Ok...While I don't think anyone is a stupid fsck, I would like to point out, as the original post does, that the pertinent contents of the Windows98 cd (drivers, installation files, etc.) can be found in "c:\windows\options\cabs" on most OEM installations. If they are not there, someone likely removed them to "save space". In todays world, I don't think it is too much to ask to use 100 MB of HDD space.
Anyway, I hope that helps your Grandma next time. Also, if she owns a copy of the software, fair use (regardless of DMCA, RIAA, MPAA) AND her license (go ahead...read it) allow her to maintain a copy of the software for backup purposes. So getting the CD from a friend, as long as you have your own valid reg key and License is perfectly okie dokey.
If you don't use napster now, but you don't like what's going on, you can help.
D/L Napster and install on a machine you don't use (or one that can handle the increased net trafic) and then grab RMS singing from here
work magic (to convert to MP3...some pls post if there is a way to do this) and rename the file numerous times to the name of various copyrighted works. Do this as many times as you can (don't we all have a couple of 2 gig drives lying around?)
That way...if the use this search, their results will be skewed. No I realize that there are some problems with this for the intelligent, but I figure if the rest of the ppl suing napster are half as clueless as Lars proved he was, then we're home free.
Blow it out your ass. (-1 Flaimbait...*wave byebye to Karma*).
This level of integrity is rarely seen in a public forum, and even far less in geekdom. I applaud their honesty and rapid and directed response to community input.
True integrity and responsibility is NOT always getting it right the first time, but making sure to quickly and decisively fix it WHEN you get it wrong.
This issue NEEDS to be resolved in court. Whether or not Andover has the balls and $$$ to do this, I don't know. They might lose; but the precedent is important.
There are a number of issues at stake that I see, and none of them has an easy answer.
Let's begin with the issue of "Free Speech".
It would seem that the claims of censorship are a bit misguided. What is actually occuring is the protection of intellectual property. Now I REALIZE that a number of the posts listed in the MS e-mail seem to have nothing to do with any legitimate claim, which did puzzle me, but hear me out.
Microsoft, in what I believe was an effort to stiffle work on projects like SAMBA, released a document they claim is a "trade secret" which one must aggree to a boiler plate license in order to view. While this is underhanded, it's legal. This license included a stipulation that the licensee must make an attempt to protect the information at least as well as MS has. Clearly, this was not done by a number of folx, as the document was posted as a comment by a number of people.
Now, you say, they didn't aggree to the boiler-plate license, so they are not bound by it. And in fact, you are correct. They are not bound by it's restrictions, but NEITHER are the entitled to the privilidges that license allows them, which in this case, is the right to possess and read the document. Now, NO PERSON is entitled to the copyrighted material of Microsoft without a license. If you do not aggree to the license they provide, you are not legally entitled to read the document. So now we have a problem. If someone illegaly posts a document (without said license) and I read it, am I in violation of the law? I never new the license existed, and am therefore not bound by it, but am I entitled to its priviledges? I dunno.
Back to my original point about protecting intellectual property. As has been discussed on/. many times, one must protect their intellectual property and attempt to enforce any restrictions so that they may continue to enjoy protection by the law. When it was Linus, many were ready to jump to his defense. Remember, the law protects the IP of the moral and ammoral alike. I suspect, that if Microsoft were to let this go by the wayside, it could be later used in court to defend use of the specifications by SAMBA developers or others when creating compatible products. "Your honor, the plantiff allowed this document to be published widely on the WWW without ever attmepting to limit its distrobution; Even its distrobution without their EULA." There have been cases in which a failure to protect IP in this manner have resulted in the loss of the right to continue to protect it.
I sincerely believe that this is Microsoft's intent. I don't like their products or their tactics any more than the next guy, but this is getting out of hand. We all have personal biases about what is "Good(TM)" and what is "Bad(TM)". The law, however, has a different view. Legally, an attempt to circumvent an MS EULA is equivalent to an attempt to circumvent the GPL. The difference is that here at Slashdot the GPL is "Good(TM)" and MS is "Bad(TM)".
Please, lets all strive for more intellectual consistancy and less emotional bias--especially when we all decide to play lawyer. This needs a court case, and soon.
I imagine if anything it's because half of the OS X equation has already been released...OS X Server, which I believe supports multiple processors. Since it seems to make quite a bit of sense to me to have MP server boxes, I see this as a great thing (if/when it happens).
The coverage given each is equivalent. In no place does the blub make the opposite value judgement about Maryland. It simply states the fact that Maryland has passed the UCITA. There is criticism of the UCITA itself, but not any state in particular.
In fact, most of the criticisms of the particular state(s) has been in user comments, which would indicate to me that the best place for a "Good Job Iowa" would also be in the comments. However, that wasn't enough for you. For some reason, in your mind, it is the job of Slashdot to provide you with the particular bits of news presented with your preferred spin on the issue. If you wrote the blurbs, they're'd be just as many people criticizing your spin.
Slashdot has done it. They posted a Mitnick story, and not just any story, but one off of a major news site. Now, to date, I don't know of a single story that has come out about Kevin that he hasn't actually released a "corrected" version that points out all of the inaccuracies of the original story.
They have left out all of the CORE registrars and all of the OpenSRS folx, which are, IMHO, some of the best price/performance registrars out there.
Nobody on that list comes close in price to some of the registrars affiliated with the missing organizations: Joker.com domains go for $12.00/yr. and the OpenSRS guys wholesale names at $10/yr.
not quite sure about the hostility here Jon, as the point of my post was ultimately to support ya'll including whatever you wanted in the book.
I dunno, I figured it was a decent analogy to get across the idea of public domain. Didn't know I was sleeping with family members to do it?!?
Anyway...if I caused confusion, i'm sorry.
My basic point was this:
Slashdot/Andover already seems to have a license to publish comments that were posted on the site. As for comments in private e-mail, I dunno...not covered in the scope of what I was saying.
well, the comments and e-mails added to the book (as far as I can tell) are in response to columns that Jon wrote. Since these columns are the basis for the book, and Jon wrote them, it makes sense that his name is on the book.
It would seem that the issue of comment ownership/licensing will be a big issue for some.
My thoughts:
It would seem as though all comments have been licensed to slashdot already by nature of the fact that they were posted. Slashdot is a public forum, so posting your comments here is like posting them on a telephone pole, or a bullitin board. As well, slashdot seems to own the bullitin board. While this doesn't give them ownership of the post, it would seem to give them license to distribute it. If, as some are asserting, they must get permission, then I too must get permission to print out slashdot pages. They would also have to get permission to display these comments because they are allowed to dislplay them on the web.
The issue of ownership, however, would seem to be one of liability. If I were to post "I'm gonna kill tomorrow at 10:00pm" I'm liable for that comment; slashdot isn't. Now, if I were to try and compile everyone's comments, it may be a different story.
Anyway...who cares...having your comments in this book is the biggest karma boost I can imagine.
-fp
P.S. I don't claim to be an expert, so flames about how stupid I am won't be of much use...my way makes more sense, whether it's the law or not.
Before we speak of putting Millions of dollars worth of quickly outdated laptops in the hands of students, lets talk about training. I don't mean just computer training, but lets get these kids reading. The literacy rates (BTW, gotta be able to read to use a computer) in this country are still abyssmal. Once we got that one licked (now we're crawling), lets move on to the next problem.
Most HS teachers know less than my 8 yr old little brother about computers; and all he knows how to do is play autostart CD based games. Don't get me started on Elementary School teachers and Middle School/Jr. High teachers...
We should begin requi--
oof...hey...ouch... -- sorry, had to beat the NEA goon down... to finish:
We should begin requiring teachers to have some measurable minimum level of computer knowledge before we start talking about using computers as tools. The NEA will have a fit, and parents (as I have) will become more convinced that Public Education is the biggest oxymoron to hit the 20th century as they realize who really controls the state of Public Ed today. So, if the above ever occurs (when hell freezes over maybe?), we'll be walking...hobbling is more like it.
So now we're going to have to decide on a standard for training...do they use Windows 98? 2000? MacOS? Linux? These decisions will likely be made at the District or State levels and may the lowest bidder win.
If we spend millions of well intentioned tax dollars on notebook/portable computers, we will simply be wasting our money. Lets instead talk of making technology coursework mandatory. Lets make computer literacy a real goal of our educational system (not at the expense of the current primary subjects).
500 years ago we didn't say "Hey, let's see...this printing press is new, so now everyone can have books...lets give pages to kids to help them learn...oh...they can't read? oh well...it'll still work" We had to teach people to read.
Pardon me for not being as articulate as I'd like.
Has humanity learned nothing from history? Anonymous denunciation sits at the root of every major socio/political atrocity in history (or at least the ones I can think of). In fact, it most often contributed to the vilinization of persons who history later recorded as heros.
Let me try and list a few people and events: the spanish inquisition, the salem witch trials, Joan of Arc, the Jacobins in france in the 18th century, the various beheadings in England in the 16th and 17th centuries, etc. More recent examples have been quoted already (The Nazis, soviet social order policies, etc.). Also, in our not to recent past, we had the outing and blacklisting of Communists in the United States.
Each of these situations illustrates the absurdity of this form of policing. It is for this very reason that the United States Constitution (and yes, I'm aware of the case law surrounding the application of the constitution to minors in a school setting) has amendments providing the right to face one's accusers. In each instance, innocent people were punished for acts that they either did not commit, or for acts that should not have been punishable. Many a great mind and leader were lost.
And on a final note, educators and para-educators already have this power. In most states, educators and other in school professionals are legally obligated to report to the autorities 1) anyone who is deemed to be a threat to themselves or others or 2) anyone they believe to be victimizing a student in their care. Why are we offering this power to students? And why are we giving them a higher degree of this power? Students that, while maturing at different rates, are not deemed mature enough to drink or for some drive or vote? Does it make sense to put this kind of power in to the hands of a sect of society that is known for being socially ruthless and agressive as it is. Anybody ever heard the saying "Kids can be cruel?"
This is disturbing to say the least, and it may well be used/abused to alienate any manner of student that doesn't "fit in" including but not limitied to (and of course depending on societal context): gays/lesbians, cultural minorities, the poor, slow learners, geeks, various religious groups, and the list continues.
I would hope that in today's world we would stray away from this type of solution. How about encouraging kids to reach out to those that they believe to be hurting?
I could go on ad naseum, but I think I've said enough...
Lets get a couple of things straight before we go off wailing on netpliance on all fronts.
First of all, I will say that charging someone for something they didn't order or authorize is patently wrong and in most countries/states considered a form of fraud. I agree that this is how it should be.
Let us also remember that Netpliance likely doesn't make a dime on their hardware. Do we really think that if LCDs were this cheap that someone else wouldn't have thought of this sooner? I imagine netpliance is making its money on the service (similar to the `buy a 3 year subcription to MSN and save $400 dollars on your new puter' deals). This is a valid business model and they shouldn't be criticized for it on its face.
Lets be careful which aspects of business we criticize. And I should like to point out, even $199.00 or $249.00 wouldn't be such a bad deal for this baby w/o service so just because there isn't a company dedicated to losing money so you can have neat stuff isnt a Bad Thing(tm).
As I understand it, the ICANN resolution rules are only the first step in resolving these type of conflicts. Many of the decisions to date say things like 'There is no evidence that this name was registered or used in bad faith, but the parties may choose to move this issue to the courts where it belongs' (I'll try to find the decision and post it as a follow-up). So, really, there is recourse beyond the resolution rules. the parties can still get a court to rule on their behalf and attempt to compel the registrar to move the name. Now this is where juristictional issues come into play because if the registrar is in the US, they are bound by US law (i think...IANAL) and if the registrar is in switzerland (i think that's where he said he was from) they would be bound to act in accordance with a decision by swiss officials.
In short, the resolution rules are only a condition of doing business with ICANN registrars, and only seem to apply to your ability to remain in some sort of good standing there. The actual patent laws of the land would seem to take precedence.
Anyway...that's how I figure it works...
But anyway...trademarking "coke" is pretty silly. It'd be like if I registered apple.ch to sell fruit. I dun think that apple computers could take it from me because my limited (again IANAL) understanding of trademark law leads me to believe that the services provided or business done must be at least remotely similar to that done by the trademark holder.
I've read a number of posts about "Hey, it's just more viewers to read see the ads..."
Here's the problem...in many cases, the advertising isn't solely at the network's discretion. Network affiliates get to sell adds as well. In this particular case, only the affiliates being rebroadcast get this priviledge...which may or may not hurt them, but it hurts the network's overall marketability because I now no longer have to watch my local affiliate in order to see...say...ER (big ratings show). Well, the local affiliate in my area (in this case KING TV in Seattle) paid big money to be an affiliate, and now, because I can watch the NY station, they've lost their market.
This is the same reason why there are restrictions on some satellite networks ability to rebroadcast the networks.
The greatest issues at stake are this: It is completely illegal to rebroadcast to US residents, which is what the bulk of the suit(s)covered.
Canadian law allows rebroadcasting, but possibly not for profit (IANAL).
1. I didn't have enough time to read all posts, so if this is a repeat, just moderate down.
2. I can't be 100% certain of what I say, as I haven't personally tested it.
That said:
The Apple airport system (including the base stations...which are only $399) should work quite well with these cards as the Airport conforms to the same standard (802.11 DSSS) I believe, and the apple prods are actually lucent stuff repackaged.
The base station is, to me the best part. While your range may not be 1500 feet (which is way overkill for most home situations...who needs a quarter mile?) it's a bit cheaper.
anyway...I'm looking forward to get my hands on one of these to test out the compatability.
Slashdot Mirror
Although it's been said, I'll try and say it a different way. MySQL now has transaction support via BerkleyDB since 3.23.16.
fp
Ok...While I don't think anyone is a stupid fsck, I would like to point out, as the original post does, that the pertinent contents of the Windows98 cd (drivers, installation files, etc.) can be found in "c:\windows\options\cabs" on most OEM installations. If they are not there, someone likely removed them to "save space". In todays world, I don't think it is too much to ask to use 100 MB of HDD space.
Anyway, I hope that helps your Grandma next time. Also, if she owns a copy of the software, fair use (regardless of DMCA, RIAA, MPAA) AND her license (go ahead...read it) allow her to maintain a copy of the software for backup purposes. So getting the CD from a friend, as long as you have your own valid reg key and License is perfectly okie dokey.
-fp
What joker marked this Insightful?
It's gotta be a joke. Allen Konrad is the guy that patented the post method.
-fp
If you don't use napster now, but you don't like what's going on, you can help.
D/L Napster and install on a machine you don't use (or one that can handle the increased net trafic) and then grab RMS singing from here
work magic (to convert to MP3...some pls post if there is a way to do this) and rename the file numerous times to the name of various copyrighted works. Do this as many times as you can (don't we all have a couple of 2 gig drives lying around?)
That way...if the use this search, their results will be skewed. No I realize that there are some problems with this for the intelligent, but I figure if the rest of the ppl suing napster are half as clueless as Lars proved he was, then we're home free.
-fp
pls mod this up.
this also reflects the comments made by the 3drealms guy.
-fp
Blow it out your ass. (-1 Flaimbait...*wave byebye to Karma*).
This level of integrity is rarely seen in a public forum, and even far less in geekdom. I applaud their honesty and rapid and directed response to community input.
True integrity and responsibility is NOT always getting it right the first time, but making sure to quickly and decisively fix it WHEN you get it wrong.
Kudos,
-fp
This issue NEEDS to be resolved in court. Whether or not Andover has the balls and $$$ to do this, I don't know. They might lose; but the precedent is important.
/. many times, one must protect their intellectual property and attempt to enforce any restrictions so that they may continue to enjoy protection by the law. When it was Linus, many were ready to jump to his defense. Remember, the law protects the IP of the moral and ammoral alike. I suspect, that if Microsoft were to let this go by the wayside, it could be later used in court to defend use of the specifications by SAMBA developers or others when creating compatible products. "Your honor, the plantiff allowed this document to be published widely on the WWW without ever attmepting to limit its distrobution; Even its distrobution without their EULA." There have been cases in which a failure to protect IP in this manner have resulted in the loss of the right to continue to protect it.
There are a number of issues at stake that I see, and none of them has an easy answer.
Let's begin with the issue of "Free Speech".
It would seem that the claims of censorship are a bit misguided. What is actually occuring is the protection of intellectual property. Now I REALIZE that a number of the posts listed in the MS e-mail seem to have nothing to do with any legitimate claim, which did puzzle me, but hear me out.
Microsoft, in what I believe was an effort to stiffle work on projects like SAMBA, released a document they claim is a "trade secret" which one must aggree to a boiler plate license in order to view. While this is underhanded, it's legal. This license included a stipulation that the licensee must make an attempt to protect the information at least as well as MS has. Clearly, this was not done by a number of folx, as the document was posted as a comment by a number of people.
Now, you say, they didn't aggree to the boiler-plate license, so they are not bound by it. And in fact, you are correct. They are not bound by it's restrictions, but NEITHER are the entitled to the privilidges that license allows them, which in this case, is the right to possess and read the document. Now, NO PERSON is entitled to the copyrighted material of Microsoft without a license. If you do not aggree to the license they provide, you are not legally entitled to read the document. So now we have a problem. If someone illegaly posts a document (without said license) and I read it, am I in violation of the law? I never new the license existed, and am therefore not bound by it, but am I entitled to its priviledges? I dunno.
Back to my original point about protecting intellectual property. As has been discussed on
I sincerely believe that this is Microsoft's intent. I don't like their products or their tactics any more than the next guy, but this is getting out of hand. We all have personal biases about what is "Good(TM)" and what is "Bad(TM)". The law, however, has a different view. Legally, an attempt to circumvent an MS EULA is equivalent to an attempt to circumvent the GPL. The difference is that here at Slashdot the GPL is "Good(TM)" and MS is "Bad(TM)".
Please, lets all strive for more intellectual consistancy and less emotional bias--especially when we all decide to play lawyer. This needs a court case, and soon.
-fp
Well,
I imagine if anything it's because half of the OS X equation has already been released...OS X Server, which I believe supports multiple processors. Since it seems to make quite a bit of sense to me to have MP server boxes, I see this as a great thing (if/when it happens).
-fp
The coverage given each is equivalent. In no place does the blub make the opposite value judgement about Maryland. It simply states the fact that Maryland has passed the UCITA. There is criticism of the UCITA itself, but not any state in particular.
In fact, most of the criticisms of the particular state(s) has been in user comments, which would indicate to me that the best place for a "Good Job Iowa" would also be in the comments. However, that wasn't enough for you. For some reason, in your mind, it is the job of Slashdot to provide you with the particular bits of news presented with your preferred spin on the issue. If you wrote the blurbs, they're'd be just as many people criticizing your spin.
Lighten up.
oh, and "GOOD JOB IOWA" (from me, not the blurb)
Umm...that's mentioned in the blub.
Well,
Slashdot has done it. They posted a Mitnick story, and not just any story, but one off of a major news site. Now, to date, I don't know of a single story that has come out about Kevin that he hasn't actually released a "corrected" version that points out all of the inaccuracies of the original story.
Let's post that too when it comes out.
-fp
They have left out all of the CORE registrars and all of the OpenSRS folx, which are, IMHO, some of the best price/performance registrars out there.
Nobody on that list comes close in price to some of the registrars affiliated with the missing organizations: Joker.com domains go for $12.00/yr. and the OpenSRS guys wholesale names at $10/yr.
Anyway...just thought I'd point that out.
check out what the MySQL folx say about this book here
not quite sure about the hostility here Jon, as the point of my post was ultimately to support ya'll including whatever you wanted in the book.
I dunno, I figured it was a decent analogy to get across the idea of public domain. Didn't know I was sleeping with family members to do it?!?
Anyway...if I caused confusion, i'm sorry.
My basic point was this:
Slashdot/Andover already seems to have a license to publish comments that were posted on the site. As for comments in private e-mail, I dunno...not covered in the scope of what I was saying.
-fp
well, the comments and e-mails added to the book (as far as I can tell) are in response to columns that Jon wrote. Since these columns are the basis for the book, and Jon wrote them, it makes sense that his name is on the book.
-fp
It would seem that the issue of comment ownership/licensing will be a big issue for some.
My thoughts:
It would seem as though all comments have been licensed to slashdot already by nature of the fact that they were posted. Slashdot is a public forum, so posting your comments here is like posting them on a telephone pole, or a bullitin board. As well, slashdot seems to own the bullitin board. While this doesn't give them ownership of the post, it would seem to give them license to distribute it. If, as some are asserting, they must get permission, then I too must get permission to print out slashdot pages. They would also have to get permission to display these comments because they are allowed to dislplay them on the web.
The issue of ownership, however, would seem to be one of liability. If I were to post "I'm gonna kill tomorrow at 10:00pm" I'm liable for that comment; slashdot isn't. Now, if I were to try and compile everyone's comments, it may be a different story.
Anyway...who cares...having your comments in this book is the biggest karma boost I can imagine.
-fp
P.S. I don't claim to be an expert, so flames about how stupid I am won't be of much use...my way makes more sense, whether it's the law or not.
Before we speak of putting Millions of dollars worth of quickly outdated laptops in the hands of students, lets talk about training. I don't mean just computer training, but lets get these kids reading. The literacy rates (BTW, gotta be able to read to use a computer) in this country are still abyssmal. Once we got that one licked (now we're crawling), lets move on to the next problem.
Most HS teachers know less than my 8 yr old little brother about computers; and all he knows how to do is play autostart CD based games. Don't get me started on Elementary School teachers and Middle School/Jr. High teachers...
We should begin requi--
oof...hey...ouch... -- sorry, had to beat the NEA goon down... to finish:
We should begin requiring teachers to have some measurable minimum level of computer knowledge before we start talking about using computers as tools. The NEA will have a fit, and parents (as I have) will become more convinced that Public Education is the biggest oxymoron to hit the 20th century as they realize who really controls the state of Public Ed today. So, if the above ever occurs (when hell freezes over maybe?), we'll be walking...hobbling is more like it.
So now we're going to have to decide on a standard for training...do they use Windows 98? 2000? MacOS? Linux? These decisions will likely be made at the District or State levels and may the lowest bidder win.
If we spend millions of well intentioned tax dollars on notebook/portable computers, we will simply be wasting our money. Lets instead talk of making technology coursework mandatory. Lets make computer literacy a real goal of our educational system (not at the expense of the current primary subjects).
500 years ago we didn't say "Hey, let's see...this printing press is new, so now everyone can have books...lets give pages to kids to help them learn...oh...they can't read? oh well...it'll still work" We had to teach people to read.
-fp
How about making this a seperate sight for info like this that doesn't really have much to do with technology?
I mean, this is great stuff but is this the best place for it?
anyway, having speechdot.org/.net/.com redirect here just breaks the site anyway...can't auto log me in when I go to it using that address.
-fp
Pardon me for not being as articulate as I'd like.
Has humanity learned nothing from history? Anonymous denunciation sits at the root of every major socio/political atrocity in history (or at least the ones I can think of). In fact, it most often contributed to the vilinization of persons who history later recorded as heros.
Let me try and list a few people and events: the spanish inquisition, the salem witch trials, Joan of Arc, the Jacobins in france in the 18th century, the various beheadings in England in the 16th and 17th centuries, etc. More recent examples have been quoted already (The Nazis, soviet social order policies, etc.). Also, in our not to recent past, we had the outing and blacklisting of Communists in the United States.
Each of these situations illustrates the absurdity of this form of policing. It is for this very reason that the United States Constitution (and yes, I'm aware of the case law surrounding the application of the constitution to minors in a school setting) has amendments providing the right to face one's accusers. In each instance, innocent people were punished for acts that they either did not commit, or for acts that should not have been punishable. Many a great mind and leader were lost.
And on a final note, educators and para-educators already have this power. In most states, educators and other in school professionals are legally obligated to report to the autorities 1) anyone who is deemed to be a threat to themselves or others or 2) anyone they believe to be victimizing a student in their care. Why are we offering this power to students? And why are we giving them a higher degree of this power? Students that, while maturing at different rates, are not deemed mature enough to drink or for some drive or vote? Does it make sense to put this kind of power in to the hands of a sect of society that is known for being socially ruthless and agressive as it is. Anybody ever heard the saying "Kids can be cruel?"
This is disturbing to say the least, and it may well be used/abused to alienate any manner of student that doesn't "fit in" including but not limitied to (and of course depending on societal context): gays/lesbians, cultural minorities, the poor, slow learners, geeks, various religious groups, and the list continues.
I would hope that in today's world we would stray away from this type of solution. How about encouraging kids to reach out to those that they believe to be hurting?
I could go on ad naseum, but I think I've said enough...
-fp
Lets get a couple of things straight before we go off wailing on netpliance on all fronts.
First of all, I will say that charging someone for something they didn't order or authorize is patently wrong and in most countries/states considered a form of fraud. I agree that this is how it should be.
Let us also remember that Netpliance likely doesn't make a dime on their hardware. Do we really think that if LCDs were this cheap that someone else wouldn't have thought of this sooner? I imagine netpliance is making its money on the service (similar to the `buy a 3 year subcription to MSN and save $400 dollars on your new puter' deals). This is a valid business model and they shouldn't be criticized for it on its face.
Lets be careful which aspects of business we criticize. And I should like to point out, even $199.00 or $249.00 wouldn't be such a bad deal for this baby w/o service so just because there isn't a company dedicated to losing money so you can have neat stuff isnt a Bad Thing(tm).
I know this'll never get seen, but talk about "Holy Wars(tm)"
As I understand it, the ICANN resolution rules are only the first step in resolving these type of conflicts. Many of the decisions to date say things like 'There is no evidence that this name was registered or used in bad faith, but the parties may choose to move this issue to the courts where it belongs' (I'll try to find the decision and post it as a follow-up). So, really, there is recourse beyond the resolution rules. the parties can still get a court to rule on their behalf and attempt to compel the registrar to move the name. Now this is where juristictional issues come into play because if the registrar is in the US, they are bound by US law (i think...IANAL) and if the registrar is in switzerland (i think that's where he said he was from) they would be bound to act in accordance with a decision by swiss officials.
In short, the resolution rules are only a condition of doing business with ICANN registrars, and only seem to apply to your ability to remain in some sort of good standing there. The actual patent laws of the land would seem to take precedence.
Anyway...that's how I figure it works...
But anyway...trademarking "coke" is pretty silly. It'd be like if I registered apple.ch to sell fruit. I dun think that apple computers could take it from me because my limited (again IANAL) understanding of trademark law leads me to believe that the services provided or business done must be at least remotely similar to that done by the trademark holder.
just my thoughts...
I'm i the only one that thinks it looks more like a full chamber pot than a cup of coffee?
Hang on...
I've read a number of posts about "Hey, it's just more viewers to read see the ads..."
Here's the problem...in many cases, the advertising isn't solely at the network's discretion. Network affiliates get to sell adds as well. In this particular case, only the affiliates being rebroadcast get this priviledge...which may or may not hurt them, but it hurts the network's overall marketability because I now no longer have to watch my local affiliate in order to see...say...ER (big ratings show). Well, the local affiliate in my area (in this case KING TV in Seattle) paid big money to be an affiliate, and now, because I can watch the NY station, they've lost their market.
This is the same reason why there are restrictions on some satellite networks ability to rebroadcast the networks.
The greatest issues at stake are this: It is completely illegal to rebroadcast to US residents, which is what the bulk of the suit(s)covered.
Canadian law allows rebroadcasting, but possibly not for profit (IANAL).
Just a few thoughts
-FP
1. I didn't have enough time to read all posts, so if this is a repeat, just moderate down.
2. I can't be 100% certain of what I say, as I haven't personally tested it.
That said:
The Apple airport system (including the base stations...which are only $399) should work quite well with these cards as the Airport conforms to the same standard (802.11 DSSS) I believe, and the apple prods are actually lucent stuff repackaged.
The base station is, to me the best part. While your range may not be 1500 feet (which is way overkill for most home situations...who needs a quarter mile?) it's a bit cheaper.
anyway...I'm looking forward to get my hands on one of these to test out the compatability.
-FP