text:
Talk:Crippleware

March 2005
The sentence:
 * The authors of C. argue that regular shareware versions...

needs clarification. Is it referring to the C programming language, a language called C. (notice the dot) or a book called C.? If it is the programming language, that is a standard dictated by the ANSI committee and can't be "cracked." Specific C compilers could be cracked, however, but if that is what the sentence is referring to, it should say so. Can anyone offer a clarification? —Frecklefoot 16:16, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Reverted the page back after 139.98.3.21 vandalized it. --Kross 17:49, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

the car Examples are terrible
The Volkswagen golf isnt limited in power by merely its programming of the ECU. those tuners are increasing power by cranking up the boost pressure of the turbocharger. reasons for VW keeping it where it is, is becuase of reliability, fuel efficiency, and the clutches for the DSG transmission cant handle much more than 200hp. also "Porsche consistently refuses..." sorry im rewording that that, thats pure original research. and just because Porsche doesnt use the same engine options on the 911 and the Cayman, doesnt mean its Crippleware, this isnt a fairness contest. thats like saying "the Chevy Cobalt is total Crippleware, because its only available with a 4-cyl engine, and Chevy totally refuses to offer the 7.0L V8 from the Corvette Z06"... its not an argument that you can make objectively. car makers will always offer different models with varying engine sizes, to fit different price points. that doesnt mean the top model is the bees-knees, and a slightly lower model is Crippleware.
 * DeletedThe section also violates WP:NPOV. It's written from the biased point of view of a boy racer who thinks horsepower and speed are always unmitigated goods. There is copious evidence that speed kills, and that more powerful cars are less safe than moderately powered ones. Besides safety, a car tuned or governed to a maximum power our speed will, all else being equal, get better gas mileage, and might qualify for cheaper insurance. For motorcycles, power limits can qualify it for a lower drivers license rating in some countries. There is no reason to assume, without cited proof, that the power and speed of a car is limited solely to differentiate other products from the same company. Many consumers will choose the less powerful car because they think it is a better product. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:49, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Merge with demoware?
Support.Let's merge this into crippleware.--Mac Lover Talk 18:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I object. See Talk:Demoware -Lwc4life 21:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I also object. Demoware runs out where as Crippleware never runs out but you can never use the full program. Two different things if you ask me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.237.228 (talk) 13:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I object as well. They are different things mainly because demoware doesn't cripple your computer but crippleware does. --82.153.194.161 (talk) 17:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Avoid certain phrases/ weasel words
The Wiki guidelines "frown" upon the word canonical in its context on the Crippleware article

Also, "The authors of crippleware defend the practice " is slightly opinionated as it implies crippleware is a "bad" practice, and it must be defended. --Habbzz

Questionable statements
I have removed two statements from the article, because they are very dubious. The first dubious statement is:

 * This is the dominant manufacturing philosophy in the electronics and media industries today.

I cannot validate the source because it requires a paid subscription. However, I have trouble believing the validity of the statement. Most computer monitors, computers, radios, speakers, televisions, toasters, microwave ovens, etc., have no crippleware features. It might be more appropriate to say "This is an increasingly common manufacturing philosophy..." The word dominant implies that there is more crippleware than non-crippleware. Just because your CD player doesn't play DVDs doesn't make it crippleware. You should have bought a DVD player for that purpose. Crippleware usually requires the manufacturer to take active steps to reduce the capabilities that the hardware or software could otherwise handle.

The second dubious statement is:

 * The term crippleware comes from the plaintiff in the Federal class-action lawsuit, "Melanie Tucker v. Apple Computer Inc" filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division.

The reason this statement is dubious is because the timing is wrong. The class-action lawsuit occurred in 2005-2006, but the term crippleware is much older. This crippleware article, itself, was originally created on August 22, 2002. Are we really to believe that someone started this article three years before the word crippleware even existed?

--JHP 23:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Include Windows Vista into the list?
Different Vista versions differ one from another only by the key; the DVD is always the same except few non-significant files. So Vista Starter is a cut version of Vista Ultimate. 87.236.29.137 (talk) 14:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is crippled. And a popular example. I notice lot of talk about crippleware, but few examples. I know of another program, Mathematica which is 64-bit, but a 'Home Use' edition is available too at about $300 rather than $2500. That home version is 32-bit. Drkirkby (talk) 19:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Automotive crippleware
I propose that the automotive section be removed. An opinion, with equivalent citations (i.e. none of real value), could be made that the additional cost for additional power goes to pay for the additional R&D and additional warranty cost to the manufacturer. It makes sense that to make a mechanically identical engine produce 25% more power will require more time to develop and still be reliable and drivable. Further, the MTBF will be lower due to the engineered materials being pushed closer to their limit, which will drive up the number of warrantied failures. Finally, not every consumer wants a more powerful car, more power raises insurance costs and changes the driving character of the vehicle. If a car manufacturer makes two power ratings available with mechanically identical engines to appeal to a wider range of consumers and charges the same price for both, the person seeking the lower power car will be effectively getting ripped off, less product for an equal price. My perception of crippleware is that it is a product where certain features are present in the product but are made inactive ("crippled") in order to make money on the activation of those features. Anyways, this is just my opinion, so I have not made this change to the article. Any thoughts? Fastsince85 (talk) 16:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * See above. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

i486SX: Assume good faith?
"the Intel 486SX which was a 486DX with the FPU removed or in early versions present but disabled"

Is it verifiable that Intel converted working 486DX chips to 486SX chips, as opposed to increasing production yield by selling 486DX chips with a flaw in the PPU as 486SX chips? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 22:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

intel has verified it themselves as well as every computer magazine editor at the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.13.228.240 (talk) 00:47, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

 * That's how I remember it. —Długosz (talk) 15:12, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposed move to Damaged good
Crippleware as discussed here appears to correspond precisely to the notion described in economics as "damaged goods", ref e.g. Andrew Odlyzko's "Privacy, Economics, and Price Discrimination on the Internet", which gives a compelling example of damaged goods from passenger trains in the 19th century. As such I propose this article be moved to Damaged good and generalised accordingly. Dcoetzee 00:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

 * ✅ -- The Anome (talk) 12:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Video game consoles
To what extent do modern video game consoles, all of which have a cryptographic lockout against user-written programs, count as damaged goods? Are they a notable example? --71.97.220.250 (talk) 17:09, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Sony PS3
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OtherOS should be in it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.23.115.169 (talk) 16:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Suunto dive computers not explained as damaged goods
A vendor offering two similar products with one having fewer features isn't sufficient to consider the less featureful one as a damaged good. The description of the Suunto dive computers explains how two models are different, but gives no explanation of how the less featureful one is damaged. If it was known that both had exactly the same hardware, and merely a firmware difference, one would be a damaged good. --Brouhaha (talk) 18:29, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Digital cameras without lossless data format support
Do those count a damaged goods? Some may have serious reasons like too little memory available, but what about those that don't? --AVRS (talk) 15:30, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

 * The definition is that it has been deliberately limited. You need a source who has some way to know what the motives of the camera manufacturer were. If you don't have insider information on their motives, or some other clear evidence, then there's no way to know.To take a wild guess, I'd say that 90% of ordinary users, outside of high end cameras, don't have any idea what lossless means and would prefer not to have to choose which format to use. They just want to take a picture and upload it to Instagram or whatever, with as few hassles as possible. The more features software has, the more menus and options and configuration the user is forced to deal with. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:01, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

 * While I subscribe to your idea, that deliberate is necessary to be sure, I am almost certain, that insider information is not necessary to get an idea whether or not some feature is meant to be absent for price and customer discrimination purposes. Also I'd say the "90% of ordinary customers" guess is just too wild - if "ordinary customers" are all customers (how else to interpret the word?) then 90% not wanting lossless compression as a menu option somewhere deep in the settings is just not believeable; that would not pose any hassles at all. I would classify the argument as straw man fallacy. The absence of such an option in consumer cameras seems to be very deliberate to me; the fact that it would not make construction, maintenance, guarantee and usability of the product more expensive/worse combined with its absence is at least a very strong indication. Harald Nowak (talk) 14:23, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It isn't really of any consequence whether you or I think it's one way or the other. Do we have a source to cite saying they intentionally made it that way in order to make it inferior? Wikipedia is not a collection of anonymous editors' opinions. If an expert source who is in a position to know says it's a damaged good, then it is. If not, then it's not Wikipedia's job to raise the issue with no external basis. There are a thousand other venues on the Internet where you and I can express our opinions about what's wrong with cameras, but this is not one of them. Please read Verifiability and No original research for in depth explanations of this policy. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:01, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Original research and neutrality
Much of the content here, particularly about software, comes only from biased, sensationalistic sources like The Register, Eric S. Raymond's New Hacker's Dictionary and Gizmodo. Much of it is pure speculation used to attack big computer companies.I just deleted a lot of original research in which a Wikipedia editor said product A lacked Feature X and therefore they think it is a damaged good. Without clear insider knowledge of why the producer chose to configure their product the way they did, there is no basis for calling it a damaged good. For example, the feature might have undisclosed bugs, delaying official release. Or the producer might be factoring in the additional support cost of enabling more features. Or they might have chosen to limit features for a simpler overall user experience. The list goes on.There's no reason to call anything a damaged good in this article without a high quality independent source who actually says "this product is a 'damaged good' because..." and then gives solid reasons to support that they know what they're talking about. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:52, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * There are ways to provide "a simpler overall user experience" without rendering a device "deliberately limited in performance, quality or utility". For example, Android 4.2 and later hide the "Developer options" menu by default to keep the Settings menu clean, but Google provides instructions to restore it at no extra charge. But as the article's lead stands, even if there are good reasons for damage, such as projected support costs, a marketing-driven "deliberate[] limit[] in performance, quality or utility" is still a "deliberate[] limit[] in performance, quality or utility". There needs to be a reliable source that the device's functionality is limited and a reliable source that the limit was intentional. I'd like to see a reliable source define "damaged good" as strictly as you prefer to define it. --Damian Yerrick (talk) 00:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Japanese CDs and DVDs
I read somewhere that because Japanese CDs and DVDs cost way more to buy natively than imported from other countries, they deliberately scale down the content when exporting abroad. A common version of this is to not include the Japanese audio track/theme song for DVDs. They also sometimes force a long wait period. Also, it's common practice to include a bonus track on CDs from foreign artists. Should all this be mentioned in the article? 99.141.182.99 (talk) 15:15, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Only if you can tell us where you read it, and you have a reliable source that says it meets the definition of a damaged good. I can't imagine how one could claim that with artistic works, more=better. If an artist writes 10 good songs plus 3 mediocre ones, it really depends on your audience whether they want all 13 or not. Completists want every scrap, no matter how bad it is. But perhaps Japanese consumers only want the best overall listening experience, rather than having to sit through the artist's failures. Or marketers think that's what Japanese consumers want. Without knowing their intent, how can you call it "damaged"?Movie DVD extras and director's cuts are similar: a longer movie isn't necessary better, and ever clip they throw in there isn't necessarily worth watching. The same can be said of the debate over software, like Apple iOS vs Android. Carefully curated walled garden, or everything plus the kitchen sink? "Better" is in the eye of the beholder, and one person's "undamaged good" is another persons bloatware. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Is the article about the phrase?
I got the impression from the lead that this article is about any good that a reliable source states "has been deliberately limited in performance, quality or utility". But I got the impression from [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Damaged_good&diff=562920885&oldid=558688129 this revert] that it is specifically about goods for which a reliable source has used the specific phrase "damaged good" to refer to such a limit. Which is it? For example, a reliable source states that a particular product contains a mechanism that deliberately prevents a class of programs from running. Would it be original research to claim that this product "has been deliberately limited in [...] utility"? Or would I need a second reliable source to verify that preventing a program from running constitutes limiting utility? --Damian Yerrick (talk) 00:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

 * The simplest way to clarify this is to point out that you don't just buy a piece of hardware, such as the Nintendo game console here. You also buy a significant amount of support and other services from the seller. The higher price for the development version includes the support costs that come with developers doing far more with the hardware than playing games. Significant amounts of documentation have to be published, and maintained. This has been pointed out about phones and other devices: when you enable a feature, you create a set of future liabilities for the seller. They have to make that feature keep the customer happy after the sale.So it's not as simple as saying "it's deliberately limited". It requires expertise and a certain amount of insider knowledge. If you want to declare some product is "damaged", which is pejorative with heavy connotation of malfeasance, then WP:BURDEN, NPOV, V etc require you to cite a source that supports your entire claim. Your conclusions, not just the facts that you used to reach the conclusion that something is a damaged good. Collecting facts like different prices for different versions, and then using your own opinions to get from there to the conclusion that it is a damaged good violates the policy of No original research.I have no objection to deleting other examples from this article, like Casio, if they aren't well sourced. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression that "damaged good" was a term of art in economics, paralleling inferior good and superior good. Is there a reliable source that "damaged good" is considered "pejorative with heavy connotation of malfeasance" among economists in a way that "inferior good" is not? Or do economists have a different term for deliberately limited goods without this connotation? If it requires insider knowledge, then please add this requirement of insider knowledge to the definition in the lead. --Damian Yerrick (talk) 01:01, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Regardless of what the lead of this (or any) article says, the policy of WP:NOR requires that if you want to say X is a Y, then you need a source which says X is a Y. There's nothing special about this article. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Except it's the lead that defines "a Y" in the first place. It can define "a Y" as any "good that has been deliberately limited in performance, quality or utility", or it can define it as "a good described using the label 'damaged'". The lead currently does the former; you appear to prefer the latter. If the article's title itself is a loaded label and its steward accepts only sources that use a loaded label, then perhaps the article needs split to the less judgmental title Deliberately limited good in order to comply with policy on biased titles, in much the same way that Wikipedia has separate articles about homosexuality in general and the loaded word "fag" in particular.
 * Or perhaps my problem is that the article's reasoning skips a step or two. I originally added the disputed example on the assumption that the sources supported the definition of "damaged good" as currently written in the lead. Do you have a citation for the level of "support and other services" expected by users of a device that permits amateur software development? Do you have a citation for the cost of providing such support being the deciding factor in prohibiting amateur software development on such a platform? What reliable sources identify a difference between a "damaged good" and a good that is not "damaged" but still has an identifiable measure to deliberately limit it for price discrimination? These might be useful for explaining in the article the difference between a true damaged good and a merely deliberately limited good. --Damian Yerrick (talk) 04:02, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The definition contained in the lead is not necessarily reliable. Not now, and not any future rewrite of the lead. The lead is Wikipedia content and Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source. Ever. Per WP:SPS. Yes, the lead could be better written and better sourced, but even then, any other facts below the lead must be cited independently. You can't reason to a conclusion based solely on facts about the pricing of the Wii, guided by a Wikipedia-sourced definition. In WP:NOR it says under WP:CALC that you can perform "routine calculations" to add up some numbers or convert some units, but you're not doing a routine mathematical calculation here. Your arguing a syllogism that says "a damaged good is a good that has been deliberately limited in performance, quality or utility. The consumer Wii lacks the features of the development Wii, therefore the Wii is a damaged good." That's not a routine calculation, that's a chain of logic that the sources don't necessarily agree with.Google gives something like 217 million hits for Nintendo Wii. The Questia database has over 3,000 books and articles on the Wii. The Gale database has over 2,000. With all that coverage, if we can't cite even one source which says the Wii is a damaged good, then as far as I'm concerned, it's not a damaged good. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If you want to take "Wikipedia can't cite Wikipedia" to its logical extreme, then the question becomes whether or not a source supports the assertion that a manufacturer has engaged in "intentional quality reduction of a portion of their output as a means of offering two qualities of goods for the purpose of price discrimination, even absent a cost saving." This is the exact definition of "damaged good" that appears in a source cited by this article. Everything else, including any pejorative connotation of "damaged", is original research. In fact, I might as well rewrite the lead to quote this definition, in order to make it clear to readers of the article that this definition alone is the definition that governs the inclusion of examples. But I will grant that there are probably more reliable sources that mention "intentional quality reduction" happening on the NES than on the Wii, given several lawsuits about NES lockout that made the mainstream news. --Damian Yerrick (talk) 02:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm copying my reply from the post at WT:VG here for visibility to all parties: See WP:SYNTH: "If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research". Also when you buy a DevKit you're not just buying hardware which costs more, you're buying the licence to use the hardware, access to certain developer material and support etc. Looking at the price as the only difference is a misunderstanding of how development works. (I'm generalising a lot here) Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 09:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

 * And fewer features can mean a better user experience, because it's easier to use and there's fewer things that can go wrong. Especially when development mode is something consumers have no interest in ever using. One man's "un-damaged good" is another man's bloatware, suffering from feature creep. Point of view is paramount here. It's not an objective fact that everyone agrees on, it's a value judgement.Is it even necessary to spend so much time on the Wii? Why not find other examples were we do have good sources that say the product is a damaged good? The point of this article is not to provide an exhaustive list of very example of a damaged good, or to do a muckraking expose of damaged good that the public doesn't know about. The point is nothing more than to show what a damaged good is. So let's cite examples based on sources and then there's nothing to argue about. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

 * Finding sources for the assertions you just gave could be useful for a paragraph about why manufacturers damage their goods. But I'll give up on specific game consoles until someone can explain out how to apply both the policy on synthesis that advances a position and an essay advocating use of common sense in interpreting this policy to the definition of "damaged good" expressed in sources that the article cites. I have identified what I believe to be problems with how the sources are presented and used.
 * An encyclopedia article should begin by defining the term that describes its subject. But occasionally, as in this case, different sources cited in an article disagree on the definition, such as whether or not pure price discrimination is the only allowable motive for differentiating products. When sources differ on aspects of a definition, which source do we follow? Which of the sources supports whether or not the term carries a value judgment, such as "pejorative with heavy connotation of malfeasance"?
 * Under a strict interpretation of SYNTH, combining aspects of multiple definitions to form one definition that shall be used to include or exclude examples is itself synthesis if it is used to advance a position that particular examples are "damaged" or not. Must an example meet all the definitions or only one of the definitions? I have done my best to relate the less specific definition to the more specific definition.
 * Sometimes an article's lead mentions synonyms for a term. Like different definitions of the same term, definitions of synonymous terms may not completely coincide in their semantic spaces. Which source specifies that the term "damaged good" refers to precisely the same phenomenon as "crippleware"? So I agree that the lead needs fixing, and I've sprinkled on the lead to request an answer to this question. --Damian Yerrick (talk) 18:38, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Split
Since there seems to be no consensus that "damaged good" and "crippleware" (which is intentional) are the same thing, the sane course of action is to split the page. Someone not using his real name (talk) 01:45, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen hardware or software which is intentionally limited in features be described as "damaged good" myself, but "crippleware" is rather plentiful in sources, e.g.   . One can easily find more like that. Someone not using his real name (talk) 01:51, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Title (and scope) change request

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. Damaged good will remain a redirect in the meantime. No prejudice against an RfD nomination per WP:REDLINK; overwriting it with an article would be even better. --BDD (talk) 23:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Damaged good → crippleware – Since this page is actually giving only computer hardware and software examples, I think there needs to be an entirely different page about "damaged good". The definition tacked on in lead has little relevance to what comes after it. (See section above for examples of use of the term "crippleware" in relation to hardware and software that is intentionally limited in order to extract a fee later.) The simplest solution is therefore to rename this article to "crippleware" and let the wiki-economists write whatever they want on a separate page for "damaged good". So I'm making a formal request for renaming this page, with no strings attached as to what can be written separately about "damaged good". Someone not using his real name (talk) 01:58, 25 December 2013 (UTC) The page was moved to its current title in 2009 based on single paper which does indeed use "damaged good" to denote crippleware: "The incentive to price discriminate leads even to extreme versions of versioning, in which extra costs are incurred in order to make a product less serviceable. This is known as the "damaged goods" approach, and appears to be used with increasing frequency [11]. A classic example is provided by the IBM Laser Printer and Laser Printer E of 1990. The latter cost less, printed at half the speed of the former, and differed from it in having an extra chip that slowed down processing."

However, this doesn't seem to be at all the common term in the IT industry for such products, and contradicts the common sense use of "damaged good". Unless a lot more economics papers use "damaged good" to mean crippleware, the 2009 move appears to have been a form of hyper-deference to one academic's terminology, and thus should be reverted. Someone not using his real name (talk) 02:16, 25 December 2013 (UTC) Mkay, it seems there is at least one other econ paper which uses the same term ("damaged good") to mean crippleware. (Ok, found a more recent paper by one of the authors of the aforementioned one .) And their "damaged good" terminology (they are cited for it) has made it into econ textbooks ; the textbook does make a minor but non-trivial terminological adjustment relative to the paper it's citing: it makes the phrase damaged goods strategy be the identifier (rather than just "damaged good"). And yet another textbook uses (almost) the same phrase though this one writes it with some scare quotes as "damaged goods" strategy. And yet another textbook uses "damaged good" with this meaning citing the same paper. This might be less clear-cut than I thought. Someone not using his real name (talk) 02:20, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

 * Comment this article is definitively not about the commonly known material "damaged goods", which is a psychologically damaged person, or a reputationally damaged person in need of redemption. -- 65.94.76.3 (talk) 04:50, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Red Slash 23:47, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Support as the article is indeed about crippleware with the exception of a single short paragraph in the lede. But it should be a capital C, yes? Omnedon (talk) 12:34, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Antifeature def
From by Benjamin Mako Hill: "Anti-features are sold to customers as features but are fundamental or unavoidable aspects of systems that can only be removed or withheld through technological effort. Unlike real features, producers of anti-features charge customers for not inhibiting access to their products' full functionality. Technological and legal barriers that keep anti-features away from the users of intentionally less featureful end up costing all users their freedom. It is more difficult for Canon to make cameras that output JPEGs than cameras that output RAW, and it's not significantly more difficult to offer users a choice."

So does anyone still disagree that antifeature is used with the same meaning as "damaged good" as used by McAfee and the econ books cited above? Someone not using his real name (talk) 02:45, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

 * The problem I have is any editor applying that definition -- or any definition -- to generate lists. It violates the core policy No original research. List content should come only from sources, not from logial deductions made by edtiors. And for an article like this, we don't need more then two or three examples. Lists of examples should not expand indefinitely. Nothing should be added unless it serves an explicit purpose.The rationale here is that it is encyclopedic to provide a 'list of crippleware' or 'list of damaged goods'. Or 'list of anti-features'. The pejorative you choose doesn't make much difference. It's one thing to define what these terms mean. It's fine to offer a few well-sourced examples, in which a neutral expert in a position to know declares the good as damaged or crippled or feature-limited or whatever. It's something else entirely to create a product attack page where the goal is to punish every manufacturer who was ever accused of nefarious product design. Or punish those accused by some pundit of irrational or greedy pricing. The fact is, nobody knows what all the reasons are for product pricing, or why some features are shipped and some are held back. It is certainly the case -- which many experts have stated, in links I provided in discussions above -- that companies like Apple limit features because they think it's good design. It's the opposite of bloat, or feature creep. And it costs money to support features. Every feature you enable is more potential bugs. More testing. Often features are disabled because they haven't been fully tested and so the product can't be shipped on time with that feature. Nobody knows all the reasons.Having a list of crippleware or list of damaged goods is like having a 'list of phoned in performances', where some critic claims an actor didn't do his best. Or a 'list of movies that sucked because they cut a scene'. Absurd. Greatness is not only what you leave in, it's also what you leave out, and it's highly subjective.With regard to this addition. None of the four sources cited call the MacBook Pro a damaged good or crippleware. They're just bitching because Apple is charging $4.99 for something that they think should cost $0.99. Or be free. The reasons may be legalistic or they may be something else. Who knows? It's subjective. Is it necessary to include this product for the purpose of explaining what a damaged good is? Or crippleware? No, the article already communicates the concept with the examples it has. Expanding the list this way tendentious.  --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:11, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * There are sources calling the Intel Upgrade Service (baseline) processors crippled and artificially downgraded, but there aren't indeed any that call it "damaged good", because the econ boffins and the IT hacks use different jargon for practically the same thing. So unless there is going to be wp:consensus here that you are overly anal, we write a separate article for each synonym, so we can string-match (rather than concept-match) examples to terms. Do you agree at least that "crippled" processor matches (hardware) crippleware? You are engaging in a ton of WP:TENDENTIOUS WP:OR yourself above, by the way, with your arguments as to why Apple might have done something, when the headlines were "Will Apple charge you to enable hardware you’ve already paid for?"... By the way, the 486 and so forth examples are given in the econ papers, but I see they are tagged in the article as being "dubious". Why is that? Also, NT server vs. client is given as concrete example in one of the microecon books. Do you have objections to adding that as example too? Someone not using his real name (talk) 03:28, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The article currently has the following unsourced sentence in the software section "From an Open Source software providers perspective, there is the model of open core which includes a feature-limited version of the product and an open core version. The feature-limited version can be used widely like MySQL, Eucalyptus." Why aren't you complaining about any of that not being textually described by any source as "damaged good"? Someone not using his real name (talk) 03:35, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You seem to really worry about the treatment of "big computer companies" in this article. Alas most sources would have examples about such "big computer companies" because nobody finds examples from obscure little companies informative, except yourself maybe. Someone not using his real name (talk) 03:44, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

For the annalismost wikipedian(s)
From the uber-academic UChicago press : ""Product versioning—the manufacturing strategy of deliberate subtraction of functionality from a product—is typically achieved when a firm starts with an existing product and produces a lower-quality or reduced-feature configuration," write authors Andrew Gershoff (University of Texas at Austin), Ran Kivetz (Columbia University), and Anat Keinan (Harvard University).

Many global brands—Sony, BMW, Intel, Microsoft, Verizon, Motorola, Canon Sharp, and Apple—have employed versioning. But when information on manufacturing practices can be easily disseminated via social media, consumers can revolt—and even sue companies—if they view their practices as being unfair.

"Consumer advocates, bloggers, and journalists have been using less-than-flattering terms to describe the versioning production method, calling it 'crippleware,' 'product sabotage,' and 'damaged goods,'" the authors write. Consumers chastised Apple for removing iPhone features to create the iPod Touch. And Verizon eventually paid more than $10 million to settle a class action lawsuit after the company disabled Bluetooth features in the Motorola v710 phone."

Anymore objections against equating crippleware with damaged goods? Or for using the poor big computer companies as examples? Someone not using his real name (talk) 05:17, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

NPOV - Still disputed?....
The article is flagged for POV, but from the talk page here it looks like there hasn't been any active discussion on the POV issue for the better part of a year now. Any objection to removing the tag?... -Helvetica (talk) 07:16, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed the POV tag now. If anyone feels it's still needed they can go ahead and revert, but then please discuss here if you do. At this point I don't know that the NPOV is still disputed, and it's not even apparent what the alleged bias is... -Helvetica (talk) 04:01, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Crippleware. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090111094411/http://home.att.net:80/~srschmitt/jargonfile/jargon_file-152.html to http://home.att.net/~srschmitt/jargonfile/jargon_file-152.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS"> Talk to my owner :Online 00:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

POV
This entire article pushes a POV. The title itself is an insult term. Frankly, the article should be removed or merged into another article. If it remains, it requires some semblance of balance. Objective3000 (talk) 01:26, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Link to CyberLink
What’s the purpose of the CyberLink link in the See also section? The CyberLink article doesn’t mention crippleware. I removed it, but it was added again. – 2003:CD:716:A700:F9CF:2873:AA7C:AD7D (talk) 20:44, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I reverted and templated the editor with a WP:COI warning. O3000 (talk) 21:20, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Crippleware


text:
Honeypot (computing)

In computer terminology, a honeypot is a computer security mechanism set to detect, deflect, or, in some manner, counteract attempts at unauthorized use of information systems. Generally, a honeypot consists of data (for example, in a network site) that appears to be a legitimate part of the site which contains information or resources of value to attackers. It is actually isolated, monitored, and capable of blocking or analyzing the attackers. This is similar to police sting operations, colloquially known as "baiting" a suspect.

The main use for this network decoy is to distract potential attackers from more important information and machines on the real network, learn about the forms of attacks they can suffer, and examine such attacks during and after the exploitation of a honeypot. It provides a way to prevent and see vulnerabilities in a specific network system. A honeypot is a decoy used to protect a network from present or future attacks. Honeypots derive their value from the use by attackers. If not interacted with, the honeypot has little to no value. Honeypots can be used for everything from slowing down or stopping automated attacks, capturing new exploits, to gathering intelligence on emerging threats or early warning and prediction.

Types
Honeypots can be differentiated based on if they are physical or virtual: Honeypots can be classified based on their deployment (use/action) and based on their level of involvement. Based on deployment, honeypots may be classified as: Production honeypots are easy to use, capture only limited information, and are used primarily by corporations. Production honeypots are placed inside the production network with other production servers by an organization to improve their overall state of security. Normally, production honeypots are low-interaction honeypots, which are easier to deploy. They give less information about the attacks or attackers than research honeypots.
 * Physical honeypots: real machine with its own IP address, this machine simulates behaviors modeled by the system. Many times this modality is not used as much as the high price of acquiring new machines, their maintenance and the complication affected by configuring specialized hardware
 * Virtual honeypots: the use of these types of honeypot allow one to install and simulate hosts on the network from different operating systems, but in order to do so, it is necessary to simulate the TCP/IP of the target operating system. This modality is more frequent.
 * production honeypots
 * research honeypots

Research honeypots are run to gather information about the motives and tactics of the black hat community targeting different networks. These honeypots do not add direct value to a specific organization; instead, they are used to research the threats that organizations face and to learn how to better protect against those threats. Research honeypots are complex to deploy and maintain, capture extensive information, and are used primarily by research, military, or government organizations.

Based on design criteria, honeypots can be classified as:
 * pure honeypots
 * high-interaction honeypots
 * low-interaction honeypots

Pure honeypots are full-fledged production systems. The activities of the attacker are monitored by using a bug tap that has been installed on the honeypot's link to the network. No other software needs to be installed. Even though a pure honeypot is useful, stealthiness of the defense mechanisms can be ensured by a more controlled mechanism.

High-interaction honeypots imitate the activities of the production systems that host a variety of services and, therefore, an attacker may be allowed a lot of services to waste their time. By employing virtual machines, multiple honeypots can be hosted on a single physical machine. Therefore, even if the honeypot is compromised, it can be restored more quickly. In general, high-interaction honeypots provide more security by being difficult to detect, but they are expensive to maintain. If virtual machines are not available, one physical computer must be maintained for each honeypot, which can be exorbitantly expensive. Example: Honeynet.

Low-interaction honeypots simulate only the services frequently requested by attackers. Since they consume relatively few resources, multiple virtual machines can easily be hosted on one physical system, the virtual systems have a short response time, and less code is required, reducing the complexity of the virtual system's security. Example: Honeyd. This type of honeypot was one of the first types being created in the late nineties and was mainly used for detecting attacks, not studying them.

Sugarcane is a type of honeypot that masquerades as an open proxy. It can often take form as a server designed to look like a misconfigured HTTP proxy. Probably the most famous open proxy was the default configuration of sendmail (before version 8.9.0 in 1998) which would forward email to and from any destination.

Deception technology
Recently, a new market segment called deception technology has emerged using basic honeypot technology with the addition of advanced automation for scale. Deception technology addresses the automated deployment of honeypot resources over a large commercial enterprise or government institution.

Malware honeypots
Malware honeypots are a decoy designed to intentionally attract malicious software. It does this by imitating a vulnerable system or network, such as a web server. The honeypot is intentionally set up with security flaws that look to invite these malware attacks. Once attacked IT teams can then analyze the malware to better understand where it comes from and how it acts.

Spam versions
Spammers abuse vulnerable resources such as open mail relays and open proxies. These are servers which accept e-mail from anyone on the Internet—including spammers—and send it to its destination. Some system administrators have created honeypot programs that masquerade as these abusable resources to discover spammer activity.

There are several capabilities such honeypots provide to these administrators, and the existence of such fake abusable systems makes abuse more difficult or risky. Honeypots can be a powerful countermeasure to abuse from those who rely on very high volume abuse (e.g., spammers).

These honeypots can reveal the abuser's IP address and provide bulk spam capture (which enables operators to determine spammers' URLs and response mechanisms). As described by M. Edwards at ITPRo Today:

"Typically, spammers test a mail server for open relaying by simply sending themselves an email message. If the spammer receives the email message, the mail server obviously allows open relaying. Honeypot operators, however, can use the relay test to thwart spammers. The honeypot catches the relay test email message, returns the test email message, and subsequently blocks all other email messages from that spammer. Spammers continue to use the antispam honeypot for spamming, but the spam is never delivered. Meanwhile, the honeypot operator can notify spammers' ISPs and have their Internet accounts canceled. If honeypot operators detect spammers who use open-proxy servers, they can also notify the proxy server operator to lock down the server to prevent further misuse."

The apparent source may be another abused system. Spammers and other abusers may use a chain of such abused systems to make detection of the original starting point of the abuse traffic difficult.

This in itself is indicative of the power of honeypots as anti-spam tools. In the early days of anti-spam honeypots, spammers, with little concern for hiding their location, felt safe testing for vulnerabilities and sending spam directly from their own systems. Honeypots made the abuse riskier and more difficult.

Spam still flows through open relays, but the volume is much smaller than in 2001-02. While most spam originates in the U.S., spammers hop through open relays across political boundaries to mask their origin. Honeypot operators may use intercepted relay tests to recognize and thwart attempts to relay spam through their honeypots. "Thwart" may mean "accept the relay spam but decline to deliver it." Honeypot operators may discover other details concerning the spam and the spammer by examining the captured spam messages.

Open-relay honeypots include Jackpot, written in Java by Jack Cleaver; smtpot.py, written in Python by Karl A. Krueger; and spamhole, written in C. The Bubblegum Proxypot is an open-source honeypot (or "proxypot").

Email trap
An email address that is not used for any other purpose than to receive spam can also be considered a spam honeypot. Compared with the term "spamtrap", the term "honeypot" might be more suitable for systems and techniques that are used to detect or counterattack probes. With a spamtrap, spam arrives at its destination "legitimately"—exactly as non-spam email would arrive.

An amalgam of these techniques is Project Honey Pot, a distributed, open source project that uses honeypot pages installed on websites around the world. These honeypot pages disseminate uniquely tagged spamtrap email addresses and spammers can then be tracked—the corresponding spam mail is subsequently sent to these spamtrap e-mail addresses.

Database honeypot
Databases often get attacked by intruders using SQL injection. As such activities are not recognized by basic firewalls, companies often use database firewalls for protection. Some of the available SQL database firewalls provide/support honeypot architectures so that the intruder runs against a trap database while the web application remains functional.

Industrial Control Systems honeypot
Industrial Control Systems (ICS) are often the target of cyberattacks. One of the main targets within ICS are Programmable Logic Controllers. In order to understand intruders' techniques in this context, several honeypots has been proposed. Conpot is a low interaction honeypot capable of simulation Siemens PLCs. HoneyPLC is a medium interaction honeypot that can simulate Siemens, Rockwell and other PLC brands.

Honeypot detection
Just as honeypots are weapons against spammers, honeypot detection systems are spammer-employed counter-weapons. As detection systems would likely use unique characteristics of specific honeypots to identify them, such as the property-value pairs of default honeypot configuration, many honeypots in use utilise a set of unique characteristics larger and more daunting to those seeking to detect and thereby identify them. This is an unusual circumstance in software; a situation in which "versionitis" (a large number of versions of the same software, all differing slightly from each other) can be beneficial. There's also an advantage in having some easy-to-detect honeypots deployed. Fred Cohen, the inventor of the Deception Toolkit, argues that every system running his honeypot should have a deception port which adversaries can use to detect the honeypot. Cohen believes that this might deter adversaries. Honeypots also allow for early detection of legitimate threats. No matter how the honeypot detects the exploit, it can alert you immediately to the attempted attack.

Risks
The goal of honeypots is to attract and engage attackers for a sufficiently long period to obtain high-level Indicators of Compromise (IoC) such as attack tools and Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures (TTPs). Thus, a honeypot needs to emulate essential services in the production network and grant the attacker the freedom to perform adversarial activities to increase its attractiveness to the attacker. Although the honeypot is a controlled environment and can be monitored by using tools such as honeywall, attackers may still be able to use some honeypots as pivot nodes to penetrate production systems.

The second risk of honeypots is that they may attract legitimate users due to a lack of communication in large-scale enterprise networks. For example, the security team who applies and monitors the honeypot may not disclose the honeypot location to all users in time due to the lack of communication or the prevention of insider threats.

Honey nets
Two or more honeypots on a network form a honey net. Typically, a honey net is used for monitoring a larger and/or more diverse network in which one honeypot may not be sufficient. Honey nets and honeypots are usually implemented as parts of larger network intrusion detection systems. A honey farm is a centralized collection of honeypots and analysis tools.

The concept of the honey net first began in 1999 when Lance Spitzner, founder of the Honeynet Project, published the paper "To Build a Honeypot".

History
An early formulation of the concept, called "entrapment", is defined in FIPS 39 (1976) as "the deliberate planting of apparent flaws in a system for the purpose of detecting attempted penetrations or confusing an intruder about which flaws to exploit".

The earliest honeypot techniques are described in Clifford Stoll's 1989 book The Cuckoo's Egg.

One of the earliest documented cases of the cybersecurity use of a honeypot began in January 1991. On January 7, 1991, while he worked at AT&T Bell Laboratories Cheswick observed a criminal hacker, known as a cracker, attempting to obtain a copy of a password file. Cheswick wrote that he and colleagues constructed a "chroot "Jail" (or "roach motel")" which allowed them to observe their attacker over a period of several months.

In 2017, Dutch police used honeypot techniques to track down users of the darknet market Hansa.

The metaphor of a bear being attracted to and stealing honey is common in many traditions, including Germanic, Celtic, and Slavic. A common Slavic word for the bear is medved "honey eater". The tradition of bears stealing honey has been passed down through stories and folklore, especially the well known Winnie the Pooh.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Honeypot (computing)


text:
United States expedition to Korea

The United States expedition to Korea, known in Korea as the Shinmiyangyo or simply the Korean Expedition, was an American military action in Korea that took place predominantly on and around Ganghwa Island in 1871.

Background
Frederick Low, the American ambassador to China, sent the mission to ascertain the fate of the merchant ship General Sherman, which had gone missing while visiting Korea in 1866. According to a National Interest article, Low's own records indicated the punitive campaign was motivated by a need to demonstrate American power over what he considered to be a weaker nation. Previously, the American commanders had felt entitled to "peacefully" enter Korean waters for survey and trade using heavily armed warships, and had ignored repeated diplomatic requests to respect Korean sovereignty.

Korean officials had sent letters holding the Americans responsible for unlawfully sending warships into their territorial waters, and also explaining to Low what had happened to the General Sherman. The governor of Ganghwa also sent what Low described as a "few worthless articles"—three cows, 50 chickens and 1,000 eggs—in an effort to de-escalate things. The Americans rejected the offer. Instead, they launched a punitive campaign after the commanding American admiral did not receive an official apology from the Koreans. The isolationist nature of the Joseon dynasty government and the imperialistic nature of the Americans transformed a diplomatic expedition into an armed conflict.

Initial contact
The expedition consisted of about 650 men, more than 500 sailors and 100 Marines, as well as five warships: USS Colorado (1856), USS Alaska (1868), USS Palos (1865), USS Monocacy (1864), and USS Benicia (1868). Embarked aboard Colorado was Rear Admiral John Rodgers, and Frederick F. Low, the United States Ambassador to China. The Korean forces, known as "Tiger Hunters", were led by General Eo Jae-yeon.

The Americans safely made contact with the Korean inhabitants, described as "people wearing white clothes". When they inquired about the General Sherman incident, the Koreans were initially reluctant to discuss the topic, ostensibly to avoid having to pay recompense. The Americans consequently let the Koreans know that their fleet would be exploring the area and that they meant no harm. This gesture was misinterpreted; Korean policy at the time prohibited foreign ships from sailing on the Han River, which led directly to the capital city of Hanyang, modern-day Seoul. Therefore, the Joseon government rejected the U.S. request. The Americans sailed anyway.

On 1 June, the Korean fortress fired at the U.S. fleet as it sailed up the Ganghwa Straits, which leads to the river. The U.S. forces were not badly damaged due to "the bad gunnery of the [K]oreans, whose fire, although very hot for the fifteen minutes in which they maintained it, was ill-directed, and consequently without effect." The U.S. demanded an apology within 10 days; there was no response so Rodgers decided on a punitive assault on the forts.

Battle of Ganghwa
On 10 June, the Americans attacked the lightly defended Choji Garrison on Ganghwa, along the Salee River. The Koreans were armed with severely outdated weapons, such as matchlock muskets, cannons, and breech-loading swivel guns. After overrunning the Korean defenders, the Americans moved on to their next objective, the Deokjin Garrison. American 12-pound howitzers kept the poorly armed Korean forces from effective range. The American troops continued towards the next objective, Deokjin Fort, which they found abandoned. The sailors and Marines quickly dismantled this fortress and continued to Gwangseong Garrison, a citadel. By this time, Korean forces had regrouped there. Along the way, some Korean units tried to flank the U.S. forces but were beaten off again due to the strategic placement of artillery on two hills.

Artillery fire from ground forces and Monocacy offshore pounded the citadel in preparation for an assault by U.S. forces. A force of 546 sailors and 105 Marines grouped on the hills west of the fortress (infantry troops were on the hill directly west of the fortress, while artillery troops on another hill both shelled the fortress and also covered the Americans' flanks and rear), keeping cover and returning fire. Once the bombardment stopped, the Americans charged the citadel, led by Lieutenant Hugh McKee. The slow reload time of the Korean matchlocks aided the Americans, armed with superior Remington rolling block carbines, in making it over the walls; the Koreans even ended up throwing rocks at the attackers.

McKee was the first to make it into the citadel and was fatally wounded by a shot to the groin; after him came commander Winfield Scott Schley, who shot the Korean soldier who had killed McKee. The flag of the Korean commander, General Eo Jae-yŏn, called the "Sujagi" by Koreans, was captured by Corporal Charles Brown of Colorados guard and Private Hugh Purvis of Alaskas guard. General Eo was killed by Private James Dougherty. While serving as the color bearer for Colorado's crew and Marines, Colorado Carpenter Cyrus Hayden planted the U.S. flag on the ramparts under heavy enemy fire. Corporal Brown, Privates Dougherty, Purvis, and Carpenter Hayden received the Medal of Honor.

The fighting lasted fifteen minutes. The total number killed was 243 Koreans and three Americans; McKee, Seaman Seth Allen, and U.S. Marine Corps Private Denis Hanrahan. ten Americans were wounded, and 20 Koreans were captured, several of whom were wounded. Five Korean forts were taken in total, with dozens of small cannons. The Korean deputy commander was among the wounded who were captured. The U.S. hoped to use the captives as a bargaining chip to meet with local officials, but the Koreans refused, calling the captives cowards and "Low was told that he was welcome to keep the wounded prisoners." However, the Americans released the prisoners before departing.

Following the military operations of 10–12 June, the United States Asiatic Squadron stayed at anchorage off Jakyak Island until 3 July, when they left for China.

Aftermath
The United States had hoped that their victory would persuade the Koreans to return to the negotiating table. But the Koreans refused to negotiate. In fact, these events led the regent Daewon-gun to strengthen his policy of isolation and issue a national proclamation against appeasing foreigners. Additionally the Koreans soon sent reinforcements in large numbers that were armed with more modern weapons to confront the American troops. Realizing that the odds had shifted, the U.S. fleet consequently departed and set sail for China on 3 July.

There were no further attacks on foreign ships. In 1876, Korea established a trade treaty with Japan after Japanese ships approached Ganghwa Island and threatened to fire on Seoul. Treaties with European countries and the U.S. soon followed.

Nine sailors (Chief Quartermaster Grace, Quartermasters Troy, Franklin and Rogers, Boatswain's Mate McKenzie, Ordinary Seaman Andrews, Carpenter Hayden, and Landsmen Lukes and Merton) and six Marines (Corporal Brown and Privates Coleman, Dougherty, McNamara, Owens, and Purvis) were awarded the Medal of Honor, the first for actions in a foreign conflict.

Treaty of Amity and Commerce
From April–May 1882, the United States, represented by Commodore Robert W. Shufeldt of the United States Navy, and Korea negotiated and approved a 14-article treaty. The treaty established mutual friendship and mutual assistance in case of attack; and also addressed such specific matters as extraterritorial rights for American citizens in Korea and most favored nation trade status.

The treaty remained in effect until the annexation of Korea in 1910.

title: United States expedition to Korea


text:
Ellen Glasgow

Ellen Anderson Gholson Glasgow (April 22, 1873 – November 21, 1945) was an American novelist who won the Pulitzer Prize for the Novel in 1942 for her novel In This Our Life. She published 20 novels, as well as short stories, to critical acclaim. A lifelong Virginian, Glasgow portrayed the changing world of the contemporary South in a realistic manner, differing from the idealistic escapism that characterized Southern literature after Reconstruction.

Early and family life
Born in Richmond, Virginia, on April 22, 1873, to Anne Jane Gholson (1831-1893) and her husband, Francis Thomas Glasgow, the young Glasgow developed differently from other women of her aristocratic class. Due to poor health (later diagnosed as chronic heart disease), Glasgow was educated at home in Richmond, receiving the equivalent of a high school degree, although she read deeply in philosophy, social and political theory, as well as European and British literature.

Her parents married on July 14, 1853, survived the American Civil War, and would have ten children together, of whom Ellen would be the next to youngest. Her mother, Anne Gholson, was inclined to what was then called "nervous invalidism"; which some attributed to her having borne and cared for ten children. Glasgow also dealt with "nervous invalidism" throughout her life. Ellen Glasgow thought her father self-righteous and unfeeling. However, some of her more admirable characters reflect a Scots-Calvinist background like his and a similar "iron vein of Presbyterianism". Ellen Glasgow spent many summers at her family's Louisa County, Virginia, estate, the historic Jerdone Castle plantation, which her father bought in 1879, and would later use that setting in her writings.

Her paternal great-grandfather, Arthur Glasgow, had emigrated with his brothers in 1776 from Scotland to the then-large and frontier Augusta County, Virginia. Her father, Francis Thomas Glasgow, was raised in what had become Rockbridge County, Virginia, graduated from Washington College (now Washington and Lee University) in 1847, and would eventually manage the Tredegar Iron Works. Those had been bought in 1848 by Glasgow's maternal uncle, Joseph Reid Anderson, who had graduated fourth in his class of 49 from West Point in 1836 and would introduce the labor of skilled and enslaved Africans at the ironworks to accompany skilled white workers. Anderson was a major business and political figure in Richmond, who supported the Confederate States of America, joined the Army of Northern Virginia, and attained the rank of general. However, because the Tredegar Ironworks produced munitions crucial to the Confederate cause, General Robert E. Lee asked General Anderson to return and manage the ironworks rather than lead armies in the field.

Her mother was Anne Jane Gholson (1831-1893), born to William Yates Gholson and Martha Anne Jane Taylor at Needham plantation in Cumberland County, Virginia. Her grandparents were Congressman Thomas Gholson, Jr. and Anne Yates, who descended from Rev. William Yates, the College of William & Mary's fifth president (1761–1764). Gholson was descended from William Randolph, a prominent colonist and land owner in the Commonwealth of Virginia. He and his wife, Mary Isham, were sometimes referred to as the "Adam and Eve" of Virginia.

Career
During more than four decades of literary work, Glasgow published 20 novels, a collection of poems, a book of short stories, and a book of literary criticism. Her first novel, The Descendant (1897) was written in secret and published anonymously when she was 24 years old. She destroyed part of the manuscript after her mother died in 1893. Publication was further delayed because her brother-in-law and intellectual mentor, George McCormack, died the following year. Thus Glasgow completed her novel in 1895. It features an emancipated heroine who seeks passion rather than marriage. Although it was published anonymously, her authorship became well known the following year, when her second novel, Phases of an Inferior Planet (1898), announced on its title page, "by Ellen Glasgow, author of The Descendant".

By the time The Descendant was in print, Glasgow had finished Phases of an Inferior Planet. The novel portrays the demise of a marriage and focuses on "the spirituality of female friendship". Critics found the story to be "sodden with hopelessness all the way though", but "excellently told". Glasgow stated that her third novel, The Voice of People (1900) was an objective view of the poor-white farmer in politics. The hero is a young Southerner who, having a genius for politics, rises above the masses and falls in love with a higher class girl. Her next novel, The Battle-Ground (1902), sold over 21,000 copies in the first two weeks after publication. It depicts the South before and during the Civil War and was hailed as "the first and best realistic treatment of the war from the southern point of view." Much of her work was influenced by the romantic interests and human relationships that Glasgow developed throughout her life. The Deliverance (1904) and her previous novel, The Battle-Ground, were written during her affair with "Gerald B.", her long-time secret lover. They "are the only early books in which Glasgow's heroine and hero are united" by the novels' ends. The Deliverance, published in 1904, was the first Glasgow book to garner popular success. The novel portrays a romance built on the dramatic relationship between the hero and the heroine due to traditional class constraints. The hero is an aristocrat turned into a common laborer after the events of the Civil War, and the heroine lacks the aristocratic lineage but obtains aristocratic qualities such as education and refinement. The genuine affection and reconciliation of the romance of the two were attempts by Glasgow to prove that "traditional class consciousness should be inconsequential to love affairs." The Deliverance criticizes the institution of marriage because Glasgow herself faced social barriers that prevented her from marrying at that time. The Deliverance is notable for offering "a naturalistic treatment of class conflicts" that emerge after Reconstruction, providing realistic views of social changes in Southern literature.

Glasgow's next four novels were written in what she considered her "earlier manner" and received mixed reviews. The Wheel of Life (1906) sold moderately well based on the success of The Descendant. Despite its commercial success, however, reviewers found the book disappointing. Set in New York (the only novel not set in Virginia), the story tells of domestic unhappiness and tangled love affairs. It was unfavorably compared to Edith Wharton's House of Mirth, which was published that same year. Most critics recommended that Glasgow "stick to the South". Glasgow regarded the novel as a failure.

The Ancient Law (1908) portrayed white factory workers in the Virginia textile industry, and analyzes the rise of industrial capitalism and its corresponding social ills. Critics considered the book overly melodramatic. With The Romance of a Plain Man (1909) and The Miller of Old Church (1911) Glasgow began concentrating on gender traditions; she contrasted the conventions of the Southern woman with the feminist viewpoint, a direction which she continued in Virginia (1913).

As the United States women's suffrage movement was developing in the early 1900s, Glasgow marched in the English suffrage parades in the spring of 1909. Later she spoke at the first suffrage meeting in Virginia and was an early member of the Equal Suffrage League of Virginia. Glasgow felt that the movement came "at the wrong moment" for her, and her participation and interest waned. Glasgow did not at first make women's roles her major theme, and she was slow to place heroines rather than heroes at the centers of her stories. Some called her Virginia (1913; about a southern lady whose husband abandons her when he achieves success), Life and Gabriella (1916; about a woman abandoned by a weak-willed husband, but who becomes a self-sufficient, single mother who remarries well), and Barren Ground (1925); discussed below, her "women's trilogy". Her later works have heroines who display many of the attributes of women involved in the political movement.

Glasgow published two more novels, The Builders (1919) and One Man in His Time (1922), as well as a set of short stories (The Shadowy Third and Other Stories (1923)), before producing her novel of greatest personal importance, Barren Ground (1925).

Written in response to her waning romantic relationship with Henry W. Anderson, Barren Ground is a story that chronicles the life events of the main heroine. Due to a troubled childhood, the heroine looks for escape in the form of companionship with the opposite sex. She meets a man and gets engaged, only for him to leave for New York and desert her. The heroine concludes that physical relationships with the opposite sex are meaningless and devotes herself to running her farm. Though she triumphs over the man who abandoned her, the victory is as bare and empty as the barren ground in the description of the introduction. Glasgow wrote Barren Ground in retrospect to her own life, and the heroine's life mirrors hers almost exactly. Glasgow reverses the traditional seduction plot by producing a heroine completely freed from the southern patriarchal influence and pits women against their own biological natures. Though she created an unnatural and melodramatic story that did not sell well with the public, it was hailed as a literary accomplishment by critics of the time. The imagery, descriptive power, and length of the book conveys the "unconquerable vastness" of the world. What endures in the novel is not the ideals of a cynical woman, but rather the landscape that is farmed by generations of humans who spend their brief time on earth on the land. Glasgow portrays the insignificance of human relationships and romance by contrasting it directly to the vastness of nature itself.

By writing Barren Ground, a "tragedy", she believed that she freed herself for her comedies of manners The Romantic Comedians (1926), They Stooped to Folly (1929), and The Sheltered Life (1932). These late works are considered the most artful criticism of romantic illusion in her career.

In 1923 a reviewer in Time characterized Glasgow:

"She is of the South; but she is not by any manner of means provincial. She was educated, being a delicate child, at home and at private schools. Yet she is by no means a woman secluded from life. She has wide contacts and interests. ... Here is a really important figure in the history of American letters; for she has preserved for us the quality and the beauty of her real South."

Artistic recognition of her work may have climaxed in 1931 when Glasgow presided over the Southern Writers Conference at the University of Virginia.

Glasgow produced two more "novels of character", The Sheltered Life (1932) and Vein of Iron (1935), in which she continued to explore female independence. The latter and Barren Ground of the previous decade remain in print.

In 1941 Glasgow published In This Our Life, the first of her writings to take a bold and progressive attitude towards black people. Glasgow incorporated African Americans into the story as main characters of the narrative, and these characters become a theme within the novel itself. By portraying the blatant injustices that black people face in society, Glasgow provides a sense of realism in race relations that she had never done before. Due to the ambiguity of the ending, the novel received a mixed and confused response from the public. There is also a distinct discontinuity between critics of the time and the reading public, as the critics, notably her friends, hailed the novel as a "masterpiece", and the novel won the Pulitzer Prize for the Novel in 1942. The novel was quickly bought by Warner Brothers and adapted as a movie by the same name, directed by John Huston and released in 1942.

Her autobiography, The Woman Within, published in 1954, years after her death, details her progression as an author and the influences essential for her becoming an acclaimed Southern woman writer. Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings was gathering information for her commissioned biography of Ellen Glasgow prior to her death.

Death and legacy
Glasgow died in her sleep at home on November 21, 1945, and is buried in Hollywood Cemetery, Richmond, Virginia. The Albert and Shirley Small Special Collections Library at the University of Virginia maintains Glasgow's papers. Copies of Glasgow's correspondence may be found in the Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings papers at the George A. Smathers Libraries Special Collections at the University of Florida. The Library of Virginia honored Glasgow in 2000 as she became a member of the inaugural class of Virginia Women in History.

By basing her novels on her own life, Glasgow accurately portrayed the changing nature of Southern society. She was the founder of the realism movement in Southern literature that was made up of writers such as William Faulkner, who considered Reconstruction as "the greatest humiliation in Southern history."

Personal life and relationships
Glasgow had several love interests during her life. In The Woman Within (1954), an autobiography written for posthumous publication, Glasgow tells of a long, secret affair with a married man she had met in New York City in 1900, whom she called Gerald B. Ellen believed that he was the "one great love of her life", noting one particular visit with him in Switzerland:"A summer morning in the Alps. We were walking together over an emerald path. I remember the moss, the ferny greenness. I remember the Alpine blue of the sky. I remember, on my lips, the flushed air tasting like honey. The way was through a thick wood, in a park, and the path wound on and upward, higher and higher. We walked slowly, scarcely breathing in the brilliant light. On and upward, higher, and still higher. Then, suddenly, the trees parted, the woods thinned and disappeared. Earth and sky met and mingled. We stood, hand in hand, alone in the solitude, alone with the radiant whiteness of the Jungfrau. From the mountain we turned our eyes to each other. We were silent, because it seemed to us that all had been said. But the thought flashed through my mind, and was gone, 'Never in all my life can I be happier than I am, now, here at this moment!'" Since Gerald B.'s wife would not agree to a divorce, Ellen was unable to marry. In the end, nothing occurred but the short-lived meetings in New York and Switzerland; Glasgow wrote in her autobiography that Gerald B. died in 1905.

Ellen also maintained a close lifelong friendship with James Branch Cabell, another notable Richmond writer. She was engaged twice but did not marry. In 1916, Glasgow met Henry W. Anderson, a prominent attorney and Republican Party leader, who collaborated with Glasgow and provided copies of his speeches for her novel The Builders. He eventually became her fiance in 1917. However, the engagement occurred during the First World War, and Anderson, placed in charge of the Red Cross Commission in order to keep Romania on the side of the Allies, left for the country. There he met Queen Marie of Romania, and Anderson became infatuated with her. These developments, paired with a lack of communication between the two, strained the relationship between Glasgow and Anderson, and the planned marriage fell through. Based on her experiences, Glasgow felt her best work was done when love was over. By the end of her life, Glasgow lived with her secretary, Anne V. Bennett, 10 years her junior, at her home at 1 West Main Street in Richmond.

Novels

 * The Descendant (1897)
 * Phases of an Inferior Planet (1898)
 * The Voice of the People (1900)
 * The Battle-Ground (1902)
 * The Deliverance (1904)
 * The Wheel of Life (1906)
 * The Ancient Law (1908)
 * The Romance of a Plain Man (1909)
 * The Miller of Old Church (1911)
 * Virginia (1913)
 * Life and Gabriella (1916)
 * The Builders (1919)
 * One Man in His Time (1922)
 * Barren Ground (1925)
 * The Romantic Comedians (1926)
 * They Stooped to Folly (1929)
 * The Sheltered Life (1932)
 * Vein of Iron (1935)
 * In This Our Life (1941) Pulitzer Prize for the Novel 1942, filmed in 1942 by John Huston with Bette Davis and Olivia de Havilland.

Story collections

 * The Shadowy Third and Other Stories (1923)
 * The Collected Stories of Ellen Glasgow (1963) (12 stories, with an introduction by editor Richard Meeker)

Verse

 * The Freeman and Other Poems (1902)

Autobiography

 * The Woman Within (published posthumously in 1954)

Non-fiction

 * A Certain Measure: An Interpretation of Prose Fiction (October 1943)

title: Ellen Glasgow


text:
User talk:Cameronc

Hello Cameron, welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian. You can learn more on the how to edit page. The naming conventions and style guide pages are also useful. There is a sandbox which you can use to experiment in. If you have any questions, see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. Angela 16:45, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

In Remembrance...
--nat Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?! 23:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:AlignedEquation1.png

The file File:AlignedEquation1.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern: "orphaned file, no foreseeable use"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jon Kolbert (talk) 18:57, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Cameronc


text:
Rocco Prestia

Francis Rocco Prestia Jr. (March 7, 1951 – September 29, 2020) was an American bassist, best known for his work with the funk band Tower of Power.

Biography
Born in Sonora, California, Prestia started playing electric guitar as an adolescent. When he auditioned for Emilio Castillo's band, Tower of Power, Castillo persuaded him to switch to electric bass.

Prestia worked with the band for the next three decades, before he became seriously ill in 2001. His fans and friends created a foundation in order to help pay the artist's medical costs. On December 5, 2014, Prestia underwent successful liver transplant surgery.

Rocco is survived by the loves of his life, Julian Francis Rocco Prestia and Alicia-Lyn JoAnn Prestia.

Technique and influences
Prestia was a master of fingerstyle funk bass playing. His technique made heavy use of left hand muting. He muted his strings lightly to create a thick percussive sound while maintaining pitch clarity. He also frequently incorporated ghost notes to fill empty space. His characteristic sound, in combination with a highly rhythmic approach to bass lines, makes Prestia's sound unmistakable.

Along with James Jamerson, Stanley Clarke, Anthony Jackson and Alphonso Johnson, Prestia belonged to a generation of musicians that fostered a revolution on the electric bass—inspiring the innovative work of Jaco Pastorius in the mid-1970s. Prestia's influential style can be heard on classic Tower of Power tracks such as the 1973 hit "What is Hip". Prestia cited James Jamerson and the different musicians who worked for James Brown (particularly Bootsy Collins) as his main influences.

Equipment
Prestia's primary instruments were his Fender Precision basses (a purple transparent American Deluxe and a natural ash-bodied short-lived signature model with a reverse split pickup and a 2-band EQ). He later maintained an association with the Conklin company that provided him a custom built four-string instrument, one of the few in the company's catalog.

In January 2013, ESP Guitars announced that Prestia had joined their roster of endorsing artists. The company made reference to the introduction of their LTD RB series on May 22, 2014.

Death
Prestia died on September 29, 2020, at age 69, in a Las Vegas hospice.

As leader

 * Everybody on the Bus! (1999)

With Tower of Power

 * East Bay Grease (1970)
 * Bump City (1972)
 * Tower of Power (1973)
 * Back to Oakland (1974)
 * Urban Renewal (1975)
 * In The Slot (1975)
 * Live and in Living Color (1976)
 * Ain't Nothin' Stoppin' Us Now (1976)
 * Power (1987)
 * Monster on a Leash (1991)
 * T.O.P. (1993)
 * Souled Out (1995)
 * Rhythm & Business (1997)
 * Direct Plus (1997)
 * Soul Vaccination Live (1999)
 * Dinosaur Tracks (2000)
 * Oakland Zone (2003)
 * The Great American Soul Book (2009)
 * Soul Side of Town (2018)
 * Step Up (2020)

With Other Artists

 * Carmen Grillo, Both Sides Of The Coin (1996)
 * Bruce Conte, Right From My Heart (1997) (bass on "Thump")
 * Yoichi Murata, Hook Up (1999) (bass on "Positive Sign", "When You Leave (And I...)", "Carry On")
 * Gov't Mule, The Deep End, Volume 2 (2002) (bass on "What Is Hip?")

Videography

 * Fingerstyle Funk (1993)
 * Francis Rocco Prestia: Live at Bass Day (1998)

title: Rocco Prestia