So what's your point? The country was named for the continent, not the other way around. Sure, not much will happen to you if you piss off Canada, but be aware that that's what you're doing.
If everybody ignores a law, it is no longer a law.
Only if the authorities ignore the law as well. This does not happen much in modern states, where divisions of power among different branches of government assure that someone always has an interest in maintaining the status quo.
Laches is a defense to patent infringement. Just because Unisys tried to sue to the contrary doesn't mean anything (especially since their claims haven't been answered in court).
Laches also applies to trade secrets, which is surely the angle they're going to take on this, since none of the other forms of IP possibly makes any sense. But of course, if you can reverse engineer it, then it's not a trade secret, but such companies rarely take that for an answer.
Laches is a typical defense to trade-secret violations, as it is for patents and trademarks. Laches is not, however, a defense to copyright violations. It doesn't matter how long a copyright owner waits to prosecute you or anyone else; he always reserves that right. He may sometimes be estopped from prosecuting past infringements, but he nearly always may prosecute future ones. (As always with these things, there are exceptions, like when the delay is especially egregious, but that's the general rule.)
Are you sure it wasn't just an obligatory zealous jab at Microsoft? At least that's the picture when I think of software, gold, and fleecing in the same sentence.
On the other hand, I don't think the Bible says anything about what to do with dead bodies.
That's only because you haven't bothered to read it, it would seem, or else you'd know about large portions devoted to ritual impurity caused by contact with corpses. As a starting point, consider Lev. 12:1 - 15:33.
There are types of patents that the USPTO will categorically deny, like if it's explicitly a perpetual motion machine or a mere force of nature. So, you'd have to narrow it down a little to the really offensive patents and have the focus be on taking an existing and well established idea, taking it to the next logical step with the word "internet", and see whether the USPTO would refuse that.
It was mostly abandoned when QT was released under the QPL, and now it's dead for sure, since its purposes have been realized.
Re:Professional Edition
on
Qt Going GPL
·
· Score: 1
It's becoming positioned as a development environment, and you still need to buy it if you want to deploy QT apps on Windows (for now, until someone ports the free edition) or use QT in proprietary apps.
As long as he doesn't distribute any modifications he makes to have it run on Windows, he isn't violating the GPL. And even then, he could release patches, as long as he doesn't distribute them with the original code. There's no bloody question about it. He could link against his ass if he wanted, as long as he didn't share it with others.
How do you plan to get your data off a "hardened" server via an insecure client without compromising those data? If someone can get access to your device, then he can impersonate you; or if not, then he can just grab the data off your device as you grab them off your server.
The DOJ publishes a handbook for small businesses about minimum wage laws. There do exist exceptions, and if I were with AOL, I'd explore one or more of the following:
Certain types of farm setups are exempt. Perhaps the number of sheep subscribing to AOL could get them certified as a farming operation.
Fishing operations are exempt. With all the trolling of AOLers, ditto.
Casual babysitters and people who care for the infirm are also exempt. See what I'm getting at?
Yes, I read it, and no, what I said and what you said had nothing to do with each other. And I don't think you or the author of that article understands Hawking radiation rather well, because it's not the sort of thing that can happen in "one big blast". It's a rather slow phenomenon, and it's merely kicked around in order to explain away why we're not constantly colliding with microscopic black holes left over from the big bang.
The moment we exhaust the physical limitations of these three dimensions, we'll find a way to use some others. People are more resourceful than you give them credit, especially when there's a buck to be made by it.
It has been done before; you're just looking at the wrong history. The companies that colonized America had just such a setup going. But as those companies found out, governing an entire populace can be a rather risky proposition, and dealing with international affairs is no small matter. It's much easier only to have to worry about producing the goods, and since it's already quite easy to get near-slave wages in countries like Indonesia, there's less incentive than you think. And your "measly 10 or 20 million [dollars]" figure is a far cry from what the average Saddam Hussein makes in a month, so why would he be interested? Countries that are susceptible to this sort of corruption are already dominated by ther own home-brewed 'corporation' (party).
(Note that none of this applies here, since California is only trying to tax online sales made within that state.)
Once upon a time, it was unconstitutional for any state to tax goods imported from other states. The landmark decision Brown v. Maryland (1827) declared that as long as they remained in their original packages, imported goods could not be taxed; only when they became mixed with the general property of the state could the state tax them like domestic goods. To do otherwise was contrary to Article I, section 9 of the constitution ("No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State").
This state of affairs changed, however, when the supreme court handed down Woodruff v. Parham (1869, which held that only discriminatory taxes violated that clause. If the state uniformly taxes all sales in the same manner without regard to whether they're interstate sales or domestic ones, everything's kosher. It would seem to violate the words of that article, but it would also seem to be better in the spirit of Federalism that as long as states aren't discriminating against each other, ther's no controversy.
The US DOJ has drafted a report opposing the merger of Great Britain, France, Germany, etc. on the grounds that the new government would be too powerful.
It's that little smiley face in the upper right corner of the browser window. It smiles when a webpage is well formed and fully standards compliant, and it frowns for the vast majority of the web which isn't. If you go to their partial list of pages with a smile, you'll find that slashdot isn't listed. And with good reason: "Altogether 1765 errors found. Only 25 errors are listed below", is the first line of its status report.
I'm not sure where they got the "slow" part. I've personally found it's much faster than Netscape ever was, especially since you don't have to wait for images to load for you to see the text/links, and you don't have to reload the whole damn page every time you resize the window.
Slashdot Mirror
So what's your point? The country was named for the continent, not the other way around. Sure, not much will happen to you if you piss off Canada, but be aware that that's what you're doing.
The Toronto Bluejays won the World Series two years in a row, a few years back. You're not suggesting that Toronto is somehow American, are you?
If everybody ignores a law, it is no longer a law.
Only if the authorities ignore the law as well. This does not happen much in modern states, where divisions of power among different branches of government assure that someone always has an interest in maintaining the status quo.
Laches is a defense to patent infringement. Just because Unisys tried to sue to the contrary doesn't mean anything (especially since their claims haven't been answered in court).
Laches also applies to trade secrets, which is surely the angle they're going to take on this, since none of the other forms of IP possibly makes any sense. But of course, if you can reverse engineer it, then it's not a trade secret, but such companies rarely take that for an answer.
Laches is a typical defense to trade-secret violations, as it is for patents and trademarks. Laches is not, however, a defense to copyright violations. It doesn't matter how long a copyright owner waits to prosecute you or anyone else; he always reserves that right. He may sometimes be estopped from prosecuting past infringements, but he nearly always may prosecute future ones. (As always with these things, there are exceptions, like when the delay is especially egregious, but that's the general rule.)
Are you sure it wasn't just an obligatory zealous jab at Microsoft? At least that's the picture when I think of software, gold, and fleecing in the same sentence.
On the other hand, I don't think the Bible says anything about what to do with dead bodies.
That's only because you haven't bothered to read it, it would seem, or else you'd know about large portions devoted to ritual impurity caused by contact with corpses. As a starting point, consider Lev. 12:1 - 15:33.
There are types of patents that the USPTO will categorically deny, like if it's explicitly a perpetual motion machine or a mere force of nature. So, you'd have to narrow it down a little to the really offensive patents and have the focus be on taking an existing and well established idea, taking it to the next logical step with the word "internet", and see whether the USPTO would refuse that.
It was mostly abandoned when QT was released under the QPL, and now it's dead for sure, since its purposes have been realized.
It's becoming positioned as a development environment, and you still need to buy it if you want to deploy QT apps on Windows (for now, until someone ports the free edition) or use QT in proprietary apps.
As long as he doesn't distribute any modifications he makes to have it run on Windows, he isn't violating the GPL. And even then, he could release patches, as long as he doesn't distribute them with the original code. There's no bloody question about it. He could link against his ass if he wanted, as long as he didn't share it with others.
From the perl 6 roadmap, it looks like it'll be around this time next year. But those last couple bullets are just big "????"s.
How do you plan to get your data off a "hardened" server via an insecure client without compromising those data? If someone can get access to your device, then he can impersonate you; or if not, then he can just grab the data off your device as you grab them off your server.
Certain types of farm setups are exempt. Perhaps the number of sheep subscribing to AOL could get them certified as a farming operation.
Fishing operations are exempt. With all the trolling of AOLers, ditto.
Casual babysitters and people who care for the infirm are also exempt. See what I'm getting at?
It's not the Spaniards that ICANN is catering to. It's those Uruguayans.
Yes, I read it, and no, what I said and what you said had nothing to do with each other. And I don't think you or the author of that article understands Hawking radiation rather well, because it's not the sort of thing that can happen in "one big blast". It's a rather slow phenomenon, and it's merely kicked around in order to explain away why we're not constantly colliding with microscopic black holes left over from the big bang.
The moment we exhaust the physical limitations of these three dimensions, we'll find a way to use some others. People are more resourceful than you give them credit, especially when there's a buck to be made by it.
It has been done before; you're just looking at the wrong history. The companies that colonized America had just such a setup going. But as those companies found out, governing an entire populace can be a rather risky proposition, and dealing with international affairs is no small matter. It's much easier only to have to worry about producing the goods, and since it's already quite easy to get near-slave wages in countries like Indonesia, there's less incentive than you think. And your "measly 10 or 20 million [dollars]" figure is a far cry from what the average Saddam Hussein makes in a month, so why would he be interested? Countries that are susceptible to this sort of corruption are already dominated by ther own home-brewed 'corporation' (party).
(Note that none of this applies here, since California is only trying to tax online sales made within that state.)
Once upon a time, it was unconstitutional for any state to tax goods imported from other states. The landmark decision Brown v. Maryland (1827) declared that as long as they remained in their original packages, imported goods could not be taxed; only when they became mixed with the general property of the state could the state tax them like domestic goods. To do otherwise was contrary to Article I, section 9 of the constitution ("No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State").
This state of affairs changed, however, when the supreme court handed down Woodruff v. Parham (1869, which held that only discriminatory taxes violated that clause. If the state uniformly taxes all sales in the same manner without regard to whether they're interstate sales or domestic ones, everything's kosher. It would seem to violate the words of that article, but it would also seem to be better in the spirit of Federalism that as long as states aren't discriminating against each other, ther's no controversy.
True, but even the front page of slashdot has a hundred errors, mostly due to not placing href tags in quotes.
The US DOJ has drafted a report opposing the merger of Great Britain, France, Germany, etc. on the grounds that the new government would be too powerful.
It's that little smiley face in the upper right corner of the browser window. It smiles when a webpage is well formed and fully standards compliant, and it frowns for the vast majority of the web which isn't. If you go to their partial list of pages with a smile, you'll find that slashdot isn't listed. And with good reason: "Altogether 1765 errors found. Only 25 errors are listed below", is the first line of its status report.
I'm not sure where they got the "slow" part. I've personally found it's much faster than Netscape ever was, especially since you don't have to wait for images to load for you to see the text/links, and you don't have to reload the whole damn page every time you resize the window.
Mostly, CNet is full of crap, as usual.