So why do Australia's biggest companies campaign so strongly against it?
Having the ability to deny companies that want to merge with or buy out each other doesn't seem to correlate with having very little power.
Only a month ago, they refused to allow Qantas and Air New Zealand to merge. Today they won in the high court against Visy Paper for anti-competitive practices.
As another poster remarked, though, it's a bit annoying to read a review that does not include snips of key points and some analysis. This is endemic in/. reviews. Reviewers, please go look at the form of articles in the Sunday Book Review and follow it!
This masterful review has "snips" of key points for example.
When talking about actions, or things of that sort, "the US" is the country - and hence government.
The people are "Americans".
The distinction is already made.
Of course you could also argue that in a democracy the government represents the people and hence the distinction isn't important. I don't agree with that argument though.
Yes, but September 11 generated an amazing amount of goodwill towards the US. Not from the Middle East (and parts of Africa and Asia) but from Europe and from countries the US hadn't screwed with much more than economically.
That is almost all gone now.
Europeans have not only lost the goodwill they had, but ended up with more "hate" then they had prior to those events.
What rubbish. I live in Sydney - a city FULL of whites, asians, blacks, you name it. All living in relative harmony. My girlfriend is asian, I'm white. It's an awful myth that Australia is somehow racist.
It really isn't a myth. I also happen to live in Sydney. I also happen to be white (and my family tree goes back to the first fleet). I happen to be married to an Iranian.
Australia has gotten more tolerant of Asians in the last 20 years. Jump back to the "Asians arebuying all of Australia" idiocy and it wasn't so good. Instead of Asians, currently it's the Middle Easterners who bear the brunt of Australia's reasonably famous intolerance. Those who are muslim get treated like terorists. Those who are male and young are assumed to be planning to rape the white women.
Did you somehow miss the whole Lebanese gangs paranioa recently...
On the surface Australia seems fine and dandy, but the racism quickly shows itself whenever the surface is scratched by some event.
Many Australians are not rascist, many Australians are reasonable and tolerant. The closer you are to the city (in Sydney anyway) the better it gets. But step out of the city and things deteriorate.
And maybe you shouldn't assume that everyone else in the country shares your personal mindset about the general shitness of everything in the world everywhere.
Maybe you should stop assigning your interpretations onto other people. I made no such assumption. I stated my opinion. You don't have to agree with it.
"While at first blush this detour in the user's Web search seems like a siphon-off of a business opportunity, the fact is that the computer user consented to this detour when the user downloaded WhenU's computer software from the Internet," Lee said.
That sounds like a good ruling to me.
Since it certainly means that the user can consent to software which blocks ads on certain web sites without the web site owners being able to claim the user's are "stealing"
If it was my fault, why would I *want* a successful defense? If it was my fault, and I knew it, it would be wrong to lie about for several reasons. First, because dishonesty is wrong. Second, because my lie is going to force the police, the courts, the prosecutor (if applicable, generally not), and the attorneys for both insurance companies to expend time and money (which ultimately comes out of *everyone's* pockets) to determine the truth. All because I wanted to skate out of my legitimate legal and moral responsibility. Third, if I actually got away with it I'd just end up feeling guilty and what's the point in that?
*Not* saying "It was my fault" is different from saying "It was not my fault".
You might want to check your insurance policy, the ones over here tend to state that you must not admit fault - doing so can leave you uncovered for the incident.
You don't lie about things, you just don't admit fault.
"I ran into him while he was stopped at lights." is fine. "It was my fault, I ran into him while he was stopped" is not.
Be a man! If you caused it, face the music, tell your insurance company they have to cough up the cash, and then deal with the higher insurance premiums for the next few years.
Admitting fault may lead to you insurance company refusing to cough up the cash... Better to let them handle all that crap - after all they're the ones with all the experience and statisticians...
Exactly how does me buying MORE music justify me also paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in civil fees and being placed in jail with murders?! Either I'm crazy or the law needs to be changed.
Because you don't get to decide how the copyright holders (or their agents) distribute and copy their material. You don't get to choose how they market it.
Is it also OK for you to take say gcc, make some changes to the code, violate the GPL by selling the resulting binaries without providing source or even acknowledging the existance of the GPL code in the product? What if you manage to sell it for $10 million and give $9 million of it to the FSF?
The RIAA doesn't want you to violate their copyright. Just because doing so results in them making more money doesn't mean you can ignore their rights.
I don't want people distributing some of my copyrighted material under conditions that they make up - even if by doing so they would increase my income. I don't find it strange or unusual that the RIAA feels the same way.
And the RIAA clearly believes they will make more money without lots of file sharing going on, then they will with it. Otherwise they wouldn't be trying so hard to shut it down.
Or maybe they view control as more important than money. In which case why do you think you should be allowed to reduce the thing they want (control) and justify it by increasing the thing they want less (money). It's their copyright, they get to use it (within the limits provided by copyright law) to achieve their goals - they don't have to worry about what you think is best.
No I wouldn't. And neither did the woman involved in the McDonalds case.
The bulk of the award was punitive damages. Awarded because numerous people had been burnt in the past and McDonalds had refused to change their practices and stated they would not in the future.
Personally I think punitive damages are a stupid system. But that's the system that exists and that's the way it works.
If the coffee was inadvertantly made too hot then there would be such damages - it would be an accident and accidents happen (well I guess in America there would still be a case, since apparently accidents don't happen over there - it's always someone's fault).
Coffee is not supposed to be "HOT HOT HOT". Unless you want that bitter burnt flavour, instead of wonderful coffee goodness.
Anything over about 95C (203F) is far too hot and will be burnt and only worthy of being tipped down the drain.
Now 95C is "HOT HOT HOT" in my book, but that's the temperature of the water at the time of contact with the coffee. And more importantly is for espresso. The oils that give coffee its taste boil off if the temperature is kept too high. The temperature will be lower than 95C when it finally reaches your mouth.
If you like crappy tasting, bitter, burnt coffee then lucky you - you can probably drink the garbage they sell at most places and don't have to hunt down good coffee. I however, like coffee to taste like coffee.
Do you think she would have cared what temperature the coffee was at when she did this?
Yes.
If the sign had said "Warning: Coffee causes third degree burns" do you think she would have acted differently?
Yes. Though that would still be stupid, a cup which has enough structural rigidity to not collapse without the lid would be a better solution.
Assuming she's mentally stable she doesn't go around her daily life deciding whether to do things or not based on how bad a burn she gets ("Gee, I should touch the hot stove, I only get a second degree burn this way!") so why was this important for her coffee?
That's exactly what everyone does.
I don't put on safety gloves when I get a can of coke from a vending machine. I assume it will be cold but not so cold as to hurt me. If the vending machine operator decided that keeping the cans in liquid nitrogen made them last longer I would expect some warning about the unexpected temperature the cans would be.
When I buy a coffee I expect it to be reasonably hot and I take suitable care. I don't tip it over my head, for example. However, I don't put on safety gear before buying my morning coffee. I don't make sure everybody around me keeps at least a meter away. Since I know if someone bumps into me and my coffee splashes onto my chest it won't do serious damage - it'll just wet my shirt. If the coffee vendor decided that the coffee would be better if it was acidic enough to eat through clothing and skin, then I would expect some warning - and I would take more precautions...
When I buy a slice of pizza I don't test the temperature with a thermometer. I assume it is at a suitable temperature for eating, though the first bite might be a bit careful in case the cheese is too hot. I assume it isn't hot enough to burn my hand through the plate as I hold it though.
Everyone I see does numerous things everyday that are slightly risky because the potential damage is small enough to not be worth taking more care.
If the potential damage of those actions suddenly increased they would want some warning.
I've spilt coffee on myself before. All it did was make my clothes a bit wet. I've never spilt any potent acids on myself (even though I used them way back when I was doing chem. eng.). I must have been more careful with the acid than with the coffee. I did exactly what you seem to think is abnormal. I figured wearing safety gear and being very precise about my movements wasn't necessary when I was carrying the cup of coffee down the hall, because the damage it could do (making me wet) wasn't worth the hassle.
Then again, maybe you walk around in a plastic bubble (after all you could catch a virus and die - that's a pretty serious thing) and handle your hot coffee and cold coke with tongs.
I just find it strange that you would introduce the term "IT Industry" in order to argue that there was no IT Industry at the time and label the OP a fruitcake.
Especially since the OP used the term "IT people."
The claim was that being employeed by microsoft research would be the last thing you would do if you wanted to advance the state of the art.
Getting sponsorship seems like exactly what you would do. Partial sponsorship is even better, since then you can gobble up resources from multiple places to do your work - and hopefully collaborate with more people.
People who want to advance the state of art tend to not produce "competing products" anyway - it takes a while for the work to trickle down to the mainstream, by which time the researchers have moved on to something more interesting (and hopefully loaded up with cash by selling the old stuff).
Slashdot Mirror
The important thing is to remember that the power is in the law and not just the ACCC
The distinction is meaningless in the real world.
We say "police powers" not "the power of the law exercised by the police", for example.
Obviously the power of any such institution is derived from the law - corporations don't do what you ask them to just because you say please.
So why do Australia's biggest companies campaign so strongly against it?
Having the ability to deny companies that want to merge with or buy out each other doesn't seem to correlate with having very little power.
Only a month ago, they refused to allow Qantas and Air New Zealand to merge. Today they won in the high court against Visy Paper for anti-competitive practices.
As another poster remarked, though, it's a bit annoying to read a review that does not include snips of key points and some analysis. This is endemic in /. reviews. Reviewers, please go look at the form of articles in the Sunday Book Review and follow it!
This masterful review has "snips" of key points for example.
In Australia having a law degree is a prerequisite of becoming a comedian, and hence the topic is of great utility to those who think they are funny.
Never underestimate the ability of idiots to ignore instructions.
Which one of the three options given for location: "US address", "city & state", and "zip", does "Redmond" fit into?
RTFM
What about the water from the 20 mile long lake that drained into the sea.
Of course "drop in a bucket" springs to mind...
Yes, but that isn't what was used in the post I was replying to.
When talking about actions, or things of that sort, "the US" is the country - and hence government.
The people are "Americans".
The distinction is already made.
Of course you could also argue that in a democracy the government represents the people and hence the distinction isn't important. I don't agree with that argument though.
I did use quotes around "hate". Since I didn't think it was the correct term, but it was the term used prior to my post so I stuck with it.
Yes, but September 11 generated an amazing amount of goodwill towards the US. Not from the Middle East (and parts of Africa and Asia) but from Europe and from countries the US hadn't screwed with much more than economically.
That is almost all gone now.
Europeans have not only lost the goodwill they had, but ended up with more "hate" then they had prior to those events.
The mentioned code was a *joke*. I don't think which of the half a dozen or more forms of main() was the point.
You declared:
Hint: Linux is a kernel, not a program.
The kernel source contains a file containing nothing but:
int main(void)
{
return 0;
}
Which indicates your understanding of the inclusion of constructs like main() in kernel source is less than perfect.
An intelligent person might joke that ANSI isn't covered, since SCO's IP is all K&R, but of course you aren't and you didn't...
Does it takes lots of efforts to be that stupid?
.c:int main(int argc,char **argv) :int main(int argc, char **argv) .c:int main(void) /dummy.c:int main(void) .c:int main(int argc, char **argv) :int main(int argc, char **argv)
$ find linux-2.6.0-test5 -name '*.c' | xargs grep '^int main('
linux-2.6.0-test5/drivers/scsi/aic7xxx/aic asm/aica sm.c:int main(int argc, char *argv[]);
linux-2.6.0-test5/drivers/atm/fore200e_ mkfirm.c:in t main(int argc, char** argv)
linux-2.6.0-test5/arch/i386/boot98/tools/bu ild.c:i nt main(int argc, char ** argv)
linux-2.6.0-test5/arch/i386/boot/tools/buil d.c:int main(int argc, char ** argv)
linux-2.6.0-test5/arch/sparc/boot/piggyback
linux-2.6.0-test5/arch/sparc/boot/btfixup prep.c:in t main(int argc,char **argv)
linux-2.6.0-test5/arch/sparc64/boot/piggy back.c:in t main(int argc,char **argv)
linux-2.6.0-test5/arch/um/kernel/skas/uti l/mk_ptre gs.c:int main(int argc, char **argv)
linux-2.6.0-test5/arch/um/sys-i386/util/m k_thread_ kern.c:int main(int argc, char **argv)
linux-2.6.0-test5/arch/um/sys-i386/util/m k_sc.c:in t main(int argc, char **argv)
linux-2.6.0-test5/arch/um/util/mk_constan ts_kern.c
linux-2.6.0-test5/arch/um/util/mk_task_ke rn.c:int main(int argc, char **argv)
linux-2.6.0-test5/arch/um/main.c:int main(int argc, char **argv, char **envp)
linux-2.6.0-test5/arch/mips/boot/elf2ecof f.c:int main(int argc, char *argv[])
linux-2.6.0-test5/arch/cris/arch-v10/ker nel/asm-of fsets.c:int main(void)
linux-2.6.0-test5/arch/cris/arch-v10/b oot/tools/bu ild.c:int main(int argc, char ** argv)
linux-2.6.0-test5/arch/m68knommu/kernel/asm -offset s.c:int main(void)
linux-2.6.0-test5/arch/arm26/boot/comp ressed/misc. c:int main()
linux-2.6.0-test5/arch/arm26/kernel/asm-of fsets.c: int main(void)
linux-2.6.0-test5/arch/m68k/kernel/m68 k_defs.c:int main(void)
linux-2.6.0-test5/arch/m68k/tools/amig a/dmesg.c:in t main(int argc, char *argv[])
linux-2.6.0-test5/arch/ppc/boot/prep/dum my.c:int main(void)
linux-2.6.0-test5/arch/ppc/boot/openfi rmware/dummy
linux-2.6.0-test5/arch/ppc/boot/simple
linux-2.6.0-test5/arch/ppc/boot/utils/ addSystemMap
linux-2.6.0-test5/arch/ppc/boot/utils/add RamDisk.c
linux-2.6.0-test5/arch/ppc/boot/utils/mkb ugboot.c: int main(int argc, char *argv[])
linux-2.6.0-test5/arch/ppc/boot/utils/mk prep.c:int main(int argc, char *argv[])
linux-2.6.0-test5/arch/ppc/boot/utils/mk tree.c:int main(int argc, char *argv[])
linux-2.6.0-test5/arch/ppc/boot/utils/ad dnote.c:in t main(int ac, char **av)
linux-2.6.0-test5/arch/ppc/boot/utils/mknot e.c:int main(void)
linux-2.6.0-test5/arch/ppc/kernel/find _name.c:int main(int argc, char **argv)
linux-2.6.0-test5/arch/ppc64/kernel/asm-o ffsets.c: int main(void)
linux-2.6.0-test5/arch/ppc64/boot/pigg yback.c:int main(int argc, char *argv[])
linux-2.6.0-test5/arch/ppc64/boot/addSys temMap.c:i nt main(int argc, char **argv)
linux-2.6.0-test5/arch/ppc64/boot/addRamD isk.c:int main(int argc, char **argv)
linux-2.6.0-test5/arch/ppc64/boot/mknote. c:int main(void)
linux-2.6.0-test5/arch/arm/kernel/asm- offsets.c:in t main(void)
linux-2.6.0-test5/arch/arm/boot/compre ssed/misc.c: int main()
linux-2.6.0-test5/arch/parisc/kernel/asm-o ffsets.c
Ahh, see, I think you're confusing the terms "Australia" and "Western World".
No I'm not. Australia being part of the Western World shares a lot in common with other members.
Australia does it better than most. We've had lots of recent practice.
What rubbish. I live in Sydney - a city FULL of whites, asians, blacks, you name it. All living in relative harmony. My girlfriend is asian, I'm white. It's an awful myth that Australia is somehow racist.
It really isn't a myth. I also happen to live in Sydney. I also happen to be white (and my family tree goes back to the first fleet). I happen to be married to an Iranian.
Australia has gotten more tolerant of Asians in the last 20 years. Jump back to the "Asians arebuying all of Australia" idiocy and it wasn't so good. Instead of Asians, currently it's the Middle Easterners who bear the brunt of Australia's reasonably famous intolerance. Those who are muslim get treated like terorists. Those who are male and young are assumed to be planning to rape the white women.
Did you somehow miss the whole Lebanese gangs paranioa recently...
On the surface Australia seems fine and dandy, but the racism quickly shows itself whenever the surface is scratched by some event.
Many Australians are not rascist, many Australians are reasonable and tolerant. The closer you are to the city (in Sydney anyway) the better it gets. But step out of the city and things deteriorate.
And maybe you shouldn't assume that everyone else in the country shares your personal mindset about the general shitness of everything in the world everywhere.
Maybe you should stop assigning your interpretations onto other people. I made no such assumption. I stated my opinion. You don't have to agree with it.
it is a great place to live
Unless you are non-white in which case it's an awful place to live.
"While at first blush this detour in the user's Web search seems like a siphon-off of a business opportunity, the fact is that the computer user consented to this detour when the user downloaded WhenU's computer software from the Internet," Lee said.
That sounds like a good ruling to me.
Since it certainly means that the user can consent to software which blocks ads on certain web sites without the web site owners being able to claim the user's are "stealing"
If it was my fault, why would I *want* a successful defense? If it was my fault, and I knew it, it would be wrong to lie about for several reasons. First, because dishonesty is wrong. Second, because my lie is going to force the police, the courts, the prosecutor (if applicable, generally not), and the attorneys for both insurance companies to expend time and money (which ultimately comes out of *everyone's* pockets) to determine the truth. All because I wanted to skate out of my legitimate legal and moral responsibility. Third, if I actually got away with it I'd just end up feeling guilty and what's the point in that?
*Not* saying "It was my fault" is different from saying "It was not my fault".
You might want to check your insurance policy, the ones over here tend to state that you must not admit fault - doing so can leave you uncovered for the incident.
You don't lie about things, you just don't admit fault.
"I ran into him while he was stopped at lights." is fine. "It was my fault, I ran into him while he was stopped" is not.
Be a man! If you caused it, face the music, tell your insurance company they have to cough up the cash, and then deal with the higher insurance premiums for the next few years.
Admitting fault may lead to you insurance company refusing to cough up the cash... Better to let them handle all that crap - after all they're the ones with all the experience and statisticians...
Exactly how does me buying MORE music justify me also paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in civil fees and being placed in jail with murders?! Either I'm crazy or the law needs to be changed.
Because you don't get to decide how the copyright holders (or their agents) distribute and copy their material. You don't get to choose how they market it.
Is it also OK for you to take say gcc, make some changes to the code, violate the GPL by selling the resulting binaries without providing source or even acknowledging the existance of the GPL code in the product? What if you manage to sell it for $10 million and give $9 million of it to the FSF?
The RIAA doesn't want you to violate their copyright. Just because doing so results in them making more money doesn't mean you can ignore their rights.
I don't want people distributing some of my copyrighted material under conditions that they make up - even if by doing so they would increase my income. I don't find it strange or unusual that the RIAA feels the same way.
And the RIAA clearly believes they will make more money without lots of file sharing going on, then they will with it. Otherwise they wouldn't be trying so hard to shut it down.
Or maybe they view control as more important than money. In which case why do you think you should be allowed to reduce the thing they want (control) and justify it by increasing the thing they want less (money). It's their copyright, they get to use it (within the limits provided by copyright law) to achieve their goals - they don't have to worry about what you think is best.
No I wouldn't. And neither did the woman involved in the McDonalds case.
The bulk of the award was punitive damages. Awarded because numerous people had been burnt in the past and McDonalds had refused to change their practices and stated they would not in the future.
Personally I think punitive damages are a stupid system. But that's the system that exists and that's the way it works.
If the coffee was inadvertantly made too hot then there would be such damages - it would be an accident and accidents happen (well I guess in America there would still be a case, since apparently accidents don't happen over there - it's always someone's fault).
Actually I drink a reasonable amount of coffee.
Coffee is not supposed to be "HOT HOT HOT". Unless you want that bitter burnt flavour, instead of wonderful coffee goodness.
Anything over about 95C (203F) is far too hot and will be burnt and only worthy of being tipped down the drain.
Now 95C is "HOT HOT HOT" in my book, but that's the temperature of the water at the time of contact with the coffee. And more importantly is for espresso. The oils that give coffee its taste boil off if the temperature is kept too high. The temperature will be lower than 95C when it finally reaches your mouth.
If you like crappy tasting, bitter, burnt coffee then lucky you - you can probably drink the garbage they sell at most places and don't have to hunt down good coffee. I however, like coffee to taste like coffee.
Do you think she would have cared what temperature the coffee was at when she did this?
Yes.
If the sign had said "Warning: Coffee causes third degree burns" do you think she would have acted differently?
Yes. Though that would still be stupid, a cup which has enough structural rigidity to not collapse without the lid would be a better solution.
Assuming she's mentally stable she doesn't go around her daily life deciding whether to do things or not based on how bad a burn she gets ("Gee, I should touch the hot stove, I only get a second degree burn this way!") so why was this important for her coffee?
That's exactly what everyone does.
I don't put on safety gloves when I get a can of coke from a vending machine. I assume it will be cold but not so cold as to hurt me. If the vending machine operator decided that keeping the cans in liquid nitrogen made them last longer I would expect some warning about the unexpected temperature the cans would be.
When I buy a coffee I expect it to be reasonably hot and I take suitable care. I don't tip it over my head, for example. However, I don't put on safety gear before buying my morning coffee. I don't make sure everybody around me keeps at least a meter away. Since I know if someone bumps into me and my coffee splashes onto my chest it won't do serious damage - it'll just wet my shirt. If the coffee vendor decided that the coffee would be better if it was acidic enough to eat through clothing and skin, then I would expect some warning - and I would take more precautions...
When I buy a slice of pizza I don't test the temperature with a thermometer. I assume it is at a suitable temperature for eating, though the first bite might be a bit careful in case the cheese is too hot. I assume it isn't hot enough to burn my hand through the plate as I hold it though.
Everyone I see does numerous things everyday that are slightly risky because the potential damage is small enough to not be worth taking more care.
If the potential damage of those actions suddenly increased they would want some warning.
I've spilt coffee on myself before. All it did was make my clothes a bit wet. I've never spilt any potent acids on myself (even though I used them way back when I was doing chem. eng.). I must have been more careful with the acid than with the coffee. I did exactly what you seem to think is abnormal. I figured wearing safety gear and being very precise about my movements wasn't necessary when I was carrying the cup of coffee down the hall, because the damage it could do (making me wet) wasn't worth the hassle.
Then again, maybe you walk around in a plastic bubble (after all you could catch a virus and die - that's a pretty serious thing) and handle your hot coffee and cold coke with tongs.
Just use mh (or more likely nmh) and emails are files and hardlinks work just fine for putting an email in multiple folders.
And get an actually usable mail handling system as well...
I just find it strange that you would introduce the term "IT Industry" in order to argue that there was no IT Industry at the time and label the OP a fruitcake.
Especially since the OP used the term "IT people."
You introduced the "industry" word.
Do you often pretend people said something they didn't so that you can disagree with them? You must be great to be around.
So what.
The claim was that being employeed by microsoft research would be the last thing you would do if you wanted to advance the state of the art.
Getting sponsorship seems like exactly what you would do. Partial sponsorship is even better, since then you can gobble up resources from multiple places to do your work - and hopefully collaborate with more people.
People who want to advance the state of art tend to not produce "competing products" anyway - it takes a while for the work to trickle down to the mainstream, by which time the researchers have moved on to something more interesting (and hopefully loaded up with cash by selling the old stuff).