When we asked if it was just money, Tamte was quick to dispel the idea. "We have been approached by every major publisher in the industry many times," he told us. "We could have sold out for more money earlier."
I wonder about that "more" money part. I mean, it sounds like he's saying he did sellout, but not for the most money possible. Either Microsoft did offer more money than every major publisher in the industry, or, this X box is sooooo cool, it's worth losing money to be very close to the project.
On a side note, just because someone puts a sign up in a restaraunt, doesn't make it true. I mean, putting up a sign like "We reserve the right to poisen you" won't make it so.
In fact, I believe that refusing service would be a violation of some law related to interstate commerce, and therefore is illegal, no matter how much ink I put on paper---whether I put it in the shape of "We reserve the right to refuse service..." or not.
I couldn't believe that the tetex-documentation in binary rpm was ommitted from Mandrake-7.0.
What an oversight! I mean, fuck koffice-0.0002. If I can't use LaTeX, and I'm sorry, but I need the documentation (and who doesn't for say, XY-pic), I can't really use the operating system.
Workarounds:
download it (15 megs).
rebuild it from source rpm (probably faster to download it!)
I heard an interesting interview with Judge Jackson on NPR last week. He seemed actually relieved that there is an appeals process and that his decisions would be reviewed by other people. The standard appellete process including the district court's turn, is, in a way, reassuring.
I had the opinion that Microsoft may want to prolong the appeals process as long as possible for the simple reason that the interim provides an opportunity for profits in a business-as-usual way.
But now, I think, that MS wants to prolong the process for another reason. Indeed, Gates and Ballmer have been quoted as saying that they are "so confident that MS will win on appeal, that they are not even going to plan for a breakup" as Jaskson ordered. However, I now think they are seriously planning for a breakup. It would be an egregious irresponsibility to their shareholders and customers not to plan for a breakup. And, I think it's such a complex job, requiring such a finesse of their employees' and customers' feelings, that they can use the extra time that a lengthy appeal via the usual chain of courts provides.
So, my guess is that first the appeals court will hear the case and that it won't be rushed to the Supreme court. Government may feel it's more prudent not to rush things and to have important decisions reviewed and MS may favor a longer appeal process.
Yeah, I tried to read the article, but the fucking font was invisible. The printer version however was readable.
By the way, the photoshop articles appear to be findable here. Maybe alegal-venus-in-furs-part2 or something? The front page links were removed, but not the articles.
I bet some native Americans would have some interesting comments on the concept of "idea ownwership." Especially considering their unhappy experience with the foreign and tricky idea of "land owndership."
Hard to imagine how the natives got along without the idea of land-ownership for so long, but they did and wonderfully. Let's learn something and drop IP. Fuck A. Rand.
MR. GOLD: I'm sorry to interrupt. I forgot to mention that the deposition today is subject to the confidentiality agreement we have all signed...
MR. GARBUS: I disagree that this deposition is confidential....
MR. GOLD: That's not good enough, because, among other things, I don't want to wake up and see this transcript in the newspaper tomorrow, and I have reasons to believe that that is a possibility, but I on't get into that thoroughly.
All in the first few paragraphs! (I snipped a little for brevity.) These depositions will surely provide countless hours of funny friction, disagreement and roundabout legal-talk!
Come on slashdot! Either link articles or write articles. But in this case, it's neither. It is a stretch to write a couple vague, sentences and leave the readers of slashdot to figure things out (with varying degrees of accuracy). This poster has at least explained something.
I, frankly, had a difficult time understanding even the small, nontechnical point the announcement was supposed to make. Is the news that CNET was awarded a patent and doubleclick is in trouble now? Is the news that doubleclick's earlier existence jepardizes CNET's patent? I couldn't figure it out. I'm now thinking that the news is that CNET has patented a way to have effective banner ads that do not originate on a single server, and unlike doubleclick, are harder to junkbust.
If people do this irresponsibly, you can get in trouble. I could forge statements anonymously about the place you work for and attribute them to you. You could get into trouble, and defending against them could be hard.
Come, come. Anonymity doesn't mean it's ok for me to impersonate another individual. Never has meant that.
It may very well turn out that whether P=NP is an undecidable.
And yes. I would most certainly say that proving a conjecture is undecidable gets you the mil.
On a side note, I'm sure that Hilbert was turning over in his grave when it was finally proved (in 1963, I think) that the Continuum Hypothesis is independent of ZFC. I mean, Hilbert was one of the greatest ever, and certainly the greatest of the gay, British, atheists, but the guy thought everything was decidable.
Today, it wouldn't be as much of a shock, but I'm sure a lot of people thought that they left Cohen forcing back in the sixties. I can hear them saying "Bringing independence proofs back in fashion?" with about the same distaste as "Bringing Boy George back in fashion?"
The difference, I think, is that while Goldbach's conjecture is interesting and hard; it's not important in the sense that it doesn't really have many applications. On the other hand, determining whether P=NP, or giving a mathematical foundation for quantum YM, is huge.
Compare to Fermat's last theorem. Interesting, but who cares, really? Wiles' proof is celebrated because of his proof of Shimure-Taniyama-Weil which is a very important result with applications that people care about.
I can almost hear the cogs grinding as you think by the same argument "The Riemann hypothesis" shouldn't have made the list since everyone knows it's true, so if it has applications they're already out there." Conceeded, but the proof of RH will most likely be very important, probably using breakthrough techniques in quantum algebra and geometry.
Your response was brief, to the point, and most importantly not inflammatory.
This excerpt
The balance of your e-mail's content is somewhat puzzling to us. I'm sure you agree that freedom of speech is at least important a principle under American law as the freedom to innovate,...
was most definitely intended to inflame. It's clever and calculated to belittle MS and rouse the readers. The fact that "freedom of speech" has been mentioned at all indicates that this letter is really a rally call. After all, lot's of the comments so far have pointed out that the comments are owned by the poster and therefore/. is off the hook. So Andover's "freedom of speech" may not even be relevant.
Here's an excerpt from the dissenting opinion by Judge Sanders:
(1) Step-Saver was a value added retailer, not an end user (the party to which a license agreement typically applies); (2) Step-Saver twice refused to sign an agreement comparable to the license agreement, but the seller continued to provide the software; and (3) the contract in Step-Saver was 'between merchants.' While I agree these are notable factual distinctions, the majority does not explain why these distinctions warrant the outright dismissal of Step-Saver's logic given the strong similarities between the contract formation there and in the instant case.
What this makes me believe is that the majority broke with precedent to uphold the license agreement because, in part, the party using the software was not an end user.
Here's one other point---I guess I thought of it when I read this from the dissent:
I would reverse the trial court's summary judgement order and remand for a determination of whether Mortenson's conduct constituted assent.
There has to be acceptance of the contract, by both parties, no? Well, I can't just make something up, say it qualifies as your acceptance and by my saying it, make it so. Compare: Suppose I send you a product in an box and write on the outside "If you blink 3 times, eat lettuce later today or take off your shoes, you have accepted the following agreement..." Just because I've said this particular action on your part constitutes agreement, does not make it so.
Plus, it's Washington state. Just don't do business with software companies from Washington state.
Slashdot Mirror
I saw it and thought the animation was awesome. In fact, I'd like to see more beautiful 2d like it.
Problem? Story was so canned. It was a mix of the worst sci-fi cliches from the last 3 decades.
And it's frightening to think of a new world sprouted from the neo Adam and Eve of Matt Damon and Drew Barrymore. Shudder.
It took me a while to sort through all those negatives.
But seriously, why is it that micronotebooks are popular in Japan, but not North America?
Here's an article you might want to check out.
It's about using Bonobo in KDE, or at least merging Bonobo and Kparts.
See? No mention of GNOME using Kparts. It would never happen because Kparts depends on QT. But, Bonobo is toolkit independent.I wonder about that "more" money part. I mean, it sounds like he's saying he did sellout, but not for the most money possible. Either Microsoft did offer more money than every major publisher in the industry, or, this X box is sooooo cool, it's worth losing money to be very close to the project.
On a side note, just because someone puts a sign up in a restaraunt, doesn't make it true. I mean, putting up a sign like "We reserve the right to poisen you" won't make it so.
In fact, I believe that refusing service would be a violation of some law related to interstate commerce, and therefore is illegal, no matter how much ink I put on paper---whether I put it in the shape of "We reserve the right to refuse service..." or not.
I couldn't believe that the tetex-documentation in binary rpm was ommitted from Mandrake-7.0.
What an oversight! I mean, fuck koffice-0.0002. If I can't use LaTeX, and I'm sorry, but I need the documentation (and who doesn't for say, XY-pic), I can't really use the operating system.
Workarounds:
So, I hope tetex-doc is there in 7.1
I heard an interesting interview with Judge Jackson on NPR last week. He seemed actually relieved that there is an appeals process and that his decisions would be reviewed by other people. The standard appellete process including the district court's turn, is, in a way, reassuring.
I had the opinion that Microsoft may want to prolong the appeals process as long as possible for the simple reason that the interim provides an opportunity for profits in a business-as-usual way.
But now, I think, that MS wants to prolong the process for another reason. Indeed, Gates and Ballmer have been quoted as saying that they are "so confident that MS will win on appeal, that they are not even going to plan for a breakup" as Jaskson ordered. However, I now think they are seriously planning for a breakup. It would be an egregious irresponsibility to their shareholders and customers not to plan for a breakup. And, I think it's such a complex job, requiring such a finesse of their employees' and customers' feelings, that they can use the extra time that a lengthy appeal via the usual chain of courts provides.
So, my guess is that first the appeals court will hear the case and that it won't be rushed to the Supreme court. Government may feel it's more prudent not to rush things and to have important decisions reviewed and MS may favor a longer appeal process.
By the way, the photoshop articles appear to be findable here. Maybe alegal-venus-in-furs-part2 or something? The front page links were removed, but not the articles.
I wonder if Adobe complained when they previewed acroread?
I bet some native Americans would have some interesting comments on the concept of "idea ownwership." Especially considering their unhappy experience with the foreign and tricky idea of "land owndership."
Hard to imagine how the natives got along without the idea of land-ownership for so long, but they did and wonderfully. Let's learn something and drop IP. Fuck A. Rand.
Puff Daddy pays up front.
Vanilla Ice, however, gets sued, loses and then pays.
All in the first few paragraphs! (I snipped a little for brevity.) These depositions will surely provide countless hours of funny friction, disagreement and roundabout legal-talk!
Tried to email a thoughtful response, but it got returned undeliverable.
Please don't start the "cracker" versus "hacker" debate. The author does a fine job explaining what he means here. It's clear.
Why not just use "cliche" instead of "cliched"?
Come on slashdot! Either link articles or write articles. But in this case, it's neither. It is a stretch to write a couple vague, sentences and leave the readers of slashdot to figure things out (with varying degrees of accuracy). This poster has at least explained something.
I, frankly, had a difficult time understanding even the small, nontechnical point the announcement was supposed to make. Is the news that CNET was awarded a patent and doubleclick is in trouble now? Is the news that doubleclick's earlier existence jepardizes CNET's patent? I couldn't figure it out. I'm now thinking that the news is that CNET has patented a way to have effective banner ads that do not originate on a single server, and unlike doubleclick, are harder to junkbust.
And how did Ethan know to bring along a mask of the guy with the hurt finger when he raided the compound near the end? That was really thinking ahead!
Right. I don't know where that idea that Hilbert was a gay, British atheist came from. My apologies.
Unfortunately, this form is too small to contain it.
It may very well turn out that whether P=NP is an undecidable.
And yes. I would most certainly say that proving a conjecture is undecidable gets you the mil.
On a side note, I'm sure that Hilbert was turning over in his grave when it was finally proved (in 1963, I think) that the Continuum Hypothesis is independent of ZFC. I mean, Hilbert was one of the greatest ever, and certainly the greatest of the gay, British, atheists, but the guy thought everything was decidable.
Today, it wouldn't be as much of a shock, but I'm sure a lot of people thought that they left Cohen forcing back in the sixties. I can hear them saying "Bringing independence proofs back in fashion?" with about the same distaste as "Bringing Boy George back in fashion?"
The difference, I think, is that while Goldbach's conjecture is interesting and hard; it's not important in the sense that it doesn't really have many applications. On the other hand, determining whether P=NP, or giving a mathematical foundation for quantum YM, is huge.
Compare to Fermat's last theorem. Interesting, but who cares, really? Wiles' proof is celebrated because of his proof of Shimure-Taniyama-Weil which is a very important result with applications that people care about.
I can almost hear the cogs grinding as you think by the same argument "The Riemann hypothesis" shouldn't have made the list since everyone knows it's true, so if it has applications they're already out there." Conceeded, but the proof of RH will most likely be very important, probably using breakthrough techniques in quantum algebra and geometry.
Here's an excerpt from the dissenting opinion by Judge Sanders:
What this makes me believe is that the majority broke with precedent to uphold the license agreement because, in part, the party using the software was not an end user.Here's one other point---I guess I thought of it when I read this from the dissent:
There has to be acceptance of the contract, by both parties, no? Well, I can't just make something up, say it qualifies as your acceptance and by my saying it, make it so. Compare: Suppose I send you a product in an box and write on the outside "If you blink 3 times, eat lettuce later today or take off your shoes, you have accepted the following agreement..." Just because I've said this particular action on your part constitutes agreement, does not make it so.Plus, it's Washington state. Just don't do business with software companies from Washington state.