If you can find 3 independent sources (shouldn't be hard for something popular), then all that should be required is a 3-way diff and use whatever is common with any 2 or more. If all 3 are different at the the same place then use some manual intervention and make your result different again or add another source. The final product cannot then be traced to a single source. Am I missing something?
Isn't this just another anti-trust lawsuit in waiting? I'm sure Lavasoft, McAfee, and Symantec will have something to say. Most of us want a more secure windows world (even me, I use OS X) so I can't fault MS for trying to do better, but what are they thinking?
Clearly there is a thriving market for anti-virus/ anti-spyware software, so MS jumping in with a free product doesn't bode well. If MS had added this product before they they created a market for it, fine. Really what MS should do is remove the market - then it's difficult to complain they are competing unfairly. That would mean producing a more secure OS, which I thought was their top priority for over 3 years now.
I don't mean to bash, the more antispyware the better, I'm just curious... where will this lead?
These companies that are members of the BSA that put out OEM software should have a good look at themselves. They could solve a lot of their perceived piracy problem by just not doing OEM. There are 2 main reasons for this:
1. People who don't know better receive software for free with their computer and begin to think that is the way it should be. They shouldn't have to go out and buy software, they should just get it for free because they have bought a computer.
2. People who do know better realise they've already paid a fortune for software they have never used because they know the cost of their computer/s actually included the cost of the OEM software that came with it (which is often crap). They go out and find better alteratives and if it's free all well and good but those companies complaining about piracy have actually stolen real $$$ from them. I can understand why some of those people "find" software and fail to compensate said companies even more $$$.
BTW I use Macs and open-source software and I get even more than I pay for _ now that is a crime.
In Australia there are a couple of things to note:
1. Almost all retail broadband accounts are volume capped and charged at ludicrously high rates if you go over the cap. This adds impetuous to the government to do something about spam due to the public knowing that they are paying for this stuff directly (even if technically it would make a very small percentage of their bill).
2. The Australian legal system isn't too corrupted yet and it is very unlikely that the DPP would use this law against anyone unless the list gathered (by software or otherwise) was actually used for sending spam. If you are a conspiracy theorist - the government will get you anyway, there are plenty of other laws for them to use. This helps the government get at all areas of the problem and no excuses like: "sorry judge, I don't send the spam I just collect the address's and my mate in is actually sending the spam".
I worked in research for 4 years and considered a masters (I was a poor student so I didn't follow through). The work was very interesting, speech recognition, however I found more options and better pay outside academia with just a bachelors degree.
The problem the continuing education is that you are sacrificing time and thus experience. Experience in IT is exceptionally valuable. I know plenty of very successful IT professionals with not even a degree. You may be asking the wrong question. If all you are looking for is improving your career outlook experience will probably take you further (and possibly an MBA later on). However, you may find a Ph.D very rewarding even at the expense of possibly falling behind your contemporaries who are gaining experience employed commercially. Personally I recommend chasing your dreams, It's not responsible but at least it will keep you happy.
I know this sounds like a troll (but then again this this is slashdot) and, yes I am wearing my tin foil hat - however could this possibly have been planned by MS long ago? We know MS bought licenses from SCO, maybe that was just a down-payment for SCO to bring their suit against IBM and publicly threaten Linux users. SCO has got an exceptional amount of press which has more than likely got many companies considering the costs of legal action (win or lose) when using any given software. Now MS comes out with this, that's one hell of a coincidence, and for me, MS is certainly shrewd enough to have actually planned the whole thing all along.
Slashdot Mirror
If you can find 3 independent sources (shouldn't be hard for something popular), then all that should be required is a 3-way diff and use whatever is common with any 2 or more. If all 3 are different at the the same place then use some manual intervention and make your result different again or add another source. The final product cannot then be traced to a single source. Am I missing something?
Isn't this just another anti-trust lawsuit in waiting? I'm sure Lavasoft, McAfee, and Symantec will have something to say. Most of us want a more secure windows world (even me, I use OS X) so I can't fault MS for trying to do better, but what are they thinking?
Clearly there is a thriving market for anti-virus/ anti-spyware software, so MS jumping in with a free product doesn't bode well. If MS had added this product before they they created a market for it, fine. Really what MS should do is remove the market - then it's difficult to complain they are competing unfairly. That would mean producing a more secure OS, which I thought was their top priority for over 3 years now.
I don't mean to bash, the more antispyware the better, I'm just curious... where will this lead?
H.
1. People who don't know better receive software for free with their computer and begin to think that is the way it should be. They shouldn't have to go out and buy software, they should just get it for free because they have bought a computer.
2. People who do know better realise they've already paid a fortune for software they have never used because they know the cost of their computer/s actually included the cost of the OEM software that came with it (which is often crap). They go out and find better alteratives and if it's free all well and good but those companies complaining about piracy have actually stolen real $$$ from them. I can understand why some of those people "find" software and fail to compensate said companies even more $$$.
BTW I use Macs and open-source software and I get even more than I pay for _ now that is a crime.
1. Almost all retail broadband accounts are volume capped and charged at ludicrously high rates if you go over the cap. This adds impetuous to the government to do something about spam due to the public knowing that they are paying for this stuff directly (even if technically it would make a very small percentage of their bill).
2. The Australian legal system isn't too corrupted yet and it is very unlikely that the DPP would use this law against anyone unless the list gathered (by software or otherwise) was actually used for sending spam. If you are a conspiracy theorist - the government will get you anyway, there are plenty of other laws for them to use. This helps the government get at all areas of the problem and no excuses like: "sorry judge, I don't send the spam I just collect the address's and my mate in is actually sending the spam".
The problem the continuing education is that you are sacrificing time and thus experience. Experience in IT is exceptionally valuable. I know plenty of very successful IT professionals with not even a degree. You may be asking the wrong question. If all you are looking for is improving your career outlook experience will probably take you further (and possibly an MBA later on). However, you may find a Ph.D very rewarding even at the expense of possibly falling behind your contemporaries who are gaining experience employed commercially. Personally I recommend chasing your dreams, It's not responsible but at least it will keep you happy.
H.
I know this sounds like a troll (but then again this this is slashdot) and, yes I am wearing my tin foil hat - however could this possibly have been planned by MS long ago? We know MS bought licenses from SCO, maybe that was just a down-payment for SCO to bring their suit against IBM and publicly threaten Linux users. SCO has got an exceptional amount of press which has more than likely got many companies considering the costs of legal action (win or lose) when using any given software. Now MS comes out with this, that's one hell of a coincidence, and for me, MS is certainly shrewd enough to have actually planned the whole thing all along.
like tears in rain - time to die. [Rutger Hauer]