So each soldier is gonna be packing a mini-blackhole to create the kind of gravity necessary to bend light?? Even if they could, wouldn't it affect their vision similarly?
I'm sure that's what Adams will do. But it will be fishing from his 150' yacht as he wanders from his summer home to his autumn home to his winter home...
but remains one of the world's biggest philantropists (if not THE biggest philantropist)
Jeez. Why do people always throw this up to defend Gates? It doesn't really matter that he gives some of his money away. It does nothing to excuse his company's actions. Hell, if he hadn't been ripping people off for so long, perhaps others would have had that money to donate. You may also want to take note that he started donating like this when his anti-trust problems really got going. He's also known for "donating" a lot to lobbyists and the 2 major political parties. Play both sides and you're guaranteed to win!
Hmm. I've only got just over 2,500 songs. I need to find a decent Gnutella client. So far the best I've found (that doesn't install spyware) is Gnotella. Unfortunately it's quite buggy and *always* crashes after a few hours of use. I've tried Gnucleus too, but I couldn't get a decent connection to any servers or find much of anything with that one. Guess I'll have to keep looking.
So what the heck happens to copies published in the intervening 4 years? Can I copy those? Are they retroactively made to pay royalties? This just sounds unbelievably contrived and wrong. Governments seem to be getting more and more bold, to the point of almost flaunting their corruption.
When you're dealing with term of life+20 or life+50, what's the point of killing the creator? So that you may, perhaps get access to the work in 20 years? If you're an heir, then you'd have just as much incentive to kill off the creator whether the term was life+20 or a flat 50 years.
(ie, come up with reasonable suggestions for limiting length of copyright on a per/item basis: music 20 yrs, movies 10, etc, etc...)
This has been done numerous times by numerous people. It doesn't matter though since Congress won't act on behalf of the public interest. Not to mention the difficulty that we'd be faced with in renegotiating or extricating ourselves from international treaties that cover copyright law. Personally I like the idea of attaching a price to a patent or copyright at the time of its granting and allowing the public (government) to purchase it outright if necessary. I forsee a lot of problems with such a system though, so it would definitely need to be well-planned. Copyright certainly has its place, but the interests of the public have been sorely neglected since its inception. It is supposed to be a compromise between the public and creators, but public representation has been conspicuously absent from the dealings. Until we can regain some control over those that are supposed to represent us, we have little hope of correcting the problems with copyright.
Imagine if the approach to computer security issues was, "Well, we know there's a buffer-overrun vulnerability here. But even if we fix this, there'll just be another one somewhere else. We can't guarantee bug-free code. So why bother patching at all? Why even try?"
Now imagine something even worse. What if the programmers had a vested interest in making sure that such bugs *did exist*. If you let them mess with the source to fix that hole, you can be certain that they'll build in 3 more just as bad.
If you limit the money, they'll just work around the system. Instead of donating $50,000 to a campaign, you'll purchase a bunch of billboard space and plaster your favored candidate's face all over the place. In return, you'll get priveleged access to your congressperson. Are you gonna tell people they can't buy billboard space to promote a candidate they like? This is a bit closer to what people are worried about when they talk about campaign finance reform limiting free speech.
Of course they don't have to donate directly. There's soft money contributions, and many other ways to contribute or raise money for your congresscritter. These just aren't within the reach of the average person.
You don't find good warez on the web. Name me one website where you can actually download complete apps/games/whatever without being bombarded with pop-ups, being forced to "hunt for the 3rd word in the 5th paragraph of our sponsor's site", or being mislead into voting for warez sites that don't have a damn thing to download.
Yes, well we tend to give people a trial before hanging them. Usually, anyway. The problem isn't the trial. The problem is the fact that the DOJ want to give them a settlement that will be utterly inneffective.
I am pretty pissed that the states are trying to make Microsoft muck around with Windows like this. It's not going to fix a damn thing. What they need to do is force them to publish COMPLETE documentation of all their protocols, APIs, and file formats and update them with any changes in a timely manner. Then prevent them from forming exclusionary deals with OEMs. Perhaps even some sort of mandatory licensing scheme such as that with radio and the record labels is in order so that Microsoft can't strongarm OEMs into doing things by threatening to revoke their Windows license (off the record of course). Forcing them to modularize Windows isn't really going to help. That's not where the problem lies. The problem is that nobody can be compatible with the de-facto Windows standard without Microsoft's permission and cooperation. Unless they solve that problem, they've just been wasting our time and money.
Heh. Yeah, I loved the mission where you had to assassinate that guy that was giving the public speech. There was this big crowd of people gathered around him. You just drive by in a car and mow everyone down:)
I don't have a problem with clickthrough agreements such as Hotmail's. It is licenses of the type at issue in III.7 that I'm taking issue with. One of the reasons for the decision is given as "(3) the purchaser had the opportunity to reject the license by returning the software for a refund." This obviously does not always hold true, and in fact usually doesn't, as Windows Refund Day showed us. Microsoft claims that you must get your refund from the OEM. The OEM claims that they can't give refunds because Microsoft won't give them a refund. So in effect, the customer IS NOT able to return the software for a refund.
How the hell does your little libertarian rant have a damn thing to do with government corruption?! Are you saying that if corporations were really buying laws that it would somehow make the government run more efficiently? Or that since the government (quite obviously) does not run efficiently, it means that there must not be corruption taking place? I'm not sure if your post is a huge red herring or if you're just an idiot.
Consumer equipment however can do re-capture/re-encoding of video (re-encoding is necessary because consumer media isn't _large_ enough to store DVD's equivalent -- again, with or without DeCSS).
How would they accomplish that? What piece of software allows you to do that? It would have to be able to decode the stream, thus it would need either a license or DeCSS. If it has a license, then it won't let you re-encode the stream (unless it's a special license, in which case it wouldn't be available to the general public). I'd love to be proven wrong on this, but I've never heard of any such thing.
Slashdot Mirror
So each soldier is gonna be packing a mini-blackhole to create the kind of gravity necessary to bend light?? Even if they could, wouldn't it affect their vision similarly?
It shoots fast, but I bet reloads are a bitch :)
And then get a good lawyer :(
I'm sure that's what Adams will do. But it will be fishing from his 150' yacht as he wanders from his summer home to his autumn home to his winter home...
but remains one of the world's biggest philantropists (if not THE biggest philantropist)
Jeez. Why do people always throw this up to defend Gates? It doesn't really matter that he gives some of his money away. It does nothing to excuse his company's actions. Hell, if he hadn't been ripping people off for so long, perhaps others would have had that money to donate. You may also want to take note that he started donating like this when his anti-trust problems really got going. He's also known for "donating" a lot to lobbyists and the 2 major political parties. Play both sides and you're guaranteed to win!
Hmm. I've only got just over 2,500 songs. I need to find a decent Gnutella client. So far the best I've found (that doesn't install spyware) is Gnotella. Unfortunately it's quite buggy and *always* crashes after a few hours of use. I've tried Gnucleus too, but I couldn't get a decent connection to any servers or find much of anything with that one. Guess I'll have to keep looking.
So what the heck happens to copies published in the intervening 4 years? Can I copy those? Are they retroactively made to pay royalties? This just sounds unbelievably contrived and wrong. Governments seem to be getting more and more bold, to the point of almost flaunting their corruption.
When you're dealing with term of life+20 or life+50, what's the point of killing the creator? So that you may, perhaps get access to the work in 20 years? If you're an heir, then you'd have just as much incentive to kill off the creator whether the term was life+20 or a flat 50 years.
(ie, come up with reasonable suggestions for limiting length of copyright on a per/item basis: music 20 yrs, movies 10, etc, etc...)
This has been done numerous times by numerous people. It doesn't matter though since Congress won't act on behalf of the public interest. Not to mention the difficulty that we'd be faced with in renegotiating or extricating ourselves from international treaties that cover copyright law. Personally I like the idea of attaching a price to a patent or copyright at the time of its granting and allowing the public (government) to purchase it outright if necessary. I forsee a lot of problems with such a system though, so it would definitely need to be well-planned. Copyright certainly has its place, but the interests of the public have been sorely neglected since its inception. It is supposed to be a compromise between the public and creators, but public representation has been conspicuously absent from the dealings. Until we can regain some control over those that are supposed to represent us, we have little hope of correcting the problems with copyright.
Imagine if the approach to computer security issues was, "Well, we know there's a buffer-overrun vulnerability here. But even if we fix this, there'll just be another one somewhere else. We can't guarantee bug-free code. So why bother patching at all? Why even try?"
Now imagine something even worse. What if the programmers had a vested interest in making sure that such bugs *did exist*. If you let them mess with the source to fix that hole, you can be certain that they'll build in 3 more just as bad.
If you limit the money, they'll just work around the system. Instead of donating $50,000 to a campaign, you'll purchase a bunch of billboard space and plaster your favored candidate's face all over the place. In return, you'll get priveleged access to your congressperson. Are you gonna tell people they can't buy billboard space to promote a candidate they like? This is a bit closer to what people are worried about when they talk about campaign finance reform limiting free speech.
Of course they don't have to donate directly. There's soft money contributions, and many other ways to contribute or raise money for your congresscritter. These just aren't within the reach of the average person.
You don't find good warez on the web. Name me one website where you can actually download complete apps/games/whatever without being bombarded with pop-ups, being forced to "hunt for the 3rd word in the 5th paragraph of our sponsor's site", or being mislead into voting for warez sites that don't have a damn thing to download.
There was no need to take them to court.
Yes, well we tend to give people a trial before hanging them. Usually, anyway. The problem isn't the trial. The problem is the fact that the DOJ want to give them a settlement that will be utterly inneffective.
1. Big Business
2. umm.. we forgot.
3. we'll get back to you on this one..
I am pretty pissed that the states are trying to make Microsoft muck around with Windows like this. It's not going to fix a damn thing. What they need to do is force them to publish COMPLETE documentation of all their protocols, APIs, and file formats and update them with any changes in a timely manner. Then prevent them from forming exclusionary deals with OEMs. Perhaps even some sort of mandatory licensing scheme such as that with radio and the record labels is in order so that Microsoft can't strongarm OEMs into doing things by threatening to revoke their Windows license (off the record of course). Forcing them to modularize Windows isn't really going to help. That's not where the problem lies. The problem is that nobody can be compatible with the de-facto Windows standard without Microsoft's permission and cooperation. Unless they solve that problem, they've just been wasting our time and money.
Didn't the states say that Microsoft wouldn't have to bear the costs? Meaning that the funding for the licensing would come from elsewhere.
He has no track record of lying
You didn't hear his deposition, did you?
I think reality has proven you wrong. Ignoring the letter was, in fact, more stupid than them sending it. Witness the fact that they won.
You're right of course. Slashdot is notoriously hypocritical regarding Disney.
Heh. Yeah, I loved the mission where you had to assassinate that guy that was giving the public speech. There was this big crowd of people gathered around him. You just drive by in a car and mow everyone down :)
Old EA game made by Bullfrog. Lots of fun. The gauss gun in that game looked like an oversized pistol IIRC, and it made big explosions.
I don't have a problem with clickthrough agreements such as Hotmail's. It is licenses of the type at issue in III.7 that I'm taking issue with. One of the reasons for the decision is given as "(3) the purchaser had the opportunity to reject the license by returning the software for a refund." This obviously does not always hold true, and in fact usually doesn't, as Windows Refund Day showed us. Microsoft claims that you must get your refund from the OEM. The OEM claims that they can't give refunds because Microsoft won't give them a refund. So in effect, the customer IS NOT able to return the software for a refund.
How the hell does your little libertarian rant have a damn thing to do with government corruption?! Are you saying that if corporations were really buying laws that it would somehow make the government run more efficiently? Or that since the government (quite obviously) does not run efficiently, it means that there must not be corruption taking place? I'm not sure if your post is a huge red herring or if you're just an idiot.
Consumer equipment however can do re-capture/re-encoding of video (re-encoding is necessary because consumer media isn't _large_ enough to store DVD's equivalent -- again, with or without DeCSS).
How would they accomplish that? What piece of software allows you to do that? It would have to be able to decode the stream, thus it would need either a license or DeCSS. If it has a license, then it won't let you re-encode the stream (unless it's a special license, in which case it wouldn't be available to the general public). I'd love to be proven wrong on this, but I've never heard of any such thing.