I've got two email address registered with them, both got an email. Do you run a spam filter? Mail is smart, it tosses all Apple email to the junk filter.
For one, the wires are pay-per-view already. To get wire content (which I do, since my employer has an AP membership) you have to pay. You're not reading the wire when you read AP content online (believe me, a lot of shit comes over "the wire"), you're reading what an AP member has choosen to republish from the AP feed.
But besides no one here understanding what the wire is, if this content is pay-per-view that means the consumer is the one paying for it, meaning that only news that people want to see will be reported, not the other way around.
But this isn't about pay-per-view or anything else posted in 99% of these comments. The AP didn't realize there was money in the internet rights to their content. Someone woke up and realized that they can make money off of the 10,000 AP members posting AP content to the web. No story here.
Sometimes it's funny the stories slashdot picks up, mistakenly thinking that it's a big deal, while missing real stories entirely. Google and Fark have nothin g to do with this. The NYTimes, Washington Post, et al., the AP members, are the only ones effected.
I have to say, I only use Reader to view PDFs for a very specific purpose, that is to take a final look before they go to press, and check color separations.
Maybe Apple has just babied us, but Preview is so much better at viewing PDFs, takes no time (2 seconds) to load, and can handle any PDF. So when I'm just viewing PDfs, it's Preview. I have Acrobat because I need distiller to create optimized PDFs.
I'm sure that for most people here PDFs seems so outdated and bloated and pointless. But as a designer who needs to be able to ship files across the country, to pre-press facilities, as proofs for customers, or as high-quality press kits, PDFs are unbeatable.
There is no otherway to ship high-quality, reasonably sized files that can be accurately color managed to anyone I want without worrying about how they will open the file.
And for those of you who complain that PDFs aren't reasonably sized, you're probably not creating PDFs right, they are very reasonable for what all they contain.
I have had a string of Macs, and never spent $3000. I just bought a refurbished iMac (17 inch, 1 ghz) for $1299. That's pretty reasonable. I also helped a friend pick out an eMac, 1 ghz, not as good as the iMac, but very reasonable at $799.
Go look at the Apple store. If you ignore the G5s (yah I'd love one, but I don't have to have one to get my work done) their prices are very affordable.
But they are in a strategic partnership with the company that runs iTunes (it's really more of a store than a product, the player (original iTunes) is being given away to push iTMS. And if HP is wanting to push Linux on the desktop (point of the story) and has this awesome partnership with Apple (another way get out from under Microsoft's indirect control), who says they haven't asked Apple what the possibility is? Not support iTunes for every possible distro/machine, but to put it out there and support it for Mandrake and HP machines (and leave everyone else to hope it works with their setup). Sure Apple can say take a flying f*ck. But HP has a lot better chance at that than getting MS to port Office.
You're unnecessarily negative, and it is a honestly interesting question. If HP was willing to contribute towards the development, it is even a possibility (What a way for HP to gain a coup, help Apple put out a linux iTunes).
Not saying I think it will happen. But I would bet a small bill that it's been brought up inside of HP at the very least.
And HP does have some control over their hiPods, so it's not unlikely that they have the ablity to come up with a sanctioned way to use them under Linux (without iTunes, like Windows was before).
Interesting. I don't believe in evolution (Macro, that is). There is no real evidence of macro-evolution, that's why it's called the Thoery of Evolution. Micro-evolution is pretty much a given, but Macro is still a large unknown. The fossil record is too incomplete to give us an answer, and until you can prove it, then I don't see why Creationism is any more ridiculous than some other unproven theory.
Look into Stephen Jay Gould's writings about the eye if you think macro-evolution is a given.
From my understanding, it's not really detecting currency. It's detecting a certain pattern that is on the currency (of most major companies). So what happens when every photo has that image? What happens when Kodak decides to imprint it on all of the prints you buy (ensuring that you have to spend that extra $3 for the CD if you want digital copies). Likely? Seems not too far fetched for me. Or how about one better (though more far-fetched) how about when a company decides to start watermarking sensitive (read potentially damaging) papers with it? If the whistle-blower can't document the wrong-doing, they're not going to be much whistle blowing. Then how long before every government document has it on it (Why should anyone need to scan a government document).
I'm not that worried about the currency issue (though as an graphic designer doing display ads, I'm one of those it actually affects, being that it's not uncommon for an ad to have money, legally, in the ad graphics), but I'm concerned about the actual mark being used, and how easy it would (or wouldn't) be to have that mark spread to all kinds of other things.
How long before the RIAA convinces companies that make sound cards to employ a similar digital stamp?
The parent of this thread is +5, and says paraphrased that people are bound to pirate Adobe because it is overpriced.
My reply that pirating isn't justified (which is a view shared by the law) by high prices is marked -1 Flamebait.
Interesting. So people who want to stick it to the man are insightful, people who think about the effect their actions have and agree with the law are flamebait. Very interesting.
No it doesn't. I just minimized 10 windows. It shrunk, but if I drag something to bottom of the Dock, it is still the trash. It has shrunk, which means the target is smaller, but the bottom left corner of my trash can is still in the same spot.
You deny them their right to exist? Their existence is a tyranny on your person and a barrier to true social progress?
Unless you are outside of the US (and you may be), then you are wrong on both accounts. The foundation of America is that everyone (including business) has a right to exist if capable and no one has a Right to exist if it intrudes on anyone else.
But yah, if you want the system to change, you had better stop relying on the very people that you want to destroy. Where do you think you're going to get software and music when you destroy the companies that produce both? From independant sources? Go get it from them today. Oh yah, you'd rather have the music and software that your "enemies" are producing.
Either you are underage and have no idea how basic economics works or you are a Troll.
Point 9: Bottom of the screen does suck for placement. that's why mine is on the left hand side of the screen.
Point 8: I never have had a problem with this. My folders have custom icons, so I can differentiate between them on the doc. I don't keep files in the Dock (doesn't make sense, I put my document folders in and then select files from in those folders).
Point 7: There isn't a single identical icon in my Dock (with over 25 icons present). See my reply to point 8.
Point 6: That'd be nice.
Point 5: My trash can is in the corner, it is never hidden, and never shifts position. It's called preferences. Turn off magnification, turn off auto-hiding and put the Dock along one side. Takes care of all of this point.
Point 4: Turn off Auto-hiding. It's a horrible option. And once again, use folders not documents (unless you only work with a few documents, it's a bad idea to put them on the dock individually, put folders with your files in them).
Point 3: No. Auto. hide.
Point 2: Um, Apple took two (good) features, and combined them into one, preserving the best features of both. Totally off base on this one.
Point 1: This guy has never used the Dock. You can't put a file in the Dock. When you drag one to it, you are creating an alias. Drag it off and you delete the alias. The original file is never touched.
Especially after reading the last point, I realized he has never used the Dock. All of his points are either (a) invalid or (b) entirely fixable (preferences) except for the one about the color. And I challenge anyone to show me how you can "accidently" delete a file because of the dock.
See, the thing is that Adobe isn't trying to sell to you, an "amatuer photographer." You probably aren't ever going to be able/willing to spend the money that Adobe needs to get back out of its "professional" products. But on the other hand, as a professional designer, I can tell you, I'm not sweating my $169 upgrade to CS (yah, that's right, professionals don't spend $500 on Photoshop, because we've had it for years and just pay the upgrade price. Initial investment high, but $169 is fair for an upgrade).
I couldn't do my job without PhotoShop (or an equivalent). It's worth every penny. But as an amatuer photographer, what do you think you'd actually pay. $400? doubt it. $200? Still have my doubts. How about $100? How about $49? I have a feeling that the last two are what you have in mind. Sorry, PhotoShop didn't get designed on a budget that allows them to sell it for $49 a copy. If you are an amatuer, use amatuer products. I am sure there is a cheap graphics program for $49. It'll also give you $49 results. I'll keep my expensive photoshop.
And pirating is only bound ot happen by people without ethics. Just because you don't like the price of something doesn't give you the right to steal. Everyone (including large corporations) have the right to set their price. And everyone else (including poor amatuers) have their right to either buy or not buy. If it is too expensive, stop using it. If enough people do, then they'll either change the price or stop making it. Don't steal it. That's not one of the options. I have a copy at home, and the office I run has 15 copies. Yah, it takes a bite out of my budget when I'm ready to upgrade. Yah, I could buy one copy and hope I don't get audited (small company, chances are I wouldn't). But Adobe provides me an essential tool, I should be providing them one (money).
I work at an advertising agency. How often do ads have currency in them? Quite often. I have images of all American currency. We use them as backgrounds, edit them to use as "coupons", or just throw money in to grab attention. If I can't use images of currency in PhotoShopCS, it is a real problem. Not everybody is a hobbyist who uses PhotoShop (a little sarcasm there), some of us have legitamite uses for scanning and manipulating currency (in entirely legally ways).
Did they pay for the basic infrastructure? Do they own a significant portion of the "net"? Where they involved in the risk taking that made the net successful?
No. No. No.
Quite frankly if the western world wants to run the internet by their own (fair or unfair) rules, they are allowed to. The internet isn't some gift to the world. It was designed by certain groups (okay, lots of groups, working together) and they should be able to maintain control.
If third-world dictators want an internet to control, why don't they invest in the infrastructure, setup their own governing body, and create their own network. It isn't like anything would stop them from doing so.
Other than lack of money and technologically skilled workers.
I must be missing the twice daily SCO postings. Two today, yes, but I don't remember the last one I read.
Seriously, if you don't want SCO news, there have been instructions posted. And obviously everyone who is posting here wants the SCO news, since you're clicking on the article. How hard is it to see SCO in the headline, or the icon, and just skip the article.
It's no wonder the RIAA is filing suits left and right. I really would be fine with them suing every single person who has a song available on P2P networks. I never really thought much about it, until I read most of this thread. In almost every single attack on itunes (which is what it became about a third of the way into it), posters compared iTunes to Kazaa or other P2P networks.
They kept saying things like "This is less functionality then files I can get freely over Kazaa."
Guess what? Those files aren't free! they are illegal. You may think they should be legal, but no court, no REASONABLE person, no government is going to tell you that you can download copyrighted material for free with no restrictions whatsoever.
Wake up. Stop whining that iTunes DRM sucks because you can get the same thing for free without DRM. Just keep downloading your mp3s and wait for a letter from the RIAA.
Ryan Stultz
It's a good point
on
Does IT Matter?
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I just took over IT at the medium advertising agency I work for. The previous guy had entirely subscribed to the theory of "New. Bigger. Better." If I could get back the last 2 years budget, I'd be in heaven. He bought because "New technology means advancement."
Whereas I've been purchasing based on what technology is actually going to improve our production, which suprisingly isn't much. We've got piles of Dual G4s that were top of the line last year, and I'm purchasing eMacs, because with the money I save (and no actual difference for what my employees do with the machine), I can invest in better networking, and invest in people (yah raises!).
For some reason people think that the latest upgrade will always increase productivity. We have machines that have been around for the last 3 years doing nothing, and I now have our back-end MySQL databases running off of them, have our web-server running off of them, using them as file-servers.
And it makes a real difference in my budget, when I can make do with current equipment, it gives me a lot more room for expansion, compared to the practice of replacing non-obsolete equipment every other year.
I think corporate America wastes more technology by not utilizing it to its fullest (which sometimes means having decade old equipment) than it could possibly realize.
Wasn't that case settled because of the fact that AT&T had copied a bunch of BSD code, and the realization had been made that both had screwed up and the easiest course of action was to say "From this day forth..." both were legal? that's always been my understanding of that settlement.
If SCO attacks it, don't they also open themselves back up to claims against AT&T (which SCO would now have to defend) of stealing code from BSD and putting it into their codebase (UNIX, SVWhatever)?
My question would be, can they really open up that can of worms again? And if they do, don't they open themselves up to accusations of IP infringement? Would they have to then clean up the UNIX codebase to remove any infringement that the settlement allowed?
It is about the court costs. It can cost quite a bit for court costs, and that provides a means that people aren't going to be making money off of getting spam (such as if it were a $500 fine), but they still get dinged pretty badly, when 50 people suddenly sue, and they have to pay their court costs and the 50 people's... that could effectively stop all SPAM.
McDonalds wasn't harming anything... they merely "represented" the "americans." So the "poor little goat farmer" destroyed their store.
This is unAmerican on so many different levels, I don't see how Katz possibly can justify his idea. One, the farmer is decidedly anti-american. He trashed McDonalds only because it is American. Yah, definitely someone to honor on Independence day.
Two, he is a vandal. I may agree or disagree with his ideology, but his methodology is horrible. Why would anyone condone violent actions? America is about not using force, but using laws, to create a better life.
This has to be the worst thing I've ever seen posted on Slashdot.
If you aren't flying a lag of any recognized country, than you are classified automatically, by international law, as a pirate. Meaning that anyone has the right to shot on your at will, and no UN nation will bat an eye at it.
So yah, be very armed for when that military vessle realizes you are target practice.
Slashdot Mirror
I've just spent the last two weeks in paris and seens loads of powerbooks, ibooks and imacs.
So just like the US isn't the world, neither is wherever you are.
Ryan
I've got two email address registered with them, both got an email. Do you run a spam filter? Mail is smart, it tosses all Apple email to the junk filter.
Ryan
This makes no sense at all.
For one, the wires are pay-per-view already. To get wire content (which I do, since my employer has an AP membership) you have to pay. You're not reading the wire when you read AP content online (believe me, a lot of shit comes over "the wire"), you're reading what an AP member has choosen to republish from the AP feed.
But besides no one here understanding what the wire is, if this content is pay-per-view that means the consumer is the one paying for it, meaning that only news that people want to see will be reported, not the other way around.
But this isn't about pay-per-view or anything else posted in 99% of these comments. The AP didn't realize there was money in the internet rights to their content. Someone woke up and realized that they can make money off of the 10,000 AP members posting AP content to the web. No story here.
Sometimes it's funny the stories slashdot picks up, mistakenly thinking that it's a big deal, while missing real stories entirely. Google and Fark have nothin g to do with this. The NYTimes, Washington Post, et al., the AP members, are the only ones effected.
Ryan Stultz
Maybe Apple has just babied us, but Preview is so much better at viewing PDFs, takes no time (2 seconds) to load, and can handle any PDF. So when I'm just viewing PDfs, it's Preview. I have Acrobat because I need distiller to create optimized PDFs.
Ryan Stultz
There is no otherway to ship high-quality, reasonably sized files that can be accurately color managed to anyone I want without worrying about how they will open the file.
And for those of you who complain that PDFs aren't reasonably sized, you're probably not creating PDFs right, they are very reasonable for what all they contain.
Ryan Stultz
I have had a string of Macs, and never spent $3000. I just bought a refurbished iMac (17 inch, 1 ghz) for $1299. That's pretty reasonable. I also helped a friend pick out an eMac, 1 ghz, not as good as the iMac, but very reasonable at $799.
Go look at the Apple store. If you ignore the G5s (yah I'd love one, but I don't have to have one to get my work done) their prices are very affordable.
Ryan
Well actually, HP doesn't sell iTunes.
But they are in a strategic partnership with the company that runs iTunes (it's really more of a store than a product, the player (original iTunes) is being given away to push iTMS. And if HP is wanting to push Linux on the desktop (point of the story) and has this awesome partnership with Apple (another way get out from under Microsoft's indirect control), who says they haven't asked Apple what the possibility is? Not support iTunes for every possible distro/machine, but to put it out there and support it for Mandrake and HP machines (and leave everyone else to hope it works with their setup). Sure Apple can say take a flying f*ck. But HP has a lot better chance at that than getting MS to port Office.
You're unnecessarily negative, and it is a honestly interesting question. If HP was willing to contribute towards the development, it is even a possibility (What a way for HP to gain a coup, help Apple put out a linux iTunes).
Not saying I think it will happen. But I would bet a small bill that it's been brought up inside of HP at the very least.
And HP does have some control over their hiPods, so it's not unlikely that they have the ablity to come up with a sanctioned way to use them under Linux (without iTunes, like Windows was before).
Ryan
I never said I believed in God. Merely that I don't believe in macro-evolution. I'm agnostic about the origin of life.
Ryan
A bunch of baloney?
Interesting. I don't believe in evolution (Macro, that is). There is no real evidence of macro-evolution, that's why it's called the Thoery of Evolution. Micro-evolution is pretty much a given, but Macro is still a large unknown. The fossil record is too incomplete to give us an answer, and until you can prove it, then I don't see why Creationism is any more ridiculous than some other unproven theory.
Look into Stephen Jay Gould's writings about the eye if you think macro-evolution is a given.
Ryan Stultz
From my understanding, it's not really detecting currency. It's detecting a certain pattern that is on the currency (of most major companies). So what happens when every photo has that image? What happens when Kodak decides to imprint it on all of the prints you buy (ensuring that you have to spend that extra $3 for the CD if you want digital copies). Likely? Seems not too far fetched for me. Or how about one better (though more far-fetched) how about when a company decides to start watermarking sensitive (read potentially damaging) papers with it? If the whistle-blower can't document the wrong-doing, they're not going to be much whistle blowing. Then how long before every government document has it on it (Why should anyone need to scan a government document).
I'm not that worried about the currency issue (though as an graphic designer doing display ads, I'm one of those it actually affects, being that it's not uncommon for an ad to have money, legally, in the ad graphics), but I'm concerned about the actual mark being used, and how easy it would (or wouldn't) be to have that mark spread to all kinds of other things.
How long before the RIAA convinces companies that make sound cards to employ a similar digital stamp?
Ryan
The parent of this thread is +5, and says paraphrased that people are bound to pirate Adobe because it is overpriced.
My reply that pirating isn't justified (which is a view shared by the law) by high prices is marked -1 Flamebait.
Interesting. So people who want to stick it to the man are insightful, people who think about the effect their actions have and agree with the law are flamebait. Very interesting.
Ryan
No it doesn't. I just minimized 10 windows. It shrunk, but if I drag something to bottom of the Dock, it is still the trash. It has shrunk, which means the target is smaller, but the bottom left corner of my trash can is still in the same spot.
Ryan
You deny them their right to exist? Their existence is a tyranny on your person and a barrier to true social progress?
Unless you are outside of the US (and you may be), then you are wrong on both accounts. The foundation of America is that everyone (including business) has a right to exist if capable and no one has a Right to exist if it intrudes on anyone else.
But yah, if you want the system to change, you had better stop relying on the very people that you want to destroy. Where do you think you're going to get software and music when you destroy the companies that produce both? From independant sources? Go get it from them today. Oh yah, you'd rather have the music and software that your "enemies" are producing.
Either you are underage and have no idea how basic economics works or you are a Troll.
Ryan Stultz.
Point 9: Bottom of the screen does suck for placement. that's why mine is on the left hand side of the screen.
Point 8: I never have had a problem with this. My folders have custom icons, so I can differentiate between them on the doc. I don't keep files in the Dock (doesn't make sense, I put my document folders in and then select files from in those folders).
Point 7: There isn't a single identical icon in my Dock (with over 25 icons present). See my reply to point 8.
Point 6: That'd be nice.
Point 5: My trash can is in the corner, it is never hidden, and never shifts position. It's called preferences. Turn off magnification, turn off auto-hiding and put the Dock along one side. Takes care of all of this point.
Point 4: Turn off Auto-hiding. It's a horrible option. And once again, use folders not documents (unless you only work with a few documents, it's a bad idea to put them on the dock individually, put folders with your files in them).
Point 3: No. Auto. hide.
Point 2: Um, Apple took two (good) features, and combined them into one, preserving the best features of both. Totally off base on this one.
Point 1: This guy has never used the Dock. You can't put a file in the Dock. When you drag one to it, you are creating an alias. Drag it off and you delete the alias. The original file is never touched.
Especially after reading the last point, I realized he has never used the Dock. All of his points are either (a) invalid or (b) entirely fixable (preferences) except for the one about the color. And I challenge anyone to show me how you can "accidently" delete a file because of the dock.
Ryan Stultz
See, the thing is that Adobe isn't trying to sell to you, an "amatuer photographer." You probably aren't ever going to be able/willing to spend the money that Adobe needs to get back out of its "professional" products. But on the other hand, as a professional designer, I can tell you, I'm not sweating my $169 upgrade to CS (yah, that's right, professionals don't spend $500 on Photoshop, because we've had it for years and just pay the upgrade price. Initial investment high, but $169 is fair for an upgrade).
I couldn't do my job without PhotoShop (or an equivalent). It's worth every penny. But as an amatuer photographer, what do you think you'd actually pay. $400? doubt it. $200? Still have my doubts. How about $100? How about $49? I have a feeling that the last two are what you have in mind. Sorry, PhotoShop didn't get designed on a budget that allows them to sell it for $49 a copy. If you are an amatuer, use amatuer products. I am sure there is a cheap graphics program for $49. It'll also give you $49 results. I'll keep my expensive photoshop.
And pirating is only bound ot happen by people without ethics. Just because you don't like the price of something doesn't give you the right to steal. Everyone (including large corporations) have the right to set their price. And everyone else (including poor amatuers) have their right to either buy or not buy. If it is too expensive, stop using it. If enough people do, then they'll either change the price or stop making it. Don't steal it. That's not one of the options. I have a copy at home, and the office I run has 15 copies. Yah, it takes a bite out of my budget when I'm ready to upgrade. Yah, I could buy one copy and hope I don't get audited (small company, chances are I wouldn't). But Adobe provides me an essential tool, I should be providing them one (money).
Ryan Stultz
I work at an advertising agency. How often do ads have currency in them? Quite often. I have images of all American currency. We use them as backgrounds, edit them to use as "coupons", or just throw money in to grab attention. If I can't use images of currency in PhotoShopCS, it is a real problem. Not everybody is a hobbyist who uses PhotoShop (a little sarcasm there), some of us have legitamite uses for scanning and manipulating currency (in entirely legally ways).
Ryan Stultz
Actually, it is hard drive based. Read their spec sheet sheet. Where do you see anythign saying it is flash based?
Ryan Stultz
Did they pay for the basic infrastructure?
Do they own a significant portion of the "net"?
Where they involved in the risk taking that made the net successful?
No. No. No.
Quite frankly if the western world wants to run the internet by their own (fair or unfair) rules, they are allowed to. The internet isn't some gift to the world. It was designed by certain groups (okay, lots of groups, working together) and they should be able to maintain control.
If third-world dictators want an internet to control, why don't they invest in the infrastructure, setup their own governing body, and create their own network. It isn't like anything would stop them from doing so.
Other than lack of money and technologically skilled workers.
Ryan
I must be missing the twice daily SCO postings. Two today, yes, but I don't remember the last one I read.
Seriously, if you don't want SCO news, there have been instructions posted. And obviously everyone who is posting here wants the SCO news, since you're clicking on the article. How hard is it to see SCO in the headline, or the icon, and just skip the article.
Ryan
It's no wonder the RIAA is filing suits left and right. I really would be fine with them suing every single person who has a song available on P2P networks. I never really thought much about it, until I read most of this thread. In almost every single attack on itunes (which is what it became about a third of the way into it), posters compared iTunes to Kazaa or other P2P networks.
They kept saying things like "This is less functionality then files I can get freely over Kazaa."
Guess what? Those files aren't free! they are illegal. You may think they should be legal, but no court, no REASONABLE person, no government is going to tell you that you can download copyrighted material for free with no restrictions whatsoever.
Wake up. Stop whining that iTunes DRM sucks because you can get the same thing for free without DRM. Just keep downloading your mp3s and wait for a letter from the RIAA.
Ryan Stultz
I just took over IT at the medium advertising agency I work for. The previous guy had entirely subscribed to the theory of "New. Bigger. Better." If I could get back the last 2 years budget, I'd be in heaven. He bought because "New technology means advancement."
Whereas I've been purchasing based on what technology is actually going to improve our production, which suprisingly isn't much. We've got piles of Dual G4s that were top of the line last year, and I'm purchasing eMacs, because with the money I save (and no actual difference for what my employees do with the machine), I can invest in better networking, and invest in people (yah raises!).
For some reason people think that the latest upgrade will always increase productivity. We have machines that have been around for the last 3 years doing nothing, and I now have our back-end MySQL databases running off of them, have our web-server running off of them, using them as file-servers.
And it makes a real difference in my budget, when I can make do with current equipment, it gives me a lot more room for expansion, compared to the practice of replacing non-obsolete equipment every other year.
I think corporate America wastes more technology by not utilizing it to its fullest (which sometimes means having decade old equipment) than it could possibly realize.
Ryan Stultz
Wasn't that case settled because of the fact that AT&T had copied a bunch of BSD code, and the realization had been made that both had screwed up and the easiest course of action was to say "From this day forth..." both were legal? that's always been my understanding of that settlement.
If SCO attacks it, don't they also open themselves back up to claims against AT&T (which SCO would now have to defend) of stealing code from BSD and putting it into their codebase (UNIX, SVWhatever)?
My question would be, can they really open up that can of worms again? And if they do, don't they open themselves up to accusations of IP infringement? Would they have to then clean up the UNIX codebase to remove any infringement that the settlement allowed?
Ryan Stultz
It is about the court costs. It can cost quite a bit for court costs, and that provides a means that people aren't going to be making money off of getting spam (such as if it were a $500 fine), but they still get dinged pretty badly, when 50 people suddenly sue, and they have to pay their court costs and the 50 people's... that could effectively stop all SPAM.
This is unAmerican on so many different levels, I don't see how Katz possibly can justify his idea. One, the farmer is decidedly anti-american. He trashed McDonalds only because it is American. Yah, definitely someone to honor on Independence day.
Two, he is a vandal. I may agree or disagree with his ideology, but his methodology is horrible. Why would anyone condone violent actions? America is about not using force, but using laws, to create a better life.
This has to be the worst thing I've ever seen posted on Slashdot.
Ryan
So yah, be very armed for when that military vessle realizes you are target practice.
Ryan