Bill might have bribed some of the politicians currently in power, but politicians don't stay in power forever. MS might be under more pressure in a couple of years.
That just means he'll have to shell out again, not that the new ones can't be bought.
The fact remains, Microsoft was guilty of the crimes they were accused of. Microsoft is a convicted monopolist now. The only thing remaining is to determine the remedy. Microsoft did MANY things that were illegal. It's all spelled out in the ruling, and most of it was admitted by Microsoft employees under oath. So regardless of what other motivations those companies might have had, they were harmed by monopolistic behavior on Microsoft's part. That is why Microsoft deserved to be prosecuted. If any of those other companies were doing things like that, I would definitely support prosecuting them as well. Nobody should be allowed to get away with this stuff.
I'm not sure what you got from reading that link, but to me, it looks like a district court ruled EULAs unenforceable, and the the court that wrote the ruling you linked to overturned the district court's ruling and remanded it back to them. Thus EULAs remain enforceable.
From what I understand, he had to approve the loans in the first place. At the time, he probably didn't care. Now that CEOs can be held responsible (theoretically) for the financial screwiness of their company, and the fact that people were starting to ask questions about the loans, he probably got worried and demanded repayment. At best, they'd repay the money. At worst, he'd get fired, but at least he's no longer CEO and it's not his problem anymore.
God can kiss my shiny metal ass if he thinks I'm in favor of just letting some rock smash into the planet and kill everything. Besides, if you believe in God, then it works in your favor either way. If the asteroid hits the earth, then it was God's will. If we destroy the asteroid, then it was just God testing us.
How the hell does it happen that they can get loans that they don't have to repay? Seems to me that the CEO should be fired just for allowing such a thing to happen. Would you loan that kind of money out knowing that there was no legal requirement for it to be repayed?
Obviously something is very broken with the system then. We have CEOs running companies into the ground and bailing out with tens and hundreds of millions in bonuses and exercised stock options just before the company tanks. They get away with it all too often too. If they have such a duty to shareholders, why are these bastards getting huge bonuses as the company fails? Oh yeah, because it's one big circle-jerk in management. They know that the company is dead, so they approve bonuses for each other and bleed the company dry, often leaving nothing for the regular employees.
What do you want to bet that the guy at Best Buy that is trying to sell you this thing won't tell you that it reports everything you watch? I bet it's not listed as a feature on the box either. It's most likely buried in a EULA somewhere inside the box. You won't even know about it unless you get it home and read the EULA. Shouldn't we know about these things before we buy so we don't end up wasting a lot of time buying something that is useless to us?
Could be, if he watches the discs fairly often. Plus the satisfaction of being able to control your own property. I really don't need to sit for 30 seconds staring at the FBI warning every time I watch a DVD. Nor do I like to sit through the often mandatory studio animations. It may take a bit of my time up front, but it makes me happier in the end.
Well... I suppose that by not attempting to sue this guy, the DMCA won't get struck down yet for being an unconscienable threat to legitimate study and free speech.
The government wants this done so that they can resell the analog spectrum and make lotsa cash to blow on ridiculous pork-barrel stuff that they wouldn't be able to justify a tax increase for. That's why there's a push for this. As for the DRM stuff, do you seriously think that we're going to get digital tv without DRM? If you answered "yes", I'd like to talk to you about this bridge I'm selling.
What are you talking about? MS made mistakes all the time. They just never suffered for them because Bill's money bin is very deep and he's got some very good liars working for him.
The target audience is everyone. Whether you care about security or not, if Microsoft can create a demand by legislation (such as the Hollings bill) that would mandate DRM and thus some sort of identity verification scheme, or by convincing the majority of hardware/software makers to use their scheme, then you'll be stuck with it whether you like it or not. I think the former option is a lot more likely really. I seriously doubt they could get a majority to agree on anything. Congress, however, is open for business.
What are you talking about? Joe user has no idea what any of this is about. It's probably just the big bad gubmint picking on a successful business again. They're just jealous. Don't expect the masses to rise up against Microsoft when they don't even have the foggiest idea what's going on. This stuff doesn't get much mainstream play, and when it does, it's dumbed down to the point where it no longer makes much sense anyway.
If the problem is known, someone will fix it and you can download a patch. If the problem is not known, then you can pay someone to figure it out and fix it for you. If you don't want to do either of these things, then simply buy proprietary software instead, and see if it works any better for you. (although I doubt it will because I really don't think this warranty clause will be effective).
Wouldn't matter. For HP to even have a case, they'd have to say enough that they'd hang themselves in the process. Only scientologists are good enough to keep ALL the relevant facts out of the case.
If there's one thing that's a "natural monopoly" it's insuring there are no collisions in a global name space.
True enough, but the monopoly would be miniscule and virtually powerless compared to what we have today if it was done right. There shouldn't be limit on the number of top level domains available to be registered. There's no technical reason for it. We should have thousands of TLDs and dozens, if not hundreds of registrars (I think this is pretty much what you're suggesting as well). Preventing collisions is not difficult, and should not be subject to monetary or political influence. First come first serve. If there's a dispute over trademark or copyright, take it to court or an independent arbitrator. Secretive, unaccountable, and special-interest controlled agencies should not be a part of the process.
THe general impression in Europe about US politics is that money talks... a lot
And it does. That doesn't really make Europe any better. They just suck less in some areas and more in others. The correctness of the phrase depends on what criteria you use to determine who is leading:)
So basically we have these different groups arguing over who gets to be the big cheese monopoly If our government had more than about 3 brain cells dedicated to this problem, we wouldn't even have a monopoly in the first place. Look where we are now. We have institutionalized cyber-squatting. We have artificial scarcity in domain names. We have a couple of unaccountable organizations resolving domain disputes. We have ICANN removing even the pretense of democratic control, while attempting to prevent the public (and one of its own directors) from ever finding out what exactly goes on behind the scenes or where the money goes. I think things are pretty well screwed up now. Do we really care which group has the monopoly? Unfortunately, nobody seems to have enough clout to stand up to ICANN and Verisign and get changes made. Most people just don't understand the issues. Those few that do don't seem to get any attention. It's a sad state of affairs when the world's leading democracy puts a non-democratic, unaccountable entity in charge of the Internet.
I've already written to my senators and rep about various copyright bills as they have come up. When I get a reply from them (usually a couple months later at least), it's always a form letter stating that it's essential that we do whatever is necessary to protect copyrights. The American Way of Life(TM) depends on it! So, I see that it's pointless to try to reason with them. For every letter I send them, there's a dozen corporations handing them thousands of dollars for their next campaign. Who do you think they listen to?
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe this Dave guy should have told them that he ripped the name from Mozilla and that they should go sue AOL/TW instead :)
Bill might have bribed some of the politicians currently in power, but politicians don't stay in power forever. MS might be under more pressure in a couple of years.
That just means he'll have to shell out again, not that the new ones can't be bought.
The fact remains, Microsoft was guilty of the crimes they were accused of. Microsoft is a convicted monopolist now. The only thing remaining is to determine the remedy. Microsoft did MANY things that were illegal. It's all spelled out in the ruling, and most of it was admitted by Microsoft employees under oath. So regardless of what other motivations those companies might have had, they were harmed by monopolistic behavior on Microsoft's part. That is why Microsoft deserved to be prosecuted. If any of those other companies were doing things like that, I would definitely support prosecuting them as well. Nobody should be allowed to get away with this stuff.
Do the snakes make noisy flapping sounds? Oh, and I never liked the streamer rockets. The parachutes just look so much cooler :)
I'm not sure what you got from reading that link, but to me, it looks like a district court ruled EULAs unenforceable, and the the court that wrote the ruling you linked to overturned the district court's ruling and remanded it back to them. Thus EULAs remain enforceable.
From what I understand, he had to approve the loans in the first place. At the time, he probably didn't care. Now that CEOs can be held responsible (theoretically) for the financial screwiness of their company, and the fact that people were starting to ask questions about the loans, he probably got worried and demanded repayment. At best, they'd repay the money. At worst, he'd get fired, but at least he's no longer CEO and it's not his problem anymore.
God can kiss my shiny metal ass if he thinks I'm in favor of just letting some rock smash into the planet and kill everything. Besides, if you believe in God, then it works in your favor either way. If the asteroid hits the earth, then it was God's will. If we destroy the asteroid, then it was just God testing us.
How the hell does it happen that they can get loans that they don't have to repay? Seems to me that the CEO should be fired just for allowing such a thing to happen. Would you loan that kind of money out knowing that there was no legal requirement for it to be repayed?
Obviously something is very broken with the system then. We have CEOs running companies into the ground and bailing out with tens and hundreds of millions in bonuses and exercised stock options just before the company tanks. They get away with it all too often too. If they have such a duty to shareholders, why are these bastards getting huge bonuses as the company fails? Oh yeah, because it's one big circle-jerk in management. They know that the company is dead, so they approve bonuses for each other and bleed the company dry, often leaving nothing for the regular employees.
What do you want to bet that the guy at Best Buy that is trying to sell you this thing won't tell you that it reports everything you watch? I bet it's not listed as a feature on the box either. It's most likely buried in a EULA somewhere inside the box. You won't even know about it unless you get it home and read the EULA. Shouldn't we know about these things before we buy so we don't end up wasting a lot of time buying something that is useless to us?
Who's your dentist? Orin Scrivello, D.D.S.?
Could be, if he watches the discs fairly often. Plus the satisfaction of being able to control your own property. I really don't need to sit for 30 seconds staring at the FBI warning every time I watch a DVD. Nor do I like to sit through the often mandatory studio animations. It may take a bit of my time up front, but it makes me happier in the end.
Well... I suppose that by not attempting to sue this guy, the DMCA won't get struck down yet for being an unconscienable threat to legitimate study and free speech.
The government wants this done so that they can resell the analog spectrum and make lotsa cash to blow on ridiculous pork-barrel stuff that they wouldn't be able to justify a tax increase for. That's why there's a push for this. As for the DRM stuff, do you seriously think that we're going to get digital tv without DRM? If you answered "yes", I'd like to talk to you about this bridge I'm selling.
What are you talking about? MS made mistakes all the time. They just never suffered for them because Bill's money bin is very deep and he's got some very good liars working for him.
The target audience is everyone. Whether you care about security or not, if Microsoft can create a demand by legislation (such as the Hollings bill) that would mandate DRM and thus some sort of identity verification scheme, or by convincing the majority of hardware/software makers to use their scheme, then you'll be stuck with it whether you like it or not. I think the former option is a lot more likely really. I seriously doubt they could get a majority to agree on anything. Congress, however, is open for business.
What are you talking about? Joe user has no idea what any of this is about. It's probably just the big bad gubmint picking on a successful business again. They're just jealous. Don't expect the masses to rise up against Microsoft when they don't even have the foggiest idea what's going on. This stuff doesn't get much mainstream play, and when it does, it's dumbed down to the point where it no longer makes much sense anyway.
If the problem is known, someone will fix it and you can download a patch. If the problem is not known, then you can pay someone to figure it out and fix it for you. If you don't want to do either of these things, then simply buy proprietary software instead, and see if it works any better for you. (although I doubt it will because I really don't think this warranty clause will be effective).
If it's really lame sarcasm, then no, I probably won't get it. And you'll still be considered dumb for having said it.
Wow, you're dumb. You really didn't comprehend that, did you?
Wouldn't matter. For HP to even have a case, they'd have to say enough that they'd hang themselves in the process. Only scientologists are good enough to keep ALL the relevant facts out of the case.
If there's one thing that's a "natural monopoly" it's insuring there are no collisions in a global name space.
True enough, but the monopoly would be miniscule and virtually powerless compared to what we have today if it was done right. There shouldn't be limit on the number of top level domains available to be registered. There's no technical reason for it. We should have thousands of TLDs and dozens, if not hundreds of registrars (I think this is pretty much what you're suggesting as well). Preventing collisions is not difficult, and should not be subject to monetary or political influence. First come first serve. If there's a dispute over trademark or copyright, take it to court or an independent arbitrator. Secretive, unaccountable, and special-interest controlled agencies should not be a part of the process.
THe general impression in Europe about US politics is that money talks ... a lot
And it does. That doesn't really make Europe any better. They just suck less in some areas and more in others. The correctness of the phrase depends on what criteria you use to determine who is leading :)
So basically we have these different groups arguing over who gets to be the big cheese monopoly If our government had more than about 3 brain cells dedicated to this problem, we wouldn't even have a monopoly in the first place. Look where we are now. We have institutionalized cyber-squatting. We have artificial scarcity in domain names. We have a couple of unaccountable organizations resolving domain disputes. We have ICANN removing even the pretense of democratic control, while attempting to prevent the public (and one of its own directors) from ever finding out what exactly goes on behind the scenes or where the money goes. I think things are pretty well screwed up now. Do we really care which group has the monopoly? Unfortunately, nobody seems to have enough clout to stand up to ICANN and Verisign and get changes made. Most people just don't understand the issues. Those few that do don't seem to get any attention. It's a sad state of affairs when the world's leading democracy puts a non-democratic, unaccountable entity in charge of the Internet.
I've already written to my senators and rep about various copyright bills as they have come up. When I get a reply from them (usually a couple months later at least), it's always a form letter stating that it's essential that we do whatever is necessary to protect copyrights. The American Way of Life(TM) depends on it! So, I see that it's pointless to try to reason with them. For every letter I send them, there's a dozen corporations handing them thousands of dollars for their next campaign. Who do you think they listen to?