No, the EULA's may or may not be contracts. That has yet to be decided, although there are lots of court cases that suggest one way or the other. In legal theory, contracts must satisfy certain rules before you can call it a contract. Such as consideration towards both parties to the contract, opportunity to agree/disagree with the contract. Most EULAs fail these two tests.
The redshift of an object can be measured really accurately to about 1 in a million. The important thing about the SDSS is that you can get good photometric, not spectrographic redshifts.
But it is poor recreation. C3PO wasn't incompetent or stupid, just endlessly whiny and self-absorbed. I see in C3PO, some of that character of Marvin the paranoid android. He is a sympathetic character. Jar-Jar Binks just has no redeeming values.
Since MS locks up their code, you can never have your said proof. And so, this comment must live on as it is - a damaging remark that cannot be answered.
Open Source companies will never have to suffer such indignities.
Because if MS refuses to offer their JVM for consumers, Sun should be free to do that with OEMs. I sure hope Windows users have an alternative to the CLR, and not have another choice limited simply because of a spat between Sun and MS.
Sure, Sun make not have the best motivates in suing. But they have a case!
You are right. Exclusive licenses, by themselves, should not be used as the criteria to determine antitrust violations. But under specific circumstances, exclusionary licenses can be seen to have a anticompetitive effect.
This may be true, or it may not be. The point is, it is hardly an injustice, considering that MS makes exclusive, arbitrary deals with OEMS.
Think broadly. What exactly is MS guilty of, in the IE vs Netscape case? It is guilty of using exclusionary deals, leveraging their OS monopoly into a browser monopoly. Just like how MS attempted to leverage their OS monopoly to undermine the machine-independence of Java. And since Sun sued them on that, they've decided not to play.
Now think about that. MS effectively refuses to make JVMs for Windoze. And it uses the exclusive nature of the Windows OS to force Windows users to have the lessor option of NOT HAVING JAVA, but HAVING C# (soon) instead.
It is becuase the Windows OEM licensing is exclusionary that Sun cannot ask OEMs to bundle their Java. So if it was true, this is GOOD NEWS for windows customers.
Sun: This is what the Java language is. This is what a JVM must do.
MS: That looks good! Can we write our own JVM for that?
Sun: Fine. But it must meet our certification, the standards which we have submitted for review.
MS: OK. Here it is.
Sun: Hey, you didn't just implement the JVM. You made extensions for developers which work only on Windows.
MS: Yeah so? Does it not meet your standards?
Sun: It does, but if we sign-off on it, we are made to look like endorsing your extensions. Since we made Java to be platform-independent, we can't possibly sign off on that.
MS: Look everyone! Sun's trying to screw us, and play favorites.
Sun: Now that's not true - IBM made a perfectly conforming JVM and we don't have problems with that.
MS: This is rubbish. WE MUST HAVE THE FREEDOM TO INNOVATE JAVA!!!
No offense, you make very good points. But has it occurred to you that the year in which you don't go to a movie a week anymore, is the year in which you've grown up?
I'm just pointing out the fact that people change and mature, but Hollywood does not.
It's legal standing comes from copyright law. It is a unilateral grant of rights to distribution (since copyright law does not grant such rights), provided that the redistributor also unilaterally grants rights as it has been given to him. It has as much standing as copyright denies these right to people, by default.
I don't see it as a dig. I see it as a reminder to that there is a free alternatives out there, and they had better come out with something better if they want to survive as a proprietry format. It need not be interpreted as a demand for them to release it free.
You know something? Ogg, being under the BSD, is easier to license than whatever license KT Tech does. I think you are reading way too much into a line like that.
Why is this a setback? In the 1994 days, when the net boomed, lots of people got onlne and there was a chaos of newsgroup/email spamming. These people have largely learned. Then MS internet users got online in 1995. Same thing. Then AOL users. Each one of them will learn, so why can't Asian's countries? Have some faith in the smartness of SysAdmins!
Writers and authors often have last works in progress that were left unfinished or near completion at death. Isaac Asimov's Foundation, or J.R.R. Tolkien's Silmarillion are examples. Their heir may take over the work, and make it publishable. There is definitely value in getting these published, and creating incentive for the heirs to publish these works before they are lost to obscurity.
Excuse me, I'm going to go point my Konqueror window (currently at/usr/tmp) to http://rcsb.org now. Oh the horror!
How is this horrific? Pointing Konqueror at/usr/tmp and http://rcsb.org gives you visually, the same thing right? Look deeper. In one window, you have a set of icons, each one correponding to a file. The set is essentially a database of sector locations and what they represent. Click them - there is a one to one correspondence between an icon and a file. Select one, and drag it to the trashcan. You've managed to delete a file on the disk.
Now go to the webpage. Click on something. Does that take you to the hyperlink? Or does that select something for you to manipulate? Try dragging it to the trashcan - what gets deleted? Impossible? Why? Why are two separate things - one a filemanager that is essentally a matephor for OBJECTS on a disk, mixed with another metphor, one that displays text in a presentable manner?
To make the analogy even better, park your browser on a webpage made to resemble a filepanel. Go have a cup of coffee, come back and see if you can get it right the first time.
When using Windows I ~like~ being able to type a URL or file system address (or SMB address) into the "go" line of any explorer window and have it work. Why woud I want separate programs for these functions?
You are evidently not experienced enough with filesystem design or the web to make this judgement. Hypertext documents have very different semantics from filesystems. Hypertext can have multiple links. It is not an error for document A to link to B, and B to link back to A. It is not an error to assign a link with attributes like "famous" or "important" or (26k) (like Google does) to links, which can be different if you used a different search engine. But filesystems aren't like that! Can you link a directory into a loop? YES, only if you used symbolic links! Hardlinks not permissable. How could a databased FS like ReiserFS cope with something like that?
Directories and hypertext documents are very different beasts. That you can IE to blur and obscate the semantics shows very POOR DESIGN and SLOPPY THINKING on the part of MS. That KDE should want to imitate that shows again, the dearth of IQ amongst most programmers and the users who follow them blindly.
Slashdot Mirror
No, the EULA's may or may not be contracts. That has yet to be decided, although there are lots of court cases that suggest one way or the other. In legal theory, contracts must satisfy certain rules before you can call it a contract. Such as consideration towards both parties to the contract, opportunity to agree/disagree with the contract. Most EULAs fail these two tests.
A faraday cage can't prevent you from measuring voltages inside Tim. Faraday cages screen out external fields, not internal ones.
The redshift of an object can be measured really accurately to about 1 in a million. The important thing about the SDSS is that you can get good photometric, not spectrographic redshifts.
But it is poor recreation. C3PO wasn't incompetent or stupid, just endlessly whiny and self-absorbed. I see in C3PO, some of that character of Marvin the paranoid android. He is a sympathetic character. Jar-Jar Binks just has no redeeming values.
Well, it is MS's decision to make a conforming JVM, or not to at all.
Open Source companies will never have to suffer such indignities.
Sure, Sun make not have the best motivates in suing. But they have a case!
Can OEMs indeed do this, without getting stiffed by MS? Why are those licensing deals trade-secrets?
You are right. Exclusive licenses, by themselves, should not be used as the criteria to determine antitrust violations. But under specific circumstances, exclusionary licenses can be seen to have a anticompetitive effect.
Think broadly. What exactly is MS guilty of, in the IE vs Netscape case? It is guilty of using exclusionary deals, leveraging their OS monopoly into a browser monopoly. Just like how MS attempted to leverage their OS monopoly to undermine the machine-independence of Java. And since Sun sued them on that, they've decided not to play.
Now think about that. MS effectively refuses to make JVMs for Windoze. And it uses the exclusive nature of the Windows OS to force Windows users to have the lessor option of NOT HAVING JAVA, but HAVING C# (soon) instead.
It is becuase the Windows OEM licensing is exclusionary that Sun cannot ask OEMs to bundle their Java. So if it was true, this is GOOD NEWS for windows customers.
Sun: This is what the Java language is. This is what a JVM must do.
MS: That looks good! Can we write our own JVM for that?
Sun: Fine. But it must meet our certification, the standards which we have submitted for review.
MS: OK. Here it is.
Sun: Hey, you didn't just implement the JVM. You made extensions for developers which work only on Windows.
MS: Yeah so? Does it not meet your standards?
Sun: It does, but if we sign-off on it, we are made to look like endorsing your extensions. Since we made Java to be platform-independent, we can't possibly sign off on that.
MS: Look everyone! Sun's trying to screw us, and play favorites.
Sun: Now that's not true - IBM made a perfectly conforming JVM and we don't have problems with that.
MS: This is rubbish. WE MUST HAVE THE FREEDOM TO INNOVATE JAVA!!!
I'm just pointing out the fact that people change and mature, but Hollywood does not.
It's legal standing comes from copyright law. It is a unilateral grant of rights to distribution (since copyright law does not grant such rights), provided that the redistributor also unilaterally grants rights as it has been given to him. It has as much standing as copyright denies these right to people, by default.
Since GNU in infinitely recursive, GCC effectively has a depth of Aleph + 1.
What and make my processor overheat? No way!
I don't see it as a dig. I see it as a reminder to that there is a free alternatives out there, and they had better come out with something better if they want to survive as a proprietry format. It need not be interpreted as a demand for them to release it free.
You know something? Ogg, being under the BSD, is easier to license than whatever license KT Tech does. I think you are reading way too much into a line like that.
Why is this a setback? In the 1994 days, when the net boomed, lots of people got onlne and there was a chaos of newsgroup/email spamming. These people have largely learned. Then MS internet users got online in 1995. Same thing. Then AOL users. Each one of them will learn, so why can't Asian's countries? Have some faith in the smartness of SysAdmins!
Writers and authors often have last works in progress that were left unfinished or near completion at death. Isaac Asimov's Foundation, or J.R.R. Tolkien's Silmarillion are examples. Their heir may take over the work, and make it publishable. There is definitely value in getting these published, and creating incentive for the heirs to publish these works before they are lost to obscurity.
How is this horrific? Pointing Konqueror at
Now go to the webpage. Click on something. Does that take you to the hyperlink? Or does that select something for you to manipulate? Try dragging it to the trashcan - what gets deleted? Impossible? Why? Why are two separate things - one a filemanager that is essentally a matephor for OBJECTS on a disk, mixed with another metphor, one that displays text in a presentable manner?
To make the analogy even better, park your browser on a webpage made to resemble a filepanel. Go have a cup of coffee, come back and see if you can get it right the first time.
MS Frontpage would likely crash under the load of thousands of pages of comments.
You are evidently not experienced enough with filesystem design or the web to make this judgement. Hypertext documents have very different semantics from filesystems. Hypertext can have multiple links. It is not an error for document A to link to B, and B to link back to A. It is not an error to assign a link with attributes like "famous" or "important" or (26k) (like Google does) to links, which can be different if you used a different search engine. But filesystems aren't like that! Can you link a directory into a loop? YES, only if you used symbolic links! Hardlinks not permissable. How could a databased FS like ReiserFS cope with something like that?
Directories and hypertext documents are very different beasts. That you can IE to blur and obscate the semantics shows very POOR DESIGN and SLOPPY THINKING on the part of MS. That KDE should want to imitate that shows again, the dearth of IQ amongst most programmers and the users who follow them blindly.
Mutation is the core ingredient of evolution. You would have a hard time arguing that allele frequencies have not changed, given excessive mutattions.
I remember playing that. It was PC based, had a useable, but ugly 4-color interface. That was out in 1987 or so.
So, does this mean you dress them up in fatigues and get them to march around in town with M16s?