The EU is a corporation, similar to Microsoft. It is looking out for its own interests, not the common man.
Microsoft is a large corporation that employs millions of people world wide. If I had to choose being financially raped by one of the two, I would choose Microsoft.
Make a better product and people will use it. The reason why Linux is still not mainstream is that it does not compare to Microsoft on ease of use. Believe it or not, users drive IT, not us geeks.
Linux has made great progress of late in this market, and they are beginning to show some strength, but penalizing Microsoft just gives others an unfair edge.
First of all, I never said anything about fantasies.
Second of all, 100 Mil, though as you say only 0.2% of their cash reserves, is still a rediculous fine. Why should Microsoft pay the EU for existing. Monopoly laws are just a way for governments to control corporations. Do you really think other software companies are going to see a dime of that money?
In fact, there was an exploit in a previous version of MDAC (Microsoft Data Access Components) that was later patched, but someone could exploit patched users by pushing the unpatched MDAC from their web sites. If anyone had selected to always trust Microsoft for downloads, it would be downloaded and installed without ever notifying the user.
To the best of my knowledge, the auto-patch would not download this as it was a "security improvement" not an "urgent repair". The only people who would get affected by this are the ones who manually downloaded it themselves.
Look at us! Time was when visionaries would explore the boundries of biology, chemistry and physics and deal with the consequences later. How can we progress if we are constantly pausing to deal with the fallout from our research rather than pushing forward.
Just look at cloning. There are a million legitemate reasons to continue the research into cloning organs and animals, but people want them to stop because it could pose some moral dilemas.
They did threaten her with charges, though she might have gotten imunity for testifying. It is illegal, that is why whenever you call a bank or something they tell you that the call may be recorded.
Not surprised about this bill at all. You aren't allowed to audio tape someone without prior conscent, why would you be allowed to video tape someone...
This does impact the nanny-cam issue. Far too many bad nannies will get away with beating kids because of this bill if it passes.
As far as the.prn thing, I don't know why people are so against this. If it's porn send it there, it will make it easier for people to find the porn they need, and make it harder for kids to find it.
Fraud is fraud my friend. If Logicon (reseller) fudged numbers to push the sale through, then it may invalidate the contract (IANAL so I'm not 100% sure). Either way, I hope people see now that Microsoft is not the only company out there to make money.
"...a web site devoted to making cookies doesn't really need consitutional protection."
Well, I'm not a big fan of chocolate, so down with the cookie site!!!
"Not true in general. For example the free speech argument routinely trumps privacy rights for newsworthy events and/or people."
I'm talking about constitutional rights. Telling the public about my affairs is not a violation of my constitutional rights, as much as I would like to keep that private. But if it is made up, and people believe it or people might believe it, then it is considered lible, and that is a violation of my rights.
"I thought in the US the defendant was presumed innocent until found guilty by a court of law. You might at least have put an "IMHO" in there."
He admitted to hacking, that makes what he did illegal, and what I wrote very much valid. There is no question that defacing someones web site is against the law...
Amen! Some people are so stubborn that they will continue to be anti-government even when the governement is right. This guy not only gives hackers a bad name, but he and his supporters give those of us who are anti government control on the web no leg to stand on. Why should the government listen to us if we are unreasonable?
Do you seriously think that hacking other people's sites and inciting people to violence is covered under the first amendment? The amendment no longer applies once you start affecting the rights of others. Hacking web sites is illegal since it affects the owners rights. Incitement is illegal since it affects the rights of the victims of the resulting violence.
What this guy did was illegal, whatever you feel about the bomb recipe. You cannot do what he did and blame an oppresive government for noticing. What if your child blew himself or another family member up because they saw this cool bomb recipe on the web? Would you be so pro his first amendment rights then? Would you say he was innocent? How about if he was responsible for killing a family member through incitement, would you not want to see him hang?
I don't think that the government is perfect, far from it in fact. I think that the government tries to go too far in controling web content, but when it comes to something like this, I'm all for it. Be realistic.
Second of all the sole purpose of the name Lindows is to sound like Windows. They are profiting, or attempting to, off of Windows popularity, then it is an infringement.
Now Microsoft is under no obligation to sue everyone who profits off of its' trademarks, but they have every right to sue those that choose to go this path. It is not surprising that Microsoft chose Lindows. If Lindows would have come up with a more generic name, Microsoft would have no case. Microsoft is just making sure that whatever competition they have out there is fair. An unsuspecting user might buy Lindows thinking that it was a Microsoft product, and that makes the competition unfair.
Is this how Lindows wants to make its money? Or do they want to prove to the world that they are a better alternative. If so, then a simple name change will take care of both issues.
This really bugs me. I just saw the moderation of this comment, and it is rediculous. As I understand it, bash Microsoft and its' users and it is not flamebait, but if you dare to comment about the absurdity of a complaint against Microsoft it is flamebait.
Go ahead, moderate as you will, but no matter your feelings about Microsoft, it is not flamebait for someone else to support them.
True, I do assume that the user will use the camera more than ten times, but unlike film cameras, there is no need to constantly purchase film. The film in a digital camera is reusable. Also, a non-digital disposable camera has much better resolution than.3MP.
But you pay $1000 for unlimited usage as opposed to $16 for a certain number of exposures. If you go on a trip with one of these things, how many would you need to take, or how often would you have to replace the camera? I saw some nice 2.1MP cameras for a hundred dollars, and this is a.3MP camera for $16 a use... Do the math:
I don't think that the issue is whether or not people will pay the $16 or what have you for the camera. The issue is whether the company will lose money on people hacking the cameras. Remember, if they can get in to get your pics (even if they encrypt the data), you can get in too. It's only a matter of time before someone figures out how to get the pics out, and/or bypass whatever security measures are in place.
The only way I see this working is if they place a hold on your credit card for the value of the camera. The problem is, most people won't want a $300+ hold on their card just for this.
Besides, at $10 to $20 per use, you could've bought your own unlimited use digital camera after 15 or so uses of which you would probably need 4 or so uses per trip. It just doesn't pay.
An article on TechTV says that the American Red Cross in Greater New York is putting out a call for help from techies. Anyone in the NY/NJ area with spare hardware/software should send them an e-mail. Please refer to the article for a list of needed hardware and software as well as contact information.
Step #1: Stairs are too hard to climb all the time. Step #2: Build escalators and elevators to make life easier. Step #3: Getting too fat because I'm no longer climbing stairs. Step #4: Build stairmaster to exercise. Step #5: Walking is too tiring. Step #6: Build cars. Step #7: Getting too fat because I'm no longer walking. Step #8: Build treadmill to exercise. Step #9: Still getting fat because of my computer (I don't want to leave the house). Step #10: Start jogging every morning for a half hour. Step #11: Too lazy to jog for a half hour. Step #12: Build gas powered shoes to jog same distance, in a shorter period of time. Step #13: Still getting fat because of laziness. Step #14: Diet pills...
I don't think that this is possible to do in the US. I believe that the law states that as long as the content is removed as soon as it's reported, the ISP can't be held liable. I could be wrong though.
Slashdot Mirror
A voice of reason :)
The EU is a corporation, similar to Microsoft. It is looking out for its own interests, not the common man.
Microsoft is a large corporation that employs millions of people world wide. If I had to choose being financially raped by one of the two, I would choose Microsoft.
Make a better product and people will use it. The reason why Linux is still not mainstream is that it does not compare to Microsoft on ease of use. Believe it or not, users drive IT, not us geeks.
Linux has made great progress of late in this market, and they are beginning to show some strength, but penalizing Microsoft just gives others an unfair edge.
First of all, I never said anything about fantasies.
Second of all, 100 Mil, though as you say only 0.2% of their cash reserves, is still a rediculous fine. Why should Microsoft pay the EU for existing. Monopoly laws are just a way for governments to control corporations. Do you really think other software companies are going to see a dime of that money?
There is no way Microsoft pays anything close to that. It is a rediculous sum that stifles innovation.
I have had my share of Microsoft headaches, but the EU has no right to impose such a rediculous fine for questionable acts of enforcing a monopoly.
Sometimes they just make it too easy...
In fact, there was an exploit in a previous version of MDAC (Microsoft Data Access Components) that was later patched, but someone could exploit patched users by pushing the unpatched MDAC from their web sites. If anyone had selected to always trust Microsoft for downloads, it would be downloaded and installed without ever notifying the user.
Hey, it was the ultimate security patch!
:)
If you can't get out, then neither can anyone else, therefore, your network is secure
To the best of my knowledge, the auto-patch would not download this as it was a "security improvement" not an "urgent repair". The only people who would get affected by this are the ones who manually downloaded it themselves.
Look at us! Time was when visionaries would explore the boundries of biology, chemistry and physics and deal with the consequences later. How can we progress if we are constantly pausing to deal with the fallout from our research rather than pushing forward.
Just look at cloning. There are a million legitemate reasons to continue the research into cloning organs and animals, but people want them to stop because it could pose some moral dilemas.
What if you thoght that she was stealing or something like that. This way it would make it easier to get your money back.
They did threaten her with charges, though she might have gotten imunity for testifying. It is illegal, that is why whenever you call a bank or something they tell you that the call may be recorded.
Not surprised about this bill at all. You aren't allowed to audio tape someone without prior conscent, why would you be allowed to video tape someone...
.prn thing, I don't know why people are so against this. If it's porn send it there, it will make it easier for people to find the porn they need, and make it harder for kids to find it.
This does impact the nanny-cam issue. Far too many bad nannies will get away with beating kids because of this bill if it passes.
As far as the
Fraud is fraud my friend. If Logicon (reseller) fudged numbers to push the sale through, then it may invalidate the contract (IANAL so I'm not 100% sure). Either way, I hope people see now that Microsoft is not the only company out there to make money.
Maybe some sort of kinetic batery could be used like in watches...
"...a web site devoted to making cookies doesn't really need consitutional protection."
Well, I'm not a big fan of chocolate, so down with the cookie site!!!
"Not true in general. For example the free speech argument routinely trumps privacy rights for newsworthy events and/or people."
I'm talking about constitutional rights. Telling the public about my affairs is not a violation of my constitutional rights, as much as I would like to keep that private. But if it is made up, and people believe it or people might believe it, then it is considered lible, and that is a violation of my rights.
"I thought in the US the defendant was presumed innocent until found guilty by a court of law. You might at least have put an "IMHO" in there."
He admitted to hacking, that makes what he did illegal, and what I wrote very much valid. There is no question that defacing someones web site is against the law...
Amen! Some people are so stubborn that they will continue to be anti-government even when the governement is right. This guy not only gives hackers a bad name, but he and his supporters give those of us who are anti government control on the web no leg to stand on. Why should the government listen to us if we are unreasonable?
Do you seriously think that hacking other people's sites and inciting people to violence is covered under the first amendment? The amendment no longer applies once you start affecting the rights of others. Hacking web sites is illegal since it affects the owners rights. Incitement is illegal since it affects the rights of the victims of the resulting violence.
What this guy did was illegal, whatever you feel about the bomb recipe. You cannot do what he did and blame an oppresive government for noticing. What if your child blew himself or another family member up because they saw this cool bomb recipe on the web? Would you be so pro his first amendment rights then? Would you say he was innocent? How about if he was responsible for killing a family member through incitement, would you not want to see him hang?
I don't think that the government is perfect, far from it in fact. I think that the government tries to go too far in controling web content, but when it comes to something like this, I'm all for it. Be realistic.
First of all, a Winmodem is not an OS.
Second of all the sole purpose of the name Lindows is to sound like Windows. They are profiting, or attempting to, off of Windows popularity, then it is an infringement.
Now Microsoft is under no obligation to sue everyone who profits off of its' trademarks, but they have every right to sue those that choose to go this path. It is not surprising that Microsoft chose Lindows. If Lindows would have come up with a more generic name, Microsoft would have no case. Microsoft is just making sure that whatever competition they have out there is fair. An unsuspecting user might buy Lindows thinking that it was a Microsoft product, and that makes the competition unfair.
Is this how Lindows wants to make its money? Or do they want to prove to the world that they are a better alternative. If so, then a simple name change will take care of both issues.
Just because it's Microsoft doesn't make it evil.
This really bugs me. I just saw the moderation of this comment, and it is rediculous. As I understand it, bash Microsoft and its' users and it is not flamebait, but if you dare to comment about the absurdity of a complaint against Microsoft it is flamebait.
Go ahead, moderate as you will, but no matter your feelings about Microsoft, it is not flamebait for someone else to support them.
True, I do assume that the user will use the camera more than ten times, but unlike film cameras, there is no need to constantly purchase film. The film in a digital camera is reusable. Also, a non-digital disposable camera has much better resolution than .3MP.
But you pay $1000 for unlimited usage as opposed to $16 for a certain number of exposures. If you go on a trip with one of these things, how many would you need to take, or how often would you have to replace the camera? I saw some nice 2.1MP cameras for a hundred dollars, and this is a .3MP camera for $16 a use... Do the math:
.3
SiPix SC-2100:
Price: $150.00
MP: 2.1
Mem: 8MB Compact Flash
Other:
Price: $16.00/use
MP: =
Mem: = ? (probably 8MB)
If you use your camera more than 10 times, then you have made your money back. On top of that, you get much better image quality at 2.1MP.
I don't think that the issue is whether or not people will pay the $16 or what have you for the camera. The issue is whether the company will lose money on people hacking the cameras. Remember, if they can get in to get your pics (even if they encrypt the data), you can get in too. It's only a matter of time before someone figures out how to get the pics out, and/or bypass whatever security measures are in place.
The only way I see this working is if they place a hold on your credit card for the value of the camera. The problem is, most people won't want a $300+ hold on their card just for this.
Besides, at $10 to $20 per use, you could've bought your own unlimited use digital camera after 15 or so uses of which you would probably need 4 or so uses per trip. It just doesn't pay.
An article on TechTV says that the American Red Cross in Greater New York is putting out a call for help from techies. Anyone in the NY/NJ area with spare hardware/software should send them an e-mail. Please refer to the article for a list of needed hardware and software as well as contact information.
Step #1: Stairs are too hard to climb all the time.
Step #2: Build escalators and elevators to make life easier.
Step #3: Getting too fat because I'm no longer climbing stairs.
Step #4: Build stairmaster to exercise.
Step #5: Walking is too tiring.
Step #6: Build cars.
Step #7: Getting too fat because I'm no longer walking.
Step #8: Build treadmill to exercise.
Step #9: Still getting fat because of my computer (I don't want to leave the house).
Step #10: Start jogging every morning for a half hour.
Step #11: Too lazy to jog for a half hour.
Step #12: Build gas powered shoes to jog same distance, in a shorter period of time.
Step #13: Still getting fat because of laziness.
Step #14: Diet pills...
See where this is going?
I don't think that this is possible to do in the US. I believe that the law states that as long as the content is removed as soon as it's reported, the ISP can't be held liable. I could be wrong though.