connect to my computer can read it. You are presuming that documents accessed on a network are a lower risk than having a file locally. With spyware and viruses on a machine, I find that assumption weak (isn't network traffic just as vulnerable as a file?). You are trading, rather than resolving risks. The solution is not to open the documents to more risk, but to actually resolve the spyware/virus problem.
The worst part from a security perspective is that when a document is on Google's server, everyone at Google can read it. (not *will* but *can* - it's a statement of capability). Thus, while you are technically correct from a disaster recovery point of view (their system is likely more disaster resistant), from a privacy/security perspective, storing it (unencrypted) on a network is vastly inferior to having it on a local computer.
Perhaps you are implying that copying for personal use should be codified as an additional element of 'fair use' in 17 USC 107?
Also, making "all tech that limits you in anyway even similar to this made illegal" is also impractical. There are actually legitimate uses for this type of technology (DRM), especially when it comes to securing personal records (think your company's HR department, libraries, hospitals, etc.)
I would encourage people to write their representatives regardless of their beliefs, and to explain their feelings about how DRM and the fair use exemption to copyright (codified or not) should interact. However, I would advise doing so with precision not apparent (to me) in the parent post... A lack of precision can get you ignored, or worse, something passed you don't support.
As others have pointed out, that's not always desirable or possible. Some is due to skills, other due to practical concerns that we actually need some farmers in this country.
Their cell phones they get 3G internet access over, as well.
China doesn't have ANY 3G. China hasn't licensed any 3G technology (either WCDMA, CDMA1XEV-DO or TD-SCDMA). It is expected that those licenses will be awarded late this year, so that the 3G infrastructure is ready by the 2008 Olympics.
You have no right to access, and I have no obligation to ensure you have it.
You don't have a right to clean air either (by your argument), but part of the purpose of government is to prevent tragedies of the commons. I agree the USF is broken, but there are better solutions than completely eliminating it.
Crikey... something like 75 cents of electronics from Radio Shack can build a frequency filter that will suppress frequences above 60Hz, so nothing could connect to the BPL network... you could even put them in your basement right as the electricity comes out of the circuit breakers... Or build a 1:1 transformer with the same filtering characteristics, or use a UPS that draws off of the battery, or... whatever. There are plenty of solutions.
In fact, this has long been a security issue in HomePlug (which is distinct from BPL, though the submitter seems to have missed that), and there have been various recommendations for inserting a filter to avoid your neighbor being able to snoop your network.
No one argues that Apple's business was financially insignificant to IBM. That is totally uninteresting and a waste of bandwidth
Hasty generalization, Appeal to the 'knowledge of large populations'. I have a hard time believing it was "insignificant". However, we will certainly see over the next few years whether it is a drag on IBM's finances.
However, what it clearly shows is that any one customer's needs is also insignificant to IBM - no matter how large the customer.
Assumption (Fallacy of interrogation): Your statement presumes facts which are not in evidence: You are assuming that IBM had a hand in Apple's decision. The truth is that there has been a LOT of speculation in the press - and very few facts - regarding why Apple switched to Intel. I certainly don't know the truth, and without further evidence, will doubt you do either... but keep in mind Apple has the most control, since they are the customer.
It also shows that IBM does not honor commitments they make to their "partners".
Non-sequitur; speculation without basis. Even ignoring the fallacy of interrogation above, that does not necessarily lead to failure to meet commitments. More importantly, there is no evidence of failure to honor commitments. If you're referring to the "3GHz" issue, part of the speculation in the press has been that IBM never made the 3GHz commitment to Apple (that Jobs made it up to push IBM into it). Note the treatment of the issue in this article (and subsequent discussion on the Ars dicussion boards). If you have evidence to tip the balance, by all means present it... otherwise it seems you're just out to find a way to tarnish IBM's image.
While the same thing can be potentially said for any large company, if you're a company who is a partner or looking at partnering with IBM for some reason, Apple-IBM should be a case study to consider when making your decision
Sweeping Generalization, shifting the burden of proof, potentially Post-Hoc argument:
Your argument is based on what material facts? The problem is, you apply culture of "any large company" to IBM, claim IBM must defend against the claim without you providing any evidence (shifting the burden of proof to the defense) and make an argument based on a result (the proper term isn't post-hoc, but I forget the actual name at the moment). Importantly, in order to use it, you need data to be both measurable and actionable. In this case, there is a lot of speculation, which leads me to conclude that you can't meet the first criteria - you can't measure it. You have an output (relationship ended) without understanding the root cause. Making decisions based on such data is risky, at best.
I suspect this will be discussed in b-schools for years (they'll say IBM did the right thing in screwing their customer Apple).
Speculation, Appeal to the virtuous poor: Any of my professors who said that would have been called on it on the spot. One of the things you learn in business school is the cost of acquiring a new customer. Another is the (intangible) cost of dealing with a public relations issue (which could lead to morale/productivity issues, etc. in your employees). I highly doubt this is fun for IBM. IBM's finances over the next few years may tell us it worked out okay, but even then, I suspect that IBM's general silence on the issue (like many other issues) would make it hard for any professor to get enough data to know the decision was conscious. If any improvement was an accident, it's not very insteresting for a b-school to talk about it, since it's pretty hard to learn how to act from accidents (not impossible, just rarely hit on in b-school).
Slashdot Mirror
You can trademark almost anything; the point being to distinguish the source of a product. However, a trademark only covers a limited set of businesses, so you could likely trademark "Java" for use in branding furniture and would not have an issue with Sun. (though no guarantees it's available for use in that area, because I didn't exactly do a complete browse of the PTO trademark database)
Sun does have a bunch of different trademarks on the lone word "Java", the original one (74631125) looks like it covers:
"IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. G & S: computer programs for use in developing and executing other computer programs on computers, computer networks, and global communications networks, and instruction manuals sold therewith; computer programs for use in navigating, browsing, transferring information, and distributing and viewing other computer programs on computers, computer networks and global communications networks, and instruction manuals sold therewith."
So basically, don't try to sell software that's labeled as "Java" without running afoul of Sun. That's not restricting the use of Java in any other area, so the trademark does exactly what it is intended to do: avoid confusion over the source of a software product labeled "Java".
Define "win".
Seriously, while I agree that accelerated hardware can outperform specialized hardware from a performance perspective, that is not all there is to "winning". Ask Sony about Betamax.
Specialized cores may be useful, but it will only be useful in some (high volume or high value add) applications. Take networking equipment. If you strip down a core router (high value add), I'm sure the vast majority of the silicon is custom logic, mostly ASICs. However, if you strip down a branch router (where the volumes are 100X+ that of core routers, but still not high), you will find commodity silicon and differentiation in software. It's cell phones and other consumer devices where one is back to having custom accelerated hardware, because the volumes justify the savings that can be achieved over millions of units.
There is also a point to be made for software defined radios. While specialization may produce small decoding cores, the flexibility of performing decoding in software (and being able to do processing for many encoding schemes) may reduce the number of cores required to the point where a faster general purpose machine will outperform (from a total cost perspective) a specialized solution. It also has the potential advantage of being field upgradeable, something dedicated hardware cannot do.
Winning is relative, as there are many viable markets where hardware acceleration loses due to business realities.
It seems to me one could build analog electronics that allows signal parameters (frequency, rise time, etc.) to be electronically tuned based on the detected signal... after all, if they can identify a signal with high accuracy, then the traits to be spoofed may be distinguishable enough to be accurately measured.
Given a sufficiently powerful software defined radio, a tunable amplifier and a tunable antenna, I don't think this is impossible. It's a heck of a lot more expensive than a WLAN card, for sure. It's also a problem that a neural network is used for identification, since neural networks are a notoriously poor analysis tool from which to extract usable rules. However, given their sample size and lack of other info in the article (of other methods of forecast analysis), it is difficult to say whether the required system is so complicated that it is an intractable problem to reverse engineer the measured characteristics. I'm not convinced it is.
What one needs to analyze in a security sense is what threat model you are attempting to protect against. In the case of an encrypted partition, you are protecting data "at rest". This provides NO protection against someone who can get access to a system while the system is operating (ACLs will provide some protection there unless you're 'rooted')... however, mounting the encrypted HDD (due to a system being shut down because it was physically stolen) is effectively impossible.
For a home user, protecting data "at rest" on a Linux machine is probably one important aspect of security. The chance that someone breaks into the home and attempts to guess the password or hack the machine while it is running is pretty low, whereas breaking in to remove items from your home (including your computer) is much more likely. Encrypting the data "at rest" protects my identity (meaning tax forms, etc.) from being exposed under that situation.
I realize that doesn't help if the machine is broken into while it is running, but a good /etc/hosts.allow and firewall/NAT in front of the machine makes me a hard target. Impossible? I'll never make that claim. Hard? Certainly. Worth serious effort? Probably not.
Seagate's solution is hardware based, meaning the encryption functions are performed on the drive, separate from the operating system. Even the password or user ID is encrypted and stored in an inaccessible area on the drive, providing much stronger security than today's software-based encryption solutions.
A system with Momentus FDE comes fully enabled for encrypting all the data on the drive, so there are no time-consuming installation and configuration requirements as with software; users simply enter their ID, and if authenticated, they have full access to their data. Since the user ID is entered before the operating system can load, it's essentially impossible for any spyware-like code to have visibility of the key.
So I would say for a DVR manufacturer, this helps prevent things from being recorded and then the drive pulled to steal the video.
I do not have a My Space account; however, you CAN associate me with people on My Space: You can find my picture and my name. You could make a reasonable guess at the specific city/town/village I live in and a number of my interests. You might even have a guess or two at where I work. I'm not sure if my last name has been mentioned there, but it wouldn't surprise me. If it was, you could wield Google and add more details, such as the post-secondary school(s) I attended and even one of my past jobs. Consider what is then in public records (property, licenses, etc.) and the phone book. ALL of that information is out on the Web and NONE of it is information I have placed there.
It's not nearly as simple as you make it out to be. Abstinence does not provide protection. To presume otherwise is incorrect.
"Under the Sherman Act a combination formed for the purpose and with the effect of raising, depressing, fixing, pegging, or stabilizing the price of a commodity in interstate or foreign commerce is illegal per se"
-- U.S. Supreme Court - U. S. v. SOCONY-VACUUM OIL CO., 310 U.S. 150 (1940)
Actually, having just NOT purchased from Dell, I think it goes further than anyone being able to provide easy configuration. It may not be conscious, but Dell is actively working against easy configuration.
A few years ago, it was easy to get what you wanted - start by selecting the processor, and select upgrade options from there.
No longer.
Today, you can't start with a hardware choice, but must start with a BRAND (XPS or whatver they all are), then pray that brand can provide what you actually want. Simply stated, exploring different configurations on a Dell is HARD, as it takes time and backtracking. Any mix of mid-range to high end hardware and a lower end processor can't even occur. Hunting for a reasonably priced configuration at Dell is not worth the effort.
I just purchased my first non-Dell in 5 years, and it was a result of their lack of flexibility in ordering (and tying in items I didn't want to purchase - think Windows Media Center Edition). Bring back the ease of configuration and I may purchase there again, but it won't happen with their current configuration system and choices.
This is NOT the IRS playing the media, this is based on a company filing a report with the SEC... following the legally established rules (see 13(l)) that the company must "disclose to the public on a rapid and current basis such additional information concerning material changes in the financial condition or operations..."
Assume JBoss is growing at a rate equivalent to the S&P 500 (10.5%) - I'm trying to be conservative here and not get overblown about growth (since values are very sensitive to growth).
Assume RHAT wants to at least maintain its return on equity of it's stock, currently 19%. So the earnings rate on the purchase is 19% - 10.5% = 8.5%
At $350M, that means JBoss has at least $30M in profit ($350M * .085) for this to make sense.
If JBoss is growing at 20% per year and you want a 5% risk premium (accounting for uncertainty in the future of the market for middleware), then the earnings rate becomes 4% (19% + 5% - 20%), which means $14M in current income at JBoss to have it make sense for RHAT.
You can see how growth causes leverage in a price ... since:
... this division is part of the reason why stocks who have high growth expectations are very hard to value (at least using this method, especially when the denominator becomes negative) and why they fall so quickly from high stock prices when their earnings slow. This is why other (more complicated) models may use a higher growth rate in close years, but force the growth rate to slow in later years to the market rate - it helps to avoid the crazy value multiplication that can occur in the simple models.
value = earnings / (required return rate - growth rate)
The meaning of the 2nd amendment is not clear. Therefore, the presumption that it protects "the people" is incorrect (and not how the Supreme Court has decided on laws violating the 2nd amendment to the Consitution).
I'd also note it's not related to the ads, but the first search result.
In truth, I'd rather have recognizable, defendable, and sustainable differentiation in the market, combined with engineers that can develop new products (and proven experts to market them). Operational efficiency (Dell's primary, and perhaps only, mode of differentiation) isn't a good mode of differentiation (it was against the existing players, but new entrants can learn from Dell and eliminate Dell's advantage). From that perspective, Apple is in a better long-term position. On the other hand, Dell's scale and cash flow (both better than Apple) provides it ample opportunity to adapt and make necessary changes. IMHO, Gateway isn't the issue; nor is HP. Lenovo could be a challenge, but it depends on how that card plays out (and I doubt Lenovo wants a price war with Dell, so I doubt Lenovo is a core threat to Dell's current business). I expect Dell's largest threat is not one of the players we would think of as the potential challenger today.
Dell's problem is that their slowing growth and trouble hitting targets is indicative of their lack of differentiation that they can convert into profits. It is also indicative of the main problem in many technologies: People buy what is 'good enough'... and frankly, a $500 PC is 'good enough' for everyone except the die-hards. Ironically, Dell is now performing the same actions everyone uses when they complain about IBM (getting profit growth through expense cutting). The problem in Dell's case is that they are sacrificing customer service in the process of growing profits, which (as the article points out) could snowball into further problems for the company.
The net of all of this is that it depends... and in the cases of stock, depends on what you're paying for the profits (or what the companies invested to produce the profits, or however you'd like to phrase it to have the appropriate perspective).
The worst part from a security perspective is that when a document is on Google's server, everyone at Google can read it. (not *will* but *can* - it's a statement of capability). Thus, while you are technically correct from a disaster recovery point of view (their system is likely more disaster resistant), from a privacy/security perspective, storing it (unencrypted) on a network is vastly inferior to having it on a local computer.
Perhaps you are implying that copying for personal use should be codified as an additional element of 'fair use' in 17 USC 107?
Also, making "all tech that limits you in anyway even similar to this made illegal" is also impractical. There are actually legitimate uses for this type of technology (DRM), especially when it comes to securing personal records (think your company's HR department, libraries, hospitals, etc.)
I would encourage people to write their representatives regardless of their beliefs, and to explain their feelings about how DRM and the fair use exemption to copyright (codified or not) should interact. However, I would advise doing so with precision not apparent (to me) in the parent post... A lack of precision can get you ignored, or worse, something passed you don't support.
As others have pointed out, that's not always desirable or possible. Some is due to skills, other due to practical concerns that we actually need some farmers in this country.
Their cell phones they get 3G internet access over, as well.
China doesn't have ANY 3G. China hasn't licensed any 3G technology (either WCDMA, CDMA1XEV-DO or TD-SCDMA). It is expected that those licenses will be awarded late this year, so that the 3G infrastructure is ready by the 2008 Olympics.
You have no right to access, and I have no obligation to ensure you have it.
You don't have a right to clean air either (by your argument), but part of the purpose of government is to prevent tragedies of the commons. I agree the USF is broken, but there are better solutions than completely eliminating it.
In fact, this has long been a security issue in HomePlug (which is distinct from BPL, though the submitter seems to have missed that), and there have been various recommendations for inserting a filter to avoid your neighbor being able to snoop your network.
Hasty generalization, Appeal to the 'knowledge of large populations'. I have a hard time believing it was "insignificant". However, we will certainly see over the next few years whether it is a drag on IBM's finances.
However, what it clearly shows is that any one customer's needs is also insignificant to IBM - no matter how large the customer.
Assumption (Fallacy of interrogation): Your statement presumes facts which are not in evidence: You are assuming that IBM had a hand in Apple's decision. The truth is that there has been a LOT of speculation in the press - and very few facts - regarding why Apple switched to Intel. I certainly don't know the truth, and without further evidence, will doubt you do either... but keep in mind Apple has the most control, since they are the customer.
It also shows that IBM does not honor commitments they make to their "partners".
Non-sequitur; speculation without basis. Even ignoring the fallacy of interrogation above, that does not necessarily lead to failure to meet commitments. More importantly, there is no evidence of failure to honor commitments. If you're referring to the "3GHz" issue, part of the speculation in the press has been that IBM never made the 3GHz commitment to Apple (that Jobs made it up to push IBM into it). Note the treatment of the issue in this article (and subsequent discussion on the Ars dicussion boards). If you have evidence to tip the balance, by all means present it... otherwise it seems you're just out to find a way to tarnish IBM's image.
While the same thing can be potentially said for any large company, if you're a company who is a partner or looking at partnering with IBM for some reason, Apple-IBM should be a case study to consider when making your decision
Sweeping Generalization, shifting the burden of proof, potentially Post-Hoc argument: Your argument is based on what material facts? The problem is, you apply culture of "any large company" to IBM, claim IBM must defend against the claim without you providing any evidence (shifting the burden of proof to the defense) and make an argument based on a result (the proper term isn't post-hoc, but I forget the actual name at the moment). Importantly, in order to use it, you need data to be both measurable and actionable. In this case, there is a lot of speculation, which leads me to conclude that you can't meet the first criteria - you can't measure it. You have an output (relationship ended) without understanding the root cause. Making decisions based on such data is risky, at best.
I suspect this will be discussed in b-schools for years (they'll say IBM did the right thing in screwing their customer Apple).
Speculation, Appeal to the virtuous poor: Any of my professors who said that would have been called on it on the spot. One of the things you learn in business school is the cost of acquiring a new customer. Another is the (intangible) cost of dealing with a public relations issue (which could lead to morale/productivity issues, etc. in your employees). I highly doubt this is fun for IBM. IBM's finances over the next few years may tell us it worked out okay, but even then, I suspect that IBM's general silence on the issue (like many other issues) would make it hard for any professor to get enough data to know the decision was conscious. If any improvement was an accident, it's not very insteresting for a b-school to talk about it, since it's pretty hard to learn how to act from accidents (not impossible, just rarely hit on in b-school).