This is absolutely not true. Obviously you have limited use of it. Last.fm may have indie offerings but it is hardly a service which centers on that. I find virtually every song I have ever listened to in my whole life (and I've got a few years behind me) on there, and then some.
There is nothing wrong with the comparison, unless you are saying that Microsoft's offering can't even remotely come close to what Last.fm offers. Then I'll agree. Otherwise you are just trolling.
There is nothing unethical about releasing them. I have no trust in a system that old that hasn't been updated. Besides, just like funding the internet via advertisements; this group should find another way and let Wikipedia be free of their undue influences when opening this type of material to the public domain.
Last.fm is good enough. There are others. I don't see the value in another service like theirs. Last.fm has no commercials. I wouldn't want to trade a commercial free site for one with commercials.
By 2014 hopefully Linux will have a good 15% of the market. This should give rise to decisions on whether that costly Windows program is too much. Google should have their OS out with a lot of spit and polish on it working well on desktops and laptops. The EU and other nations most likely will have put the thumbscrews to Microsoft yet again, maybe many times.
XP will still be going strong but Microsoft likely will withhold patches to their most popular product in an attempt to extort you to purchase and upgrade to their latest.
Apple may even have decided that it is possible to bring software development and lots of new minds to their OS by releasing a version that installs nicely on any PC (say for an extra fee or an add-in card (or USB dongle) to offset the loss on profit from their own computer sales).
But the most obvious reason is that it isn't necessary to upgrade to Windows Vista or 7 in order to get your job done. You can continue to work and make it work right with the tools you have. Besides, I think by now, after looking at the Release Candidate of Win 7 that the performance just isn't there with all the security code added back in (they took it out in the beta to make you impressed, but we all know they ultimately had to put it back in)--very manipulative Microsoft was/is. Essentially, Win7 is just Vista7.
It adds little overall and is not even close to the price consumers want. The restrictive internal DRM is there and unnecessary. It's still Microsoft's attempt to control the content market. Gates said a couple years back that computers are no longer primarily used to create content by the vast majority of us, they are used to consume it. That's why DRM is their key locking technology of the future. We need to shun any technology with DRM internals and shun all content that is produced to take advantage of it.
These companies won't migrate because 1) there are alternatives now, and 2) they don't need to, and 3) they are far more aware of the concept of "embrace, extend, extinguish" which leads into the idea of lock in technologies which deny you a choice.
This whole idea is ludicrous. Gates needs to become another Howard Hughs reclusive. I'm getting too much of his bullshit factor in my life.
The fact that this was even allowed as a patent is wholly crazy. They need to have created and completed/tested. Otherwise it should not be allowed to be patented.
I tried it. Have it on my iphone. I never use it anymore. When I heard they were putting ads into the songs and that you could be interrupted mid song I laughed and decided to cease all use.
Even if they corrected the situation they don't seem to understand. I don't listen to internet radio for the ads. I listen for the music. There are other ways to make money. You don't need to ad subsidize everything. Find another way.
I have no problem with minimal fees. In fact, I use Last.fm. Not always, but semi-frequently. I pay them the $3.00 a month not because I have to but because I want them to survive and feed me solid music without the ads.
You do it the same way you do it with the SSN. You tie it to related information. The SSN is not identifiable except that it can tell them roughly when the SSN was issued and in what State. But when tied to your other records it identifies you. If in fact it wasn't intended that way then they could never identify you by your SSN, which we all know that they can. The purpose of the SSN was to identify you. It doesn't matter if they are correct or not, it was meant to identify you. They could transpose numbers but it was still intended to identify you. It was never intended to identify you from the number, other than to say which state it was issued in and roughly the year it was issued (AFAICT). But certainly the purpose of the SSN was to identify you. No one debates that.
Using the SSN in isolation is valueless, but why use it if it is being used in isolation? Why collect the IP if it is being used in isolation? The answer is that it is never used in isolation. When it is used it is used to identify.
No, you have your analogy wrong. It isn't about them being arrested, it's about them being investigated. They were able to determine who to investigate by the personally identifiable information known as the address.
This is not true. The house or even an apartment house always identifies the residents. You are identified by the apartment number.
The IP address identifies the first 3 dot notations of the IP address (say in the case of the house "the neighborhood") and the 4th dot notation identifies the actual address (the actual PC) because it is usually tied to the MAC address of the computer.
Are we to say that it is not personally identifiable if it is not identifiable all the time, just some of the time? We could do the same thing. The SSN isn't identifying information all the time such as when it is used in identity theft? Sure it is identifying information, that's why the created it.
The IP address is identifiable information because it was designed for that purpose. The streets of your city and the address numbers weren't created solely for the delivery of mail. It's just that the government decided it could use that information to deliver mail. It still identifies you. It is no different than your house address identifying you. So, you say it doesn't identify you because sometimes there's just one person living there while other homes have more than one? It is still identifying information.
Just because Microsoft collected the information doesn't mean they didn't have any intention of going back to find out who you were. The class action lawsuits simply put them on notice that if they use the information to identify you then they are violating their own terms which leaves the doors wide open to what you can do.
This is not true. The card identifies the person, the persons bank accounts, etc. The bank identifies the person and their accounts.
The IP address identifies the person just as the credit card does. The credit card when tied to the date and time only identifies the potential crime, whereas the IP tied to the date and time identifies the account on the server and the address of the owner of that account.
That's just semantics. It isn't the matter that it's tied to a router. It's the date and time in use associated with the number. It still identifies the account which identifies the person, They won't come to your router/pc to look for you. They'll go to the ISP database to identify you based on the logs.
It's identifiable information just as the SSN is identifiable.
No, that's wrong. The IP address was used to identify her. The rest was just confirmation. She was identified by the IP address and the corresponding dates and times it was in use.
One can only guess that the Judge was bought off. Clearly his ruling contradicts reality. Collection of the IP address is collecting personally identifiable information.
In example:
1) you have a social security number.
2) by looking at that number you can't tell much about the person. You can't identify them.
3) By tying that number to something personal you can identify them, thus making it personally identifiable.
In the case of the IP address you can't see anything personal by just looking at the number, just as is the case with the SSN, but you can tell about the person if you tie it to a date and time and then look at the account information. Just like looking at the SSN in relation to the decade/year/month/day it is active and then looking at the database that identifies who the person is.
This Judge was bought because you can't make that ruling without thinking to yourself that you are defying common sense.
Saying that the IP address is not personally identifiable is like saying that the SSN isn't personally identifiable. If both are the same type of system then the judge is saying neither is, so the question then becomes: what is personally identifiable? His definition doesn't hold water. It's a circular reference.
Linux has 4.5-5% of the desktop. This is well established by metering organizations which measure activity over long periods of time on over 20,000 highly visible web sites. Osx has about 2-3% of the market. Even Microsoft acknowledges that Linux has a greater market share than osx.
Only people that don't use and understand Linux believe it it prone to the same issues as windows. Let me say this clearly. Windows is a magnificent clusterfuck of security. It is so bad that it is a Swiss cheese OS. There are so many ways to exploit it, even a patched system, that you are irresponsible for using windows.
The beta of win 7 was nothing more than vista with most of the security removed, a few extra features, and a refined (with stolen ideas and concepts) taskbar. Pcmag.com reports that the RC of win 7 is only 5% faster than vista and all of that is imperceptible to the end user.
I read those comments and thought that about Digg.com. There was a recent eval of digg.com and it looks like there is significant evidence of astroturfing and maybe from Microsoft sponsored addresses.
Vista was NOT the most successful Windows product ever. What a total crock of shit. Shareholders should put a halt to that shit fast. If it were where are their dividends and how come Microsoft is laying of a bunch of workers? If it is the most successful it has been that way within the bounds of this incredibly poor economy, thus they'd have solid dividends and increasing profits.
When does this get though your noggin that when a company blatantly lies to you, the shareholders, the public, and the government, that you should stop using their products completely, everything, not just Windows?
How many decades will it take to recover if you guys don't use competing products?. You are only extending everyone's misery by giving money to the one company that doesn't give one holy shit about you.
When people want XP you give it to them. People demand a product you produce the supply.
When the company that controls the main product is a monopoly the goal is to keep soaking you for everything.
You don't need Vista. You don't even need Win7. In fact, there is absolutely no need for either, nor is there a need for XP. 90% of the people do 99% of the same things. Those things can be performed by Linux.
Stop dictating that the people using computers have to upgrade to a specific product. Let them use what they want.
This is so stupid that it even happens. It is just so incredibly insane. We've gotta end this somehow. End the monopoly and people will have free choice again. There's no benefit to Microsoft's monopoly. It isn't benefiting society in any way.
They absolutely do not do that. They don't exclude your choice of other advertising and it doesn't kill competition due to that. Don't be so naive. Even if you go with google you can still advertise elsewhere, period.
Now if google were to start making deals with all OEM's that their default search engine was google search, google docs was the default productivity package, chrome was the default browser, then maybe you would have a case. Ultimately, they are a big player, but they are not a monopoly.
In my mind, a business becomes a monopoly when they completely bar entry into a market. Google does not do this. There aren't going to be henchmen showing up at your door if you start making mysweetvideohostingsite.com. Now make something that competes directly with Microsoft? Or apple? Yeah, you might have to watch your back.
They would have to tied that to pricing in a way that kills competition. To just make the deals isn't illegal.
Really, this is just Microsoft trying to throw everyone off their obvious continued anticompetitive monopolistic efforts. Get you focused on someone else and they have a greater chance of being able to do all those things they want and not getting caught.
Microsoft is just dancing around hoping someone will fall on their butt while having some modicum of relief while everyone looks at the one that fell down.
Google is not anticompetitive. There are no complaints that it is. This is much different than holding hostage the industry to create a monopoly. No one is alleging that Google has done anything of the sort. Everyone that doesn't like Google's way of doing things can just click and go to any of a number of other search engines.
People chose Google not because they had no choice, they chose them because they were/are the best at what they do; which is to bring traffic to your business.
Windows became what it is because people and suppliers felt they didn't have a choice, and Microsoft's criminal activities tied them down. Google has operated in the light of Microsoft's anticompetitive actions for the past 10 years and yet no one with oversight is claiming Google is anticompetitive or doing anything illegal.
Again, if you don't like Google then just find another search engine. It's not Google's fault that the other search engine doesn't perform for you.
And for goodness sake you don't let someone who's a convicted criminal testify that you are committing the same crime you did all the while competing for that same domain.
It has nothing to do with Open Source. It is about anything that isn't Microsoft. In your stance, if you aren't pro-Microsoft you are anti-Microsoft. You seem to get confused easily.
Slashdot Mirror
This is absolutely not true. Obviously you have limited use of it. Last.fm may have indie offerings but it is hardly a service which centers on that. I find virtually every song I have ever listened to in my whole life (and I've got a few years behind me) on there, and then some.
There is nothing wrong with the comparison, unless you are saying that Microsoft's offering can't even remotely come close to what Last.fm offers. Then I'll agree. Otherwise you are just trolling.
There is nothing unethical about releasing them. I have no trust in a system that old that hasn't been updated. Besides, just like funding the internet via advertisements; this group should find another way and let Wikipedia be free of their undue influences when opening this type of material to the public domain.
Last.fm is good enough. There are others. I don't see the value in another service like theirs. Last.fm has no commercials. I wouldn't want to trade a commercial free site for one with commercials.
By 2014 hopefully Linux will have a good 15% of the market. This should give rise to decisions on whether that costly Windows program is too much. Google should have their OS out with a lot of spit and polish on it working well on desktops and laptops. The EU and other nations most likely will have put the thumbscrews to Microsoft yet again, maybe many times.
XP will still be going strong but Microsoft likely will withhold patches to their most popular product in an attempt to extort you to purchase and upgrade to their latest.
Apple may even have decided that it is possible to bring software development and lots of new minds to their OS by releasing a version that installs nicely on any PC (say for an extra fee or an add-in card (or USB dongle) to offset the loss on profit from their own computer sales).
But the most obvious reason is that it isn't necessary to upgrade to Windows Vista or 7 in order to get your job done. You can continue to work and make it work right with the tools you have. Besides, I think by now, after looking at the Release Candidate of Win 7 that the performance just isn't there with all the security code added back in (they took it out in the beta to make you impressed, but we all know they ultimately had to put it back in)--very manipulative Microsoft was/is. Essentially, Win7 is just Vista7.
It adds little overall and is not even close to the price consumers want. The restrictive internal DRM is there and unnecessary. It's still Microsoft's attempt to control the content market. Gates said a couple years back that computers are no longer primarily used to create content by the vast majority of us, they are used to consume it. That's why DRM is their key locking technology of the future. We need to shun any technology with DRM internals and shun all content that is produced to take advantage of it.
These companies won't migrate because 1) there are alternatives now, and 2) they don't need to, and 3) they are far more aware of the concept of "embrace, extend, extinguish" which leads into the idea of lock in technologies which deny you a choice.
Will become the RSOD or Red Sea of Death.
This whole idea is ludicrous. Gates needs to become another Howard Hughs reclusive. I'm getting too much of his bullshit factor in my life.
The fact that this was even allowed as a patent is wholly crazy. They need to have created and completed/tested. Otherwise it should not be allowed to be patented.
OMG, that was horrible. Welcome to the new MS. And it took 4+ minutes to show us that.
I tried it. Have it on my iphone. I never use it anymore. When I heard they were putting ads into the songs and that you could be interrupted mid song I laughed and decided to cease all use.
Even if they corrected the situation they don't seem to understand. I don't listen to internet radio for the ads. I listen for the music. There are other ways to make money. You don't need to ad subsidize everything. Find another way.
I have no problem with minimal fees. In fact, I use Last.fm. Not always, but semi-frequently. I pay them the $3.00 a month not because I have to but because I want them to survive and feed me solid music without the ads.
You do it the same way you do it with the SSN. You tie it to related information. The SSN is not identifiable except that it can tell them roughly when the SSN was issued and in what State. But when tied to your other records it identifies you. If in fact it wasn't intended that way then they could never identify you by your SSN, which we all know that they can. The purpose of the SSN was to identify you. It doesn't matter if they are correct or not, it was meant to identify you. They could transpose numbers but it was still intended to identify you. It was never intended to identify you from the number, other than to say which state it was issued in and roughly the year it was issued (AFAICT). But certainly the purpose of the SSN was to identify you. No one debates that.
Using the SSN in isolation is valueless, but why use it if it is being used in isolation? Why collect the IP if it is being used in isolation? The answer is that it is never used in isolation. When it is used it is used to identify.
No, you have your analogy wrong. It isn't about them being arrested, it's about them being investigated. They were able to determine who to investigate by the personally identifiable information known as the address.
You need to ask the Judge to rule on that one dude.
This is not true. The house or even an apartment house always identifies the residents. You are identified by the apartment number.
The IP address identifies the first 3 dot notations of the IP address (say in the case of the house "the neighborhood") and the 4th dot notation identifies the actual address (the actual PC) because it is usually tied to the MAC address of the computer.
Are we to say that it is not personally identifiable if it is not identifiable all the time, just some of the time? We could do the same thing. The SSN isn't identifying information all the time such as when it is used in identity theft? Sure it is identifying information, that's why the created it.
The IP address is identifiable information because it was designed for that purpose. The streets of your city and the address numbers weren't created solely for the delivery of mail. It's just that the government decided it could use that information to deliver mail. It still identifies you. It is no different than your house address identifying you. So, you say it doesn't identify you because sometimes there's just one person living there while other homes have more than one? It is still identifying information.
Just because Microsoft collected the information doesn't mean they didn't have any intention of going back to find out who you were. The class action lawsuits simply put them on notice that if they use the information to identify you then they are violating their own terms which leaves the doors wide open to what you can do.
This is not true. The card identifies the person, the persons bank accounts, etc. The bank identifies the person and their accounts.
The IP address identifies the person just as the credit card does. The credit card when tied to the date and time only identifies the potential crime, whereas the IP tied to the date and time identifies the account on the server and the address of the owner of that account.
That's just semantics. It isn't the matter that it's tied to a router. It's the date and time in use associated with the number. It still identifies the account which identifies the person, They won't come to your router/pc to look for you. They'll go to the ISP database to identify you based on the logs.
It's identifiable information just as the SSN is identifiable.
No, that's wrong. The IP address was used to identify her. The rest was just confirmation. She was identified by the IP address and the corresponding dates and times it was in use.
One can only guess that the Judge was bought off. Clearly his ruling contradicts reality. Collection of the IP address is collecting personally identifiable information.
In example:
1) you have a social security number.
2) by looking at that number you can't tell much about the person. You can't identify them.
3) By tying that number to something personal you can identify them, thus making it personally identifiable.
In the case of the IP address you can't see anything personal by just looking at the number, just as is the case with the SSN, but you can tell about the person if you tie it to a date and time and then look at the account information. Just like looking at the SSN in relation to the decade/year/month/day it is active and then looking at the database that identifies who the person is.
This Judge was bought because you can't make that ruling without thinking to yourself that you are defying common sense.
Saying that the IP address is not personally identifiable is like saying that the SSN isn't personally identifiable. If both are the same type of system then the judge is saying neither is, so the question then becomes: what is personally identifiable? His definition doesn't hold water. It's a circular reference.
Linux has 4.5-5% of the desktop. This is well established by metering organizations which measure activity over long periods of time on over 20,000 highly visible web sites. Osx has about 2-3% of the market. Even Microsoft acknowledges that Linux has a greater market share than osx.
Only people that don't use and understand Linux believe it it prone to the same issues as windows. Let me say this clearly. Windows is a magnificent clusterfuck of security. It is so bad that it is a Swiss cheese OS. There are so many ways to exploit it, even a patched system, that you are irresponsible for using windows.
The beta of win 7 was nothing more than vista with most of the security removed, a few extra features, and a refined (with stolen ideas and concepts) taskbar. Pcmag.com reports that the RC of win 7 is only 5% faster than vista and all of that is imperceptible to the end user.
I read those comments and thought that about Digg.com. There was a recent eval of digg.com and it looks like there is significant evidence of astroturfing and maybe from Microsoft sponsored addresses.
Vista was NOT the most successful Windows product ever. What a total crock of shit. Shareholders should put a halt to that shit fast. If it were where are their dividends and how come Microsoft is laying of a bunch of workers? If it is the most successful it has been that way within the bounds of this incredibly poor economy, thus they'd have solid dividends and increasing profits.
When does this get though your noggin that when a company blatantly lies to you, the shareholders, the public, and the government, that you should stop using their products completely, everything, not just Windows?
How many decades will it take to recover if you guys don't use competing products?. You are only extending everyone's misery by giving money to the one company that doesn't give one holy shit about you.
When people want XP you give it to them. People demand a product you produce the supply.
When the company that controls the main product is a monopoly the goal is to keep soaking you for everything.
You don't need Vista. You don't even need Win7. In fact, there is absolutely no need for either, nor is there a need for XP. 90% of the people do 99% of the same things. Those things can be performed by Linux.
Stop dictating that the people using computers have to upgrade to a specific product. Let them use what they want.
This is so stupid that it even happens. It is just so incredibly insane. We've gotta end this somehow. End the monopoly and people will have free choice again. There's no benefit to Microsoft's monopoly. It isn't benefiting society in any way.
They absolutely do not do that. They don't exclude your choice of other advertising and it doesn't kill competition due to that. Don't be so naive. Even if you go with google you can still advertise elsewhere, period.
Now if google were to start making deals with all OEM's that their default search engine was google search, google docs was the default productivity package, chrome was the default browser, then maybe you would have a case. Ultimately, they are a big player, but they are not a monopoly.
In my mind, a business becomes a monopoly when they completely bar entry into a market. Google does not do this. There aren't going to be henchmen showing up at your door if you start making mysweetvideohostingsite.com. Now make something that competes directly with Microsoft? Or apple? Yeah, you might have to watch your back.
They would have to tied that to pricing in a way that kills competition. To just make the deals isn't illegal.
Really, this is just Microsoft trying to throw everyone off their obvious continued anticompetitive monopolistic efforts. Get you focused on someone else and they have a greater chance of being able to do all those things they want and not getting caught.
Microsoft is just dancing around hoping someone will fall on their butt while having some modicum of relief while everyone looks at the one that fell down.
Google is not anticompetitive. There are no complaints that it is. This is much different than holding hostage the industry to create a monopoly. No one is alleging that Google has done anything of the sort. Everyone that doesn't like Google's way of doing things can just click and go to any of a number of other search engines.
People chose Google not because they had no choice, they chose them because they were/are the best at what they do; which is to bring traffic to your business.
Windows became what it is because people and suppliers felt they didn't have a choice, and Microsoft's criminal activities tied them down. Google has operated in the light of Microsoft's anticompetitive actions for the past 10 years and yet no one with oversight is claiming Google is anticompetitive or doing anything illegal.
Again, if you don't like Google then just find another search engine. It's not Google's fault that the other search engine doesn't perform for you.
And for goodness sake you don't let someone who's a convicted criminal testify that you are committing the same crime you did all the while competing for that same domain.
It has nothing to do with Open Source. It is about anything that isn't Microsoft. In your stance, if you aren't pro-Microsoft you are anti-Microsoft. You seem to get confused easily.
They must be using the date rape drug on you.