How do scientists determine the age of the pyramids or stonehenge for that matter. It is possible to carbon date (or similar process) the entoombed body, but how strong is the evidence that the body was placed in the structure immediately after it was constructed? is the process of dating really relying on non-empirical understanding or assumptions made about cultural practices of the time (ie the pyramids were made as monuments to dead royalty).
Has there been any scientific dating of items that could conclusively reveal a date before construction - such as organic matter found beneath the lower blocks of the pyramids?
There is serious confusion as to whether EULAs are even contractually enforceable - given the obvious absense of general contractual elements such as offer and agreement (you only get to read the eula after the purchase is complete) and formalities (signatures). Additionally acceptance is not necessarily in lieu of the offer. There is very little case law on this subject or authorative statements or guidance from the courts in any jurisdiction.
Millions of consumers deal with this issue perhaps daily - and companies with their armies of lawyers create these huge documents. Maybe they expect that one day if they are successfully challenged in court they will have the power to lobby the politicians to provide enabling legislation recognising EULAs bizare quasi contractual status much like the DRM criminal statutes.
There is such a trade off of rights when a proprietry interest in something is replaced with a contractual right and license in the use of property. I expect one day courts will examine this issue very carefully taking into account the unilateral nature of the contracts and consumer's barginning power (contract law is premised on freedom to contract) against often semi monopolistic entities.
or totally foreign sources like Al Jazeera (CIA counter-intelligence operation).
Do you have any references for this? - not to dispute your point since it certainly has a logic to it and would be a brilliant coup from the cia if this was the case. Cant formulate a good google query without getting too many unrelated hits.
But it should be noted that Stallman would be the most vigorous defender of your right to fork his codebase against his interest in the project. This in my view is fairly convincing that all the accusations of ego and agenda pushing on the part of rms are more than a little bit unfair. He is at least consistent and refreshing in his viewpoint.
ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elisha_Gray > Contrary to popular myth, Gray's caveat was taken to the US Patent Office a few hours before Bell's application.[1] But the filing fee for Gray's caveat was entered on the cash blotter hours after Bell's filing fee which led to the myth that Bell had arrived at the Patent Office earlier. Bell was in Boston on February 14 and did not know this was happening until he arrived in Washington on February 26
In fact the caveat would have secured Gray's rights ahead of Bell's except...
ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elisha_Gray > When Gray was notified through his lawyer of this interference, Gray's lawyer advised Gray to abandon his caveat because he said Bell had invented it first and had it notarized earlier than Gray. When Gray agreed to abandon his caveat, the examiner granted the patent to Bell.
So in fact it was not not being first in the race but bad legal advice that made the difference between the men in history. Maybe the race for the best lawyer in town is the better analogy.
well my point was never presented as more than anecdotally. in fact i ended up doing precisely the same as you by using *other vendors tools*.
In my case gcc/g++ and a complete GNU suite running in something called MacMint which was originally written for atari but which some bright guy modified to dispatch the traps calls through to the MacOS rom routines. i could even do gui devel without too much difficulty.
Microsoft's cash injection of, what was it $200 million in the middle of an Apple debt crisis in the mid 1990s. MS also actively supports Macintosh not only in direct cash but by offering Office under OSX. Where would linux be with an X version of Office? This is about MS strategically analysing its alliances.
Microsoft decided not to quash Apple when it had the chance to stave off the regulators - I am sure Bill has imagined the term 'baby microsofts'. In fact after we got past the 1980's I think there is probably quite a cosy relationship between the two companies at a certain level of their management as much as Apple likes to pretend that it the viable and vigorous alternative to MS.
Remember, maybe 1996 trying to get dev tools for mac. Researched what I needed - something called Mister C/C++ or something although I cannot be certain I recall this correctly.
Head office of Apple for a city of over 3million people - I ask about this product and the representatives I spoke with were completely hostile and totally intimidated. The response I got was something along the lines 'this is not an off-the-shelf piece of software'. No - I understand this and it was the the reason I approached head office.
These were sales people - I would never expect them to know very much about development tools (the reason I researched and could cite the product/s myself) and so my questions were framed appropriately to the context ie not technical mumbo. I would have been satisfied with merely a product sheet or refferal to someone who could inform me about aquiring the product. Hell it was their single proprietry Apple dev product and they couldnt even (maybe be bothered) to look the thing up on a product/sales database.
Apple has come along way from this level of incompetance.
In most of these kinds of things you would be arguing on policy gounds addressing the statutory (legally defined) policy tests in order to obtain a personal remedy that might have more general implications than for just the individual in a case. Whether i personally have a preference to run Windows or both systems together or even just alternative OS without Windows is probably largely irrelevant to the merit of any case.
That said often courts will impose additional tests on a plaintiff as to whether they are a 'proper plaintiff' in any particular case even where it can be demonstrated that the potential defendant is prima facie in breach the law. Often the test applied will be specific damage to the defendant. I really dont know - it would probably depend on specific law and other specific facts.
I do know that our company that develops with windows and linux frequently have to restore MBR's costing both time and knowledge.
I disagree with this. In the context of Microsoft's proven anti-competitive behaviour this is an issue that attacks at the heart of consumer choice. Certainly Microsoft can and probably should overwrite the MBR during installation by default. However the ease by which an option could be implemented to override this for advanced users along with a message - "you almost certainly don't want to be doing this", would make it difficult for microsoft to justify their position given their prior record of monopolisitic practices.
It is similar to the bundling arguments that have been used successfully against Microsoft in the past - except in this case there is a real and direct impediment to competition not just implied since you cannot even continue to use an existing installed OS on the drive (without some positive action and intervention on the part of the user to restore grub, lilo etc). I suspect that Courts (even US ones) would take a dim view of this if it were challenged on trade restraint grounds.
Can anyone tell me what is the status of EUL agreements? there is so much confusion as to whether they are contractually enforceable - given the obvious absense of general contractual elements such as offer and agreement (you only get to read the eula after the purchase is complete) and formalities (signatures). Is there any case law on this subject or authorative statements or guidance from the courts - has it never been tested? it is such a basic fucking thing that millions of consumers deal with perhaps daily - and companies blithely creating these huge documents and yet nobody seems to have a clue whether they are enforceable against the customer.
Slashdot Mirror
How do scientists determine the age of the pyramids or stonehenge for that matter. It is possible to carbon date (or similar process) the entoombed body, but how strong is the evidence that the body was placed in the structure immediately after it was constructed? is the process of dating really relying on non-empirical understanding or assumptions made about cultural practices of the time (ie the pyramids were made as monuments to dead royalty).
Has there been any scientific dating of items that could conclusively reveal a date before construction - such as organic matter found beneath the lower blocks of the pyramids?
There is serious confusion as to whether EULAs are even contractually
enforceable - given the obvious absense of general contractual elements
such as offer and agreement (you only get to read the eula after the
purchase is complete) and formalities (signatures). Additionally
acceptance is not necessarily in lieu of the offer. There is very little
case law on this subject or authorative statements or guidance from the
courts in any jurisdiction.
Millions of consumers deal with this issue perhaps daily - and companies
with their armies of lawyers create these huge documents. Maybe they
expect that one day if they are successfully challenged in court they
will have the power to lobby the politicians to provide enabling legislation
recognising EULAs bizare quasi contractual status much like the DRM criminal
statutes.
There is such a trade off of rights when a proprietry interest in something
is replaced with a contractual right and license in the use of property. I expect
one day courts will examine this issue very carefully taking into account
the unilateral nature of the contracts and consumer's barginning power
(contract law is premised on freedom to contract) against often semi
monopolistic entities.
or totally foreign sources like Al Jazeera (CIA counter-intelligence operation).
Do you have any references for this? - not to dispute your point since it certainly has a logic
to it and would be a brilliant coup from the cia if this was the case. Cant formulate
a good google query without getting too many unrelated hits.
But it should be noted that Stallman would be the most vigorous
defender of your right to fork his codebase against his interest
in the project. This in my view is fairly convincing that all the
accusations of ego and agenda pushing on the part of rms are more
than a little bit unfair. He is at least consistent and refreshing
in his viewpoint.
fascinating story I had not heard this before .
...
But Wikipedia's account is more complicated
ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elisha_Gray
> Contrary to popular myth, Gray's caveat was taken to the US Patent Office a few hours before Bell's application.[1] But the filing fee for Gray's caveat was entered on the cash blotter hours after Bell's filing fee which led to the myth that Bell had arrived at the Patent Office earlier. Bell was in Boston on February 14 and did not know this was happening until he arrived in Washington on February 26
In fact the caveat would have secured Gray's rights ahead of Bell's except
ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elisha_Gray
> When Gray was notified through his lawyer of this interference, Gray's lawyer advised Gray to abandon his caveat because he said Bell had invented it first and had it notarized earlier than Gray. When Gray agreed to abandon his caveat, the examiner granted the patent to Bell.
So in fact it was not not being first in the race but bad legal advice that made the difference between the men in history. Maybe the race for the best lawyer in town is the better analogy.
well my point was never presented as more than anecdotally. in fact i ended up doing
precisely the same as you by using *other vendors tools*.
In my case gcc/g++ and a complete GNU suite running in something called MacMint which was
originally written for atari but which some bright guy modified to dispatch the traps
calls through to the MacOS rom routines. i could even do gui devel without too much
difficulty.
As to why Apple is still around ?
Microsoft's cash injection of, what was it $200 million in the middle of an Apple debt crisis in the mid
1990s. MS also actively supports Macintosh not only in direct cash but by offering Office
under OSX. Where would linux be with an X version of Office? This is about MS strategically
analysing its alliances.
Microsoft decided not to quash Apple when it had the chance to stave off the regulators -
I am sure Bill has imagined the term 'baby microsofts'. In fact after we got past the 1980's I think
there is probably quite a cosy relationship between the two companies at a certain level of their
management as much as Apple likes to pretend that it the viable and vigorous alternative to MS.
Remember, maybe 1996 trying to get dev tools for mac. Researched what I needed -
something called Mister C/C++ or something although I cannot be certain I recall
this correctly.
Head office of Apple for a city of over 3million people - I ask about
this product and the representatives I spoke with were completely hostile and
totally intimidated. The response I got was something along the lines 'this is
not an off-the-shelf piece of software'. No - I understand this and it was the
the reason I approached head office.
These were sales people - I would never expect them to know very much about
development tools (the reason I researched and could cite the product/s myself)
and so my questions were framed appropriately to the context ie not technical
mumbo. I would have been satisfied with merely a product sheet or refferal
to someone who could inform me about aquiring the product. Hell it was their
single proprietry Apple dev product and they couldnt even (maybe be bothered)
to look the thing up on a product/sales database.
Apple has come along way from this level of incompetance.
In most of these kinds of things you would be arguing on policy gounds addressing the
statutory (legally defined) policy tests in order to obtain a personal remedy that might have more
general implications than for just the individual in a case. Whether i personally have a preference
to run Windows or both systems together or even just alternative OS without Windows is probably largely
irrelevant to the merit of any case.
That said often courts will impose additional tests on a plaintiff as to whether they are a
'proper plaintiff' in any particular case even where it can be demonstrated that the potential
defendant is prima facie in breach the law. Often the test applied will be specific damage to the defendant.
I really dont know - it would probably depend on specific law and other specific facts.
I do know that our company that develops with windows and linux frequently have to restore MBR's
costing both time and knowledge.
I disagree with this. In the context of Microsoft's proven anti-competitive
behaviour this is an issue that attacks at the heart of consumer choice. Certainly
Microsoft can and probably should overwrite the MBR during installation by default.
However the ease by which an option could be implemented to override this for
advanced users along with a message - "you almost certainly don't want to be doing
this", would make it difficult for microsoft to justify their position given their
prior record of monopolisitic practices.
It is similar to the bundling arguments that have been used successfully against
Microsoft in the past - except in this case there is a real and direct impediment
to competition not just implied since you cannot even continue to use an existing
installed OS on the drive (without some positive action and intervention on the part
of the user to restore grub, lilo etc). I suspect that Courts (even US ones) would
take a dim view of this if it were challenged on trade restraint grounds.
dd if=/dev/hda of=my_mbr bs=512 count=1
Can anyone tell me what is the status of EUL agreements?
there is so much confusion as to whether they are contractually
enforceable - given the obvious absense of general
contractual elements such as offer and agreement (you only
get to read the eula after the purchase is complete) and formalities
(signatures). Is there any case law on this subject or authorative
statements or guidance from the courts -
has it never been tested? it is such a basic fucking thing that
millions of consumers deal with perhaps daily - and companies
blithely creating these huge documents and yet nobody
seems to have a clue whether they are enforceable against the
customer.