I, for one, think this is a great idea for Microsoft to do. I also think that the support nightmare Microsoft could have is simply payment coming due for maintaining such thorough backwards compatibility for so long.
So here's an off-topic hypothetical for you (not meant as a counter-illustration, I think you're mainly right). What if Taser (or Rolex) decided to sell virtual models of their real products in SL? And to bring things closer to the actual topic, do you think a claim by Taser that they would have greater difficutly entering that virtual market, or in the alternative that the value of their virtual products would suffer because of the dilution of their brand, would have any weight? I don't pretend to have an answer, myself. But I'd love to be a fly on the wall in that courtroom.
The copyright terms are "life of creator plus x years." Also, there are different kinds of rights for performance, composition, etc. This does apply to songs as well. A quick google turned up this link: Copyright: Protecting Your Songs
that may not be true at all in Sweden. I don't know about Sweden specifically, but in many European jurisdictions, lawyers and judges are separate career tracks. Maybe someone from Europe could confirm or debunk this for me...
Thing is, Facebook is starting to absorb a lot of the time people spend on the internet. It has e-mail, picture sharing, link sharing, online gaming (Scrabble, anyone?), and more besides. Facebook is conglomerating all the silly, useless time-wasters into one convenient place and interface, and this has a lot of value for everyday folk surfing the web. I think Facebook might have more longevity than you think.
I think that "IBM clone" pretty much a meaningless term, these days, don't you? Especially since Macs have switched from PowerPC (actually made by IBM, as I'm sure you know) to Intel (whose chips no longer bear much resemblance to the IBM chips of the past). Hell, Macs don't even use BIOS's anymore. Hell, IBM doesn't even make desktop pc's anymore. Anyway, sorry, this is way too persnickety, but these mac/pc/secure/insecure flamewars get my hackles up.
It's disingenuous (to say the least) that mac users specifically are stupid and have blind faith in their os. This is a trait shared by the vast majority of users of any OS, and it's not a mistake that's attributable to stupidity, but ignorance. You want people to stop falling for social engineering hacks like trojans, you have to educate them. This would apply as much to Linux (if there ever is a year of the linux desktop), and from past experience certainly applies to Windows users.
You know the shitty thing about articles like this is that they're flamebait. It's like pavlov's dog around here. Post a story with Apple and "security" in the same breath and the zealots from both sides come out swinging with their Flaming Swords of Rightitude. Don't you ever get tired of it?
Actually, American workers have been doing worse, not better, since free trade came in. Real wages have gone down
Citation needed.
Did you go check out the link I provided? Go, do so. Do some research. I don't have time, I'm (supposed to be) studying.
Though your personal anecdote is heartwarming (except for you being on disability, I'm sorry to hear that), I'm afraid it doesn't constitute proof of any kind. You've neglected to mention that we're the first (or maybe second) generation that needs to go to college and get a professional degree if we hope to live on anything other than credit and dreams. I myself am in law school, because I can't feed my family on the wages a Law Clerk makes. Now a law clerk is a skilled job, fairly respectable, and in the past would provide a good middle-class income. Where are the good, middle class income jobs now? Can you get one without a post-grad degree? Even getting a bachelor's degree doesn't guarantee a decent income: try getting a good job with just a degree in English, and be sure to practice up your slurpee-slinging skills.
Second, you've conveniently forgotten the current economic crisis and the collapse of the debt bubble In western societies, we've been living on debt for a while now, whether it's easy credit card and loan terms, or living off the increasing property values of our houses. (did the value of your house go up this year? Mine didn't.) Never mind 2007, how's the real estate market in your area right now? Good? People are losing jobs by the millions, and you think times are good, and everyone's getting wealthy? We've been living high on the hog on bad credit, and the time has come to pay the piper.
See my sig. There is no such thing as a truly free market, and there never will be. The markets we put into place, and call "free" are no more free than the markets created in the Soviet Union. The rules of the market are skewed to favour those who have more money, capital, whatever. If you actually look at the "free market" models offered by economists, you'll notice that their starting axioms are absurd. If you corner one and ask him about it, he'll even admit it to you (though he'll try to argue that his axioms are superior to other axioms that more closely represent reality).
The real question isn't whether we want to have a market regulated by government or not, but in what way do we want the government to regulate the market, and to whose benefit. Currently, so-called "free" markets are regulated by the governments to give benefit to the wealthiest people in the world.
Incidentally, if you look at the paper I referenced in my previous post, you'll see that some countries (specifically China) are catching up to the rest of the world (or were, who knows what's going to happen through the current crisis), while others (like the US and Canada) were slowing down (even as their internal gaps between the rich and the poor increase further).
Actually, American workers have been doing worse, not better, since free trade came in. Real wages have gone down, and the gap between the rich and the poor has grown in America (and in a lot of other Western nations). This basically means that your average person has it tougher than her parents did. Free trade is not the only reason, but when you look at it, you can see that it would be a major contributor to this. With free trade, workers in the US have to compete with workers everywhere else in the world, and they can't compete with workers who are living in poverty and making subsistence wages. Naturally, with this kind of competition, there is strong downward pressure to lower wages.
Ironically, the automotive sector is to some extent immune from this effect, because it's cheaper to make the cars and the parts for them on the same continent they'll be sold in, hence there is less downward pressure on auto-workers' wages than there would be on those of other manufacturing workers.
Lastly, you do have a good point about protectionism being akin to racism. There is a strong ethical argument for free trade, specifically that workers in China or Malaysia or India should be allowed to compete against workers in the West. There's also some evidence that this competition is doing some good for workers in China, in particular, and that wages are increasing there. Check out this paper for some interesting information about income disparity around the world. It's out of date to the extent that it doesn't take into account the recent global meltdown, but is enlightening nonetheless.
offtopic/ The biggest problem I have with our current economic system is the widening income gap between the rich and the poor. This gap is probably not caused by "free trade" in the broad sense, but probably is caused (in part) by free trade as it is currently practised, where corporations are given the legal framework to disregard governments when they please. If you're interested about the curious effects of the widening income gap on our society, google up "Sick People or Sick Societies" which was a two-part special on Ideas (CBC Radio) that aired a year or two ago. CBC charges for a copy, but I was able to find the mp3s online for free, fairly easily./offtopic
You need 60 votes in Senate to break filibuster. And even though one has not happen in a while, the threat of it leaves congress pretty paralyzed on any major reform.
This is stupid (not you, you're right). A filibuster should be no bar to getting legislation passed, it's very anti-democratic for a procedure of the house to be able to bar legislation that represents the will of the people. I don't know if a filibuster in the US only has to last for a certain amount of time to be effective or not, but if not (here in Canada a filibuster lasts until one side gives up) then the Senators should damn well just suck it up and sit through the damn thing until they can vote. If the blocking party only has to wait x number of hours to kill the vote, then that rule should be changed. Rule by filibuster (or it's threat) is not democracy.
That's really all Anonymous is about; protecting their rights to FAP. I know I would never give up my right to FAP, the government would have to take it over my cold, dead body!
I also assumed he was joking, or at least that he knew fiber-optic cable would contain no copper, but that there are always idiots who don't know that.
Some courts have already accepted that pressing a button is equivalent to signing, at least in some jurisdictions. Furthermore, you don't have to sign a contract to be found to agree with the contract. The contract doesn't even have to be in writing, to be legal. If a software company has gone to the trouble of writing a EULA, and then writing a wrapper around that EULA that limits access to their software, it's perfectly reasonable to assume that they intended to be bound by that contract.
Click-wrap licensing most resembles an adhesion contract, in which one party dictates the terms of the contract, and the other party either accepts those terms or doesn't buy the product (or otherwise get the benefit of the contract). As unfair as these kinds of contracts may seem, they're common as dirt. Ever get a claim ticket when you park your car in paid parking? Chances are, you just agreed to an adhesion contract. Paid full price for a product without dickering? Adhesion contract. Those warranties that come with your products, that you don't bother reading? Again, adhesion contract.
No, she did not commit a crime. She allegedly infringed copyright. This is not a crime. It's a civil action, decided in a civil court. If it was a crime, she would be entitled to
- have access to counsel, and if she can't afford it, to have the State pay for counsel - right of habeas corpus (to see the evidence being arrayed against her at an early stage) - her day in court, in front of a jury of her peers (civil cases aren't necessarily seen before a full jury, this varies by jurisdiction) - the other side would have the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt (instead of on a balance of the evidence). - protection against self-incrimination (civil defendants can be compelled under oath to make admissions against their own interests, criminal defendants cannot be so compelled).
People who infringe copyright are not entitled to these benefits, and I'm sure the RIAA likes it that way.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, not every tech company keeps a small fleet of Nazgul in their legal department.
I, for one, think this is a great idea for Microsoft to do. I also think that the support nightmare Microsoft could have is simply payment coming due for maintaining such thorough backwards compatibility for so long.
So here's an off-topic hypothetical for you (not meant as a counter-illustration, I think you're mainly right). What if Taser (or Rolex) decided to sell virtual models of their real products in SL? And to bring things closer to the actual topic, do you think a claim by Taser that they would have greater difficutly entering that virtual market, or in the alternative that the value of their virtual products would suffer because of the dilution of their brand, would have any weight? I don't pretend to have an answer, myself. But I'd love to be a fly on the wall in that courtroom.
The copyright terms are "life of creator plus x years." Also, there are different kinds of rights for performance, composition, etc. This does apply to songs as well. A quick google turned up this link: Copyright: Protecting Your Songs
Of course, the 70 years doesn't even start running until after she's dead.
that may not be true at all in Sweden. I don't know about Sweden specifically, but in many European jurisdictions, lawyers and judges are separate career tracks. Maybe someone from Europe could confirm or debunk this for me...
Given that we can no longer assume /.ers will read a summary properly, much less an article, your post may have been more informative than you think.
Thing is, Facebook is starting to absorb a lot of the time people spend on the internet. It has e-mail, picture sharing, link sharing, online gaming (Scrabble, anyone?), and more besides. Facebook is conglomerating all the silly, useless time-wasters into one convenient place and interface, and this has a lot of value for everyday folk surfing the web. I think Facebook might have more longevity than you think.
I'm tempted to say lolcode.
I think that "IBM clone" pretty much a meaningless term, these days, don't you? Especially since Macs have switched from PowerPC (actually made by IBM, as I'm sure you know) to Intel (whose chips no longer bear much resemblance to the IBM chips of the past). Hell, Macs don't even use BIOS's anymore. Hell, IBM doesn't even make desktop pc's anymore. Anyway, sorry, this is way too persnickety, but these mac/pc/secure/insecure flamewars get my hackles up.
It's disingenuous (to say the least) that mac users specifically are stupid and have blind faith in their os. This is a trait shared by the vast majority of users of any OS, and it's not a mistake that's attributable to stupidity, but ignorance. You want people to stop falling for social engineering hacks like trojans, you have to educate them. This would apply as much to Linux (if there ever is a year of the linux desktop), and from past experience certainly applies to Windows users.
You know the shitty thing about articles like this is that they're flamebait. It's like pavlov's dog around here. Post a story with Apple and "security" in the same breath and the zealots from both sides come out swinging with their Flaming Swords of Rightitude. Don't you ever get tired of it?
'cept IBM doesn't make Intel chips.
I thought they had Intel chips now.
Thanks for that, it is interesting. I'll look at it more closely after my exam.
Actually, American workers have been doing worse, not better, since free trade came in. Real wages have gone down
Citation needed.
Did you go check out the link I provided? Go, do so. Do some research. I don't have time, I'm (supposed to be) studying.
Though your personal anecdote is heartwarming (except for you being on disability, I'm sorry to hear that), I'm afraid it doesn't constitute proof of any kind. You've neglected to mention that we're the first (or maybe second) generation that needs to go to college and get a professional degree if we hope to live on anything other than credit and dreams. I myself am in law school, because I can't feed my family on the wages a Law Clerk makes. Now a law clerk is a skilled job, fairly respectable, and in the past would provide a good middle-class income. Where are the good, middle class income jobs now? Can you get one without a post-grad degree? Even getting a bachelor's degree doesn't guarantee a decent income: try getting a good job with just a degree in English, and be sure to practice up your slurpee-slinging skills.
Second, you've conveniently forgotten the current economic crisis and the collapse of the debt bubble In western societies, we've been living on debt for a while now, whether it's easy credit card and loan terms, or living off the increasing property values of our houses. (did the value of your house go up this year? Mine didn't.) Never mind 2007, how's the real estate market in your area right now? Good? People are losing jobs by the millions, and you think times are good, and everyone's getting wealthy? We've been living high on the hog on bad credit, and the time has come to pay the piper.
See my sig. There is no such thing as a truly free market, and there never will be. The markets we put into place, and call "free" are no more free than the markets created in the Soviet Union. The rules of the market are skewed to favour those who have more money, capital, whatever. If you actually look at the "free market" models offered by economists, you'll notice that their starting axioms are absurd. If you corner one and ask him about it, he'll even admit it to you (though he'll try to argue that his axioms are superior to other axioms that more closely represent reality).
The real question isn't whether we want to have a market regulated by government or not, but in what way do we want the government to regulate the market, and to whose benefit. Currently, so-called "free" markets are regulated by the governments to give benefit to the wealthiest people in the world.
Incidentally, if you look at the paper I referenced in my previous post, you'll see that some countries (specifically China) are catching up to the rest of the world (or were, who knows what's going to happen through the current crisis), while others (like the US and Canada) were slowing down (even as their internal gaps between the rich and the poor increase further).
Actually, American workers have been doing worse, not better, since free trade came in. Real wages have gone down, and the gap between the rich and the poor has grown in America (and in a lot of other Western nations). This basically means that your average person has it tougher than her parents did. Free trade is not the only reason, but when you look at it, you can see that it would be a major contributor to this. With free trade, workers in the US have to compete with workers everywhere else in the world, and they can't compete with workers who are living in poverty and making subsistence wages. Naturally, with this kind of competition, there is strong downward pressure to lower wages.
Ironically, the automotive sector is to some extent immune from this effect, because it's cheaper to make the cars and the parts for them on the same continent they'll be sold in, hence there is less downward pressure on auto-workers' wages than there would be on those of other manufacturing workers.
Lastly, you do have a good point about protectionism being akin to racism. There is a strong ethical argument for free trade, specifically that workers in China or Malaysia or India should be allowed to compete against workers in the West. There's also some evidence that this competition is doing some good for workers in China, in particular, and that wages are increasing there. Check out this paper for some interesting information about income disparity around the world. It's out of date to the extent that it doesn't take into account the recent global meltdown, but is enlightening nonetheless.
offtopic/ /offtopic
The biggest problem I have with our current economic system is the widening income gap between the rich and the poor. This gap is probably not caused by "free trade" in the broad sense, but probably is caused (in part) by free trade as it is currently practised, where corporations are given the legal framework to disregard governments when they please. If you're interested about the curious effects of the widening income gap on our society, google up "Sick People or Sick Societies" which was a two-part special on Ideas (CBC Radio) that aired a year or two ago. CBC charges for a copy, but I was able to find the mp3s online for free, fairly easily.
You need 60 votes in Senate to break filibuster. And even though one has not happen in a while, the threat of it leaves congress pretty paralyzed on any major reform.
This is stupid (not you, you're right). A filibuster should be no bar to getting legislation passed, it's very anti-democratic for a procedure of the house to be able to bar legislation that represents the will of the people. I don't know if a filibuster in the US only has to last for a certain amount of time to be effective or not, but if not (here in Canada a filibuster lasts until one side gives up) then the Senators should damn well just suck it up and sit through the damn thing until they can vote. If the blocking party only has to wait x number of hours to kill the vote, then that rule should be changed. Rule by filibuster (or it's threat) is not democracy.
I thought emacs had MacOSX built-in.
That's really all Anonymous is about; protecting their rights to FAP. I know I would never give up my right to FAP, the government would have to take it over my cold, dead body!
Everyone! Rise up and protect your right to FAP!
I also assumed he was joking, or at least that he knew fiber-optic cable would contain no copper, but that there are always idiots who don't know that.
Some courts have already accepted that pressing a button is equivalent to signing, at least in some jurisdictions. Furthermore, you don't have to sign a contract to be found to agree with the contract. The contract doesn't even have to be in writing, to be legal. If a software company has gone to the trouble of writing a EULA, and then writing a wrapper around that EULA that limits access to their software, it's perfectly reasonable to assume that they intended to be bound by that contract.
Click-wrap licensing most resembles an adhesion contract, in which one party dictates the terms of the contract, and the other party either accepts those terms or doesn't buy the product (or otherwise get the benefit of the contract). As unfair as these kinds of contracts may seem, they're common as dirt. Ever get a claim ticket when you park your car in paid parking? Chances are, you just agreed to an adhesion contract. Paid full price for a product without dickering? Adhesion contract. Those warranties that come with your products, that you don't bother reading? Again, adhesion contract.
No, she did not commit a crime. She allegedly infringed copyright. This is not a crime. It's a civil action, decided in a civil court. If it was a crime, she would be entitled to
- have access to counsel, and if she can't afford it, to have the State pay for counsel
- right of habeas corpus (to see the evidence being arrayed against her at an early stage)
- her day in court, in front of a jury of her peers (civil cases aren't necessarily seen before a full jury, this varies by jurisdiction)
- the other side would have the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt (instead of on a balance of the evidence).
- protection against self-incrimination (civil defendants can be compelled under oath to make admissions against their own interests, criminal defendants cannot be so compelled).
People who infringe copyright are not entitled to these benefits, and I'm sure the RIAA likes it that way.
You parsed it wrong: he worked 14 'one hour days' over two and a half years.
On the other hand... getting away with that deserves a beer too...
Somebody who can get away with that has probably had many, many free beers.
In other words...she's lurking moar.