> PS: I don't give a flying duck about this BTW, the only remedy I want to see from Microsoft is to be forced to publish every single file-format (Word) and protocol (Exchange) that they use, and keep those documents up to date.
Why do you think you have any right to their intellectual property?
Are there a bunch of patents that sticking in your craw? Maybe the DOJ can eliminate them as well. Hell, why not _force_ everybody to publish every secret ever?
If Bill were to pull up stakes tomorrow and fire every one of his employees and shut down Microsoft, we'd all be fucked.
...you are really talking about doing away with the entire system of capitalism as we know it.
Think about it objectively here for a second: Microsoft started as a tiny corporation, and for no other reason than they anticipated user demand and repeatedly delivered software to meet it they became hugely successful.
This is good. They are an example of a company running well. The fact that bill gates has that much money is evidence of the success of the capitalist system. He is a genius who worked hard to bring software to people at a time when not many other people were doing it. He deserves to be rewarded for this hard work more than a cashier who can't see beyond their menial work, and can't apply their brain to any sort of progress, does. He values his mind over anything else, obviously, and has applied it to a variety of problems, quite effectively.
Now, to say that it is just or moral for the government to step in and say: "Hmmm. Sorry. Too successful. This is capitalism, but, you know, it just doesn't feel right, you having all this money and other people not having as much money. After all, we are all people, and we all deserve what you have as well." Then you are talking about cannibalism. Horrible, afwul, communist style cannibalism that threatens the very foundation that your country was built on.
People are individuals. To imagine, and then enforce, the doctrine that any given person deserves the same compensation for sitting around their house all day as Bill Gates does for relentlessly pursuing a goal and achieving it is immoral.
Think about this: imagine Linux becomes wildly successful, captures 98% of the desktop market because Microsoft has been subdued and thoroughly kicked in the teeth for what they do so well. Now, imagine if the government came in and said: "No more. No more open source. Move it all to private companies. Lots of them. This is not benefitting the public, your definition of free enterprise, and you have to stop. Releasing source code is now illegal, and, by the way, you support too many different things too well, so dumb some of them down a shade, and have it crash every once in a while. Other people deserve to capture the same market as you, even though they can't do this as well as you. After all, we are all human."
A disgusting thought? Very.
Careful when you turn the law and the government against a competitor. Learn to compete against them on moral terms or don't bother. Next you'll want the government to change your diapers too.
Window belongs to Microsoft. Windows should be able to do anything they can make it do, and no cannibal should be allowed to make it do anything less. If you want to curtail their profits, to make them fail, you have the right to do that: don't buy their products, develop better products. Anything else is uncivilized.
People work hard for the inventions they create, and then they turn to the government for protection against the cannibals who would claim that their need is all the justification they could require for ripping it out of their hands.
You act as though patents are in place to destroy knowledge and prevent invention, when in fact they are there to foster invention and promote knowledge. Patents exist to allow an inventor to make his or her work available to the pubic.
If you really believe this, and all of the slashdot readers think that this truly is "insightful", then you don't deserve the benefit of the hard work inventors put in. THey work hard. They create. They deserve a better life than those who piggy-back on success. What is wrong with them wanting to enjoy the fruits of their labors.
I have an idea. Why don't we get all of the patent holders in America to sign their patents over to the government in the form of a gift certificate? It would benefit the public good, after all.
That way, nobody will want to invent anything ever because they won't be allowed to enjoy the benefit of their hard work. And then we can stand in the middle of empty fields and wonder why our lives are miserable.
As one who got his entire university cut off from Google in a shell-scripting nightmare (they turned it back on after they learned all the hits were for an AI project), let me say that Google knows when you hit them too hard. Read their terms of service.
Also, I think they would know a thing or two about normalizing the data to correct for the age of a site.
Teacher: Do you read before you go to bed?
Student: Sometimes, and sometimes my dad reads to me.
Teacher: And what does he read to you?
Student: The Adobe Alice in Wonderland...
Teacher: Oh... I see... well... your father is going away for a long long time.
Yes, I would love to see everyone end up in jail everytime they inconvenience me in some way.
Seven years might no be harsh for the IBM case, but that involves forgery, a very serious crime. Spamming should not be a felony, but a misdemeanor, punishable by fines. Lots of ISPs already do this.
The author remarks that this is the sort of thing that we can expect from Intel, but doesn't some of the fault belong to the Linux-distro maintainers? Surely they must have foreseen this problem, and surely Intel should have verified that the problem was taken care of before the P4 ship date.
Sounds like more than Intel dropped the ball.
Zero-Knowledge and Freedom
on
New Crypto-OS
·
· Score: 1
Freedom, a privacy suite by Zero-Knowledge Systems, can solve many of the problems presented by the new British initiative.
It provides untraceable web surfing, and encrypted, untraceable, pseudonymous email. The government will not be able to decrypt the emails, let alone determine where they come from. Freedom employs 1024-bit encryption to protect route information, and to encrypt outbound and returning emails.
It also provides a Firewall, Cookie Manager, Ad Manager and spam blocker.
This is not an idea. This is a reality.
(I am a Zero-Knowledge employee. I do not represent them in any offical capacity.)
Students at a University in Nova Scotia (can't remember if it is Acadia or St. F.X.) have had to do this for many years. The terms are pretty silly: $1500 dollars a year to rent the laptop, which is updated periodically with new software, and then a huge fee at the end to buy it. I really wouldn't want to buy a laptop that is four years old, and which I've already sunk six thousand into.
And, to take care of any and all privacy concerns, there is always Freedom by Zero-Knowledge.
The software in question routes all HTTP requests along an anonymous route of Freedom servers. Only the last and next hops are known to any server in the route; the destination node doesn't know where the request came from, and the intermediate nodes don't know the destination or the source!
They forgot to put illiteracy as one of their objectives. It really makes me wonder how somebody could know enough to write the core of a basically functional RPG, but not know how to structure a ssimple sentence. If they wanted to be taken seriously, they should have spent two less hours coding, and two more hours preparing the website.
As surprising as it is to say, I finally agree with something an American institution has decided. Digitizing a book and then providing on the Internet seems like the most crass thing that can be done to a work that was meant to be held in the hands, read in front of the fire, shoved into bookbags, put on the shelf, enjoyed on the train, lent to a friend, written in the margins of, sold at a yard sale, passed down to children and friends and stacked beside its kith and kin. Our libraries are the cornerstone of our society. The thought of all the collected works of humanity radiating out from a screen, downloaded in the night, and printed off in dot-matrix gives me the creeps.
The primary subject of Douglas Coupland's book Microserfs was this very program. It was called OOP, and the characters in the book founded their own start-up, all quitting their jobs at microsoft to do so. Hilarity ensued... It was supposed to be made into a major motion picture. Does anyone know what became of that?
It really looks as though Microsoft is trying to pull themselves towards some sort of moral highground these days. For what its worth, who cares? The source for CE probably won't build, and who wants it anyway, other than for laughs?
Is it just me or is Canada and other liberal minded countries taking a lot of heat lately? We may have been slow to update our laws regarding the Internet, but maybe this is for a good reason. I, for one, believe the lawmakers of Canada has long viewed the Internet as a rather free and anonymous form of communication and Networking, and realized their jurisdiction did not extend to the ether. Our best bet, I feel, is to view the Internet in an "International Waters" sort of light.
Slashdot Mirror
Why do you think you have any right to their intellectual property?
Are there a bunch of patents that sticking in your craw? Maybe the DOJ can eliminate them as well. Hell, why not _force_ everybody to publish every secret ever?
If Bill were to pull up stakes tomorrow and fire every one of his employees and shut down Microsoft, we'd all be fucked.
If I were Bill, that is what I would do.
...you are really talking about doing away with the entire system of capitalism as we know it.
Think about it objectively here for a second: Microsoft started as a tiny corporation, and for no other reason than they anticipated user demand and repeatedly delivered software to meet it they became hugely successful.
This is good. They are an example of a company running well. The fact that bill gates has that much money is evidence of the success of the capitalist system. He is a genius who worked hard to bring software to people at a time when not many other people were doing it. He deserves to be rewarded for this hard work more than a cashier who can't see beyond their menial work, and can't apply their brain to any sort of progress, does. He values his mind over anything else, obviously, and has applied it to a variety of problems, quite effectively.
Now, to say that it is just or moral for the government to step in and say: "Hmmm. Sorry. Too successful. This is capitalism, but, you know, it just doesn't feel right, you having all this money and other people not having as much money. After all, we are all people, and we all deserve what you have as well." Then you are talking about cannibalism. Horrible, afwul, communist style cannibalism that threatens the very foundation that your country was built on.
People are individuals. To imagine, and then enforce, the doctrine that any given person deserves the same compensation for sitting around their house all day as Bill Gates does for relentlessly pursuing a goal and achieving it is immoral.
Think about this: imagine Linux becomes wildly successful, captures 98% of the desktop market because Microsoft has been subdued and thoroughly kicked in the teeth for what they do so well. Now, imagine if the government came in and said: "No more. No more open source. Move it all to private companies. Lots of them. This is not benefitting the public, your definition of free enterprise, and you have to stop. Releasing source code is now illegal, and, by the way, you support too many different things too well, so dumb some of them down a shade, and have it crash every once in a while. Other people deserve to capture the same market as you, even though they can't do this as well as you. After all, we are all human."
A disgusting thought? Very.
Careful when you turn the law and the government against a competitor. Learn to compete against them on moral terms or don't bother. Next you'll want the government to change your diapers too.
Window belongs to Microsoft. Windows should be able to do anything they can make it do, and no cannibal should be allowed to make it do anything less. If you want to curtail their profits, to make them fail, you have the right to do that: don't buy their products, develop better products. Anything else is uncivilized.
But what about halflings?
Why should the default be deny?
People work hard for the inventions they create, and then they turn to the government for protection against the cannibals who would claim that their need is all the justification they could require for ripping it out of their hands.
You act as though patents are in place to destroy knowledge and prevent invention, when in fact they are there to foster invention and promote knowledge. Patents exist to allow an inventor to make his or her work available to the pubic.
If you really believe this, and all of the slashdot readers think that this truly is "insightful", then you don't deserve the benefit of the hard work inventors put in. THey work hard. They create. They deserve a better life than those who piggy-back on success. What is wrong with them wanting to enjoy the fruits of their labors.
Cannibals.
I have an idea. Why don't we get all of the patent holders in America to sign their patents over to the government in the form of a gift certificate? It would benefit the public good, after all.
That way, nobody will want to invent anything ever because they won't be allowed to enjoy the benefit of their hard work. And then we can stand in the middle of empty fields and wonder why our lives are miserable.
Shouldn't sufficiently small diffs be enough to flag two assignments as potential cheats?
...but who the fuck cares who this guy beat this game? Fuck.
As one who got his entire university cut off from Google in a shell-scripting nightmare (they turned it back on after they learned all the hits were for an AI project), let me say that Google knows when you hit them too hard. Read their terms of service.
Also, I think they would know a thing or two about normalizing the data to correct for the age of a site.
Teacher: Do you read before you go to bed?
Student: Sometimes, and sometimes my dad reads to me.
Teacher: And what does he read to you?
Student: The Adobe Alice in Wonderland...
Teacher: Oh... I see... well... your father is going away for a long long time.
Seven years might no be harsh for the IBM case, but that involves forgery, a very serious crime. Spamming should not be a felony, but a misdemeanor, punishable by fines. Lots of ISPs already do this.
Sounds like more than Intel dropped the ball.
It provides untraceable web surfing, and encrypted, untraceable, pseudonymous email. The government will not be able to decrypt the emails, let alone determine where they come from. Freedom employs 1024-bit encryption to protect route information, and to encrypt outbound and returning emails.
It also provides a Firewall, Cookie Manager, Ad Manager and spam blocker.
This is not an idea. This is a reality.
(I am a Zero-Knowledge employee. I do not represent them in any offical capacity.)
I'd like to discuss this in more detail.
Thanks.
I am a zks employee, I do not represent them in any official capacity.
I am a ZKS employee. I do not represent them in any any official capacity.
- Mail
- Web
- SSL
- News
- IRC
- Telnet
I am a ZKS employee. I am not representing them in any offical capacity.And, if so, what do you think?
These are Canadian dollars, BTW.
The best solution available is Freedom (www.freedom.net), by Zero-Knowledge systems. It offers 4096 bit encryption and pseudonymous email.
The software in question routes all HTTP requests along an anonymous route of Freedom servers. Only the last and next hops are known to any server in the route; the destination node doesn't know where the request came from, and the intermediate nodes don't know the destination or the source!
In addition to this, private email is included.
Really. You actually puked? Wow...
They forgot to put illiteracy as one of their objectives. It really makes me wonder how somebody could know enough to write the core of a basically functional RPG, but not know how to structure a ssimple sentence. If they wanted to be taken seriously, they should have spent two less hours coding, and two more hours preparing the website.
As surprising as it is to say, I finally agree with something an American institution has decided. Digitizing a book and then providing on the Internet seems like the most crass thing that can be done to a work that was meant to be held in the hands, read in front of the fire, shoved into bookbags, put on the shelf, enjoyed on the train, lent to a friend, written in the margins of, sold at a yard sale, passed down to children and friends and stacked beside its kith and kin. Our libraries are the cornerstone of our society. The thought of all the collected works of humanity radiating out from a screen, downloaded in the night, and printed off in dot-matrix gives me the creeps.
The primary subject of Douglas Coupland's book Microserfs was this very program. It was called OOP, and the characters in the book founded their own start-up, all quitting their jobs at microsoft to do so. Hilarity ensued... It was supposed to be made into a major motion picture. Does anyone know what became of that?
It really looks as though Microsoft is trying to pull themselves towards some sort of moral highground these days. For what its worth, who cares? The source for CE probably won't build, and who wants it anyway, other than for laughs?
Is it just me or is Canada and other liberal minded countries taking a lot of heat lately? We may have been slow to update our laws regarding the Internet, but maybe this is for a good reason. I, for one, believe the lawmakers of Canada has long viewed the Internet as a rather free and anonymous form of communication and Networking, and realized their jurisdiction did not extend to the ether. Our best bet, I feel, is to view the Internet in an "International Waters" sort of light.