That's a good point. Perhaps then it will start to bite people who are completely unaware that their computers have been compromised. Then maybe they'd get interested in fixing the problems their computers have.
Actually, we didn't have rolling brownouts until the Republicans got to "de-regulate" the market. I was there and I saw it happen. Before that we had a nice stable utility service with reasonable pricing.
Right. Until we start seeing Japanese-style competition for providing service, things won't change so much. I believe that the biggest change will occur when we start legally classify ISPs as common carriers and treating them as such. With that designation ISPs would have to ditch their shaping and blocking practices and just pass bits back and forth.
A recent study by the Pew Institute demonstrates that Internet access is a "must have" service. That makes it a utility. Treating all ISPs as utilities brings them one step closer to common carrier status.
You may have noticed that I tend to harp on this idea. Here's why: a common carrier cannot refuse service and cannot discriminate. Once those two requirements come into view, just watch the content providers get out of the business, in a hurry.
The current debate in public discourse and with respect to pending legislation seems to exhibit a logical progression of taking a new service that was a luxury and turning it into a utility. I'm happy to help it progress.
Perhaps, but with the current administration, and the new legislation winding it's way through, it could conceivably get easier to pierce the corporate veil. This lawsuit represents the height of corporate avarice. What makes it all the more interesting is that the only newspaper willing to continue to run stories on it seems to be the Salt Lake Tribune. Yet the lawsuit will have worldwide influence once the appeals have run their course.
I'm really looking forward to the trial of IBM's counterclaims, and the damages decided from them. At that point, we're very likely to see where the money for the suit came from.
The ideal arrangement is to have the purchase go through before the appeal. Then have the appeal denied. That way the estate is refreshed with big bucks just in time for the hoovers to move in.
I'd like to know how that works out as I'm planning on doing the same (Ubuntu 9.04 64-bit---> Fedora 11 32-bit). Reason? My DVD writer will no longer read/write DVD/CDs. This was a brand new machine when I bought it. And I've seen a lot of forum posts complaining about this.
I'm also not too keen on promoting Microsoft technologies. Even if they *have* been submitted to the ECMA. After watching what they did with OOXML at the ECMA and then ISO, I'd rather avoid the drama.
...but there might be a better word to describe it: collusion. Microsoft and their "partners", the companies and people they haven't yet discarded, will compete at any cost, even if that means talking trash about the competition. And when they talk trash, they "get the facts".
What you describe, is a small fraction of the many companies MS has trashed using collusion. In most cases, they collude with the developers. The developers may or may not be aware of what they are doing, but if they are, it's collusion. Once the developer says that "this only works on Windows", it's over. With hardware, Intel is a great example of a company that colluded with MS to establish a leading market position. Intel helped MS establish the OEM installation of Windows, foreclosing the choice of another operating system.
What concerns me the most about Microsoft is their notion that people shouldn't even know they have a choice other than Microsoft products. Most people who are not into computers have no idea that they have a choice of an operating system. Macs appear foreign to them until they try them. Thanks to the iPod, many more people have heard of Apple, but most people still use their iPod with their PC. Linux is alien to most people I talk to. I have to say it a couple of times for them to hear it because they have never heard the word before.
Foreclosure of choice, even knowledge of choice is the strategy to they exhibit the most. That is what Microsoft marketing does, but they do it with collusion.
Conceivably, the RIAA could move to dismiss, this is true. But it's just a motion and the court may decide that a motion to dismiss should be denied, requiring the RIAA to go through with. Sort of like saying "finish what you started."
Of course, I'm not a lawyer, but it seems rather plausible that a judge could deny a motion to dismiss for the prosecution just as much as for the defendant. That could make for a very interesting discussion in open court.
Yeah, but at least they could find a simple, distinctive, descriptive name for their search engine that isn't trademarked. I never would have thought of "bing" as a name for anything except while, um, cooking. You, know, like bada bing, bada boom.
That's right. If MS gets this patent it'll never be implemented as GPL software. Hopefully, IBM will *buy* MS for a pittance and merge it into a small division in Iceland somewhere, someday.
That's probably going to be a good thing. But I think it's going to have to start from the browser side. I like what Google is doing with Chrome in that respect. They have the capability to distribute and support a browser that will encourage or maybe even require open standards on the web.
So while we do have a few companies seeking their own private monopolies, choosing a browser that requires open standards to render will register as feedback to the various websites we visit. Remember that each browser "identifies" itself. I guess it's a chicken or the egg thing, but the more people can choose replacements for the "big-blue-E", the better. At least Google and Mozilla are creating choices that are easy to acquire and install.
Incorporation is VOLUNTARY. You don't have to do it. There are plenty of other ways to mitigate tax liability without becoming a corporation.
The main reason for the corporate tax to begin with? Limited liability. If you want to avoid personal liability for damages done to other people by your company, then by all means, incorporate. Back in the 1890's, somebody decided that corporations should have the same rights as persons. That's fine if they assume the same liabilities as persons. But that's not how it's played around here.
Personally, I think that corporate status for Microsoft should be denied, or the corporation dissolved so that they can face personal liability for all the flaws in their software, if they're going to sell it.
I don't know. I think Car and Driver did a pretty thorugh debunking ethanol as a viable gasoline here. In short, it takes more energy to make ethanol than it creates. Food shortages and engine damage aside, I don't think this is the way to go.
It's just a huge tax subsidy, and always will be unless and until there is some huge genetically engineered solution. And once that happens, the fun part comes when they make a mistake and wipe out a good part of the food chain. Try containing a successful genetically engineered mistake! I dare ya!
I suppose it could work in an economy 1/14th the size of the US. But here, we're going to need a much better, bigger solution. Syngas could be the answer. This is the idea of taking all of our organic waste, you know, plastics, food scraps, whatever, cook them and then turn it into ethanol. But that would have to be a lot of syngas.
I'd include a good citation on the syngas, but I'd have to search for the article I read, which would take time - sleep is a higher priority at the moment.
Indeed. But the attorney (Nesson) is making the argument that this is a criminal case and has submitted a question the the AG. What would happen if the case is converted to a criminal case? Even more scrutiny?
When Ben Franklin got started with patents, he was happy to share the idea. Nowadays, patents are used to create scarcity. I've been reading an alternative analysis of patents and copyrights in a book called "Intellectual Monopoly." Of course, the book is making a case against intellectual property, but it is one of the easiest to read.
I find this book very interesting, especially the parts about James Watt and genetically modified organism patents. After reading just half the book, I've reached the conclusion that patents require at the least, very close parental supervision. Or we could just eliminate them, once and for all. We won't know for sure if competition is a sin until patents are gone.
This whole patent business, while entertaining, is sort of depressing.
Talk about turning the tables
on
Phoenix BIOSOS?
·
· Score: 1
Slashdot Mirror
You could also turn them into a common carrier. More fun.
That's a good point. Perhaps then it will start to bite people who are completely unaware that their computers have been compromised. Then maybe they'd get interested in fixing the problems their computers have.
Actually, we didn't have rolling brownouts until the Republicans got to "de-regulate" the market. I was there and I saw it happen. Before that we had a nice stable utility service with reasonable pricing.
Right. Until we start seeing Japanese-style competition for providing service, things won't change so much. I believe that the biggest change will occur when we start legally classify ISPs as common carriers and treating them as such. With that designation ISPs would have to ditch their shaping and blocking practices and just pass bits back and forth.
A recent study by the Pew Institute demonstrates that Internet access is a "must have" service. That makes it a utility. Treating all ISPs as utilities brings them one step closer to common carrier status.
You may have noticed that I tend to harp on this idea. Here's why: a common carrier cannot refuse service and cannot discriminate. Once those two requirements come into view, just watch the content providers get out of the business, in a hurry.
The current debate in public discourse and with respect to pending legislation seems to exhibit a logical progression of taking a new service that was a luxury and turning it into a utility. I'm happy to help it progress.
Perhaps, but with the current administration, and the new legislation winding it's way through, it could conceivably get easier to pierce the corporate veil. This lawsuit represents the height of corporate avarice. What makes it all the more interesting is that the only newspaper willing to continue to run stories on it seems to be the Salt Lake Tribune. Yet the lawsuit will have worldwide influence once the appeals have run their course.
I'm really looking forward to the trial of IBM's counterclaims, and the damages decided from them. At that point, we're very likely to see where the money for the suit came from.
The ideal arrangement is to have the purchase go through before the appeal. Then have the appeal denied. That way the estate is refreshed with big bucks just in time for the hoovers to move in.
Well, you have a good point there...
I'd like to know how that works out as I'm planning on doing the same (Ubuntu 9.04 64-bit---> Fedora 11 32-bit). Reason? My DVD writer will no longer read/write DVD/CDs. This was a brand new machine when I bought it. And I've seen a lot of forum posts complaining about this.
I'm also not too keen on promoting Microsoft technologies. Even if they *have* been submitted to the ECMA. After watching what they did with OOXML at the ECMA and then ISO, I'd rather avoid the drama.
I think that what you're trying to say is that bing will always work better on Windows, right?
...but there might be a better word to describe it: collusion. Microsoft and their "partners", the companies and people they haven't yet discarded, will compete at any cost, even if that means talking trash about the competition. And when they talk trash, they "get the facts".
What you describe, is a small fraction of the many companies MS has trashed using collusion. In most cases, they collude with the developers. The developers may or may not be aware of what they are doing, but if they are, it's collusion. Once the developer says that "this only works on Windows", it's over. With hardware, Intel is a great example of a company that colluded with MS to establish a leading market position. Intel helped MS establish the OEM installation of Windows, foreclosing the choice of another operating system.
What concerns me the most about Microsoft is their notion that people shouldn't even know they have a choice other than Microsoft products. Most people who are not into computers have no idea that they have a choice of an operating system. Macs appear foreign to them until they try them. Thanks to the iPod, many more people have heard of Apple, but most people still use their iPod with their PC. Linux is alien to most people I talk to. I have to say it a couple of times for them to hear it because they have never heard the word before.
Foreclosure of choice, even knowledge of choice is the strategy to they exhibit the most. That is what Microsoft marketing does, but they do it with collusion.
Conceivably, the RIAA could move to dismiss, this is true. But it's just a motion and the court may decide that a motion to dismiss should be denied, requiring the RIAA to go through with. Sort of like saying "finish what you started."
Of course, I'm not a lawyer, but it seems rather plausible that a judge could deny a motion to dismiss for the prosecution just as much as for the defendant. That could make for a very interesting discussion in open court.
Just my $0.02.
Yeah, but at least they could find a simple, distinctive, descriptive name for their search engine that isn't trademarked. I never would have thought of "bing" as a name for anything except while, um, cooking. You, know, like bada bing, bada boom.
That's right. If MS gets this patent it'll never be implemented as GPL software. Hopefully, IBM will *buy* MS for a pittance and merge it into a small division in Iceland somewhere, someday.
That's probably going to be a good thing. But I think it's going to have to start from the browser side. I like what Google is doing with Chrome in that respect. They have the capability to distribute and support a browser that will encourage or maybe even require open standards on the web.
So while we do have a few companies seeking their own private monopolies, choosing a browser that requires open standards to render will register as feedback to the various websites we visit. Remember that each browser "identifies" itself. I guess it's a chicken or the egg thing, but the more people can choose replacements for the "big-blue-E", the better. At least Google and Mozilla are creating choices that are easy to acquire and install.
I believe that it starts on the browser side.
...I'm not a programmer, hence the question. Can HTML five do the things you talk about above? Just wondering.
Thanks.
You must be referring to the Office of Thrift Supervision. :)
I don't know....NIST, anyone? Oh, wait. How about the incredible lust for patents as a reason we don't invest more in government research?
There. One reason why we should invest. And one reason why it doesn't happen as often as it should.
Here's another interesting place for history and current events: http://www.againstmonopoly.org/. I also highly recommend the books on their website, in particular, "Against Intellectual Monopoly".
Thanks for the links.
Then consider the possibilities offered by this website: http://www.againstmonopoly.org/. Enjoy.
You mean they would pull a SCO? Naw....
Incorporation is VOLUNTARY. You don't have to do it. There are plenty of other ways to mitigate tax liability without becoming a corporation.
The main reason for the corporate tax to begin with? Limited liability. If you want to avoid personal liability for damages done to other people by your company, then by all means, incorporate. Back in the 1890's, somebody decided that corporations should have the same rights as persons. That's fine if they assume the same liabilities as persons. But that's not how it's played around here.
Personally, I think that corporate status for Microsoft should be denied, or the corporation dissolved so that they can face personal liability for all the flaws in their software, if they're going to sell it.
Take your pick.
I don't know. I think Car and Driver did a pretty thorugh debunking ethanol as a viable gasoline here. In short, it takes more energy to make ethanol than it creates. Food shortages and engine damage aside, I don't think this is the way to go.
It's just a huge tax subsidy, and always will be unless and until there is some huge genetically engineered solution. And once that happens, the fun part comes when they make a mistake and wipe out a good part of the food chain. Try containing a successful genetically engineered mistake! I dare ya!
I suppose it could work in an economy 1/14th the size of the US. But here, we're going to need a much better, bigger solution. Syngas could be the answer. This is the idea of taking all of our organic waste, you know, plastics, food scraps, whatever, cook them and then turn it into ethanol. But that would have to be a lot of syngas.
I'd include a good citation on the syngas, but I'd have to search for the article I read, which would take time - sleep is a higher priority at the moment.
Indeed. But the attorney (Nesson) is making the argument that this is a criminal case and has submitted a question the the AG. What would happen if the case is converted to a criminal case? Even more scrutiny?
When Ben Franklin got started with patents, he was happy to share the idea. Nowadays, patents are used to create scarcity. I've been reading an alternative analysis of patents and copyrights in a book called "Intellectual Monopoly." Of course, the book is making a case against intellectual property, but it is one of the easiest to read.
I find this book very interesting, especially the parts about James Watt and genetically modified organism patents. After reading just half the book, I've reached the conclusion that patents require at the least, very close parental supervision. Or we could just eliminate them, once and for all. We won't know for sure if competition is a sin until patents are gone.
This whole patent business, while entertaining, is sort of depressing.
Kinda like DR-DOS in reverse.