The model was always marketing garbage anyway. However what you should understand is that the question is not "security" as such rather "who's security". Microsoft cares somewhat about the security of it's large and or strategic paying customers of which you are not one.
Yes, I understand that.
However this model is often trotted out as a reason why Windows would have a superior security record to linux had linux similar desktop saturation levels. In other words, if linux was as popular as Windows then, because the source is freely available for any hacker to study, it stands to reason that linux would be far easier to design malware for.
I have honestly heard this argument put forward on a number of occasions but until now I had not been aware that the Windows source was, in all probability, not quite as safely under lock and key as I have been led to believe.
A) The Chinese government has preferential access to the Windows source code. As such they will always know a vulnerability you don't. If you are their enemy then it can never be an acceptable system.
Are you sure?
If this is true then it rather drives a coach and horses through the security-through-obscurity closed source security model.
Lack of education is one of the main hindrances to combating HIV and poverty for the population at large.
However the ruling party is less interested in helping it's population at large than it is about maintaining control over that population.
The ANC have seen the result of the raising of education standards in Zimbabwe and the subsequent loss of control by the ZANU-PF ruling party
ZANU-PF have managed to regain that control, largely by brutal oppression coupled with the dismantling of the education system and what should have been the cornerstone of Mugabe's legacy.
In an attempt to bring this post back On Topic, let me just conclude by saying that the Biometric data included in the new passports is more an attempt to appease the British so that they might relax current visa requirements on South African citizens rather than any significant action in the war against terror.
If this is the cutting edge of cyber-warfare, then it's quite frankly piss-poor.
And if the DoD defences against this attack are weak enough to be breached then the last thing they should be doing is bleating on about it and drawing attention to the fact.
Yes, but is it not the case that the name-brand has to compete against the generics? Outside of the US, I mean.
I am just saying that I am far from convinced that the US drug customers subsidize drugs in any other part of the World.
I feel that the price differential between what customers might pay in the US and what they might pay in the rest of the World is better explained by the drug companies in the US having successfully lobbied to keep out competitors.
I'm sorry, it just seems very unlikely that US drug companies are seeking to subsidize operations in other parts of the world by inflating prices in the US.
Selling their drugs cheap in price-controlled countries while charging us to keep up profits is a subsidy. We pay to keep their drug prices low.
Are you SURE Germany runs such a price control?
I feel a far more likely explanation is that the US prevents the sale of generic drugs thus allowing the drug companies to charge what they want in the US.
It would seem to me that this would account for disparity in pricing that you speak of rather than a cap being placed on the sale of the drugs per se.
Better to get little money than none at all, especially if that foreign country decides to manufacture your drug itself despite your patents.
But if the foreign drug companies are prevented from selling their products in the US, wouldn't the converse apply?
You rightly say that patents are the issue behind this but that's another argument!
Yes, I can believe that the drug companies have managed to get the Bush Government to outlaw cut-price drugs.
I just don't believe that the drug companies are subsidizing drugs sold elsewhere in the world as you claim.
I mean, they are being granted the privilege of being able to charge what they like in a market which is prohibited to their competitors, why should they feel the need to take a hit when they sell outside of the US? Surely it make sense if you were making a loss in a particular market (which is what you imply), then it would be pointless to try to compete in that market.
Alright, if you are not making a loss, but are just not making the complete skinning which you could make in a protected market, then that's a different matter.
I think that a more believable scenario is that generic medicines may be legal in some countries but are illegal in the US, which, of course means that there is no competing product and therefore the drug companies have a free reign to charge what they want in the US.
Hans won't be executed because the prosecution are not calling for a death sentence penalty, presumably because they know that to get that to stick they need to have a 'smoking gun' or some similarly water-tight evidence, which they have not got in this case. Pretty obviously an error on their part.
Had they called for the death penalty, they would have strengthened their case, surely? By not calling for the death penalty they are, as you rightly point out, appearing to be uncertain.
In this particular instance, Reiser and his defense team appear to have given them more than enough ammunition by their erratic behaviour, I'll bet the prosecution is now regretting not doing so.
I believe this all goes to further add weight to my contention that justice in the US is primarily based on the capability (or lack thereof) of the defense and their protagonists.
Mod this as flamebait if you wish, I personally feel that it is a valid issue.
But then, As I stated before, I am not a US citizen.
I have long regarded the US Justice system as terribly flawed; not only does a cast iron alibi not prevent a guilty verdict, (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=6&did=109) but irrefutable evidence (think OJ), does not necessarily ensure a conviction.
It really does depend, like most things appear to in the US, on the size of your bank balance and in particular the capability of your defense lawyer.
No matter how weak the case against him would seem, I'll be surprised if Rieser does not swing.
We have all experienced the Microsoft business model and by now we know how it works.
Repeat after me "EMBRACE, EXTEND, EXTINGUISH". Which part don't you understand?
They know it makes sense and you know it makes sense.
As for people saying that they will design websites to break IE8, I'm afraid that IE8 is gonna break your website.
Fact is that even now I'm having difficulty weaning people from IE6. Why should they use that other rubbish when IE6 is the manufacturer's choice. Well, okay, IE7, if you must insist.
They used to have the Kariba Hydro-Electric Scheme, once the biggest scheme of it's kind in the World.
They still have huge coal reserves at Hwange (pronounced 'Wankie' to the great mirth of the Brits) and a Coal fire Power Station capable, at full capacity of providing most of the Country's power needs.
Indeed, Zimbabwe used to export electricity to Zambia, Malawi, Mozambique, Botswana and South Africa.
Not any more. Up until a week or so ago Mozambique used to supply Zimbabwe, but have cut off supplies because Zimbabwe have failed to pay her debts.
Now Zimbabwe receives the bulk of it's electricity from South Africa who are keen to supply free electricity to prop up the Government of President Mugabe.
This isn't going down terribly well in South Africa where major cities like Durban, Cape Town and the Johannesburg/Pretoria Conurbanisation (now called Gauteng) are suffering powercuts due to supply deficits.
People in Zimbabwe are blaming chronic economic mismanagement and a system of rampant cronyism and nepotism whereby Government parastatial utilities and other property, mines and industries are allocated to ruling party supporters.
Fools! It is obviously the work of the former colonial masters using cyber-criminals in there desperate efforts to unseat his Excellency President-for-Life Robert Gabriel Mugabe!
Personally I feel that this is a battle that MS should never have allowed to develop. I'm not really sure that they would be wise in getting as far as court. English law is based on precedent (as I understand it; IANAL), so I'm not sure they would want to see their EULA tested in a case like this.
The best thing they could do (for their own point of view) is to buy the app for a generous sum (half a million or so) and bury it. Damage limitation time, I think!
Well, in that case I would say it's probably worth the gamble (admittedly I'm not the guy who is in the firing line, so I can afford to be free with my advice).
I really don't think that it would be too difficult to make MS look like total prats in this case and I doubt that any judge would be immune to the little guy v. colossal giant aspect. Well, not enough to be too harsh against the little guy. I'm sure, too, that plenty of people would contribute to covering his costs anyway.
As to appeals, I can't see MS pushing it that far.
Even with the limited exposure afforded by/. and El Reg, MS must be haemorrhaging support. Imagine if The Sun got hold of it?
And if it gets as far as the Lords, it becomes political; I'm reasonably certain that the little guy would have a huge advantage.
I can imagine! Is that guaranteed? I mean, if a court feels that the matter should not have reached court in the first place, do they have an option to apply a smaller penalty?
Well, okay, given that he will most likely lose the case, what penalty can he expect to be served?
Would it be worth it to make a point? and to drag Microsoft's name through the mud at the same time?
I'm thinking that a reasonably well-organised campaign could make Microsoft sorry that they ever pursued this; and indeed, might force them into a bit of damage-limitation.
Regardless of the legal standing of the EULA, Microsoft will have plenty of documentation to say that he knew the implications of the EULA from his meetings with them. And, by implication, that he had accepted the conditions thereby imposed.
Slashdot Mirror
I doubt it.
This is getting quite a lot of publicity and Telkom won't like the implications.
I suspect that they are already hatching (sorry) schemes of which Terry Thomas would be proud.
The model was always marketing garbage anyway. However what you should understand is that the question is not "security" as such rather "who's security". Microsoft cares somewhat about the security of it's large and or strategic paying customers of which you are not one.
Yes, I understand that.
However this model is often trotted out as a reason why Windows would have a superior security record to linux had linux similar desktop saturation levels. In other words, if linux was as popular as Windows then, because the source is freely available for any hacker to study, it stands to reason that linux would be far easier to design malware for.
I have honestly heard this argument put forward on a number of occasions but until now I had not been aware that the Windows source was, in all probability, not quite as safely under lock and key as I have been led to believe.
A) The Chinese government has preferential access to the Windows source code. As such they will always know a vulnerability you don't. If you are their enemy then it can never be an acceptable system.
Are you sure?
If this is true then it rather drives a coach and horses through the security-through-obscurity closed source security model.
Lack of education is one of the main hindrances to combating HIV and poverty for the population at large.
However the ruling party is less interested in helping it's population at large than it is about maintaining control over that population.
The ANC have seen the result of the raising of education standards in Zimbabwe and the subsequent loss of control by the ZANU-PF ruling party
ZANU-PF have managed to regain that control, largely by brutal oppression coupled with the dismantling of the education system and what should have been the cornerstone of Mugabe's legacy.
In an attempt to bring this post back On Topic, let me just conclude by saying that the Biometric data included in the new passports is more an attempt to appease the British so that they might relax current visa requirements on South African citizens rather than any significant action in the war against terror.
I once went to a job interview (it was in the eighties, please be gentle...) where the suit interviewing me said:
"Basic programming, huh? Well we're far more advanced than that here."
I didn't get the job.
Good Grief!
I suppose the saying is: "Just because you're paranoid, that doesn't mean that they *aren't* out to get you".
What about those of us who don't use Windows as an operating system? I suppose we are doomed to stay out of the loop?
I agree.
If this is the cutting edge of cyber-warfare, then it's quite frankly piss-poor.
And if the DoD defences against this attack are weak enough to be breached then the last thing they should be doing is bleating on about it and drawing attention to the fact.
Yes, but is it not the case that the name-brand has to compete against the generics? Outside of the US, I mean.
;)
I am just saying that I am far from convinced that the US drug customers subsidize drugs in any other part of the World.
I feel that the price differential between what customers might pay in the US and what they might pay in the rest of the World is better explained by the drug companies in the US having successfully lobbied to keep out competitors.
I'm sorry, it just seems very unlikely that US drug companies are seeking to subsidize operations in other parts of the world by inflating prices in the US.
Are you SURE Germany runs such a price control?
I feel a far more likely explanation is that the US prevents the sale of generic drugs thus allowing the drug companies to charge what they want in the US.
It would seem to me that this would account for disparity in pricing that you speak of rather than a cap being placed on the sale of the drugs per se.
But if the foreign drug companies are prevented from selling their products in the US, wouldn't the converse apply?
You rightly say that patents are the issue behind this but that's another argument!
I still don't believe you.
Yes, I can believe that the drug companies have managed to get the Bush Government to outlaw cut-price drugs.
I just don't believe that the drug companies are subsidizing drugs sold elsewhere in the world as you claim.
I mean, they are being granted the privilege of being able to charge what they like in a market which is prohibited to their competitors, why should they feel the need to take a hit when they sell outside of the US? Surely it make sense if you were making a loss in a particular market (which is what you imply), then it would be pointless to try to compete in that market.
Alright, if you are not making a loss, but are just not making the complete skinning which you could make in a protected market, then that's a different matter.
This sounds a little far-fetched to me.
I think that a more believable scenario is that generic medicines may be legal in some countries but are illegal in the US, which, of course means that there is no competing product and therefore the drug companies have a free reign to charge what they want in the US.
Or perhaps he is taking money for someone else's contributions?
Why on earth would microsoft abandon it now?
Had they called for the death penalty, they would have strengthened their case, surely? By not calling for the death penalty they are, as you rightly point out, appearing to be uncertain.
In this particular instance, Reiser and his defense team appear to have given them more than enough ammunition by their erratic behaviour, I'll bet the prosecution is now regretting not doing so.
I believe this all goes to further add weight to my contention that justice in the US is primarily based on the capability (or lack thereof) of the defense and their protagonists.
Mod this as flamebait if you wish, I personally feel that it is a valid issue.
But then, As I stated before, I am not a US citizen.
Like you, I am not a US citizen.
Thank God.
I have long regarded the US Justice system as terribly flawed; not only does a cast iron alibi not prevent a guilty verdict, (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=6&did=109) but irrefutable evidence (think OJ), does not necessarily ensure a conviction.
It really does depend, like most things appear to in the US, on the size of your bank balance and in particular the capability of your defense lawyer.
No matter how weak the case against him would seem, I'll be surprised if Rieser does not swing.
Why is everybody surprised?
We have all experienced the Microsoft business model and by now we know how it works.
Repeat after me "EMBRACE, EXTEND, EXTINGUISH". Which part don't you understand?
They know it makes sense and you know it makes sense.
As for people saying that they will design websites to break IE8, I'm afraid that IE8 is gonna break your website.
Fact is that even now I'm having difficulty weaning people from IE6. Why should they use that other rubbish when IE6 is the manufacturer's choice. Well, okay, IE7, if you must insist.
Not any more.
They used to have the Kariba Hydro-Electric Scheme, once the biggest scheme of it's kind in the World.
They still have huge coal reserves at Hwange (pronounced 'Wankie' to the great mirth of the Brits) and a Coal fire Power Station capable, at full capacity of providing most of the Country's power needs.
Indeed, Zimbabwe used to export electricity to Zambia, Malawi, Mozambique, Botswana and South Africa.
Not any more. Up until a week or so ago Mozambique used to supply Zimbabwe, but have cut off supplies because Zimbabwe have failed to pay her debts.
Now Zimbabwe receives the bulk of it's electricity from South Africa who are keen to supply free electricity to prop up the Government of President Mugabe.
This isn't going down terribly well in South Africa where major cities like Durban, Cape Town and the Johannesburg/Pretoria Conurbanisation (now called Gauteng) are suffering powercuts due to supply deficits.
http://www.thetimes.co.za/News/Article.aspx?id=685437
Hah! I knew it!
People in Zimbabwe are blaming chronic economic mismanagement and a system of rampant cronyism and nepotism whereby Government parastatial utilities and other property, mines and industries are allocated to ruling party supporters.
Fools! It is obviously the work of the former colonial masters using cyber-criminals in there desperate efforts to unseat his Excellency President-for-Life Robert Gabriel Mugabe!
(Power cuts are endemic in Zimbabwe)
What were you trying to run?
A usable CAD app would be nice.
I'm still using XP because I need AutoCAD (or IntelliCAD, an AutoCAD Clone)
I should write a tutorial or something.
Well, yes, that would be useful.
Yes. :)
No doubt they would go totally OTT.
Personally I feel that this is a battle that MS should never have allowed to develop. I'm not really sure that they would be wise in getting as far as court. English law is based on precedent (as I understand it; IANAL), so I'm not sure they would want to see their EULA tested in a case like this.
The best thing they could do (for their own point of view) is to buy the app for a generous sum (half a million or so) and bury it. Damage limitation time, I think!
Well, in that case I would say it's probably worth the gamble (admittedly I'm not the guy who is in the firing line, so I can afford to be free with my advice).
/. and El Reg, MS must be haemorrhaging support. Imagine if The Sun got hold of it?
I really don't think that it would be too difficult to make MS look like total prats in this case and I doubt that any judge would be immune to the little guy v. colossal giant aspect. Well, not enough to be too harsh against the little guy. I'm sure, too, that plenty of people would contribute to covering his costs anyway.
As to appeals, I can't see MS pushing it that far.
Even with the limited exposure afforded by
And if it gets as far as the Lords, it becomes political; I'm reasonably certain that the little guy would have a huge advantage.
Go for it, little guy!
That can be a substantial amount of money.
I can imagine! Is that guaranteed? I mean, if a court feels that the matter should not have reached court in the first place, do they have an option to apply a smaller penalty?
Well, okay, given that he will most likely lose the case, what penalty can he expect to be served?
Would it be worth it to make a point? and to drag Microsoft's name through the mud at the same time?
I'm thinking that a reasonably well-organised campaign could make Microsoft sorry that they ever pursued this; and indeed, might force them into a bit of damage-limitation.
What do you think?
Regardless of the legal standing of the EULA, Microsoft will have plenty of documentation to say that he knew the implications of the EULA from his meetings with them. And, by implication, that he had accepted the conditions thereby imposed.
No.
That's not how it works in Africa
The election monitors are there to endorse the winning candidate.
Some rural areas in Zimbabwe's last election had a 110% voter turnout.
If I tell you that the voters must oftentimes cover 10-20 miles on foot in order to vote, you'll see how preposterous that figure really is.
The bulk of the election monitors endorsed the election as "Free and Fair".