A lot of people here seem to have a vastly skewed idea of what lawyers cost; there is no way this case would cost MILLIONS. It's actually a fairly simple issue that comes down to an interpretation of law that could be decided in one hearing.
Not even a lawyer can competantly answer how much a particular case will cost. Remember, a big company can send a team of 20 lawyers, with 100 legal aids (remember Big Tobacco lawsuits) and hold things up in court and create thousands upon thousands of pages of paperwork. What may be simple can be tied up for years. Simple rear-end car accidents can be held up in courts by insurance companies for years and you think this issue is less complex then a rear-end car accident? Besides, if this guy is right (and it seems like he is) why should he have to incure even a ten-thousand dollar bill? This guy may not be able to afford that and even if he can - how fair is it?
To call him names and imply he is a coward though? Being on the defending side of a civil suit = no fun...especially if you did nothing wrong.
Yet, they did Sam, because you were too chickenshit to stand up to them. Now you want to stand behind a court decision before you muster up the "courage" to re-post the posts. If you are really concerned, re-post then go to court. Defend your users.
That's pretty big talk. You do realize that being sued, even if you win, you still lose because of the lawyer fees. Apple can afford to spend millions on their lawyers, can you afford millions on your lawyers? Do you think Sam can? What he did was smart. He backed off so they couldn't bury him into the ground in legal crap and then sued for the right to repost the data. His lawyer may be charging on a comission. If they win Sam and his lawyer will get paid, and the data will be restored. If he stood up to Apple at best he would have his information remain on the site, but he would still had spent a lot of money defending himself.
It doesn't matter that talking about a product is not a violation of copyright law or DMCA law. Apple has big lawyers and a non-profit can't compete with that. What they did was comply with the lawyers demands, and then hire a lawyer (probably on commission) and are going to sue. If they win the suit they get to restore their information, and probably some compensation. If they lose they are at the same point (minus some time/effort) as they are now.
It's a shame that someone can sue someone else and ruin that person just on legal fee's. I am pretty sure the gov't does not provide free council to people in civil suits. It's a major flaw in our countries legal system.
It's not jsut about the cost/hour to make them it's about the customization. Instead of having coils laying around you can custom make them to suit your needs. You can make x-over cables when you want. Belkin cables are expensive, but really do you want your server to have tons of coiled cable? This ends up making things harder to manage.
If your boss is adamant about using belkin or other pre-made cables...it's his budget...let him have it. Other then that, as long as you don't screw up the placement of the wires, and you have the time to spare then go for it. Once crimped there really is no difference - and trust me, the only difference between your cables and belkins (other then price) is yours are custom fitted and theirs is mass-produced
The procedures used by the RIAA the past 5 years in suing 'John Does' without their knowing about it have never been subjected to scrutiny by an appeals court, since most of the 'John Does' never learn about the 'ex parte' proceeding until it's too late to do anything about it.
Wait, I am missing something. In the US doesn't the prosecution have to have a defendent before they can start preceedings? They can investigate all they like but you can't prosecute without a defendent. What someone is going to knock on my door one day and say "BTW you have been found guilty of murder, your trial happened last month, your getting the chair"??
The RIAA opposed the motion, arguing that John Doe's appeal had no chance of success.
I enjoyed this one... "Your honor, don't grant the appeal, they have no chance of winning. It would be silly to even honor their request. BTW, if you do what we say they WILL have no chance of winning and that makes us right, so you need to do as we say because we are right and you would not want to be on the side of wrong, because we are right."
Well there is a fix - but it will have some drawbacks - don't allow booting from CD, USB, Ethernet. Obviously if soemone strips out the hard drive and connects it as a slave drive to the computer there is nothing that can be done, but in terms of booting. Though I am pretty sure the boot process has to be fixed by the hardware mobo makers. Put a password on your boot setup and set it so you can't boot from CD/USB/Ethernet.
I am all for what you guys did, but i don't understand. YOu decided to drop your cable company and they threatened to sue you? That doesn't make sense. Did you guys have a contract you were breaking? For example they set you up with service (no install charges) but you had to sign a 5 year contract?
Even if you are not in Wilson, or NC write your US representative to bring light to the issue. If your in Wilson or NC write all your government agencies. Just copy paste a letter. Send it to your mayor, councilman, state and us senator... hell write your local news agency. The more noise you make the more likely you will get listened to.
'There's no fix for this. It cannot be fixed. It's a design problem,
There is always a fix. Every vulnerability is a "design problem". Sometimes the code to fix it is a separate app (e.g. firewall, virus protection), and sometimes it requires modification to the code. There is always a fix in software - it's just a matter of making it.
This guy stating there is no fix, it can't be fixed is making statements about as dumb as those who say their favorite OS (e.g. OS X) is immune from any virus/worms/hacks.
Wiki"There often is confusion over these two situations. Someone accused of a conflict of interest may deny that a conflict exists because he/she did not act improperly. In fact, a conflict of interests can exist even if there are no improper acts as a result of it. (One way to understand this is to use the term "conflict of roles". A person with two roles--an individual who owns stock and is also a government official, for example--may experience situations where those two roles conflict. The conflict can be mitigated--see below--but it still exists. In and of itself, having two roles is not illegal, but the differing roles will certainly provide an incentive for improper acts in some circumstances.)"
There is definitely a conflict of interest here. The only question is whether there has been wrongdoing.
You just proved the GF posters arguement. He said "A conflict of interest is when someone benefits by dealing a decision in a particular way." Your wiki post says "A person with two roles--an individual who owns stock and is also a government official" Did you miss the stock portion? Getting paid.
You may argue bias (though you still have to prove it), but unless you can prove the judge was getting some kickback (money, favors, a daughter-in-law getting a job due to this, etc) "conflict of interest" does not apply.
Either way - EVEN if you were right about "conflict of interest" you would need to prove it before saying "definitely proves conflict of interest". Which btw, unless you can prove this you are making liable statements.
It does however prove a conflict of interest, and to my mind that means he never should have been permitted to be involved with the case to begin with.
No it does not. You didn't understand a word that I said. Being associated with a group of people/organizations does not make someone biased and does not automatically create a conflict of interest. If he worked for these groups, and would stand to make a profit based on this ruling there would be a conflict of interest. Being associated does not equal conflict of interest.
And I maintain that for a judge to be a member of any group formed specifically for legal activism is a red flag at best.
And I maintain that for a judge to be a member of any group formed specifically for legal activism is a red flag, not at best and not at worst. You then keep tabs on the judge - but being a member of a group does not mean the judge can't/won't rule fairly. If anything it may mean the judge is more informed about the subject...something that we at/. always complain about. We always bitch and moan that judges have no idea what they are talking about because they are not involved with the industry they preside in. Here is a judge who is involved with the industry he presides in and we cry foul because we didn't like the ruling?
You can belong to any organization that you want. YOu can belong to a biker gang, err biker club. You can belong to the KKK. You can belong to the suzie pie makers club. A judge can also be in those associations. Judges belong to many organizations - this is OK. Many judges are known to have specific views on cases (think supreme court justices and abortion). That does not mean they are not allowed or qualified to preside. You think there aren't judges who are in the "anti-abortion group"? Do you think they can't preside fairly? Maybe they cant and maybe they can. For example - I would not be for standard abortion (e.g. "OMG you're pregnant?!?!?, Wasn't me!!!") but that doesn't mean I am against someone else having an abortion for that reason. So my personal belief/choices would not dictate how I would mandate others to live. If I were a judge I would be qualified to preside over such a case even though I am against abortion for those reasons.
This judge could have made a fair ruling even if he is associated with these attorneys. BTW attorneys/judges are a small niche group that join as many organizations as possible (connections, job opportunities, resume, etc). It's not uncommon for judges to personally know the attorneys outside of the court room. It's not uncommon for attorneys to know each other personally either. A prosecutor and defender may have beers after hours - and that is OK. In fact it may be advantages since they may be more civil with each other and more willing to work towards an understanding that can help both sides.
What I am trying to say - this judge being involved with these guys does not make him or his ruling bad. It is up to the defense attorneys to prove, in the appellete courts, that the judge was inappropriate. If he was then it will be a mistrial, otherwise the ruling will stand.
Yea if a jury member is found to have any relation to the subject they are dismissed. So are judges. The only people who are allowed to have biased views/associations are the bailiffs, court recorders, and attorneys - the decision makers are "supposed" to be completely neutral. Obviously this is very difficult, if not impossible, to find but we can mitigate such risks by making sure the decision makers are not affiliated with organizations that have interest in the outcome of the case.
An Illegal Monopoly prevents these 3 things from happening if you want to stay in business.
See now you're just making shit up. It does not. Computer stores can stay in business without selling windows pcs. In fact most computer stores make a marginal profit from computer sales, but make real profit from accessories/software. Go to EB games - they don't sell computers and seem to be doing alright (there is usually 2-3 of them in the malls i go to). Also your comment does not relate to 3 - or you have to explain how it does. And your comment is diametricaly opposed to my second point.
In a car you can have the manufacturer add a tape player, cd player, in addition to the AM/FM radio. In computers, the manufacturer of the pc was prevented contractually from adding other browsers to the machines they were sending out.
Two things for that:
1) Don't sign a contract and do business with the company
2) Sell a different computer with only the other OS (companies do this all the time..the fact that Dell did not is their choice, but if other companies could do it so could Dell)
3) Even if this is anti-competative, what does it have to do with IE? Thats a totally different subject. I could see the anti-competative argument of MS "forcing" companies to only sell MS products (though "force" is subjective), but the IE bundled totally loses the argument with me.
You can remove and replace the stock radio from your car and it wont break the car. The problem with IE wasn't just that it was available for free but you could not remove it.
Radio is integrated with the navigation/digital console in my car, as well as the steering wheel. I have no idea what the ramifications are for removing it but I know for sure that my warranty/extended warranty will be null and void. So not really an option. It's integrated - so they must be sued for anti-trust. Extra functionality != anti-trust. Most everything you buy these days has extra functionality. The iPod has a contacts list - is that anti-trust? The most new cell phones have cameras built in - should they be sued for anti-trust against the camera companies? What does it take to get people to understand that the moment we start sueing companies for putting extra features ni their software they will stop doing it and if they stop doing it the consumer loses. Imagine if you wanted to buy an OS you had to buy each individual component separatly. Maybe the computer savvy would be fine with it - but most people would not know what to get or do. They may go for the cheapest (no firewall, internet browser, anti-virus, etc). Even worse they will pay more
There was a utility I had years ago (i don't know if they made it for XP or Vista) which allowed a person to remove key components to WIndows. It was called WinLite or something like that. I used it for win98 and had no problems removing IE. I think they made a version of it for XP but not sure about Vista.
I know how it is tied to it, and I am pretty sure the EU does not care how the install package is. Nobody says you have to use IE...in fact as I said before, I do not (at least very rarely do, since the company I work for subscribes to OWA).
All they would have to do is get these installed at privately owned gas stations. I would assume franchise gas stations would be against this, though some of the gas station companies might embrace this as being "green" plus they get revenue.
This would be an amazing deal. An advantage - since the battery is never really yours (shared battery) if one breaks down the station sends it in for repair/replacement/etc. So the consumer never has to worry about the battery dying. This makes electric cars that much more appealing to potential consumers.
I support this idea and hope it works well.
BTW with regards to gasoline companies - as long as gas is used they will keep the prices high enough so they will make roughly the same profits. So if every car in the US were a hybrid getting 100mpg, the gas companies would adjust their prices so they would still make X profit per year...so if today gas is 2.10/gallon, then in my hypothetical situation gas would be 6.30/gallon. The winner is 1) environment 2) stability in middle east (no longer as reliant on them) and 3) us.
Not an uncommon behavior. Apple stole the gui idea from Tandy I believe. If we are going to demonize MS for stealing ideas then we better start supporting copyrights and patents - something that most/. (or at least the vocal ones) do not support. MS also got sued for this theft, though they won. I believe the judges ruling was you can't sue based on a look/feel.
BTW I still stand behind the principle that having IE with Windows is not anti-competative. If that were the case then Red Hat, Apple OS, and others would be anti-competative for having an browser pre-installed in their systems. When I installed Red Hat it had FireFox (but did not have IE). When I saw an apple demo laptop it had Safari & FireFox but not Opera or IE. Also, I think car companies are anti-competative because they come bundled with radios, heaters, air conditioners, locks and trunks - which are all convenience items in cars. On a side note I use FireFox, not IE. I use IE for websites that require it (OWA) and to d/l FireFox on a fresh install.
To state banally, once again it appears that Earth isn't the center of the Universe, or even an extraordinary spot. Sadly, mankind won't be ever capable of communicating with such a distant places. However, speculation about extraterrestrial life isn't pointless. In range of our capabilities and, moreover, not forbidden by limiting condition on light speed, is a spectroscopic measurement of atmospheres belonging to planets beyond the solar system. Thus, in principle probable, it would be a great achievement to find traces of organic matter.
Those are some bold statements:
1) Considering how many planets we have looked at and that we can't find life on any of them this makes Earth very extraordinary.
2) Not ever be able to communicate with distant places? You don't know what we will invent in the future. It may come out tomorrow, or it may come out in 300 years - but to say "never".
3) Speculation about other life is not pointless - it feeds our soul and imagination to wonder if there is something else. If humans thought exploring was pointless we would still be living in Africa, definitely never have crossed the ocean, let alone landed on the moon (something that people, 100 years ago, thought was impossible)
Finding organic material will be hard short of landing on the surface. We couldn't even do searches of Mars without sending a robotic device there, and even then it may miss something. It's hard, and may not get done in our lifetime (thought it might) but it is certainly not pointless or impossible, and considering how rare life is we should consider ourselves (and our planet) to be very rare and special, though hopefully not unique.
No, but Nike pioneered sneakers. Now while todays sneakers are more flash then anything else (todays must have sneakers, which cost $200 will absolutely suck in 3-6 months when the new $250 pair come out -if you believe the 16 y/o sales clerk in the referee shirt), Nike did still make running better for people. Our feet do need protection from foreign objects - remember our feet aren't as strong as what they used to be. Ever go on a beach and complain how hot the sand was and it was burning your feet? Yea that's cause we are sissies compared to people of 100, 200, 300, 5000 years ago. Then there are people with foot issues who need the extra support.
Protection for feet is not uncommon or a new method. Humans used footwear even pre-bc.
Yeah, heaven forbid that people have a 'sense of entitlement' about copyright works.
Yup i spend my time and money creating a work I am entitled to it. I worked on it. Just like when yuo go to your job and you spend your time doing a task you are entitled to your pay check. Joe schmoe off the street is not entitled to your work for free unless you decide to give it as such.
You know, those things we, as society, have specifically granted certain people the ability to stifle free speech over, in return for increased output.
How you go from copyright to stifling of free speech is interesting. How is me not getting to read the latest stephen king novel stifling my freedom of speech? How dows not playing the latest computer game stifling my freeedom of speech? I can talk about stephen kings novel all I want, and I can talk about the latest computer game all I want - and I don't even have to buy either of those to do the talking. So you need to elaborate on your freedom of speech statement because as you stated it it doesn't make sense.
I guess it's just crazy we'd be upset that we granted someone the ability to stop us from making copies in return for them giving us interesting stories....and then they not actually selling the stories to us at any price. Crazy us.
Your analogy is weird, then again so is your freedom of speech statement. Again - it's this whole sense of entitlement issue. You are not entitled to read someones book, watch someones movie, or play someones game. If someone wants to create something, copyright it, and then lock it in a vault for nobody to ever read then it is their choice. If someone wants to only offer their books for sale in a certain locale then it is their choice. You have the option of going to that locale and purchasing their material - your choice. You do not have the legal right to circumvent those restrictions. If yuo don't like it then bitch and moan some. Go write a news paper article, create a website demonizing the author/publisher, speak at your tv news station, and complain to your local/state/fed representatives. But circumventing the author/publishers legal rights makes you wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
A lot of people here seem to have a vastly skewed idea of what lawyers cost; there is no way this case would cost MILLIONS. It's actually a fairly simple issue that comes down to an interpretation of law that could be decided in one hearing.
Not even a lawyer can competantly answer how much a particular case will cost. Remember, a big company can send a team of 20 lawyers, with 100 legal aids (remember Big Tobacco lawsuits) and hold things up in court and create thousands upon thousands of pages of paperwork. What may be simple can be tied up for years. Simple rear-end car accidents can be held up in courts by insurance companies for years and you think this issue is less complex then a rear-end car accident? Besides, if this guy is right (and it seems like he is) why should he have to incure even a ten-thousand dollar bill? This guy may not be able to afford that and even if he can - how fair is it?
To call him names and imply he is a coward though? Being on the defending side of a civil suit = no fun...especially if you did nothing wrong.
Yet, they did Sam, because you were too chickenshit to stand up to them. Now you want to stand behind a court decision before you muster up the "courage" to re-post the posts. If you are really concerned, re-post then go to court. Defend your users.
That's pretty big talk. You do realize that being sued, even if you win, you still lose because of the lawyer fees. Apple can afford to spend millions on their lawyers, can you afford millions on your lawyers? Do you think Sam can? What he did was smart. He backed off so they couldn't bury him into the ground in legal crap and then sued for the right to repost the data. His lawyer may be charging on a comission. If they win Sam and his lawyer will get paid, and the data will be restored. If he stood up to Apple at best he would have his information remain on the site, but he would still had spent a lot of money defending himself.
It doesn't matter that talking about a product is not a violation of copyright law or DMCA law. Apple has big lawyers and a non-profit can't compete with that. What they did was comply with the lawyers demands, and then hire a lawyer (probably on commission) and are going to sue. If they win the suit they get to restore their information, and probably some compensation. If they lose they are at the same point (minus some time/effort) as they are now.
It's a shame that someone can sue someone else and ruin that person just on legal fee's. I am pretty sure the gov't does not provide free council to people in civil suits. It's a major flaw in our countries legal system.
It's not jsut about the cost/hour to make them it's about the customization. Instead of having coils laying around you can custom make them to suit your needs. You can make x-over cables when you want. Belkin cables are expensive, but really do you want your server to have tons of coiled cable? This ends up making things harder to manage. If your boss is adamant about using belkin or other pre-made cables...it's his budget...let him have it. Other then that, as long as you don't screw up the placement of the wires, and you have the time to spare then go for it. Once crimped there really is no difference - and trust me, the only difference between your cables and belkins (other then price) is yours are custom fitted and theirs is mass-produced
So will Yahoo offer a way to d/l your site without subscribing? Other then the manual process. Maybe offer free FTP until they close their doors?
Life on earth exhibits a specific "handedness" or chirality. All DNA twists the same way, for example. Apparently the term for this is homochirality.
Sounds kinda gay to me.
The procedures used by the RIAA the past 5 years in suing 'John Does' without their knowing about it have never been subjected to scrutiny by an appeals court, since most of the 'John Does' never learn about the 'ex parte' proceeding until it's too late to do anything about it.
Wait, I am missing something. In the US doesn't the prosecution have to have a defendent before they can start preceedings? They can investigate all they like but you can't prosecute without a defendent. What someone is going to knock on my door one day and say "BTW you have been found guilty of murder, your trial happened last month, your getting the chair"??
The RIAA opposed the motion, arguing that John Doe's appeal had no chance of success.
I enjoyed this one... "Your honor, don't grant the appeal, they have no chance of winning. It would be silly to even honor their request. BTW, if you do what we say they WILL have no chance of winning and that makes us right, so you need to do as we say because we are right and you would not want to be on the side of wrong, because we are right."
Well there is a fix - but it will have some drawbacks - don't allow booting from CD, USB, Ethernet. Obviously if soemone strips out the hard drive and connects it as a slave drive to the computer there is nothing that can be done, but in terms of booting. Though I am pretty sure the boot process has to be fixed by the hardware mobo makers. Put a password on your boot setup and set it so you can't boot from CD/USB/Ethernet.
Nope you can't fight city hall....but that doesn't mean you can't bribe, err lobby it.
I am all for what you guys did, but i don't understand. YOu decided to drop your cable company and they threatened to sue you? That doesn't make sense. Did you guys have a contract you were breaking? For example they set you up with service (no install charges) but you had to sign a 5 year contract?
Even if you are not in Wilson, or NC write your US representative to bring light to the issue. If your in Wilson or NC write all your government agencies. Just copy paste a letter. Send it to your mayor, councilman, state and us senator... hell write your local news agency. The more noise you make the more likely you will get listened to.
http://www.ncleg.net/
'There's no fix for this. It cannot be fixed. It's a design problem,
There is always a fix. Every vulnerability is a "design problem". Sometimes the code to fix it is a separate app (e.g. firewall, virus protection), and sometimes it requires modification to the code. There is always a fix in software - it's just a matter of making it.
This guy stating there is no fix, it can't be fixed is making statements about as dumb as those who say their favorite OS (e.g. OS X) is immune from any virus/worms/hacks.
Wiki"There often is confusion over these two situations. Someone accused of a conflict of interest may deny that a conflict exists because he/she did not act improperly. In fact, a conflict of interests can exist even if there are no improper acts as a result of it. (One way to understand this is to use the term "conflict of roles". A person with two roles--an individual who owns stock and is also a government official, for example--may experience situations where those two roles conflict. The conflict can be mitigated--see below--but it still exists. In and of itself, having two roles is not illegal, but the differing roles will certainly provide an incentive for improper acts in some circumstances.)" There is definitely a conflict of interest here. The only question is whether there has been wrongdoing.
You just proved the GF posters arguement. He said "A conflict of interest is when someone benefits by dealing a decision in a particular way." Your wiki post says "A person with two roles--an individual who owns stock and is also a government official" Did you miss the stock portion? Getting paid.
You may argue bias (though you still have to prove it), but unless you can prove the judge was getting some kickback (money, favors, a daughter-in-law getting a job due to this, etc) "conflict of interest" does not apply.
Either way - EVEN if you were right about "conflict of interest" you would need to prove it before saying "definitely proves conflict of interest". Which btw, unless you can prove this you are making liable statements.
It does however prove a conflict of interest, and to my mind that means he never should have been permitted to be involved with the case to begin with.
No it does not. You didn't understand a word that I said. Being associated with a group of people/organizations does not make someone biased and does not automatically create a conflict of interest. If he worked for these groups, and would stand to make a profit based on this ruling there would be a conflict of interest. Being associated does not equal conflict of interest.
And I maintain that for a judge to be a member of any group formed specifically for legal activism is a red flag at best.
And I maintain that for a judge to be a member of any group formed specifically for legal activism is a red flag, not at best and not at worst. You then keep tabs on the judge - but being a member of a group does not mean the judge can't/won't rule fairly. If anything it may mean the judge is more informed about the subject...something that we at /. always complain about. We always bitch and moan that judges have no idea what they are talking about because they are not involved with the industry they preside in. Here is a judge who is involved with the industry he presides in and we cry foul because we didn't like the ruling?
You can belong to any organization that you want. YOu can belong to a biker gang, err biker club. You can belong to the KKK. You can belong to the suzie pie makers club. A judge can also be in those associations. Judges belong to many organizations - this is OK. Many judges are known to have specific views on cases (think supreme court justices and abortion). That does not mean they are not allowed or qualified to preside. You think there aren't judges who are in the "anti-abortion group"? Do you think they can't preside fairly? Maybe they cant and maybe they can. For example - I would not be for standard abortion (e.g. "OMG you're pregnant?!?!?, Wasn't me!!!") but that doesn't mean I am against someone else having an abortion for that reason. So my personal belief/choices would not dictate how I would mandate others to live. If I were a judge I would be qualified to preside over such a case even though I am against abortion for those reasons.
This judge could have made a fair ruling even if he is associated with these attorneys. BTW attorneys/judges are a small niche group that join as many organizations as possible (connections, job opportunities, resume, etc). It's not uncommon for judges to personally know the attorneys outside of the court room. It's not uncommon for attorneys to know each other personally either. A prosecutor and defender may have beers after hours - and that is OK. In fact it may be advantages since they may be more civil with each other and more willing to work towards an understanding that can help both sides.
What I am trying to say - this judge being involved with these guys does not make him or his ruling bad. It is up to the defense attorneys to prove, in the appellete courts, that the judge was inappropriate. If he was then it will be a mistrial, otherwise the ruling will stand.
Yea if a jury member is found to have any relation to the subject they are dismissed. So are judges. The only people who are allowed to have biased views/associations are the bailiffs, court recorders, and attorneys - the decision makers are "supposed" to be completely neutral. Obviously this is very difficult, if not impossible, to find but we can mitigate such risks by making sure the decision makers are not affiliated with organizations that have interest in the outcome of the case.
An Illegal Monopoly prevents these 3 things from happening if you want to stay in business.
See now you're just making shit up. It does not. Computer stores can stay in business without selling windows pcs. In fact most computer stores make a marginal profit from computer sales, but make real profit from accessories/software. Go to EB games - they don't sell computers and seem to be doing alright (there is usually 2-3 of them in the malls i go to). Also your comment does not relate to 3 - or you have to explain how it does. And your comment is diametricaly opposed to my second point.
In a car you can have the manufacturer add a tape player, cd player, in addition to the AM/FM radio. In computers, the manufacturer of the pc was prevented contractually from adding other browsers to the machines they were sending out.
Two things for that:
1) Don't sign a contract and do business with the company
2) Sell a different computer with only the other OS (companies do this all the time..the fact that Dell did not is their choice, but if other companies could do it so could Dell)
3) Even if this is anti-competative, what does it have to do with IE? Thats a totally different subject. I could see the anti-competative argument of MS "forcing" companies to only sell MS products (though "force" is subjective), but the IE bundled totally loses the argument with me.
You can remove and replace the stock radio from your car and it wont break the car. The problem with IE wasn't just that it was available for free but you could not remove it.
Radio is integrated with the navigation/digital console in my car, as well as the steering wheel. I have no idea what the ramifications are for removing it but I know for sure that my warranty/extended warranty will be null and void. So not really an option. It's integrated - so they must be sued for anti-trust. Extra functionality != anti-trust. Most everything you buy these days has extra functionality. The iPod has a contacts list - is that anti-trust? The most new cell phones have cameras built in - should they be sued for anti-trust against the camera companies? What does it take to get people to understand that the moment we start sueing companies for putting extra features ni their software they will stop doing it and if they stop doing it the consumer loses. Imagine if you wanted to buy an OS you had to buy each individual component separatly. Maybe the computer savvy would be fine with it - but most people would not know what to get or do. They may go for the cheapest (no firewall, internet browser, anti-virus, etc). Even worse they will pay more
There was a utility I had years ago (i don't know if they made it for XP or Vista) which allowed a person to remove key components to WIndows. It was called WinLite or something like that. I used it for win98 and had no problems removing IE. I think they made a version of it for XP but not sure about Vista.
I know how it is tied to it, and I am pretty sure the EU does not care how the install package is. Nobody says you have to use IE...in fact as I said before, I do not (at least very rarely do, since the company I work for subscribes to OWA).
All they would have to do is get these installed at privately owned gas stations. I would assume franchise gas stations would be against this, though some of the gas station companies might embrace this as being "green" plus they get revenue.
This would be an amazing deal. An advantage - since the battery is never really yours (shared battery) if one breaks down the station sends it in for repair/replacement/etc. So the consumer never has to worry about the battery dying. This makes electric cars that much more appealing to potential consumers.
I support this idea and hope it works well.
BTW with regards to gasoline companies - as long as gas is used they will keep the prices high enough so they will make roughly the same profits. So if every car in the US were a hybrid getting 100mpg, the gas companies would adjust their prices so they would still make X profit per year...so if today gas is 2.10/gallon, then in my hypothetical situation gas would be 6.30/gallon. The winner is 1) environment 2) stability in middle east (no longer as reliant on them) and 3) us.
Not an uncommon behavior. Apple stole the gui idea from Tandy I believe. If we are going to demonize MS for stealing ideas then we better start supporting copyrights and patents - something that most /. (or at least the vocal ones) do not support. MS also got sued for this theft, though they won. I believe the judges ruling was you can't sue based on a look/feel.
BTW I still stand behind the principle that having IE with Windows is not anti-competative. If that were the case then Red Hat, Apple OS, and others would be anti-competative for having an browser pre-installed in their systems. When I installed Red Hat it had FireFox (but did not have IE). When I saw an apple demo laptop it had Safari & FireFox but not Opera or IE. Also, I think car companies are anti-competative because they come bundled with radios, heaters, air conditioners, locks and trunks - which are all convenience items in cars. On a side note I use FireFox, not IE. I use IE for websites that require it (OWA) and to d/l FireFox on a fresh install.
To state banally, once again it appears that Earth isn't the center of the Universe, or even an extraordinary spot. Sadly, mankind won't be ever capable of communicating with such a distant places. However, speculation about extraterrestrial life isn't pointless. In range of our capabilities and, moreover, not forbidden by limiting condition on light speed, is a spectroscopic measurement of atmospheres belonging to planets beyond the solar system. Thus, in principle probable, it would be a great achievement to find traces of organic matter.
Those are some bold statements: 1) Considering how many planets we have looked at and that we can't find life on any of them this makes Earth very extraordinary.
2) Not ever be able to communicate with distant places? You don't know what we will invent in the future. It may come out tomorrow, or it may come out in 300 years - but to say "never".
3) Speculation about other life is not pointless - it feeds our soul and imagination to wonder if there is something else. If humans thought exploring was pointless we would still be living in Africa, definitely never have crossed the ocean, let alone landed on the moon (something that people, 100 years ago, thought was impossible)
Finding organic material will be hard short of landing on the surface. We couldn't even do searches of Mars without sending a robotic device there, and even then it may miss something. It's hard, and may not get done in our lifetime (thought it might) but it is certainly not pointless or impossible, and considering how rare life is we should consider ourselves (and our planet) to be very rare and special, though hopefully not unique.
No, but Nike pioneered sneakers. Now while todays sneakers are more flash then anything else (todays must have sneakers, which cost $200 will absolutely suck in 3-6 months when the new $250 pair come out -if you believe the 16 y/o sales clerk in the referee shirt), Nike did still make running better for people. Our feet do need protection from foreign objects - remember our feet aren't as strong as what they used to be. Ever go on a beach and complain how hot the sand was and it was burning your feet? Yea that's cause we are sissies compared to people of 100, 200, 300, 5000 years ago. Then there are people with foot issues who need the extra support.
Protection for feet is not uncommon or a new method. Humans used footwear even pre-bc.
Yeah, heaven forbid that people have a 'sense of entitlement' about copyright works.
Yup i spend my time and money creating a work I am entitled to it. I worked on it. Just like when yuo go to your job and you spend your time doing a task you are entitled to your pay check. Joe schmoe off the street is not entitled to your work for free unless you decide to give it as such.
You know, those things we, as society, have specifically granted certain people the ability to stifle free speech over, in return for increased output.
How you go from copyright to stifling of free speech is interesting. How is me not getting to read the latest stephen king novel stifling my freedom of speech? How dows not playing the latest computer game stifling my freeedom of speech? I can talk about stephen kings novel all I want, and I can talk about the latest computer game all I want - and I don't even have to buy either of those to do the talking. So you need to elaborate on your freedom of speech statement because as you stated it it doesn't make sense.
I guess it's just crazy we'd be upset that we granted someone the ability to stop us from making copies in return for them giving us interesting stories....and then they not actually selling the stories to us at any price. Crazy us.
Your analogy is weird, then again so is your freedom of speech statement. Again - it's this whole sense of entitlement issue. You are not entitled to read someones book, watch someones movie, or play someones game. If someone wants to create something, copyright it, and then lock it in a vault for nobody to ever read then it is their choice. If someone wants to only offer their books for sale in a certain locale then it is their choice. You have the option of going to that locale and purchasing their material - your choice. You do not have the legal right to circumvent those restrictions. If yuo don't like it then bitch and moan some. Go write a news paper article, create a website demonizing the author/publisher, speak at your tv news station, and complain to your local/state/fed representatives. But circumventing the author/publishers legal rights makes you wrong.