There's no way that ASP services are going to accept liability for anyone who wants to store their source code, data files, documents, or whatever on their servers. On all of them, you agree (passively) not to hold them accountable if they go out business and simply shut down their servers without warning. Check SourceForge -- what happens to your source if they go out of business?
It's a cruel reality of the way the Internet works; People like to "innovate", but not to be held accountable for those innovations. That's why ASPs will never take the place of in-house solutions.
It's funny how things are heading these days. Java,.NET, and dynamically-translating processors are all "brilliant solutions" to a problem that was caused by closed standards in the first place.
The article is not about whether they hurt, it's about whether they are a permanaent injury, or something that magically goes away if people can get away from their keyboards for a while.
The issue isn't whether repetitive stress injuries are "real" or "painful", it's whether they are permanent injuries. The point of the article is that million-dollar lawsuits may not be in order when the symptoms go away after a while.
I'm tired of all these Karma whores writing "insightful" and "informative" responses to articles they haven't read.
more than any other company in the Corporate Republic formerly known as America.
What's so unamerican about a company having the freedom to make and sell products as they see fit? If anything, all the rules and restrictions placed on Microsoft (and our efforts to put more restrictions on them, and in fact to break up the entire company) could hardly be called "American."
The company is also launching a mind-boggling series of sweeping and expensive new initiatives:
Why is that bad? Katz, you're knee-jerking again. They coming up with new projects and products. That's *wonderful*, not terrible. It adds to the "marketplace of ideas." If we don't like them, we don't have to buy them.
But Microsoft can subsidize its products through good and bad times, creating an environment in which it's difficult, if not impossible, for competitors to survive. Microsoft now operates under its own notions of Darwinian business evolution. That is, the rich prey on potential competitors and hang on until they win.
If Linux (or anything else) is going to make it in the marketplace, the people behind it will have to stop whining about not having the market equivalent of affirmative action, and instead will have to develop business models based on something other than "If we make it, they will come."
Since almost everyone who goes online intersects with a Microsoft product, there are substantial privacy concerns. It follows that MS knows more about the Web habits of Americans than any other company.
Uhhh....what about the fact that almost everyone who goes online also intersects with Cisco routers? You're not using any logic, Katz.
That returns Gates to his pre-lawsuit position as the pre-eminent figure of the Internet, invincible as Frankenstein's monster, the creature that really can't be vanquished or driven off.
If it was Linus Torvalds, Slashdot would praise it as the second coming.
This Microsoft garbage is getting really old. Aren't there any important tech topics left in the world?
Many people took an early interest in DMOZ, but when seeing how underdeveloped it was, they gave up and went back to Yahoo with the notion that "DMOZ is a nice idea, but it doesn't have enough content."
That was several years ago, though. I recently checked back to see how the project was going, and it's *huge*. DMOZ is robust enough to compete with Yahoo, but without the bells, whistles, banners, portal features, and other crap that make Yahoo so bloated.
So check out DMOZ. You might, like me, make it your usual search directory.
Somehow I don't see airports or hospitals installing special flourescent lamp networks when they could just throw together a simple radio or infrared system.
This seems to be the trend these days. Netscape is abandoning its browser, which is about the only thing it is known for, in favor of becoming a portal. They failed to realize that the only reason people used their portal is because they didn't know how to reconfigure their default home page.
Likewise, Napster is wound-licking after it lost the MP3 wars. It has no chance, because they're failing to realize that the only reason people used Napster was because the common man finally realized that he could get music for free. Now that the comman man knows that, he's not going to go back to paying for it.
That would be OK, if they would allow him to restart the site elsewhere. However, they're not; the U has actually claimed IP rights over the entire site - all of Dan's work, all of the stories, and all of the comments posted by users.
He himself said that he created the site for the university. That means that they actually do have IP rights over the site. He can create a similar site elsewhere, but that site belongs to the university. He doesn't own it any more than the guy who wrote the HTML for Microsoft's website owns the site itself.
Yes, but he's also getting expelled for putting up the site. How would you feel if you were kicked out of school after working on degree that you're almonst done with.
His academic status is irrelevant. It's a shame, yes, but the fact that we pity him doesn't make him correct. He used U of U resources in a way that apparently violated their code of conduct.
I'm not saying "Flikx sucks, U of U rules." I can see it from the university's perspective, though. If JonKatz started posting Slashdot articles about how stupid Linux is, you can be that he wouldn't be around for long. He has a right to say those things, on his own time, on his own server.
He is not being discriminated against. The University is censoring itself, not him. He was doing the work, but it was for their site, and with their name on it. If a leet haxor defaces Slashdot, CmdrTaco wouldn't be violating that haxor's "free speech" rights by taking it down. Likewise, the U of U was protecting its own identity by removing content that represented it, not flikx. If Flikx had his own website, independent from U of U, they couldn't touch him.
The administration threatened me, and had the legal team tell me that everything on the site is intellectual property of the University of Utah. Everything. That includes all stories, all comments, user accounts, even the graphic design I did. I have off-site backups of the site, and could easily redeploy the site elsewhere provided the time and hosting. I've already put 2000+ unpaid volunteer hours into the University, and they take away my work. It should be my right to operate an open discussion forum, but it seems that it's not.
It is U of U's intellectual property. Flikx did not create this on his own server for his own reasons. He said himself that he had created it for student government. The notion that he has IP rights because he did some coding and administration is like saying that the SlashCode team has IP rights over the site because they wrote the software.
When it comes down to it, the site was designed for U of U, run on U of U servers, with U of U's name on it. Flikx put in a lot of time and effort, but that doesn't mean that he gets the IP rights to it.
(Ooooh, challenging the open source underdog instead of big brother. See how fast this gets modded down.)
This is simply not a free speech issue. The University of Utah, as do most universities, has a code of conduct. If he violated it, then they have no obligation to support his speech by lending him their servers, bandwidth, domain name, etc.
When will people get this through their heads? There is a significant difference between "free speech" and "supported speech." Flikx is not being oppressed, he simply lost the support of those sponsoring him (through use of their equipment), and he must find another sponsor.
Microsoft is not Satan, Hitler, Stalin, Big Brother, MegaCorp(tm), or anything of the sort. It's a software company. As of the past few years, they've actually been making pretty good software. Windows 2000 is a respectable operating system. Internet Explorer won the browser wars (because it was better, not because it was "integrated"). Sure, they ran into some trouble because they acquired a bunch of companies and were accused of being a monopoly, but that doesn't justify the puerile namecalling that we typically see in posts like this.
Talk about knee-jerk reactions.
We hang on every Microsoft-sponsered word that refers to Linux as "inferior" or "a cancer" or anything else, but then turn around and make exactly the same accusations, with just as little basis.
Nothing in the software world will change as long as people like Katz and the karma-whores continue to treat Microsoft like an evil villain; It's unrealistic, and any approach that has such flawed logic at it's core is destined to fail.
Bait and switch. Works every time. Welcome to Business in the 00's.
It's a time-tested technique. Software companies for the past two or three decades have offered reasonably-priced software, only to follow it with astronomically-priced support. Video game consoles are sold cheap because the games cost so much. Even toiletries: I just bought a Mach 3 razor, and realized that they could make a mint on it even if they gave it away, because the blades for it cost $armleg.99.
How am I supposed to get an early post, and thus increase my chances for getting +1ed, if I have to click "Read More" to actually understand what this whole thing is about? The intro text should tell us all we need to know, so that we can commend/criticize/complain/ramble about the topic and be praised as "insightful" and "interesting"
Slashdot Mirror
It's a cruel reality of the way the Internet works; People like to "innovate", but not to be held accountable for those innovations. That's why ASPs will never take the place of in-house solutions.
It's funny how things are heading these days. Java, .NET, and dynamically-translating processors are all "brilliant solutions" to a problem that was caused by closed standards in the first place.
Doesn't Alex Chiu have something to combat repetitive stress injuries?
The article is not about whether they hurt, it's about whether they are a permanaent injury, or something that magically goes away if people can get away from their keyboards for a while.
I'm tired of all these Karma whores writing "insightful" and "informative" responses to articles they haven't read.
What's so unamerican about a company having the freedom to make and sell products as they see fit? If anything, all the rules and restrictions placed on Microsoft (and our efforts to put more restrictions on them, and in fact to break up the entire company) could hardly be called "American."
The company is also launching a mind-boggling series of sweeping and expensive new initiatives:
Why is that bad? Katz, you're knee-jerking again. They coming up with new projects and products. That's *wonderful*, not terrible. It adds to the "marketplace of ideas." If we don't like them, we don't have to buy them.
But Microsoft can subsidize its products through good and bad times, creating an environment in which it's difficult, if not impossible, for competitors to survive. Microsoft now operates under its own notions of Darwinian business evolution. That is, the rich prey on potential competitors and hang on until they win.
If Linux (or anything else) is going to make it in the marketplace, the people behind it will have to stop whining about not having the market equivalent of affirmative action, and instead will have to develop business models based on something other than "If we make it, they will come."
Since almost everyone who goes online intersects with a Microsoft product, there are substantial privacy concerns. It follows that MS knows more about the Web habits of Americans than any other company.
Uhhh....what about the fact that almost everyone who goes online also intersects with Cisco routers? You're not using any logic, Katz.
That returns Gates to his pre-lawsuit position as the pre-eminent figure of the Internet, invincible as Frankenstein's monster, the creature that really can't be vanquished or driven off.
If it was Linus Torvalds, Slashdot would praise it as the second coming.
This Microsoft garbage is getting really old. Aren't there any important tech topics left in the world?
That was several years ago, though. I recently checked back to see how the project was going, and it's *huge*. DMOZ is robust enough to compete with Yahoo, but without the bells, whistles, banners, portal features, and other crap that make Yahoo so bloated.
So check out DMOZ. You might, like me, make it your usual search directory.
Somehow I don't see airports or hospitals installing special flourescent lamp networks when they could just throw together a simple radio or infrared system.
Likewise, Napster is wound-licking after it lost the MP3 wars. It has no chance, because they're failing to realize that the only reason people used Napster was because the common man finally realized that he could get music for free. Now that the comman man knows that, he's not going to go back to paying for it.
Napster? Is that like AudioGalaxy or something?
Not quite. The part that keeps getting left out is that he developed this site for the university. (It was their student government, I believe).
He himself said that he created the site for the university. That means that they actually do have IP rights over the site. He can create a similar site elsewhere, but that site belongs to the university. He doesn't own it any more than the guy who wrote the HTML for Microsoft's website owns the site itself.
His academic status is irrelevant. It's a shame, yes, but the fact that we pity him doesn't make him correct. He used U of U resources in a way that apparently violated their code of conduct.
I'm not saying "Flikx sucks, U of U rules." I can see it from the university's perspective, though. If JonKatz started posting Slashdot articles about how stupid Linux is, you can be that he wouldn't be around for long. He has a right to say those things, on his own time, on his own server.
He is not being discriminated against. The University is censoring itself, not him. He was doing the work, but it was for their site, and with their name on it. If a leet haxor defaces Slashdot, CmdrTaco wouldn't be violating that haxor's "free speech" rights by taking it down. Likewise, the U of U was protecting its own identity by removing content that represented it, not flikx. If Flikx had his own website, independent from U of U, they couldn't touch him.
It is U of U's intellectual property. Flikx did not create this on his own server for his own reasons. He said himself that he had created it for student government. The notion that he has IP rights because he did some coding and administration is like saying that the SlashCode team has IP rights over the site because they wrote the software.
When it comes down to it, the site was designed for U of U, run on U of U servers, with U of U's name on it. Flikx put in a lot of time and effort, but that doesn't mean that he gets the IP rights to it.
(Ooooh, challenging the open source underdog instead of big brother. See how fast this gets modded down.)
When will people get this through their heads? There is a significant difference between "free speech" and "supported speech." Flikx is not being oppressed, he simply lost the support of those sponsoring him (through use of their equipment), and he must find another sponsor.
Microsoft is not Satan, Hitler, Stalin, Big Brother, MegaCorp(tm), or anything of the sort. It's a software company. As of the past few years, they've actually been making pretty good software. Windows 2000 is a respectable operating system. Internet Explorer won the browser wars (because it was better, not because it was "integrated"). Sure, they ran into some trouble because they acquired a bunch of companies and were accused of being a monopoly, but that doesn't justify the puerile namecalling that we typically see in posts like this.
Talk about knee-jerk reactions.
We hang on every Microsoft-sponsered word that refers to Linux as "inferior" or "a cancer" or anything else, but then turn around and make exactly the same accusations, with just as little basis.
Nothing in the software world will change as long as people like Katz and the karma-whores continue to treat Microsoft like an evil villain; It's unrealistic, and any approach that has such flawed logic at it's core is destined to fail.
It's a time-tested technique. Software companies for the past two or three decades have offered reasonably-priced software, only to follow it with astronomically-priced support. Video game consoles are sold cheap because the games cost so much. Even toiletries: I just bought a Mach 3 razor, and realized that they could make a mint on it even if they gave it away, because the blades for it cost $armleg.99.
MP3s + Bose Headphones = No Fan Noise
Never underestimate how necessary good writers are to any tech team.
Have you given free samples to people who you think ought to live forever, and if so, who are those people?
Alex, why would you (or anyone else) want to live forever; i.e., What are the pros and cons of eternal life?
How am I supposed to get an early post, and thus increase my chances for getting +1ed, if I have to click "Read More" to actually understand what this whole thing is about? The intro text should tell us all we need to know, so that we can commend/criticize/complain/ramble about the topic and be praised as "insightful" and "interesting"
That's great. It's like making it legal to sell drugs, but illegal to use them.
I already bought tickets to Boston for our honeymoon. Zero-G would be lots more fun!