I guess you could also buy a mac, install windows/linux and then virtualize mac os x. why would you do that is a good question, but at least you are legal, fair an square.
I can't help but thing that this is the whole point of money. By this I mean, money as oppose to barter. In the case of barter you explicitly have to worry what you are getting in exchange for your goods and what else you could get with these same goods (not all exchange are equivalent), while in the case of money you only need to worry about your overall purchasing power and how it would be reduced. Without this abstraction all exchange would be so much more complicated. If you thought about everything else we could buy with that money you could potentially make wiser choices, but the effort involve (transactional cost) would end up being prohibitive. So in a way, money is a simple abstraction that allows us reduce transactional cost at the expense of the optimal solution (I stress that this is at our discretion for each transaction with money). In way, this is how I interprete their finding.
Well, let us not forget that newspapers are afraid that blog will eat their lunch... so blog bashing is certainly a valid counter measure. The fact that newspaper are hypocrites by accusing blog of copy-paste with no or little reference is certainly no reason for them to change their strategy. Most people won't see through this and just remember that blogs can't be trusted. And that's the key point, on internet everything is a question of trust and reputation. Newspaper know that this is what they have going for them. Their reputation might be tarnished by various scandals, but they are traditional media outlet which people still trust by default and more importantly people still expect them held accountable for what they publish, at least some of the time.
In fact a remember the story of a french newspaper (can't find the name) that published an article according to which Charles Nungesser had made it to New York on his transatlantic flight. They printed that story because they wanted to be the first newspaper with the scope and when it was time to print the newspaper for that they, Charles Nungesser had been seen passing Newfoundland (at least that is how I remember it). They thought they would give it a shot and that it was a safe bet Charles' plane would make it. Well, they were wrong and the French population were so angry at them for having printed something false (specially something of national proud) that the newspaper went out of business within a week. My point is, newspaper are expected to care about their reputation as everyone pays for one person bold move.
For blogs on the other hand, things are a little more tricky. The author is alone is making his editorial decisions, and if things go wrong he/she could just start a new blog. That being said, blogs like groklaw are certainly aware of the importance of reputation, honesty and transparence. PJ has certainly managed to cater to her reputation to such an extent that she is the offical source for anything having to do with SCO or legal issues surrounding FOSS, while we haven't got the slightess idea who she is. The whole media war is all about reputation... so sure, newspaper are going to attack blogs' reputation even if theirs isn't spotless.
Sure, but this overlooks a simple fact: since the ipod shuffle, apple has started releasing ipod accessories at the same time as the ipod itself. In other words, this isn't a levelled field where competition push towards better products with faster release. Apple could certainly take advantage as the designer of the ipod to drive other cie's out of the ipod accessories business. They could try to change the ipod specifications to rapidly for third parties to keep up, while their products would always word flawlessly. They could also introduce some incompatibilty so third parties' products don't function properly anymore, etc. This of course would be illegal (and would piss many people off), but they could certainly drive third parties' out of business before being having their hand slapped by the court. That is the problem with proprietary formats, you depend on the 'owner' generosity. As soon as you are making 'too much money', the 'owner' will come back and eat your lunch. At which point there is little you can do to compete but fill a lawsuit... which won't get you very far, at least in the short run.
I would have to agree with the parent post, but I would also like to underline that it applies to many movement present today in the US (and the rest of the world). I believe the poster was well aware of this (hence the intelligent design example), but I thinking it is important to stress that this technique of oversimplification mixed with hypocrisy is being used extensively in the media and politics in general.
The case for the war in Iraq is a prime example, but it certainly not the only one. Politicians, religious figures, or anyone with interests vested in public support knows that it is more efficient to bring an audience to react to "simple stimuli" and vauch for his/her caused, then explained all the gritty details of an issue.
People's averge attention is around 5 minutes for a complex problem (I am feeling generous), so how the hell are you going to make sure that millions people understand what you are doing, why your doing it, how they can help you achieve your goal, and more importantly why it is beneficial to them (provided your an honest person, and genuinely care about your public).
No really, it is much better to train people to react to certain simple stimuli (patriotism, religion, moral issues) all their lives and then used the appropriate stimuli to obtain the desired result (violence, disgust, understanding, patience, etc.). This is why religion or politics has good arguments for violence or peace. For a leader these are just tools to be used when necessary, not moral issues that he/her spends sleepless nights trying to grasp (ok, maybe this doesn't apply to every single leader humanity as known, but certainly a majority)
It is an interesting idea, and suspect that there is some truth to it, but IMHO the problem goes deeper than genes. From personal experience, thinking analytically for extended period of times impairs you social skills (a bit like drinking and driving I suppose). Hence, It's not how only how your brain is wired that determine your social skill, but how you use it on a daily basis.
I was never singled out as someone with low social skill (or if I was, it was behind my back), but when I started a B. Sc. in physics and math, I quickly came to realize that I had trouble dealing with my peers and more dramatically in my intimate relationships. I first thought it was because I was overworked, but I don't think this explanation does justice to the problem. I was starting to approach my relations with a binary attitude: they were either good or bad, right or wrong, etc. I lost patience, if things weren't going the way I wanted them. I was missing all the subtleties of bounding and I was no longer an understanding companion, not particularly good.
Anyway, to make a long story short, I eventually went into law after finishing my B. Sc. Low and behold, the above problems slowly receeded and it felt much easier to bound with people (not only law students, but my old science friends too).
The story doesn't stop there... there is only so much law "mumbo jumbo" a mathematician can take (the only three mathematicians in our faculty left in a period 2 years). After a year and a half of law, I am now back in math. Unsurprisingly, my social problems are surfacing again. It's causing havoc in my relation with my girlfriend (she only knew me as a law student), and I still hope it won't spread to my friendships.
I can't speak for everyone, but to me it feels like social skills and analytical skills have hard to co-habiting. So far my only solution have found is to allow for a "buffer period" between meeting people and finishing my work.
I would be curious to know if any one else has experience somehing similar.
I agree with you that some widgets are useful. I personaly use the currency converter once in a while and I like it. My grub is that overall the fonctionality of the widgets are too limited and they not consistent with the rest of the gui. When they correct the later, then I will feel that dashboard is an extension of the rest of my desktop (you know, like saving my results so I can reuse them or feed them to another app). As for usefulness, well having dashboard for one widget seems wasteful to me... I am glad you could find three that you like.
So far, I still can't find a reason to use widgets
on
Yahoo Updates Konfabulator
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Widget could be useful... maybe. But before we they can even there, they need to integrate better with the rest of the "user experience". I am using Dashboard (I tried konfab for the kicks, but they seemed pretty much equivalent), and the widget don't behave like the rest of the OS. I can't copy past in all of them (can't copy from bloody dictionnary!), most of them don't have preferences I can adjust to fit my needs and they only the most limited fonctionnality for any operation (calculator app. is pretty dumb but it shines when compared to the widget conterpart).
I know these are free, simple coding projects, but come on! They have to behave like a proper app. for them to enhance my productivity. As far as I am concerned, widget are just a "proof of concept" for the moment. I am still waiting for a widget that does more tham show me where the sun is and isn't shinning (I am being overly harsh here, but you get my point).
I am not particularly knowledgable about wireless technology, but I don't expect this to be a longterm problem. Yes everyone is going wireless (and this trend is not going to change... heck, people would buy into wireless power supply if it was technically feasable). And yes, the spectrum is getting more and more crowded, but this is mainly because the technology is so new and expanding so quickly that it is not well manage.
If you think about it the whole elec.-magn. spectrum is not used efficiently. We have wireless house phones, WLAN, television, radio stations, cellphone, etc. At some point we will have to review all of this and realise that they are all these technologies are only about exchanging data. With the consolidation of all these technologies (it will take quite a few years (10?), especially given that the RIAA and MPAA are scared shitless at the idea that their "property" become too easily accessible) , we will have to rethink how we use wireless technology. Most likely we will have to define one protocol that works over a very broad spectrum that would allow for many accessible channels of two way communication. Obviously some part of the spectrum will have to be restricted for security purposes (I am thinking VHF radios), but clearly there is too much overlapping of technologies doing pretty much the same thing. I know radio and tv are different, but what is the point if you can find the same content on internet?
Anyway, I am just thinking that the problem we are experiencing now has more to do with getting adjusted to "hot" technology than with a fundamental longterm problem.
anyone wants 2 cents?
Yes, 99% of lawyers give the rest a bad name.
I agree with your description of lawyers provided they are faced with a theoretical problem, i.e. they will care about justice, equity, legitimacy, rule of law, etc. But you don't need to pay them a lot for all of these concern to suddenly vanish... poof! Sure, you will say that everyone is entitled to representation, but that is not the point. You are not suppose to twist the purpose of the law because your client paid you to do it. Saddly too many lawyers will be happy with abusing the law given the opportunity and since NO law can be perfect the opportunities will always arise. At some point the lawyers (or judges) have to wake up and stop the none sense. It is not because a law give you a right that you can use it in any way you want. Doing so attack the foundation of the legal system and people stop trusting it... and this, I hope you agree, is a very bad thing. And here lawyers play a big part to play. By being prepared to argue the craziest things, they undermine the laws and the whole legal system.
We even have a law in Quebec that guards against such abuse of the system. The idea is pretty simple: no rights can be used in bad faith. If you abuse of the rights you have been granted, your claim is void. It is not enough that you are allowed to do something, how and why you do it is important. I don't pretend that this provision (which trumps any other provision btw) is perfect, but at least it is a step in the right direction (no pun intended).
Your mod "funny" but you have a vary valid point I would say. What he is presenting can be boiled down to a "new notation". More pleasing to the eye, but significantly more cumbersome to use.
A notation success is usually determine but it ability to underline the inherent structure of the system studied. By doing this it allows us to understand more easily what is going on and what is important. In this case, and don't see what his "notation" hads to particle physics except for its visually quality... I supposed that if you have a long calculation to do it might end up looking much nicer and you won't get sore eyes. Then again, I don't know that much about particle physics, so maybe his "notation" is more intuitive after all.
Disclaimer (I am aware of the irony): IANAL, studied it to some extent, but my real interest is math/statistics.
My answer to Bill is fairly simple: because the software industry is still in development stage. Pretty much all new technologies/activities get a "liability free ride" when they emerge. This is usually because holding a technology/activity liable for the damages it causes at an early stage could kill it before it can get a chance to mature and be useful to society (as many reader pointed out, holding a company liable for their software would hamper the development and could have killed the industry 10 or 20 years ago. today, I am not so sure). This can be seen as the price we pay as a society for the benefit of having the developing technology. Cars, trains, consumer products have all caused their fair share of victims in their early days. They are still a lot of victims from these technologies/activities, but now those who profit from them are held liable for their negligence (and sometimes they are held liable even when no fault can be attributed).
The transition usually occurs when the technology becomes an integral part of our society on which we all rely. The transition can be very long, sometimes it begins in courts (ex: car industry) sometime legislation is required (ex: work related accidents) when the judge are reluctant to create a precedent. So the real question is thus: When is the software industry going to be held liable and to what extent? Maybe software is different and it will avoid liability. I very much doubt that and I think MS and cie's would agree with me. This is why EULAs have been so vocal about the issue of liability. Companies, don't expect this to hold forever (eventually there will be limits to what can be waived by a EULA) and so they make sure they get to keep as much as they can from the "liability free ride" when eventually it is agreed that enough is enough. The reasoning is simple: the more you have to start with, the more whining and kicking get to do as courts or legislatures are taking it away from you.
Before this comes around, it might take quite a while. There are various reasons for this but here are two important ones. First, the damages caused by software are hard to assess and more importantly they don't tend to be bloody (reading old judgments on car accidents makes you feel lucky that you we live and a world where car companies were forced to get their shit together). Second, the average computer user doesn't know what to expect from software: is it normally that my OS crashes and I lose everything I had worked on? How secured can I assume my OS or applications to be? Granted, not the most insightful questions, but you get my gist. Without any knowledge of how software works most people will assume that they did something wrong, not that something is wrong with the software they are using. More people will need to become computer literate before the software industry is be held to high standards as a whole (i.e. not just through contract agreements like many of you mentioned in you posts. By the way, contract liability was also the only liability for manufactured goods until Donoghue v. Stevenson, so such a move away from contracts wouldn't be ground braking).
Maybe the software industry will manage to dodge its rendez-vous with history, but I very much doubt it. Eventually software will cause problems of such magnitude that those would directly benefit from it will be held liable for the damage regardless of the stipulations in the respective EULAs (by the way, you cannot waive EVERYTHING through a license or a contract, it is against public order to do that). As far as I am concerned, it is a matter of time and bad luck, both of which are very hard to avoid.
So what about free software? Well, like I have said, those held liable have traditionally those who benefit from the activity. So it will be an issue of whether free software developers will be recognised as benefiting (sufficiently?) from people using their software or no
Slashdot Mirror
I guess you could also buy a mac, install windows/linux and then virtualize mac os x. why would you do that is a good question, but at least you are legal, fair an square.
I can't help but thing that this is the whole point of money. By this I mean, money as oppose to barter. In the case of barter you explicitly have to worry what you are getting in exchange for your goods and what else you could get with these same goods (not all exchange are equivalent), while in the case of money you only need to worry about your overall purchasing power and how it would be reduced. Without this abstraction all exchange would be so much more complicated. If you thought about everything else we could buy with that money you could potentially make wiser choices, but the effort involve (transactional cost) would end up being prohibitive. So in a way, money is a simple abstraction that allows us reduce transactional cost at the expense of the optimal solution (I stress that this is at our discretion for each transaction with money). In way, this is how I interprete their finding.
I guess it is. I didn't see it was part of the joke, then again I still don't find it funny. Hopefully, the sound will stop at some point though.
10% = 10/100 = 0.1, So, 10%^2 = 0.1^2 = 0.01, not very bright idea if you ask me.
According to wikipedia this is 'victim' of April fool's day: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_1%2C_2006#Event s_mistaken_as_April_Fool.27s_Day_hoaxes
Well, let us not forget that newspapers are afraid that blog will eat their lunch... so blog bashing is certainly a valid counter measure. The fact that newspaper are hypocrites by accusing blog of copy-paste with no or little reference is certainly no reason for them to change their strategy. Most people won't see through this and just remember that blogs can't be trusted. And that's the key point, on internet everything is a question of trust and reputation. Newspaper know that this is what they have going for them. Their reputation might be tarnished by various scandals, but they are traditional media outlet which people still trust by default and more importantly people still expect them held accountable for what they publish, at least some of the time.
In fact a remember the story of a french newspaper (can't find the name) that published an article according to which Charles Nungesser had made it to New York on his transatlantic flight. They printed that story because they wanted to be the first newspaper with the scope and when it was time to print the newspaper for that they, Charles Nungesser had been seen passing Newfoundland (at least that is how I remember it). They thought they would give it a shot and that it was a safe bet Charles' plane would make it. Well, they were wrong and the French population were so angry at them for having printed something false (specially something of national proud) that the newspaper went out of business within a week. My point is, newspaper are expected to care about their reputation as everyone pays for one person bold move.
For blogs on the other hand, things are a little more tricky. The author is alone is making his editorial decisions, and if things go wrong he/she could just start a new blog. That being said, blogs like groklaw are certainly aware of the importance of reputation, honesty and transparence. PJ has certainly managed to cater to her reputation to such an extent that she is the offical source for anything having to do with SCO or legal issues surrounding FOSS, while we haven't got the slightess idea who she is. The whole media war is all about reputation... so sure, newspaper are going to attack blogs' reputation even if theirs isn't spotless.
Sure, but this overlooks a simple fact: since the ipod shuffle, apple has started releasing ipod accessories at the same time as the ipod itself. In other words, this isn't a levelled field where competition push towards better products with faster release. Apple could certainly take advantage as the designer of the ipod to drive other cie's out of the ipod accessories business. They could try to change the ipod specifications to rapidly for third parties to keep up, while their products would always word flawlessly. They could also introduce some incompatibilty so third parties' products don't function properly anymore, etc. This of course would be illegal (and would piss many people off), but they could certainly drive third parties' out of business before being having their hand slapped by the court. That is the problem with proprietary formats, you depend on the 'owner' generosity. As soon as you are making 'too much money', the 'owner' will come back and eat your lunch. At which point there is little you can do to compete but fill a lawsuit... which won't get you very far, at least in the short run.
I would have to agree with the parent post, but I would also like to underline that it applies to many movement present today in the US (and the rest of the world). I believe the poster was well aware of this (hence the intelligent design example), but I thinking it is important to stress that this technique of oversimplification mixed with hypocrisy is being used extensively in the media and politics in general.
The case for the war in Iraq is a prime example, but it certainly not the only one. Politicians, religious figures, or anyone with interests vested in public support knows that it is more efficient to bring an audience to react to "simple stimuli" and vauch for his/her caused, then explained all the gritty details of an issue.
People's averge attention is around 5 minutes for a complex problem (I am feeling generous), so how the hell are you going to make sure that millions people understand what you are doing, why your doing it, how they can help you achieve your goal, and more importantly why it is beneficial to them (provided your an honest person, and genuinely care about your public).
No really, it is much better to train people to react to certain simple stimuli (patriotism, religion, moral issues) all their lives and then used the appropriate stimuli to obtain the desired result (violence, disgust, understanding, patience, etc.). This is why religion or politics has good arguments for violence or peace. For a leader these are just tools to be used when necessary, not moral issues that he/her spends sleepless nights trying to grasp (ok, maybe this doesn't apply to every single leader humanity as known, but certainly a majority)
It is an interesting idea, and suspect that there is some truth to it, but IMHO the problem goes deeper than genes. From personal experience, thinking analytically for extended period of times impairs you social skills (a bit like drinking and driving I suppose). Hence, It's not how only how your brain is wired that determine your social skill, but how you use it on a daily basis.
I was never singled out as someone with low social skill (or if I was, it was behind my back), but when I started a B. Sc. in physics and math, I quickly came to realize that I had trouble dealing with my peers and more dramatically in my intimate relationships. I first thought it was because I was overworked, but I don't think this explanation does justice to the problem. I was starting to approach my relations with a binary attitude: they were either good or bad, right or wrong, etc. I lost patience, if things weren't going the way I wanted them. I was missing all the subtleties of bounding and I was no longer an understanding companion, not particularly good.
Anyway, to make a long story short, I eventually went into law after finishing my B. Sc. Low and behold, the above problems slowly receeded and it felt much easier to bound with people (not only law students, but my old science friends too).
The story doesn't stop there... there is only so much law "mumbo jumbo" a mathematician can take (the only three mathematicians in our faculty left in a period 2 years). After a year and a half of law, I am now back in math. Unsurprisingly, my social problems are surfacing again. It's causing havoc in my relation with my girlfriend (she only knew me as a law student), and I still hope it won't spread to my friendships.
I can't speak for everyone, but to me it feels like social skills and analytical skills have hard to co-habiting. So far my only solution have found is to allow for a "buffer period" between meeting people and finishing my work.
I would be curious to know if any one else has experience somehing similar.
I agree with you that some widgets are useful. I personaly use the currency converter once in a while and I like it. My grub is that overall the fonctionality of the widgets are too limited and they not consistent with the rest of the gui. When they correct the later, then I will feel that dashboard is an extension of the rest of my desktop (you know, like saving my results so I can reuse them or feed them to another app). As for usefulness, well having dashboard for one widget seems wasteful to me... I am glad you could find three that you like.
Widget could be useful... maybe. But before we they can even there, they need to integrate better with the rest of the "user experience". I am using Dashboard (I tried konfab for the kicks, but they seemed pretty much equivalent), and the widget don't behave like the rest of the OS. I can't copy past in all of them (can't copy from bloody dictionnary!), most of them don't have preferences I can adjust to fit my needs and they only the most limited fonctionnality for any operation (calculator app. is pretty dumb but it shines when compared to the widget conterpart).
I know these are free, simple coding projects, but come on! They have to behave like a proper app. for them to enhance my productivity. As far as I am concerned, widget are just a "proof of concept" for the moment. I am still waiting for a widget that does more tham show me where the sun is and isn't shinning (I am being overly harsh here, but you get my point).
I am not particularly knowledgable about wireless technology, but I don't expect this to be a longterm problem. Yes everyone is going wireless (and this trend is not going to change... heck, people would buy into wireless power supply if it was technically feasable). And yes, the spectrum is getting more and more crowded, but this is mainly because the technology is so new and expanding so quickly that it is not well manage. If you think about it the whole elec.-magn. spectrum is not used efficiently. We have wireless house phones, WLAN, television, radio stations, cellphone, etc. At some point we will have to review all of this and realise that they are all these technologies are only about exchanging data. With the consolidation of all these technologies (it will take quite a few years (10?), especially given that the RIAA and MPAA are scared shitless at the idea that their "property" become too easily accessible) , we will have to rethink how we use wireless technology. Most likely we will have to define one protocol that works over a very broad spectrum that would allow for many accessible channels of two way communication. Obviously some part of the spectrum will have to be restricted for security purposes (I am thinking VHF radios), but clearly there is too much overlapping of technologies doing pretty much the same thing. I know radio and tv are different, but what is the point if you can find the same content on internet? Anyway, I am just thinking that the problem we are experiencing now has more to do with getting adjusted to "hot" technology than with a fundamental longterm problem. anyone wants 2 cents?
Yes, 99% of lawyers give the rest a bad name. I agree with your description of lawyers provided they are faced with a theoretical problem, i.e. they will care about justice, equity, legitimacy, rule of law, etc. But you don't need to pay them a lot for all of these concern to suddenly vanish... poof! Sure, you will say that everyone is entitled to representation, but that is not the point. You are not suppose to twist the purpose of the law because your client paid you to do it. Saddly too many lawyers will be happy with abusing the law given the opportunity and since NO law can be perfect the opportunities will always arise. At some point the lawyers (or judges) have to wake up and stop the none sense. It is not because a law give you a right that you can use it in any way you want. Doing so attack the foundation of the legal system and people stop trusting it... and this, I hope you agree, is a very bad thing. And here lawyers play a big part to play. By being prepared to argue the craziest things, they undermine the laws and the whole legal system. We even have a law in Quebec that guards against such abuse of the system. The idea is pretty simple: no rights can be used in bad faith. If you abuse of the rights you have been granted, your claim is void. It is not enough that you are allowed to do something, how and why you do it is important. I don't pretend that this provision (which trumps any other provision btw) is perfect, but at least it is a step in the right direction (no pun intended).
Your mod "funny" but you have a vary valid point I would say. What he is presenting can be boiled down to a "new notation". More pleasing to the eye, but significantly more cumbersome to use. A notation success is usually determine but it ability to underline the inherent structure of the system studied. By doing this it allows us to understand more easily what is going on and what is important. In this case, and don't see what his "notation" hads to particle physics except for its visually quality... I supposed that if you have a long calculation to do it might end up looking much nicer and you won't get sore eyes. Then again, I don't know that much about particle physics, so maybe his "notation" is more intuitive after all.
Disclaimer (I am aware of the irony): IANAL, studied it to some extent, but my real interest is math/statistics.
My answer to Bill is fairly simple: because the software industry is still in development stage. Pretty much all new technologies/activities get a "liability free ride" when they emerge. This is usually because holding a technology/activity liable for the damages it causes at an early stage could kill it before it can get a chance to mature and be useful to society (as many reader pointed out, holding a company liable for their software would hamper the development and could have killed the industry 10 or 20 years ago. today, I am not so sure). This can be seen as the price we pay as a society for the benefit of having the developing technology. Cars, trains, consumer products have all caused their fair share of victims in their early days. They are still a lot of victims from these technologies/activities, but now those who profit from them are held liable for their negligence (and sometimes they are held liable even when no fault can be attributed).
The transition usually occurs when the technology becomes an integral part of our society on which we all rely. The transition can be very long, sometimes it begins in courts (ex: car industry) sometime legislation is required (ex: work related accidents) when the judge are reluctant to create a precedent. So the real question is thus: When is the software industry going to be held liable and to what extent? Maybe software is different and it will avoid liability. I very much doubt that and I think MS and cie's would agree with me. This is why EULAs have been so vocal about the issue of liability. Companies, don't expect this to hold forever (eventually there will be limits to what can be waived by a EULA) and so they make sure they get to keep as much as they can from the "liability free ride" when eventually it is agreed that enough is enough. The reasoning is simple: the more you have to start with, the more whining and kicking get to do as courts or legislatures are taking it away from you.
Before this comes around, it might take quite a while. There are various reasons for this but here are two important ones. First, the damages caused by software are hard to assess and more importantly they don't tend to be bloody (reading old judgments on car accidents makes you feel lucky that you we live and a world where car companies were forced to get their shit together). Second, the average computer user doesn't know what to expect from software: is it normally that my OS crashes and I lose everything I had worked on? How secured can I assume my OS or applications to be? Granted, not the most insightful questions, but you get my gist. Without any knowledge of how software works most people will assume that they did something wrong, not that something is wrong with the software they are using. More people will need to become computer literate before the software industry is be held to high standards as a whole (i.e. not just through contract agreements like many of you mentioned in you posts. By the way, contract liability was also the only liability for manufactured goods until Donoghue v. Stevenson, so such a move away from contracts wouldn't be ground braking).
Maybe the software industry will manage to dodge its rendez-vous with history, but I very much doubt it. Eventually software will cause problems of such magnitude that those would directly benefit from it will be held liable for the damage regardless of the stipulations in the respective EULAs (by the way, you cannot waive EVERYTHING through a license or a contract, it is against public order to do that). As far as I am concerned, it is a matter of time and bad luck, both of which are very hard to avoid.
So what about free software? Well, like I have said, those held liable have traditionally those who benefit from the activity. So it will be an issue of whether free software developers will be recognised as benefiting (sufficiently?) from people using their software or no