A primary example is evident on daytime television commercials where Dewey, Cheetham, & Howe, ambulance-chasers-at-law, tell how they can "Fight for Justice" by having people sue their insurance companies for larger claim settlements.
I think I would have looked for another example if I were you. Insurance companies are not known for their honesty and forthrightness with clients. If an insurance company can get away with paying you less, they will do so. Of course they can often get away with this because they employ lots of lawyers... hmm.. I'm seeing a pattern here...
Official institutions put practically all of their disclaimers in small print at the bottom of the page. Why should private citizens be held to a higher standard?
I think his far better argument was that it would be unwise for the government to spend taxpayer money to lock themselves into proprietary software and file formats. This puts them at the mercy of the company that has sole control over those formats and software.
I haven't even dropped back down to anywhere near the cap yet. I suppose I could start trolling, but it's just not challenging here. Harder to troll K5 than/.
The point would be that if this new system wouldn't have been effective in preventing the WTC attacks, then the government should be made to explain why such a system would be effective use of our tax dollars. There are obvious downsides to such a system, and I think the government must make some very compelling arguments in favor of the system if we are going to spend a ton of money on it and accept the problems that it will create as well.
What the hell else does "cross-dependency" mean? If it isn't both ways, then it would just be a dependency. If the MS employee said something stupid, then the witness should have said that, but the witness was obviously pretty clueless about software anyway. He spends a few hours looking at Windows source code and apparently no time studying other OSes, and he is supposed to be an expert witness?!
Exactly. And according to the emails that the government dug up during the trial, they did this deliberately in order to make IE inseperable from the OS. They should get smacked down hard for that. So what if they have to rewrite it? If it takes them 5 years or more to release the next version of the OS, there will be great rejoicing in the IT community.
Somebody else might not have developed a monopoly. Somebody else might not have abused that monopoly. Somebody else might not have used such ruthless and heavy-handed tactics to crush competition. But like the other guy said, we'll never know because nobody else got a chance. Gotta wonder what the industry would be like if there were several leading OSes, and they all played nice together.
was that the government's lawyer was trying to say that Notepad has a dependency on IE. That it is both ways, a cross-dependancy, and the expert really wanted to say "hell no man, that's stupid"
If you read the whole thing, you will see that it was a Microsoft employee and witness that claimed that there was a cross-dependency between IE and Notepad, not the government lawyer.
Yeah, but this guy spent 8 or 10 hours looking at the source code for Windows. Surely that makes him an expert!:) I'm sure it probably would have looked a lot like Beavis and Butthead trying to read something.. "Uhh... words... uhhhh... words..."
Ah, but if I make a nice big soda vending machine, but put a recessed port on the back that, when connected to a system, could: crack encryption, crack passwords, copy CDs & DVDs, etc, and did not ever advertise this feature, this unit would be ok?
Of course not, for the same reason he gave in his post. Such functions are not essential to the execution of the machine's primary function, therefore they would probably be found illegal.
Until I can trade my karma in for neat gifts and all-expense-paid trips to sunny places with nice looking women, I couldn't care less how much karma I have.
Go for it! But if you ever license it to anyone, or implement it yourself, I'll be forced to hunt you down and force you to watch MTV 24x7 until you're nothing but a gibbering, drooling shell of a human being.
Definitely sounds like corruption, and seems to run counter to your claim that drunk drivers aren't as dangerous as we might think they are. Something that can kill a whole family sounds like a definite danger. I was in a car wreck a couple weeks ago. My truck was nearly totalled (missed it by about $1000 dammit), and I'm certainly glad that there was a cop pulling up behind me less than a minute after the collision. Cops do serve a good purpose. They can also be out of control, and allowed to get away with it by corrupt officials. We should not tolerate corruption, but we need the cops.
The defense have to have the opportunity to challenge the evidence, to argue that the serial number isn't unique after all, to show how it could have been changed at some point etc. The defense have to know how the system works if there's going to be any pretence of a fair trial.
While I agree that it's not fair, such things already happen. Remember the trial of that Mob guy about 6 months or a year ago? They put a keylogger on his computer (there was a Slashdot story on this). They would not, however, reveal to the defense how the keylogger worked, so the defense couldn't determine the validity of the evidence gathered that way. The judge let them get away with refusing this information to the defense too. I wonder how often this kind of stuff happens now.
Who says I purchased a license? I bought a box with a CD that had the program I want on it. Maybe the EULA says I bought a license, but that's after the fact, and I didn't agree to that EULA anyway, therefore only copyright could apply.
If things were done the right way, then former rock star Frampton would have simply sued Mr. Nobody Frampton for trademark or copyright violation, and would not have received the domain except as part of a court ruling or settlement.
Harder, faster, smarter is fine, as long as the company is being managed well. When they cut things to the bone and require you to work harder, faster, smarter, and for half your normal pay, that's pretty screwed up. Then when management gives themselves a bonus on top of that (why the fuck do they deserve a bonus for running the company into the ground?!), that's when you realize that capitalism is not about efficiency or anything like that. It's about enriching yourself at anyone else's expense at every possible opportunity.
Slashdot Mirror
I think it resonates just fine considering that nobody can point out a single service or product offered for sale on his site.
A primary example is evident on daytime television commercials where Dewey, Cheetham, & Howe, ambulance-chasers-at-law, tell how they can "Fight for Justice" by having people sue their insurance companies for larger claim settlements.
I think I would have looked for another example if I were you. Insurance companies are not known for their honesty and forthrightness with clients. If an insurance company can get away with paying you less, they will do so. Of course they can often get away with this because they employ lots of lawyers... hmm.. I'm seeing a pattern here...
Regardless, the case isn't about copyright. Your comment is virtually worthless considering you didn't say a single thing about trademark law.
Official institutions put practically all of their disclaimers in small print at the bottom of the page. Why should private citizens be held to a higher standard?
Eh? Sure seems that way. Why do you think otherwise?
I think his far better argument was that it would be unwise for the government to spend taxpayer money to lock themselves into proprietary software and file formats. This puts them at the mercy of the company that has sole control over those formats and software.
I haven't even dropped back down to anywhere near the cap yet. I suppose I could start trolling, but it's just not challenging here. Harder to troll K5 than /.
Most of our politicians don't even appear sincere.
The point would be that if this new system wouldn't have been effective in preventing the WTC attacks, then the government should be made to explain why such a system would be effective use of our tax dollars. There are obvious downsides to such a system, and I think the government must make some very compelling arguments in favor of the system if we are going to spend a ton of money on it and accept the problems that it will create as well.
What the hell else does "cross-dependency" mean? If it isn't both ways, then it would just be a dependency. If the MS employee said something stupid, then the witness should have said that, but the witness was obviously pretty clueless about software anyway. He spends a few hours looking at Windows source code and apparently no time studying other OSes, and he is supposed to be an expert witness?!
Exactly. And according to the emails that the government dug up during the trial, they did this deliberately in order to make IE inseperable from the OS. They should get smacked down hard for that. So what if they have to rewrite it? If it takes them 5 years or more to release the next version of the OS, there will be great rejoicing in the IT community.
Somebody else might not have developed a monopoly. Somebody else might not have abused that monopoly. Somebody else might not have used such ruthless and heavy-handed tactics to crush competition. But like the other guy said, we'll never know because nobody else got a chance. Gotta wonder what the industry would be like if there were several leading OSes, and they all played nice together.
was that the government's lawyer was trying to say that Notepad has a dependency on IE. That it is both ways, a cross-dependancy, and the expert really wanted to say "hell no man, that's stupid"
If you read the whole thing, you will see that it was a Microsoft employee and witness that claimed that there was a cross-dependency between IE and Notepad, not the government lawyer.
Yeah, but this guy spent 8 or 10 hours looking at the source code for Windows. Surely that makes him an expert! :) I'm sure it probably would have looked a lot like Beavis and Butthead trying to read something.. "Uhh... words... uhhhh... words..."
Ah, but if I make a nice big soda vending machine, but put a recessed port on the back that, when connected to a system, could: crack encryption, crack passwords, copy CDs & DVDs, etc, and did not ever advertise this feature, this unit would be ok?
Of course not, for the same reason he gave in his post. Such functions are not essential to the execution of the machine's primary function, therefore they would probably be found illegal.
Until I can trade my karma in for neat gifts and all-expense-paid trips to sunny places with nice looking women, I couldn't care less how much karma I have.
Hey, that's not bad... to the patent office!
Go for it! But if you ever license it to anyone, or implement it yourself, I'll be forced to hunt you down and force you to watch MTV 24x7 until you're nothing but a gibbering, drooling shell of a human being.
Yeah.. but i guess we just aren't paying enough for their liking. We need legislation to increase their profits!
Definitely sounds like corruption, and seems to run counter to your claim that drunk drivers aren't as dangerous as we might think they are. Something that can kill a whole family sounds like a definite danger. I was in a car wreck a couple weeks ago. My truck was nearly totalled (missed it by about $1000 dammit), and I'm certainly glad that there was a cop pulling up behind me less than a minute after the collision. Cops do serve a good purpose. They can also be out of control, and allowed to get away with it by corrupt officials. We should not tolerate corruption, but we need the cops.
The defense have to have the opportunity to challenge the evidence, to argue that the serial number isn't unique after all, to show how it could have been changed at some point etc. The defense have to know how the system works if there's going to be any pretence of a fair trial.
While I agree that it's not fair, such things already happen. Remember the trial of that Mob guy about 6 months or a year ago? They put a keylogger on his computer (there was a Slashdot story on this). They would not, however, reveal to the defense how the keylogger worked, so the defense couldn't determine the validity of the evidence gathered that way. The judge let them get away with refusing this information to the defense too. I wonder how often this kind of stuff happens now.
Who says I purchased a license? I bought a box with a CD that had the program I want on it. Maybe the EULA says I bought a license, but that's after the fact, and I didn't agree to that EULA anyway, therefore only copyright could apply.
Actually, if you haven't agreed to the EULA, you can do whatever you like with the software within the limits of copyright law.
If things were done the right way, then former rock star Frampton would have simply sued Mr. Nobody Frampton for trademark or copyright violation, and would not have received the domain except as part of a court ruling or settlement.
Are you a European troll, a nocturnal troll, or a jobless bum troll?
Harder, faster, smarter is fine, as long as the company is being managed well. When they cut things to the bone and require you to work harder, faster, smarter, and for half your normal pay, that's pretty screwed up. Then when management gives themselves a bonus on top of that (why the fuck do they deserve a bonus for running the company into the ground?!), that's when you realize that capitalism is not about efficiency or anything like that. It's about enriching yourself at anyone else's expense at every possible opportunity.