Regarding California's power situation, PG&E and SCE said "deregulate us and there will be lower prices". They lied. Everybody knew they were lying except, apparently, the politicians. In theory deregulation would open up the system so that anyone could become a power producer. In reality, anyone who can produce phase-matched power (which is pretty simple) can feed that power into the grid. The catch is that PG&E made sure that they wouldn't have to pay for that power. Basically, the current situation is because of two mistakes made by the deregulators: preventing PG&E from signing long term contracts (although there was good reason for this at the time) and preventing consumers from getting paid for electricity they produced. The fact is that power is not that expensive to produce, and the distribution channels were already in place and had been for some time. Currently the price of electricity is artificially inflated because of several power plants being down for "unscheduled repairs". So many are down for this reason that serious questions are being asked by people who have been in the power industry for many years. It's unprecedented. It's unheard-of. And it's very suspicious.
The reason Mexico is the way it is, is because of the corrupt government regulating businesses and locking out competition unless you can pay them bribe money. This will be our fate due to our current path and law-making and the way the anti-trust laws are made up to be open to interpretation.
You obviously haven't spent much time in Mexico. I agree that the government is corrupt, but it most certainly does not regulate business. At all. That's part of the problem with Mexico. The wealthy keep the poor as poor as possible so that they can continue to pay slave wages and make an obscene profit. Why do you think so many Mexicans are so eager to cross the border and pick lettuce for a dollar an hour? because it's a better opportunity than they can find in Mexico.
The Sherman Act is not about knee-capping established companies, it's about preventing established companies from killing new ones in their infancy. Preserving competition and consumer choice.
Mexico is an example of what happens when there isn't a system in place to punish companies for their abuses.
I disagree, under the current tax system the wealthy and corporations pay most of the taxes (the wealthy 1% as everyone calls them) and supply 99% of us with the benefits. I.e. lower taxes, unemployment and other welfare programs. If they did not have to pay these taxes then they would not need subsidies or credits.
You are incorrect. The wealthiest 10% controls over 90% of the wealth, and yet pays only about 30% of the taxes (these numbers I got from the presidential debates, and they were verified by several sources). The poorest, of course, pay essentially nothing or get back whatever they pay. That leaves the vast majority of the tax burden to the middle class. Microsoft and Cisco, the two richest corporations in the world, paid no taxes at all last year (from a story that was linked from/. a few months ago). Many of the worlds largest corporations get back more in tax rebates every year than they actually pay (another article link from/. within the last week or so). So, who's really paying for all this stuff? You and I are.
Ahh, now you are getting it:) You have an objection to this? "Whoever created the best product at the best price would dominate." - Bringing a better product to market at a lower cost to the consumers so they have more money in their pockets is only beneficial to all. That is why the industrial revolution created wealth. The value of the individual's work was ultimately worth more in purchasing power. We are all benefiting today because of it.
No, I don't have an objection to this. I think that's how it should be and that's why I have a problem with Microsoft, because I feel that they stifle innovation and choice in the marketplace. That is what anti-trust law is about, maintaining innovation and consumer choice. I'll get back to the Industrial Revolution later.
The industrial revolution did teach us about abuse but everyone is not seeing the truth of it. The abuse was from the government.
The abuse I was talking about was the abuse of the labor force by Industrialists. Government regulation came about because Corporations proved that they couldn't act responsibly on their own.
In some ways you have the right idea, but your timeline is a little screwed up.
The problem with Microsoft is that they have so much money that they can play the attrition game with another company, who may have a better product, and they will win every time, simply because they have more money. Basically, Microsofts ability to compete has nothing to do with the quality of their product (which I think is poor) and there needs to be room for other competition, if only to force Microsoft to put out better products.
I'm afraid I'm pressed for time at the moment, but I have plenty more to say and I will hopefully have time this evening.
I have to reassert that America is NOT Capitalist.
First, under true Capitalism there would be no wellfare of any kind. Corporations are the largest benefactors of government wellfare programs. They're called other things, of course, like Subsidies or Tax Credits, but really it's wellfare. Why? Because "what's good for GM is good for America". Under a truely Capitalist system many of the large corporations we have to day would unrecognizable, if they still existed at all.
Second, under true Capitalism there would be no Intellectual Property laws. No patents, trade secrets, copyrights, or trademarks. All of these create artificial monopolies. Whoever created the best product at the best price would dominate.
Unfortunately, Capitalism does not create the greatest amount of wealth for the greatest number of people. Strong regulation was required in order to acheive the standard of living we enjoy today, and that regulation is almost entirely Socialist in nature. The Industrial Revolution was a study in abuse and a fine example of why pure Capitalism doesn't work.
Without the Socialist policies of FDR's New Deal, America would be in the same boat as Mexico is right now: Rampant poverty and incredible polution, all maintained for the benefit of the wealthy minority. Unless you come from a family which has been wealthy for at least 100 years, you enjoy your standard of living because America is NOT Capitalist.
I whole-heartedly disagree here. Society IS only a group of individuals. The whole is only equal to the sum of it's greatest contributers minus the slackers who do not contribute.
There is much more to a society than simply the individuals who make it up. A society has values, mores, and unwritten rules. Certain things are understood in a society, and there is a way things are done. A mere group of individuals can never be as cohesive as a society is, which is why a society is so effective at what it does. That's why I recommend a Sociology class, because I once thought as you do now.
In a society, everyone contributes something, even the "slackers" whos contributions may not readily apparent. What is a slacker, anyway? To my construction-worker dad I'm a slacker because I sit in front of a computer all day. To me, my manager is a slacker because I don't see how he adds value to my companies product. Does he contribute? Sure, he contributes plenty of procedures and requirements that make my job more difficult. Obviously the CEO sees some value in what he does, or he wouldn't still be here.
I also think Bill Gates is a slacker, because I don't think he contributes to the rest of society. I see him taking plenty, but I don't see him giving back. There are plenty that are worse than him, but I'm trying to stay in context.
I appologize for the condesending personal attacks. Your origional post struck me as the standard/. uninformed, semi-coherent, libertarian flame. This one was much better, and I thank you for it.
You claim that you want personal responsibility yet you say that you want the government to take a persons ability to decide away.
Did you actually read my post?
I didn't say anything about taking away anyones ability to make decisions for themselves, I simply proposed that they be held accountable for their actions.
Then you say it is the root of all societal problems. For one that's a load of crap, you yourself say that people blame everything on an untouchable entity. But you missed the one example that truely matters in this case i.e. "big" companies.
This paragraph doesn't make any sense at all, but I will do my best to respond...
I said that lack of personal responsibility is the root of all evil. "I was only following orders" is the appology for all the monsters of our time. 100 years ago people said "the Devil made me do it". Today they say "Society made me do it". We accept that and forget that they still did something wrong.
Our society revolves around dodging blame to the extent that when some one actually says "I did something wrong and I should be punished" they are declared mentally incompetent.
I think that is a problem. I think that when people have no one to blame but themselves that they are less likely to do bad things. I think that when there are consequences, actions are not taken so lightly.
And since you obviously didn't notice, "the corporation" was included in my list of untouchable entities. In this context, "Corporation" is synonymous with "Big Company".
Where do you get off with this statement? It is one of the most hypocritical things I've ever heard/read. Read your statement again and tell me you aren't labeling Microsoft the same way.
Where do I get off with what statement? What exactly is hypocritical about anything that I said? How exactly am I supposedly labeling Microsoft?
I said that Bill Gates was laughing at the Department of Justice saying "Haha, you can't touch me!" He knows that he ordered people to do things that are against the law. He also knows that he won't be personally punished for it. Microsoft may be fined, or even split up, but Billy Gates can't be touched. That's called hiding behind the corporate veil. What I said is that he shouldn't be able to do that, that it should be easier for the DoJ to go after Gates personally for the manner in which he has chosen to run his company.
And communism is not a moral high ground. Capitalism is, it is the only one that gives people the right to make their own decisions and not have someone who is less of a man/woman (intellectually) making decisions for them in the guise of "The Social Good"?? Who is society but a group of individuals that have something to contribute?
It's unfortunate that you have been so brainwashed by McCarthian rhetoric that your critical thinking abilities are impaired. A critical analysis of my sig reveals two assertions:
1) Capitalism promotes exploitation.
2) Communism also promotes exploitation.
In other words, they both suck. Neither of them is a moral high ground, and anyone who says so is an idiot.
It also appears that you have fallen victim to the basic American fallacy; that Capitalism is Democracy. In fact, they are completely seperate (though not mutually exclusive, obviously). One is an economic system and the other is a political system. I'm sorry to tell you that America is neither Capitalist nor Democratic, but is in fact a Corporate Republic. As Naom Chomsky put it, government is the shadow of business over America.
As for lesser beings making decisions in the guise of "The Social Good", how exactly would that be different than the system we have now? Have you forgotten about Congress?
And no, society is not just a group of individuals. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. A mere group of individuals could never accomplish the things that a society is capable of, good or bad.
I suggest you take a class in Political Science. If you already have, you should take another one, as you apparently didn't learn anything the first time. I also recommend classes in Composition and Critical Thinking, as your post is almost totally incoherent. Economics and Sociology wouldn't be a bad idea either.
No, I propose that folks use readers that interpret Unicode appropriately for the language they wish to use, whether that's a browser, an email proggy, or whatever. The articles point was that Unicode won't work because it can't display every single character that anyone ever came up with. My point was that it doesn't have to. My inbox is cluttered with all sorts of spam that says something like &*^%*&%UYGVKNB&^$*^%#^%$FCJUY%^$&^%U^TRU&^%#$^$@#^ %$&YT. Why should a non-english speaker expect otherwise?
Since they have decided that they own all the work you did, then they owe you compensation for it. How about $100 per hour? Sue them for that too.
You could also hit them with lible/slander/defamation since they are ruining your academic career.
And while you're at it, make sure to get the top people at the university personally involved.
My point is, you are not defenseless, especially if it is a public school. Your tuition pays for the resources you were using. Play just as hard with them as they are with you. After all, they are trying to take 4(?) years of your life away from you.
If you can, get other poeple who used/participated in/worked on the site to join you in a class action suit. You can win against a large institution. Recently students at Humboldt State University (in CA) won a several million dollar judgement against the school because they took too long building the new library. Their premise was that they were being denied resources they were paying for.
I hate lawyers, but they have their uses. It's better to think of them as mercenaries you hire to fight for you. Sometimes I think it's unfortunate that the courtroom has replaced the Field of Honor, but that's just the way it is.
Felten is a very smart man. Basically he knew that in order to pursue this and actually win he had to be able to prove damages resulting directly from the intimidation that the DMCA promotes. It had nothing to do with waiting to get the legal team together. It was all about legal strategy; picking the battlefield, and defining the terms of engagement.
It's the only way to have any impact on corporations this big. Being able to pierce the corporate veil is obviously not enough, mainly because the opportunities for doing so are so limited. Removing the corporate veil completely, thus making those who control the company personally responsible for the actions of that company is the only way to force them to act responsibly.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-corporate. I think there are very good reasons for corporations to exist. But at the same time I think the root of our societal problems is a lack of personal responsibility. Whenever something bad happens, the guilty always point to some abstract and essentially untouchable entity for blame (i.e. society, bureaucracy, the criminal justice system, the corporation, whatever). If the people who sit on the board of directors are held personally for the abuses of their company, then there won't be any more of the arrogance we saw from Bill Gates in his testimony. He would have something to fear.
HTML 4 includes country codes so the browser knows how to interpret the Unicode character. Thus, the same 16 bit number will display a different character for an English document than it will for a Mandarin document.
In other words, Unicode doesn't need to account for every single character in the world!
But of course, this was posted on the internet, so it MUST be true...
Koolance makes a prebuilt, sealed watercooled case. The base system has water cooled CPU and power supply and costs about $200 (including shipping). The fans for the radiator are temperature controlled, so it's really quiet.
There are plenty of companies who make their money off of "obsolete" hardware. When your proprietary closed source point of sale system breaks down, how are you going to fix it if you can't replace the broken part with the exact same part? Try and find DOS drivers for an ethernet card sometime and you'll know what I mean, and that's an easy one. For one of the embedded Unix's you're probably SOL. Even if the hardware you have is beyond repair it can still be used for parts.
One such company is here. I don't know if they will actually buy the stuff directly from you, but they can certainly tell you who will. And, of course, there's always Ebay...
there have been devices available for a couple of years that allow hot-swapped notebook drives on a desktop system. Seeing as I can get a 20GB Travelstar for $120+shipping, I fail to see the point of this. They claim to have a backlog of 25,000. No doubt the same folks who cheerfully reboot windows time and again to see if it will make their zip drive stop clicking...
I think he has missed the main point of why people get so passionate about Linux domination: because it can! This article sounds like it was writen by someone who just installed Linux so they could write an editorial about it. The big hint is when he mentions money. "Look what Microsoft hasn't been able to do, even with billions of dollars behind them". Open source defies the traditional corporate developement model that this guy seems to have trapped his mind in. So what if some companies are having trouble supporting the Linux desktop. If/when they drop the ball on it somebody else will pick it up because that's what they want. That's why Linux is making such a dramatic impact in the embedded market right now, but of course, he conveniently failed to mention that for the sake of his editorial point.
btw, I bear no ill will to any Linux companies. I wish them all well since they all support the cause. But the failure of a company or two cannot and should not be taken as an indicator of failure for Linux. Linux is not proprietary, so it will continue to grow and evolve even if every last Linux company goes down.
There are some folks who will always have problems with whatever you are trying to do. I think that the majority of OSS coders would love to get paid for something they like to do. I know several who fit that despcription, myself included.
Basically, I think you'll be OK as long as you aren't trying to hire RMS, and I think the majority of OSS folks will appreciate the fact that you made a point to look here first.
From what I've seen in the past the only thing this will probably accomplish is getting the schools sued by parents/ACLU. Seems to me like a tragic waste of taxpayers money that could be paying the administ^H^H^H^H I mean teachers salaries. But then, real public education would diminish our cheap labor pool...
Anyway, the company I work for is being stiffed for a fairly large some of cash (large enough that I probably won't be getting a much deserved raise out of my now 3 weeks late revue) for some prototypes we built for another company. The situation currently is that if they don't pay up by Friday we get to go over there with a big truck and take stuff.
Now for the advice, sue them. They are obviously in breach of contract and a lawsuit will likely award you some assets. "Assets" doesn't have to mean cash. It can also mean furniture, computers, company cars, basically anything that is owned by the company. If UGO is typical of the.coms I've seen, they have some sweet stuff that could be yours...
‹homer simpson›Mmmm... High res micro-mirror projector...‹/homer simpson›
Lord knows we wouldn't want DEVELOPERS finding the security holes in our OS! That might mean they'd have to be fixed, which would raise developement costs and lengthen time to market!
Besides, everyone knows Linux performs better on POS systems than Windows... oh, you meant Point Of Sale...
We have an HP OfficeJet G55xi at my work that came with a TurboLinux Server Lite CD. I don't know if it actually works since we are an all Windows shop and I don't have enough spare HDD space to make it worthwhile to dual boot:( but I would guess that they wouldn't ship it if it didn't work. Of course I got a CD-RW a couple months ago that shipped with burning software that wouldn't recognize the drive, so it's hard to say sometimes.
As I recall, if your transmitter is under a certain wattage you aren't subject to FCC regulation anyway. I think 50W is the cutoff, though it's been a while so I may not remember clearly. If you're over that, are you really a microbroadcaster?
you would know that Felten intends to fight and that Princeton will back him up. As was mentioned in another reply, there are other parties involved (Xerox would be my guess, but maybe one of the other universities involved) who don't feel that exposure in such a case would be to their benefit. Again, Felten intends to fight, and he's smart enough to pick his battlefield.
...when your design team is lead by engineers instead of marketers. Rumor has it that Intel used to be that way too. I have to say that Intels critical design decisions in the last few years(RAMBUS, P-IVs crippled floating point) have made me somewhat nauseas.
Slashdot Mirror
The reason Mexico is the way it is, is because of the corrupt government regulating businesses and locking out competition unless you can pay them bribe money. This will be our fate due to our current path and law-making and the way the anti-trust laws are made up to be open to interpretation.
You obviously haven't spent much time in Mexico. I agree that the government is corrupt, but it most certainly does not regulate business. At all. That's part of the problem with Mexico. The wealthy keep the poor as poor as possible so that they can continue to pay slave wages and make an obscene profit. Why do you think so many Mexicans are so eager to cross the border and pick lettuce for a dollar an hour? because it's a better opportunity than they can find in Mexico.
The Sherman Act is not about knee-capping established companies, it's about preventing established companies from killing new ones in their infancy. Preserving competition and consumer choice.
Mexico is an example of what happens when there isn't a system in place to punish companies for their abuses.
You are incorrect. The wealthiest 10% controls over 90% of the wealth, and yet pays only about 30% of the taxes (these numbers I got from the presidential debates, and they were verified by several sources). The poorest, of course, pay essentially nothing or get back whatever they pay. That leaves the vast majority of the tax burden to the middle class. Microsoft and Cisco, the two richest corporations in the world, paid no taxes at all last year (from a story that was linked from /. a few months ago). Many of the worlds largest corporations get back more in tax rebates every year than they actually pay (another article link from /. within the last week or so). So, who's really paying for all this stuff? You and I are.
Ahh, now you are getting it :) You have an objection to this? "Whoever created the best product at the best price would dominate." - Bringing a better product to market at a lower cost to the consumers so they have more money in their pockets is only beneficial to all. That is why the industrial revolution created wealth. The value of the individual's work was ultimately worth more in purchasing power. We are all benefiting today because of it.
No, I don't have an objection to this. I think that's how it should be and that's why I have a problem with Microsoft, because I feel that they stifle innovation and choice in the marketplace. That is what anti-trust law is about, maintaining innovation and consumer choice. I'll get back to the Industrial Revolution later.
The industrial revolution did teach us about abuse but everyone is not seeing the truth of it. The abuse was from the government.
The abuse I was talking about was the abuse of the labor force by Industrialists. Government regulation came about because Corporations proved that they couldn't act responsibly on their own.
In some ways you have the right idea, but your timeline is a little screwed up.
The problem with Microsoft is that they have so much money that they can play the attrition game with another company, who may have a better product, and they will win every time, simply because they have more money. Basically, Microsofts ability to compete has nothing to do with the quality of their product (which I think is poor) and there needs to be room for other competition, if only to force Microsoft to put out better products.
I'm afraid I'm pressed for time at the moment, but I have plenty more to say and I will hopefully have time this evening.
First, under true Capitalism there would be no wellfare of any kind. Corporations are the largest benefactors of government wellfare programs. They're called other things, of course, like Subsidies or Tax Credits, but really it's wellfare. Why? Because "what's good for GM is good for America". Under a truely Capitalist system many of the large corporations we have to day would unrecognizable, if they still existed at all.
Second, under true Capitalism there would be no Intellectual Property laws. No patents, trade secrets, copyrights, or trademarks. All of these create artificial monopolies. Whoever created the best product at the best price would dominate.
Unfortunately, Capitalism does not create the greatest amount of wealth for the greatest number of people. Strong regulation was required in order to acheive the standard of living we enjoy today, and that regulation is almost entirely Socialist in nature. The Industrial Revolution was a study in abuse and a fine example of why pure Capitalism doesn't work.
Without the Socialist policies of FDR's New Deal, America would be in the same boat as Mexico is right now: Rampant poverty and incredible polution, all maintained for the benefit of the wealthy minority. Unless you come from a family which has been wealthy for at least 100 years, you enjoy your standard of living because America is NOT Capitalist.
I whole-heartedly disagree here. Society IS only a group of individuals. The whole is only equal to the sum of it's greatest contributers minus the slackers who do not contribute.
There is much more to a society than simply the individuals who make it up. A society has values, mores, and unwritten rules. Certain things are understood in a society, and there is a way things are done. A mere group of individuals can never be as cohesive as a society is, which is why a society is so effective at what it does. That's why I recommend a Sociology class, because I once thought as you do now.
In a society, everyone contributes something, even the "slackers" whos contributions may not readily apparent. What is a slacker, anyway? To my construction-worker dad I'm a slacker because I sit in front of a computer all day. To me, my manager is a slacker because I don't see how he adds value to my companies product. Does he contribute? Sure, he contributes plenty of procedures and requirements that make my job more difficult. Obviously the CEO sees some value in what he does, or he wouldn't still be here.
I also think Bill Gates is a slacker, because I don't think he contributes to the rest of society. I see him taking plenty, but I don't see him giving back. There are plenty that are worse than him, but I'm trying to stay in context.
I appologize for the condesending personal attacks. Your origional post struck me as the standard /. uninformed, semi-coherent, libertarian flame. This one was much better, and I thank you for it.
As soon as I get a few more things working under Linux though, M$ goes in the trash (at home anyway).
Did you actually read my post?
I didn't say anything about taking away anyones ability to make decisions for themselves, I simply proposed that they be held accountable for their actions.
Then you say it is the root of all societal problems. For one that's a load of crap, you yourself say that people blame everything on an untouchable entity. But you missed the one example that truely matters in this case i.e. "big" companies.
This paragraph doesn't make any sense at all, but I will do my best to respond...
I said that lack of personal responsibility is the root of all evil. "I was only following orders" is the appology for all the monsters of our time. 100 years ago people said "the Devil made me do it". Today they say "Society made me do it". We accept that and forget that they still did something wrong.
Our society revolves around dodging blame to the extent that when some one actually says "I did something wrong and I should be punished" they are declared mentally incompetent.
I think that is a problem. I think that when people have no one to blame but themselves that they are less likely to do bad things. I think that when there are consequences, actions are not taken so lightly.
And since you obviously didn't notice, "the corporation" was included in my list of untouchable entities. In this context, "Corporation" is synonymous with "Big Company".
Where do you get off with this statement? It is one of the most hypocritical things I've ever heard/read. Read your statement again and tell me you aren't labeling Microsoft the same way.
Where do I get off with what statement? What exactly is hypocritical about anything that I said? How exactly am I supposedly labeling Microsoft?
I said that Bill Gates was laughing at the Department of Justice saying "Haha, you can't touch me!" He knows that he ordered people to do things that are against the law. He also knows that he won't be personally punished for it. Microsoft may be fined, or even split up, but Billy Gates can't be touched. That's called hiding behind the corporate veil. What I said is that he shouldn't be able to do that, that it should be easier for the DoJ to go after Gates personally for the manner in which he has chosen to run his company.
And communism is not a moral high ground. Capitalism is, it is the only one that gives people the right to make their own decisions and not have someone who is less of a man/woman (intellectually) making decisions for them in the guise of "The Social Good"?? Who is society but a group of individuals that have something to contribute?
It's unfortunate that you have been so brainwashed by McCarthian rhetoric that your critical thinking abilities are impaired. A critical analysis of my sig reveals two assertions:
1) Capitalism promotes exploitation.
2) Communism also promotes exploitation.
In other words, they both suck. Neither of them is a moral high ground, and anyone who says so is an idiot.
It also appears that you have fallen victim to the basic American fallacy; that Capitalism is Democracy. In fact, they are completely seperate (though not mutually exclusive, obviously). One is an economic system and the other is a political system. I'm sorry to tell you that America is neither Capitalist nor Democratic, but is in fact a Corporate Republic. As Naom Chomsky put it, government is the shadow of business over America.
As for lesser beings making decisions in the guise of "The Social Good", how exactly would that be different than the system we have now? Have you forgotten about Congress?
And no, society is not just a group of individuals. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. A mere group of individuals could never accomplish the things that a society is capable of, good or bad.
I suggest you take a class in Political Science. If you already have, you should take another one, as you apparently didn't learn anything the first time. I also recommend classes in Composition and Critical Thinking, as your post is almost totally incoherent. Economics and Sociology wouldn't be a bad idea either.
No, I propose that folks use readers that interpret Unicode appropriately for the language they wish to use, whether that's a browser, an email proggy, or whatever. The articles point was that Unicode won't work because it can't display every single character that anyone ever came up with. My point was that it doesn't have to. My inbox is cluttered with all sorts of spam that says something like &*^%*&%UYGVKNB&^$*^%#^%$FCJUY%^$&^%U^TRU&^%#$^$@#^ %$&YT. Why should a non-english speaker expect otherwise?
Since they have decided that they own all the work you did, then they owe you compensation for it. How about $100 per hour? Sue them for that too.
You could also hit them with lible/slander/defamation since they are ruining your academic career.
And while you're at it, make sure to get the top people at the university personally involved.
My point is, you are not defenseless, especially if it is a public school. Your tuition pays for the resources you were using. Play just as hard with them as they are with you. After all, they are trying to take 4(?) years of your life away from you.
If you can, get other poeple who used/participated in/worked on the site to join you in a class action suit. You can win against a large institution. Recently students at Humboldt State University (in CA) won a several million dollar judgement against the school because they took too long building the new library. Their premise was that they were being denied resources they were paying for.
I hate lawyers, but they have their uses. It's better to think of them as mercenaries you hire to fight for you. Sometimes I think it's unfortunate that the courtroom has replaced the Field of Honor, but that's just the way it is.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-corporate. I think there are very good reasons for corporations to exist. But at the same time I think the root of our societal problems is a lack of personal responsibility. Whenever something bad happens, the guilty always point to some abstract and essentially untouchable entity for blame (i.e. society, bureaucracy, the criminal justice system, the corporation, whatever). If the people who sit on the board of directors are held personally for the abuses of their company, then there won't be any more of the arrogance we saw from Bill Gates in his testimony. He would have something to fear.
In other words, Unicode doesn't need to account for every single character in the world!
But of course, this was posted on the internet, so it MUST be true...
One such company is here. I don't know if they will actually buy the stuff directly from you, but they can certainly tell you who will. And, of course, there's always Ebay...
btw, I bear no ill will to any Linux companies. I wish them all well since they all support the cause. But the failure of a company or two cannot and should not be taken as an indicator of failure for Linux. Linux is not proprietary, so it will continue to grow and evolve even if every last Linux company goes down.
Basically, I think you'll be OK as long as you aren't trying to hire RMS, and I think the majority of OSS folks will appreciate the fact that you made a point to look here first.
Wouldn't that seem to require annonimity for minors accessing the net, regaurdless of who's paying for the terminal?
Anyway, the company I work for is being stiffed for a fairly large some of cash (large enough that I probably won't be getting a much deserved raise out of my now 3 weeks late revue) for some prototypes we built for another company. The situation currently is that if they don't pay up by Friday we get to go over there with a big truck and take stuff.
Now for the advice, sue them. They are obviously in breach of contract and a lawsuit will likely award you some assets. "Assets" doesn't have to mean cash. It can also mean furniture, computers, company cars, basically anything that is owned by the company. If UGO is typical of the .coms I've seen, they have some sweet stuff that could be yours...
‹homer simpson›Mmmm... High res micro-mirror projector...‹/homer simpson›
Besides, everyone knows Linux performs better on POS systems than Windows... oh, you meant Point Of Sale...
Thank you for knowing more than I do and sharing it. I hope more people read your post.
Thank God we have AMD!