Microsoft interprets government interference as a market force and addresses it accordingly. For Microsoft, the most cost-effective way of dealing with government is to ignore it. If only we could all be so lucky...
"My job is to apply the formula. A is the probability of failure, B is the number of cars in the market, C is the cost of the average out of court settlement. If A x B x C is less than the cost of the recall, we don't do one."
I do live in New York City. On my way back from the subway I saw tow truck working on a parked car, the owner apparantly nowhere to be seen. I stopped to inspect further...
Turns out, the car had a sticker on it that said "Marshall Seized". I looked around, and yup, there was the Marshall a few doors down in a marked car.
So yes, I do think someone bats an eyelash if they see a car being towed away.
Well, I haven't completed my pet project yet so I can't really say that I've downloaded a "game" to the flash cart.
I have no problem ignoring copyright, in fact, I plainly said I would if GBA games cost $50 or if a ZIP file with every GBA game ever made falls into my lap. But it's not worth my time to look because I can usually find a game for around $10 used.
I'm probably not the ideal GBA customer, especially since I'm over 16. *shrug*
I've never been in a G-class, but I know that C-classes made in or after 2002 have an infrared public key ignition system.
While far from being unhackable(*), the quietest and least suspicious method for a thief would be to steal your key. Failing that, they could fool a dealer into giving them a new key. If the case is the latter, I'd hold the dealer responsible for the entire loss.
* Yes, they could tow your car but this is noisy and attracts attention; yes, if they have the tools they could pop your hood and short circuit the cryptosystem, but this looks extremely suspicious and may take awhile; yes, they could put a gun to your head while you're in the car but this is much riskier for everyone; etc.
Which is to say that I can write a game ROM to flash cart, which I've never bothered to do.
The reason I have one is because I think it's cool as hell to program my GBA.
I pay for games, but it's not because I care about artist's copyright. The honest trust is because it's simply not worth my time since GBA games are so cheap, especially if used.
If they cost $50 apiece I'd probably have already found a ZIP file with every GBA game ever made in it.
The biggest obstacle in their case is finding a doctor who will openly testify on their behalf. Apparantly, doctors aren't exactly clamoring to testify against their colleagues and associates.
People think a personal injury lawsuit is an easy meal-ticket to a multi-million dollar settlement. It's just not that easy. The cases take years to play out and usually go nowhere.
The reason cases like the McDonalds coffee spill lawsuit are so well known is because of how abnormal and bizarre they are. If they happened every day it just wouldn't be newsworthy.
In reality, most injury/malpractice lawsuits are thrown out (essentially because there are so many baseless cases pushed by people who believe the media hype), and the ones that do play to the end usually have unimpressive settlements.
Despite his first hand experience, the author of the letter doesn't understand the software business.
What Microsoft does and what independent programmers do are entirely unrelated.
Scan the help wanted ads. 98% of the job openings for programmers are NOT to work on shrink wrapped software products. If you're a programmer today, chances are you're writing custom software for a single (or few) buyers.
Open source means very little to the people who develop and the people who buy shrinkwrapped software.
But it means everything to everyone else in the industry, which is consequently the entire industry.
Most people get into car accidents because they lose awareness. On country and sparse suburban roads it's easy to drive without seeing another person or moving motor vehicle for miles. As such, drivers tend to zone out and not notice the pedestrian until after they flip over your hood.
In Manhattan, you're surrounded by people and cars ALL THE TIME, even at 4AM, and at any moment someone could step in front of your car and you could kill them instantly. As such, you drive *very* carefully.
Also, 99% of the intersections in Manhattan have traffic lights. It's either red stop or green go.
If you don't see a green light at an intersection you assume you have to stop. This is reinforced so heavily that when motorists come to intersections in Manhattan with all-way stop signs instead of traffic lights, the motorists end up coming to a stop and waiting for a green light to appear. Eventually it occurs to them that there isn't a red light there either, and they then notice the stop sign and cautiously dart across.
I find driving in Manhattan to be more incident free than anywhere else. The rules-of-intersection engagement are very clear (don't even think of crossing until you see green), the other motorists are just as alert as you are (so cutting them off and being cut off by them is no big deal and traffic flows more smoothly), and above all, assume a pedestrian will decide to cross no matter where they are or what you're doing.
Driving in the rest of NYC is on the other hand a nightmare.
As such, I've become completely incompatible with weekend motorists and fear for my life when I go out on weekends.
Nothing we didn't already know. Regardless of its conclusions, it's useless for anything but an excuse to argue and troll about the same points as always.
If the cop corroborates your story (you were asleep in the driver's seat with the ignition off), you would have done better with a jury.
Generally judges will interpret a law quite literally, uninterested in fine distinctions, and are not going to be emotionally swayed. They'll often apply the law to the letter.
A jury, on the other hand, is all about weighing the law in addition to the facts. They're instructed not to, but no one can stop them from doing so, and they're much more easily swayed by stories of government abuse and it-can-happen-to-you!
This can backfire. Just as they can acquit you if they think the law is unfair, they can convict you despite reasonable doubt just because of the nature of the crime (child molestation, for example).
SCO's case does not hinge on proving that AIX/Dynix code appears in Linux.
SCO's case hinges on proving that IBM does not own the code it contributed. Which, according to the terms of the UNIX license from AT&T, IBM does have full ownership rights to derivative works.
SCO is deliberately misinterpreting a clause in the original agreement and spinning it as hard as possible.
Previous owners of UNIX rights have clarified the terms to be more in the UNIX licensee's favor in subsequent communications as well. It would be madness for a judge to overlook all of this if they did decide the clause was vague and needed to speculate on the spirit of the agreement.
The million dollar question here is what the hell is David Boies doing backing these con artists? Not having an answer to that question is the only thing stopping me from shorting SCO's stock.
Lets say someone has the phone number 8005551212 and they're a Voicestream/T-Mobile customer. To email them a text message you'd email 8005551212@voicestream.net.
Since I presume phone numbers are allocated about the same way IP addresses are (in blocks), to make a phone number that was assigned to T-Mobile ring for Sprint, T-Mobile must forward the call somehow. Does this mean T-Mobile also forwards text messages?
That is, would 8005551212@messaging.sprintpcs.com work? Or would you still have to send to 8005551212@voicestream.net because it's T-Mobile's job to forward it?
It also raises the obvious question: have you ever felt guilty over using Mac OS X instead of Linux?
No, but I do feel annoyed when a convert tells me I should be running Mac OS X instead of Linux. Almost every single Mac OS X user believes they've found utopia and that they need to spread this joy to the world.
Linux bigots are annoying too, but they're nowhere near as abusive as Mac OS X bigots in my personal experience--I know that I've never called someone stupid to their face for not converting to Linux from Windows when I've mentioned it as a possibility.
So really, what you're saying is that "DVD Jon" deserved to be sued for trying to watch a DVD he bought, and deserves to pay for his defense even though a court has sided with him twice?
This case is not about stealing copyrighted works . It's about who owns the things that you buy.
A good solution to the patent mess...
on
Perens on Patents
·
· Score: 1
The entity filing for the patent should be the one that must do the prior art search, and be held somehow accountable for failing to uncover it.
You'd need two motivators: allow someone with a claim but limited funds to challenge the patent, and if successfully challenged the patent is revoked, fines must be paid, and all money made with the patent must be returned -- no tax exemptions.
A couple of years ago Wired ran an article on amateur counterfeiting. It turns out that hundreds of kids nationwide independently came to the conclusion that it would be hillarious to run off piles of $20 bills with their new printers and hand them out in their local communities, absolutely unaware how serious a crime this is in the United States.
Federal agencies that had budgets to justify and headlines to make prosecuted these kids to the fullest extent of the law, which meant years of imprisonment and enormous fines. Most of these kids were devastated, and rarely did the feds care that this was petty crime and the kids would be better off with a slap on the wrist and the parents sternly scolded.
So consider this; these anti-conterfeiting features aren't even going to put a dent into the plans of real counterfeiters, but it may hamper Little Timmy enough that he loses interest in rolling off some bills and returns to his regularly scheduled youthful destructive activities like flaming bags of poo and toilet papering houses.
By taking the amateurs out of the marketplace, the feds can't go after the easy stupid prey anymore. The little punks will turn to other petty crime so that your locally appointed authorities can deal with them, while the feds stay out of your neighborhood since they're focusing on the large-scale professional counterfeiters.
It's a stretch, but considered this way, Adobe et al. are promoting states rights.
SEOUL, Wednesday - Human rights groups blast Toyota Motors for including a contraversial option in their Prius line which allows for automatic parallel parking. While many experts hail this as a significant achievement, some civil rights groups are outraged. "Toyota is playing up an ugly stereotype that driving while oriental is as dangerous as driving while intoxicated with this feature" says Chi Min Kim, head of the Oriental Motorists anti-Defamation League. The group has announced a boycott across Toyota's entire product line until Toyota issues a public apology.
Slashdot Mirror
Death by suicide is more common than death by murder.
In other breaking news, people enjoy seeing graphic imagery!!
Also, police are assholes.
Film at 11.
Microsoft interprets government interference as a market force and addresses it accordingly. For Microsoft, the most cost-effective way of dealing with government is to ignore it. If only we could all be so lucky...
"My job is to apply the formula. A is the probability of failure, B is the number of cars in the market, C is the cost of the average out of court settlement. If A x B x C is less than the cost of the recall, we don't do one."
I do live in New York City. On my way back from the subway I saw tow truck working on a parked car, the owner apparantly nowhere to be seen. I stopped to inspect further...
Turns out, the car had a sticker on it that said "Marshall Seized". I looked around, and yup, there was the Marshall a few doors down in a marked car.
So yes, I do think someone bats an eyelash if they see a car being towed away.
Well, I haven't completed my pet project yet so I can't really say that I've downloaded a "game" to the flash cart.
I have no problem ignoring copyright, in fact, I plainly said I would if GBA games cost $50 or if a ZIP file with every GBA game ever made falls into my lap. But it's not worth my time to look because I can usually find a game for around $10 used.
I'm probably not the ideal GBA customer, especially since I'm over 16. *shrug*
I've never been in a G-class, but I know that C-classes made in or after 2002 have an infrared public key ignition system.
While far from being unhackable(*), the quietest and least suspicious method for a thief would be to steal your key. Failing that, they could fool a dealer into giving them a new key. If the case is the latter, I'd hold the dealer responsible for the entire loss.
* Yes, they could tow your car but this is noisy and attracts attention; yes, if they have the tools they could pop your hood and short circuit the cryptosystem, but this looks extremely suspicious and may take awhile; yes, they could put a gun to your head while you're in the car but this is much riskier for everyone; etc.
Which is to say that I can write a game ROM to flash cart, which I've never bothered to do.
The reason I have one is because I think it's cool as hell to program my GBA.
I pay for games, but it's not because I care about artist's copyright. The honest trust is because it's simply not worth my time since GBA games are so cheap, especially if used.
If they cost $50 apiece I'd probably have already found a ZIP file with every GBA game ever made in it.
...is with a $400 pistol.
I hope this is what the police mean by "paying the price".
My in-laws are suing a doctor for malpractice.
The biggest obstacle in their case is finding a doctor who will openly testify on their behalf. Apparantly, doctors aren't exactly clamoring to testify against their colleagues and associates.
People think a personal injury lawsuit is an easy meal-ticket to a multi-million dollar settlement. It's just not that easy. The cases take years to play out and usually go nowhere.
The reason cases like the McDonalds coffee spill lawsuit are so well known is because of how abnormal and bizarre they are. If they happened every day it just wouldn't be newsworthy.
In reality, most injury/malpractice lawsuits are thrown out (essentially because there are so many baseless cases pushed by people who believe the media hype), and the ones that do play to the end usually have unimpressive settlements.
Despite his first hand experience, the author of the letter doesn't understand the software business.
What Microsoft does and what independent programmers do are entirely unrelated.
Scan the help wanted ads. 98% of the job openings for programmers are NOT to work on shrink wrapped software products. If you're a programmer today, chances are you're writing custom software for a single (or few) buyers.
Open source means very little to the people who develop and the people who buy shrinkwrapped software.
But it means everything to everyone else in the industry, which is consequently the entire industry.
And there's plenty of money there.
I disagree.
Most people get into car accidents because they lose awareness. On country and sparse suburban roads it's easy to drive without seeing another person or moving motor vehicle for miles. As such, drivers tend to zone out and not notice the pedestrian until after they flip over your hood.
In Manhattan, you're surrounded by people and cars ALL THE TIME, even at 4AM, and at any moment someone could step in front of your car and you could kill them instantly. As such, you drive *very* carefully.
Also, 99% of the intersections in Manhattan have traffic lights. It's either red stop or green go.
If you don't see a green light at an intersection you assume you have to stop. This is reinforced so heavily that when motorists come to intersections in Manhattan with all-way stop signs instead of traffic lights, the motorists end up coming to a stop and waiting for a green light to appear. Eventually it occurs to them that there isn't a red light there either, and they then notice the stop sign and cautiously dart across.
I find driving in Manhattan to be more incident free than anywhere else. The rules-of-intersection engagement are very clear (don't even think of crossing until you see green), the other motorists are just as alert as you are (so cutting them off and being cut off by them is no big deal and traffic flows more smoothly), and above all, assume a pedestrian will decide to cross no matter where they are or what you're doing.
Driving in the rest of NYC is on the other hand a nightmare.
As such, I've become completely incompatible with weekend motorists and fear for my life when I go out on weekends.
What does this study actually prove?
Nothing we didn't already know. Regardless of its conclusions, it's useless for anything but an excuse to argue and troll about the same points as always.
Not that it does much good after the fact, but...
If the cop corroborates your story (you were asleep in the driver's seat with the ignition off), you would have done better with a jury.
Generally judges will interpret a law quite literally, uninterested in fine distinctions, and are not going to be emotionally swayed. They'll often apply the law to the letter.
A jury, on the other hand, is all about weighing the law in addition to the facts. They're instructed not to, but no one can stop them from doing so, and they're much more easily swayed by stories of government abuse and it-can-happen-to-you!
This can backfire. Just as they can acquit you if they think the law is unfair, they can convict you despite reasonable doubt just because of the nature of the crime (child molestation, for example).
Oops. Correction: SCO does not win the case by simply proving that AIX/Dynix code appears in Linux.
SCO's case does not hinge on proving that AIX/Dynix code appears in Linux.
SCO's case hinges on proving that IBM does not own the code it contributed. Which, according to the terms of the UNIX license from AT&T, IBM does have full ownership rights to derivative works.
SCO is deliberately misinterpreting a clause in the original agreement and spinning it as hard as possible.
Previous owners of UNIX rights have clarified the terms to be more in the UNIX licensee's favor in subsequent communications as well. It would be madness for a judge to overlook all of this if they did decide the clause was vague and needed to speculate on the spirit of the agreement.
The million dollar question here is what the hell is David Boies doing backing these con artists? Not having an answer to that question is the only thing stopping me from shorting SCO's stock.
Lets say someone has the phone number 8005551212 and they're a Voicestream/T-Mobile customer. To email them a text message you'd email 8005551212@voicestream.net.
Since I presume phone numbers are allocated about the same way IP addresses are (in blocks), to make a phone number that was assigned to T-Mobile ring for Sprint, T-Mobile must forward the call somehow. Does this mean T-Mobile also forwards text messages?
That is, would 8005551212@messaging.sprintpcs.com work? Or would you still have to send to 8005551212@voicestream.net because it's T-Mobile's job to forward it?
Ha ha!
Contract programming. The servers are to support a sizable web project.
Sorry, 100% open source, all applications are supported in house on any platform we want.
Full speed ahead.
It also raises the obvious question: have you ever felt guilty over using Mac OS X instead of Linux?
No, but I do feel annoyed when a convert tells me I should be running Mac OS X instead of Linux. Almost every single Mac OS X user believes they've found utopia and that they need to spread this joy to the world.
Linux bigots are annoying too, but they're nowhere near as abusive as Mac OS X bigots in my personal experience--I know that I've never called someone stupid to their face for not converting to Linux from Windows when I've mentioned it as a possibility.
*shrug*
We started in about September. At this point approximately 70% of our servers have been switched to Debian from Red Hat.
Love that Debian.
So really, what you're saying is that "DVD Jon" deserved to be sued for trying to watch a DVD he bought, and deserves to pay for his defense even though a court has sided with him twice?
This case is not about stealing copyrighted works . It's about who owns the things that you buy.
The entity filing for the patent should be the one that must do the prior art search, and be held somehow accountable for failing to uncover it.
You'd need two motivators: allow someone with a claim but limited funds to challenge the patent, and if successfully challenged the patent is revoked, fines must be paid, and all money made with the patent must be returned -- no tax exemptions.
You haven't contradicted anything that I said. Why don't you read my post first before you incorrectly tell me that I've got history wrong.
The point is that when the Quake source was leaked, id Software was annoyed but didn't send the authorities after anyone.
Valve has maintained from the start that they're going to punish whoever is responsible, and it has apparantly already begun.
But what the hell, you're an idiot Slashdot troll.
A couple of years ago Wired ran an article on amateur counterfeiting. It turns out that hundreds of kids nationwide independently came to the conclusion that it would be hillarious to run off piles of $20 bills with their new printers and hand them out in their local communities, absolutely unaware how serious a crime this is in the United States.
Federal agencies that had budgets to justify and headlines to make prosecuted these kids to the fullest extent of the law, which meant years of imprisonment and enormous fines. Most of these kids were devastated, and rarely did the feds care that this was petty crime and the kids would be better off with a slap on the wrist and the parents sternly scolded.
So consider this; these anti-conterfeiting features aren't even going to put a dent into the plans of real counterfeiters, but it may hamper Little Timmy enough that he loses interest in rolling off some bills and returns to his regularly scheduled youthful destructive activities like flaming bags of poo and toilet papering houses.
By taking the amateurs out of the marketplace, the feds can't go after the easy stupid prey anymore. The little punks will turn to other petty crime so that your locally appointed authorities can deal with them, while the feds stay out of your neighborhood since they're focusing on the large-scale professional counterfeiters.
It's a stretch, but considered this way, Adobe et al. are promoting states rights.
SEOUL, Wednesday - Human rights groups blast Toyota Motors for including a contraversial option in their Prius line which allows for automatic parallel parking. While many experts hail this as a significant achievement, some civil rights groups are outraged. "Toyota is playing up an ugly stereotype that driving while oriental is as dangerous as driving while intoxicated with this feature" says Chi Min Kim, head of the Oriental Motorists anti-Defamation League. The group has announced a boycott across Toyota's entire product line until Toyota issues a public apology.
Toyota Motors could not be reached for comment.