I am also surprised that the the gov't hasn't appeared to use the threat of using non-Windows alternatives in its antitrust litigation against MS.
While we refer to them as "the government" all the time, it's really just the Department of Justice that is suing Microsoft. I'm sure other departments or branches don't agree with the suit at all. So it's really not possible for "the government" to threaten such a thing against Microsoft since the Department of Justice has no authority or power to cause such action to be taken. (although it's a good idea IMO)
First of all, the government MOST CERTAINLY SHOULD mandate the labeling of GM foods as such. Perhaps they should go even further and require more specific information regarding the nature of the manipulation. Without such information, consumers CAN NOT make informed decisions about their purchases. This should be common sense.
Second, I am very much against the use of GM crops when there is a chance of them cross-breading with other crops. We simply don't have the necessary understanding of the possible consequences of the actions of these corporations. We should not gamble lightly with our food supply.
No, Monsanto should be providing them with accurate information regarding their situation. If Monsanto knows that they're essentially selling snake-oil to chinese farmers, then they should be punished for running that scam. If they stated or implied that it is resistant to a disease, without informing the farmers that it is only resistant to certain strains of that disease, then I believe that is deceptive advertising.
I have yet to work in a place where that's really what would happen. In all my workplaces, people would have lost weeks of work, or maybe everything. And that's not even mentioning the idiot admin who refused to give me a restore because of some turf squabble with a rival.
But those things are not legitimately attributable to viruses. Those are attributable to hiring idiots for admins.
When I turned 25 last year, my rate dropped $55 a month. Same thing happened with my friends when they turned 25. Yes, we're comparing anecdotal evidence, but it does show that neither of our claims can be taken alone as evidence of a trend.
I found a little article about Texas law in this area. It's only about 8 months old, so it should reflect the current state of texas law.
Re:Yet another knee-jerk, anti-WIPO /. Posting
on
Is It OK To Sucks?
·
· Score: 2
The Guinness case should have been tossed out without ever bothering the domain owner. The case was ridiculous. If guinness wanted the domain they should have bought it. If not, then they should have just left it alone.
I've posted this before, but I'll repost it here (with some changes due to responses). Basically I think the publishers have brought this mess on themselves.
There was originally a balance struck with copyright. People granted authors the privilege to have control over their work for a period of time (then 14 years). This allowed the author (and publisher) to make money from his work. In return, at the end of that period of time, the work would become part of the public domain, free for all to use. That bargain is long dead, broken by publishers. They continually lobbied for more control and longer copyright terms, and they got them. Now copyrighted works don't go into the public domain for at least 70 years, and that's only if the author dies right after creating the work. Is it any wonder that many people have no respect for copyright anymore? We haven't seen anything go into the public domain for decades! We're going back to the times before the Statute of Queen Anne in Britain where publishers had perpetual copyright control over works they published. That was stopped by the Statue of Queen Anne, and US courts acknowledged that copyright is a privilege, not a right,
and that there were no perpetual rights granted to authors or publishers for control over the works they create and publish.
Today, publishers are still seeking perpetual control over the works they publish. People should understand that if there is to be a bargain, they must keep their end. Why should we create laws that serve only to enrich a few at the expense of the freedom of the rest of us? We grant copyrights so that authors will continue to create new works for us to enjoy and learn from. They will continue to create these things whether we give them 14 years of copyright protection or 1400 years of copyright protection. It is in the best interest of most of us if we limit the term to something reasonable such as 14 years. As things stand today, anything created in our lifetime will likely not go into the public domain in our lifetime. That's just not right and illustrates how the scales are tipped heavily in the publishers' favor. What we need now is copyright reform. We need to roll back the copyright term
to the original 14 years (plenty of time to turn a very nice profit). There will be a fight. Highly profitable corporations do not give up money without a very big fight. But we need to restore a balance between the creators and the public. That alone could go a long way towards restoring respect for the copyright system and ensuring that the creators will profit from their creations. Yes, the publishing industry will have to resign themselves to not being able to milk a creation for all eternity, but there's really no reason they should have ever had such a right to begin with.
I think this is the relevant piece of the law in this case:
However, there is an exception to this exemption with respect to two types of works--sound recordings and computer programs. The
owner of a particular copy of a computer program or a particular phonorecord of a sound recording may not rent, lease or lend that copy or phonorecord for the purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage.
Basically it seems that you can't rent, lease, or lend music or software, but you can apparently sell it. I would guess that this is why used CD and Software stores can exist.
Oh yeah... and that's not to mention the various other forms of repression that governments of whatever form would inflict on the people in the name of religion.
Not likely... you said "low-priced." Buying Windows, plus Office and whatever other additional software you need (virtually all of which has a free Linux-based clone), will cost you a ton, and then you get to pay for the upgrades. If you need a more stable Windows, be prepared to sever your left arm as payment.
For one thing, why are those two views mutually exclusive?
They're mutually exclusive because you can't always "buy what works best" and at the same time "don't support corporations whose business tactics you disapprove of." Yes, you could qualify those statements as you point out, but that's not what i'm talking about. The people uttering these things tend to do so in a smug, condescending sort of way. They certainly don't qualify them.
Doesn't the way a corporation does business affect whether or not the product will work best for me? (i.e. in a year, I'll have to upgrade because everybody else did and they're all using a new file format which isn't supported by my "old" software.)
Not necessarily. Using Microsoft as an example, I would be more likely to take issue with their underhanded tactics against competitors than their "upgrade treadmill." I think that helps to illustrate how business tactics don't necessarily affect the product.
When dealing with a computer newbie, for example, people might just say...
You don't find a whole lot of computer newbies around/.:) Even if you did think you were talking to a computer newbie, on/. you would at least acknowledge that you were simlifying things for that reason so as not to attract a ton of corrections, complaints, and flames, not to mention the wrath of moderators who might deem your post to be flamebait or troll.
Don't let your OS choice be a political issue, it a matter of what you need your computer to do. If only Windows fits that need, then use it.
This is one thing that always irritates me on/. You have a bunch of people saying that you should just choose the product that works best, regardless of who makes it. Then you have a bunch of people saying that if you don't like the way a certain corporation does business, don't buy their products. These two views are mutually exclusive, yet I hear them both uttered by the same people fairly often.
What it comes down to is that the choice of OS or any other product can very well be based on concerns other than whether the product does what you need it to do. We can't just surrender our beliefs and conscience over to unfettered capitalism and support corporations with our money regardless of how they do business or the kinds of practices they engage in. To ignore immoral acts by a corporation when they come to light and support that corporation with your money is to offer tacit support for their actions. Many people can't stomach such a thing. Too bad there aren't more people like that.
Slashdot Mirror
I am also surprised that the the gov't hasn't appeared to use the threat of using non-Windows alternatives in its antitrust litigation against MS.
While we refer to them as "the government" all the time, it's really just the Department of Justice that is suing Microsoft. I'm sure other departments or branches don't agree with the suit at all. So it's really not possible for "the government" to threaten such a thing against Microsoft since the Department of Justice has no authority or power to cause such action to be taken. (although it's a good idea IMO)
This has nothing whatsoever to do with patents. Your post is ridiculous.
He's not being nice because he's a nice person, he's being nice because he doesn't have a legal leg to stand on.
Care to explain? From what I know of trademark law, he's got a pretty strong case there. He would almost certainly win if it went to court.
Any moderators with a spare point?
Can't prove a negative like that.
yeah.. i misspelled "breeding." Probably one or two other words too.
First of all, the government MOST CERTAINLY SHOULD mandate the labeling of GM foods as such. Perhaps they should go even further and require more specific information regarding the nature of the manipulation. Without such information, consumers CAN NOT make informed decisions about their purchases. This should be common sense.
Second, I am very much against the use of GM crops when there is a chance of them cross-breading with other crops. We simply don't have the necessary understanding of the possible consequences of the actions of these corporations. We should not gamble lightly with our food supply.
No, the Chinese government should be doing that.
No, Monsanto should be providing them with accurate information regarding their situation. If Monsanto knows that they're essentially selling snake-oil to chinese farmers, then they should be punished for running that scam. If they stated or implied that it is resistant to a disease, without informing the farmers that it is only resistant to certain strains of that disease, then I believe that is deceptive advertising.
You can't just compare OSes willy-nilly. You can compare them for a specific task, but you aren't doing that.
In any case, I wan to sneak in there and take one home. Make it the center piece of my kitchen.
According to the article, the last guy that tried it ended up being crushed by the crystal he tried to pilfer.
I have yet to work in a place where that's really what would happen. In all my workplaces, people would have lost weeks of work, or maybe everything. And that's not even mentioning the idiot admin who refused to give me a restore because of some turf squabble with a rival.
But those things are not legitimately attributable to viruses. Those are attributable to hiring idiots for admins.
The rest of your post I agree with.
I routinely take things to the airport post-office in my city. It's open 24-7.
Mod this up. It deserves attention and responses!
Absurd cases are routinely tossed out by courts. This one should have been among those.
When I turned 25 last year, my rate dropped $55 a month. Same thing happened with my friends when they turned 25. Yes, we're comparing anecdotal evidence, but it does show that neither of our claims can be taken alone as evidence of a trend.
I found a little article about Texas law in this area. It's only about 8 months old, so it should reflect the current state of texas law.
The Guinness case should have been tossed out without ever bothering the domain owner. The case was ridiculous. If guinness wanted the domain they should have bought it. If not, then they should have just left it alone.
I've posted this before, but I'll repost it here (with some changes due to responses). Basically I think the publishers have brought this mess on themselves.
There was originally a balance struck with copyright. People granted authors the privilege to have control over their work for a period of time (then 14 years). This allowed the author (and publisher) to make money from his work. In return, at the end of that period of time, the work would become part of the public domain, free for all to use. That bargain is long dead, broken by publishers. They continually lobbied for more control and longer copyright terms, and they got them. Now copyrighted works don't go into the public domain for at least 70 years, and that's only if the author dies right after creating the work. Is it any wonder that many people have no respect for copyright anymore? We haven't seen anything go into the public domain for decades! We're going back to the times before the Statute of Queen Anne in Britain where publishers had perpetual copyright control over works they published. That was stopped by the Statue of Queen Anne, and US courts acknowledged that copyright is a privilege, not a right, and that there were no perpetual rights granted to authors or publishers for control over the works they create and publish.
Today, publishers are still seeking perpetual control over the works they publish. People should understand that if there is to be a bargain, they must keep their end. Why should we create laws that serve only to enrich a few at the expense of the freedom of the rest of us? We grant copyrights so that authors will continue to create new works for us to enjoy and learn from. They will continue to create these things whether we give them 14 years of copyright protection or 1400 years of copyright protection. It is in the best interest of most of us if we limit the term to something reasonable such as 14 years. As things stand today, anything created in our lifetime will likely not go into the public domain in our lifetime. That's just not right and illustrates how the scales are tipped heavily in the publishers' favor. What we need now is copyright reform. We need to roll back the copyright term to the original 14 years (plenty of time to turn a very nice profit). There will be a fight. Highly profitable corporations do not give up money without a very big fight. But we need to restore a balance between the creators and the public. That alone could go a long way towards restoring respect for the copyright system and ensuring that the creators will profit from their creations. Yes, the publishing industry will have to resign themselves to not being able to milk a creation for all eternity, but there's really no reason they should have ever had such a right to begin with.
I think this is the relevant piece of the law in this case:
However, there is an exception to this exemption with respect to two types of works--sound recordings and computer programs. The owner of a particular copy of a computer program or a particular phonorecord of a sound recording may not rent, lease or lend that copy or phonorecord for the purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage.
Basically it seems that you can't rent, lease, or lend music or software, but you can apparently sell it. I would guess that this is why used CD and Software stores can exist.
Oh yeah... and that's not to mention the various other forms of repression that governments of whatever form would inflict on the people in the name of religion.
True, but history does give plenty of examples where religion was the cause, or at least the excuse and means for war, civil or otherwise.
Not likely... you said "low-priced." Buying Windows, plus Office and whatever other additional software you need (virtually all of which has a free Linux-based clone), will cost you a ton, and then you get to pay for the upgrades. If you need a more stable Windows, be prepared to sever your left arm as payment.
For one thing, why are those two views mutually exclusive?
They're mutually exclusive because you can't always "buy what works best" and at the same time "don't support corporations whose business tactics you disapprove of." Yes, you could qualify those statements as you point out, but that's not what i'm talking about. The people uttering these things tend to do so in a smug, condescending sort of way. They certainly don't qualify them.
Doesn't the way a corporation does business affect whether or not the product will work best for me? (i.e. in a year, I'll have to upgrade because everybody else did and they're all using a new file format which isn't supported by my "old" software.)
Not necessarily. Using Microsoft as an example, I would be more likely to take issue with their underhanded tactics against competitors than their "upgrade treadmill." I think that helps to illustrate how business tactics don't necessarily affect the product.
When dealing with a computer newbie, for example, people might just say ...
You don't find a whole lot of computer newbies around /. :) Even if you did think you were talking to a computer newbie, on /. you would at least acknowledge that you were simlifying things for that reason so as not to attract a ton of corrections, complaints, and flames, not to mention the wrath of moderators who might deem your post to be flamebait or troll.
then why go out to re-invent the wheel, when you already have a low-priced, working solution?
What might that be?
Don't let your OS choice be a political issue, it a matter of what you need your computer to do. If only Windows fits that need, then use it.
This is one thing that always irritates me on /. You have a bunch of people saying that you should just choose the product that works best, regardless of who makes it. Then you have a bunch of people saying that if you don't like the way a certain corporation does business, don't buy their products. These two views are mutually exclusive, yet I hear them both uttered by the same people fairly often.
What it comes down to is that the choice of OS or any other product can very well be based on concerns other than whether the product does what you need it to do. We can't just surrender our beliefs and conscience over to unfettered capitalism and support corporations with our money regardless of how they do business or the kinds of practices they engage in. To ignore immoral acts by a corporation when they come to light and support that corporation with your money is to offer tacit support for their actions. Many people can't stomach such a thing. Too bad there aren't more people like that.