So if the EU passes a Free Speech law, Germany's decades-long censorship of "Nazi" and swastikas will be overturned by the central government? Hmmm. No wonder the EU Constitution got voted down.
If my neighbors' decision to join the Nazi Party, or smoke weed, or have sex with 20 men, does not physically harm me than I don't really care what they do. I think you're weird but if that's how you enjoy spending your life, then go to it. That's what liberty means.
>>>Hate crime laws are (at least supposed to) look at the intent of the speech
Nice defense of a law that should not exist. And here's why it should not exist - "I think it's clear his intent was defamation of character. That's why I jailed by Democrat opponent (and his supporters) after I won the 2020 election. It was clearly hate speech." - future President Napoleon the 10th. No government should ever have the power to take-away freedom so easily.
Also the Hate Speech law is no better than the Alien and Sedition Acts of the 1790s. It's the same thing just wearing a different sheep's clothing. It's also a power that was never granted to Congress.
>>>Seems like [the World] would have learned a thing or two about the negative aspects of authoritarianism...
Fixed. And yet still we have stupid laws being passed that restrict freedom of speech, not just in Germany, but also throughout the EU, the US, Australia, and other supposedly "liberal" countries.
You forgot to capitalize "Damen" and "Herren". Yeah I know I'm being nitpicky.;-)
I find it interesting the EU States can ban images within a videogame, and the publisher MUST comply with that restriction. I wonder if the same could happen with a US State? Could California declare "no more swastikas" and force Activision to edit California editions of Wolfenstein, or would the U.S. overrule that decision? If yes, could the EU eventually overrule Germany's law?
Microsoft didn't start with 90%. In fact it used to be in second place behind Atari (1978-82) and Commodore (1983-86), but by 1990 MS controlled about 60% of the market, and by 2000 that had risen to 95%. It appears that Apple is heading in the same direction with 75% of all players and 90% of the online music sales.
So if Apple can update Itunes in such a way that it won't work with third-party players, they can use their 90% software dominance with the Istore/Itunes virtual monopoly to boost Ipod share higher.
>>>What exactly is Palm attempting to recover from Apple?
Same thing Netscape and Google tried to recover when they sued Microsoft - a lost market caused by a company monopolizing the market via anticompetitive practices (which is illegal in both the U.S. and the EU).
>>>Microsoft was using their monopoly* with Windows (software) to push another piece of software (Internet Explorer).
And Apple is using their virtual monopoly with the Istore/Itunes software to push a piece of hardware (ipod) and "break" other pieces of hardware from being usable. I consider that an even worse crime that what MS was doing.
How do I do that? I don't even know where the song files reside, and even if I did take time to figure it out, I suspect most Itunes users have no clue.
>>>MediaSync for Blackberry reads in the contents of the iTunes Media Library using the XML exported file
Until Apple decides to change the XML which would break MediaSync.
>>>Which is entirely within their rights. You may not like that, but tough shit!
Then maybe I'll just stop buying Apple product. Nothing's more annoying than having spent 1 or 2 hundred dollars on external gadgets, only to discover they won't work anymore when I upgrade to OS 10.6 or Itunes 9. I guess this yet another example of the "Apple tax" that makes working with Apple so expensive for the end user.
>>>It is not anticompetitive to put your resources behind a product and give it away for free
Both the United States DOJ and the European Union reached a different conclusion when Microsoft gave-away free copies of Internet Explorer. They argued that MS used its virtual monopoly to drive the then-dominant Nertscape and Mosaic browsers off the desktop and into bankruptcy. I'm sure they'd reach a similar conclusion about Apple using its virtual monopoly over Istore/Itunes to drive Palm, Insignia, and other MP3 gadgets out of market.
I don't agree with your view. What's so damn difficult that, when Itunes sees a non-ipod, it simply treats the gadget as a file storage device and dumps the songs to the Palm, Insignia, or other gadget. That's a better solution than to tell people like me that they can't offload their purchased Istore songs to their non-ipod.
I don't accept "you must buy our hardware" from any manufacturer, whether it's Apple or Mickeysoft. One of the great advantages of the death of Commodore, Atari, Texas Instruments, and other proprietary standards was that we were no longer forced to buy their products. The PC platform brought the advantage of generic hardware, and I don't want to see that advantage taken away by forcing us to buy only Apple-branded hardware in order to enjoy our Istore songs.
- "The usual point is that the rules are different for Microsoft because they're a [virtual] monopoly [with greater than 90% control of PCs], but in the market of portable music players, Apple has a [virtual] monopoly too." And just as Microsoft used its virtual monopoly to shove Netscape Browser out-of-the-way, Apple is using its virtual monopoly to make it nigh-impossible to use other MP3/MP4 players with their Istore/Itunes virtual monopoly.
>>>because they went beyond their USB manufacturer agreement, they don't have a case in court.
I disagree. If I were a judge I would dismiss the Palm disguising itself as an iPod as a reasonable engineering solution caused by an UNreasonable company using monopolistic and anti-competitive behavior. This is what the judges did during the Paypal trial (circa 2003), saying that certain actions performed by customers to recover their money were reasonable, given that paypal had effectively stolen their money. He then ordered Paypal to refund all the cash.
If I were a judge I would dismiss the Palm disguising itself as an iPod as a reasonable engineering solution caused by an UNreasonable company using monopolistic and anti-competitive behavior. I would then require Apple to open its Istore and Itunes software to any and all MP3 or MP4 devices, or else face massive fines under U.S. law.
Also to consider the USB-IF as the ultimate arbiters of all legal questions is a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under an oligarchy. The members of the USB-IF are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. (paraphrased from Jefferson) Their opinion is only that - their opinion - and not the final word on the matter.
A lot of Europeans are criticizing Obama for saying, "We're canceling the missile defense system," but I think he has the right idea. If the European Union wants a missile defense shield to protect themselves from Russia, Iran, et cetera than let the EU build it themselves. They need to stop sucking on the U.S. taxpayer teet and build their OWN defensive army and shield.
>>>I'm not American, I've just had enough of all the US bashing, especially from the people who intersperse it with cries for help.
Thank you British cousin. Thank you for being honest. Oh and the reason the American death age is 1 year lower than EU rates has *nothing* to do with the government. Correlation =/= causation. The real cause is that we eating fatty foods that clog arteries & shorten lifespans. Like this ice cream I'm eating for breakfast.;-)
>>>Microsoft adds a nontrivial amount of commuter traffic to local infrastructure, and the only two things they've ever ponied up for:
False. Microsoft's commuting employees pay the same ~70 cents per gallon as everybody else. That money is the toll that keeps the roads repaired. To say these workers have not paid for the infrastructure they are using is an insult against those workers, and unfair as well.
>>>The [interstate commerce clause] forbids this. It's in the constitution...
Actually states are allowed to forbid the sale of certain products, and there's nothing the Congress can do about it. Just ask Utah which forbids the sale of several products their citizens find objectionable. See Amendment 10 which also in the constitution...
>>>The investment in their campus structure alone would not fly with Shareholders.
Apparently you haven't heard of the Harley company. They too have invested in campuses and buildings, but they are willing to pick-up and move to another state with lower taxes. I have no doubt in my mind, rather than pay backtaxes, Microsoft would pick-up and move someplace else too.
I think taxing corporations is pointless. For example if Washington State pisses off Microsoft, then they will simply move somewhere else - like Detroit. I bet the politicians in Michigan would be thrilled to offer MS a brand-new building, taxfree status, and other benefits in order to hire their ~15% of unemployed citizens.
A wiser is course is not to collect the taxes from the corporation itself, but from the corporate employees and stockholders. Tax the people not the entity.
Hmmm. I recall watching whole episodes of shows like Hannah Montana, Wizards of Waverly, the Misfits, and so on. I can see someone paying 1-2 dollars per month to be able to see those shows. (It's probably why Comcast doesn't allow access to disneyconnection.com - they want you watching Comcast cable, not the internet.)
>>>This is Autozone telling you they won't sell you parts cause you own a Ford
State laws prevent refusal of service to customers unless there's a damn good reason, and "he drives a Ford" is not that reason. You and other mistreated customers can file a lawsuit in the state court.
Suppose Comcast refuses to pay not just disneyconnection.com and ESPN360.com, but also hulu.com, youtube.com, netflicks.com, and so on. All blocked to Comcast users due to lack of payment. Now all you can access is comcastvideo.com. Gee, how convenient.
Slashdot Mirror
So if the EU passes a Free Speech law, Germany's decades-long censorship of "Nazi" and swastikas will be overturned by the central government? Hmmm. No wonder the EU Constitution got voted down.
My argument is simpler:
If my neighbors' decision to join the Nazi Party, or smoke weed, or have sex with 20 men, does not physically harm me than I don't really care what they do. I think you're weird but if that's how you enjoy spending your life, then go to it. That's what liberty means.
>>>Hate crime laws are (at least supposed to) look at the intent of the speech
Nice defense of a law that should not exist. And here's why it should not exist - "I think it's clear his intent was defamation of character. That's why I jailed by Democrat opponent (and his supporters) after I won the 2020 election. It was clearly hate speech." - future President Napoleon the 10th. No government should ever have the power to take-away freedom so easily.
Also the Hate Speech law is no better than the Alien and Sedition Acts of the 1790s. It's the same thing just wearing a different sheep's clothing. It's also a power that was never granted to Congress.
>>>Seems like [the World] would have learned a thing or two about the negative aspects of authoritarianism...
Fixed. And yet still we have stupid laws being passed that restrict freedom of speech, not just in Germany, but also throughout the EU, the US, Australia, and other supposedly "liberal" countries.
You forgot to capitalize "Damen" and "Herren". Yeah I know I'm being nitpicky. ;-)
I find it interesting the EU States can ban images within a videogame, and the publisher MUST comply with that restriction. I wonder if the same could happen with a US State? Could California declare "no more swastikas" and force Activision to edit California editions of Wolfenstein, or would the U.S. overrule that decision? If yes, could the EU eventually overrule Germany's law?
Microsoft didn't start with 90%. In fact it used to be in second place behind Atari (1978-82) and Commodore (1983-86), but by 1990 MS controlled about 60% of the market, and by 2000 that had risen to 95%. It appears that Apple is heading in the same direction with 75% of all players and 90% of the online music sales.
So if Apple can update Itunes in such a way that it won't work with third-party players, they can use their 90% software dominance with the Istore/Itunes virtual monopoly to boost Ipod share higher.
>>>What exactly is Palm attempting to recover from Apple?
Same thing Netscape and Google tried to recover when they sued Microsoft - a lost market caused by a company monopolizing the market via anticompetitive practices (which is illegal in both the U.S. and the EU).
>>>Microsoft was using their monopoly* with Windows (software) to push another piece of software (Internet Explorer).
And Apple is using their virtual monopoly with the Istore/Itunes software to push a piece of hardware (ipod) and "break" other pieces of hardware from being usable. I consider that an even worse crime that what MS was doing.
>>>t by copying the files over
How do I do that? I don't even know where the song files reside, and even if I did take time to figure it out, I suspect most Itunes users have no clue.
>>>MediaSync for Blackberry reads in the contents of the iTunes Media Library using the XML exported file
Until Apple decides to change the XML which would break MediaSync.
>>>Which is entirely within their rights. You may not like that, but tough shit!
Then maybe I'll just stop buying Apple product. Nothing's more annoying than having spent 1 or 2 hundred dollars on external gadgets, only to discover they won't work anymore when I upgrade to OS 10.6 or Itunes 9. I guess this yet another example of the "Apple tax" that makes working with Apple so expensive for the end user.
>>>It is not anticompetitive to put your resources behind a product and give it away for free
Both the United States DOJ and the European Union reached a different conclusion when Microsoft gave-away free copies of Internet Explorer. They argued that MS used its virtual monopoly to drive the then-dominant Nertscape and Mosaic browsers off the desktop and into bankruptcy. I'm sure they'd reach a similar conclusion about Apple using its virtual monopoly over Istore/Itunes to drive Palm, Insignia, and other MP3 gadgets out of market.
I don't agree with your view. What's so damn difficult that, when Itunes sees a non-ipod, it simply treats the gadget as a file storage device and dumps the songs to the Palm, Insignia, or other gadget. That's a better solution than to tell people like me that they can't offload their purchased Istore songs to their non-ipod.
I don't accept "you must buy our hardware" from any manufacturer, whether it's Apple or Mickeysoft. One of the great advantages of the death of Commodore, Atari, Texas Instruments, and other proprietary standards was that we were no longer forced to buy their products. The PC platform brought the advantage of generic hardware, and I don't want to see that advantage taken away by forcing us to buy only Apple-branded hardware in order to enjoy our Istore songs.
Thanks for labeling me "flamebait" just because I offered my opinion. If you disagree SAY you disagree - don't try to use censorship.
Previous comment fixed
- "The usual point is that the rules are different for Microsoft because they're a [virtual] monopoly [with greater than 90% control of PCs], but in the market of portable music players, Apple has a [virtual] monopoly too." And just as Microsoft used its virtual monopoly to shove Netscape Browser out-of-the-way, Apple is using its virtual monopoly to make it nigh-impossible to use other MP3/MP4 players with their Istore/Itunes virtual monopoly.
>>>because they went beyond their USB manufacturer agreement, they don't have a case in court.
I disagree. If I were a judge I would dismiss the Palm disguising itself as an iPod as a reasonable engineering solution caused by an UNreasonable company using monopolistic and anti-competitive behavior. This is what the judges did during the Paypal trial (circa 2003), saying that certain actions performed by customers to recover their money were reasonable, given that paypal had effectively stolen their money. He then ordered Paypal to refund all the cash.
If I were a judge I would dismiss the Palm disguising itself as an iPod as a reasonable engineering solution caused by an UNreasonable company using monopolistic and anti-competitive behavior. I would then require Apple to open its Istore and Itunes software to any and all MP3 or MP4 devices, or else face massive fines under U.S. law.
Also to consider the USB-IF as the ultimate arbiters of all legal questions is a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under an oligarchy. The members of the USB-IF are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. (paraphrased from Jefferson) Their opinion is only that - their opinion - and not the final word on the matter.
A lot of Europeans are criticizing Obama for saying, "We're canceling the missile defense system," but I think he has the right idea. If the European Union wants a missile defense shield to protect themselves from Russia, Iran, et cetera than let the EU build it themselves. They need to stop sucking on the U.S. taxpayer teet and build their OWN defensive army and shield.
>>>I'm not American, I've just had enough of all the US bashing, especially from the people who intersperse it with cries for help.
Thank you British cousin. ;-)
Thank you for being honest.
Oh and the reason the American death age is 1 year lower than EU rates has *nothing* to do with the government. Correlation =/= causation. The real cause is that we eating fatty foods that clog arteries & shorten lifespans. Like this ice cream I'm eating for breakfast.
>>>Microsoft adds a nontrivial amount of commuter traffic to local infrastructure, and the only two things they've ever ponied up for:
False. Microsoft's commuting employees pay the same ~70 cents per gallon as everybody else. That money is the toll that keeps the roads repaired. To say these workers have not paid for the infrastructure they are using is an insult against those workers, and unfair as well.
>>>The [interstate commerce clause] forbids this. It's in the constitution...
Actually states are allowed to forbid the sale of certain products, and there's nothing the Congress can do about it. Just ask Utah which forbids the sale of several products their citizens find objectionable. See Amendment 10 which also in the constitution...
>>>The investment in their campus structure alone would not fly with Shareholders.
Apparently you haven't heard of the Harley company. They too have invested in campuses and buildings, but they are willing to pick-up and move to another state with lower taxes. I have no doubt in my mind, rather than pay backtaxes, Microsoft would pick-up and move someplace else too.
>>>I'm not sure what to think of the situation
I think taxing corporations is pointless. For example if Washington State pisses off Microsoft, then they will simply move somewhere else - like Detroit. I bet the politicians in Michigan would be thrilled to offer MS a brand-new building, taxfree status, and other benefits in order to hire their ~15% of unemployed citizens.
A wiser is course is not to collect the taxes from the corporation itself, but from the corporate employees and stockholders. Tax the people not the entity.
Next step - The FCC will start censoring swear words on cable channels. You give them an inch and they will take a mile.
Hmmm. I recall watching whole episodes of shows like Hannah Montana, Wizards of Waverly, the Misfits, and so on. I can see someone paying 1-2 dollars per month to be able to see those shows. (It's probably why Comcast doesn't allow access to disneyconnection.com - they want you watching Comcast cable, not the internet.)
>>>This is Autozone telling you they won't sell you parts cause you own a Ford
State laws prevent refusal of service to customers unless there's a damn good reason, and "he drives a Ford" is not that reason. You and other mistreated customers can file a lawsuit in the state court.
Suppose Comcast refuses to pay not just disneyconnection.com and ESPN360.com, but also hulu.com, youtube.com, netflicks.com, and so on. All blocked to Comcast users due to lack of payment. Now all you can access is comcastvideo.com. Gee, how convenient.