I have to assume they are following up on this idea. It seems so obvious because using a gun and scope like this is like using a sextant... the accuracy comes from training.
Power-lust is a weed that grows only in the vacant lots of an abandoned mind. -- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
how ironic. so true and yet so simultaneously self referential of her. the advocate of unbridled power being self regulating somehow evidently knew better.
the worst thing about Ayn... if you find yourself agreeing with what she says, than you don't really agree with her ideology. A trap set for libertarians, I believe.
I think this is part of the process. The judges give you a lot of latitude and show patience. Consider: decisive action isn't making a quick decision and going with it. That's just foolhardy and random. Decisive action is prepared for with a long period of patience and tollerance.
Microsoft, by angering Jackson to the point where he overstepped the bounds of judicial standards, they achieve a sort of dely. But the Thing They Delay itself becomes a much bigger thing. It may look good for Microsoft the company that thinks 2 years ahead. But it is terrible for a company that would want to be around in 100 years.
None of the leniency of the past is lost on the judges. They know MS has been given a chance to reform itself and self direct it's course. They need to know that before they step in an direct it's course themselves, because that is only their role as a last resort.
it also sets up a situation where people will use the Free Version, go ahead and contribute to CVS et al., and then open up themselves and those projects to legal action.
Consider... they will use their product registration databases against lists of open source contributors to pursue legal rather than meritorious competition. RMS is right about this. Leave it to the fanatics to see through the fog.
The logic defending this is the same logic that doesn't understand why entrapment is illegal.
not to mention that the point is the license is ridiculous... and to those who say, "well, just don't use it", that's right. Why bother. I don't work on the client or a competitor.
indeed, I saw the same thing on several cable services. The amiga was very popular for character generation and overlay, via the Toaster, which combined with the Amiga made a great cheap platform (offering a reasonable quality version of something for a couple thousand dollars that generally would cost more like 10's of K$)
If justice were fully served, meaning the law of the land was perfectly executed and violations punished as intended by the framers of the laws themselves (iow, an idealized situation), do you think that criminal penalty, such as actual jail time, would be called for in the case of Microsoft and/or it's officers?
exactly, a good CIO slows down the technology himself. If it's six months old, read about it like you would read a sci-fi novel. Unless you have a special business needs that increas the attractiveness of taking a risk on the new solution, don't do it. The CIO is the one who is supposed to find the sensible tempo, it's the job of the software companies to keep moving forward and to create the new technologies today that won't really be mature and generally compelling for five or ten years.
the complexity of those products is nothing compared with the complexity of an OS. Complex things, done over and over, become clear, if still complex. IBM had HUGE endeavors making the OSes for it's early machines, now Linux has caught up. Open source is not always the answer, and it's likely to be a few decades in coming to the more difficult mission critical solutions, but I think it borders on silly to say it can "never" be accomplished. In fact, it will be achieved, it's just that, by that time, hopefully there is a new threshold of complexity at the cutting edge.
if the complaint is that a law is being violated, the organization responsible for determining the validity of that is supposed to be the one to check.
I think you need to focus on law reform of some kind. What if the government just refuses all services to southwest, which if it was a private company it could easily do to get them to comply with their policies (aka laws).
> If one qualified white man and six unqualified black men/women apply for an opening - tell me why on Earth the white man shouldn't be hired.
The real issue is that there is no objective way to measure the "best one for the job"... it's not like the guy's resume or real experience just fit like this big old obvious best or worst plug. Better school? Better, whichever, they don't absolutely tell you and it's often closer than the range of peoples bigoted biases. And insisting on such rules for the prestigious schools was absolutely necessary for there to even BE appropriatelly educated candidates available.
btw, I meant plural "you", not you in particular, since clearly you were advocating the practicality of ensuring reasonable measures are taken to enable general access.
it's good for skateboarders.
>And because companies are, by definition, selfish entities, we must compel them to behave in a manner that takes into account the greater good of the society.
right, the point is, in the end, these people add important things back to the economy. The "selfishness" of the companies is not complete... there IS profit to be made there, but they let it fall to the side because they don't need it.
On the other hand, the real issue is that he can call in... but that service is starting to seem so inferior, and is not guarenteed to be as cheap... you are saying he has to pay for custom human service, like valet parking. It's EASY to make your site work with the kind of software this guy has purchased for himself.
Don't give that cookie-cutter, libertarian crap. If you don't like the law, work to get it repealed. If more people disagree with you than agree, that's democracy in action.
This is right to the point. After years of studying libertarianism (a philosophy which has certain appeal, I'd say), I think that libertarianism should focus itself on legal reform because that is what it really wants.
Libertarian thought has arrived at the admission that there is certain laws you need to have in common because there is the part about "violating the rights of others", and no one can argue with a straight face that this rule would not need enforcement, so you clearly need personel, if only for hiring the private cops. They split up still from there, as far as I can tell, but essentially if you have given up even a fraction of that you are just arguing that you need rational rules, which are going to be somewhat arbitrary and have to be decided. They advocate minimalism. Here is a good law for a Libertarian Congressman to promote: A law that for every law congress adds in whole or part to the total compendium of laws, it has to redact a law in whole or part from the compendium (It would be years until they got through with laws from 1820 relating to horse parking regulations). The Simplification Law. I could vote libertarian just one time for this.
this is exactly right... "you can't use this phone if you are going to discuss developing a better technology". Some people have defended this EULA on the grounds, for example that, "CVS isn't a competitor to BK" (b/c it's so lowly, I guess).. that is... IT ONLY HOPES TO PROHIBIT THE ADVANCEMENT OF THINGS THAT ARE BETTER! It's specifically wants to slow technology to perpetuate itself. YES, I understand why this makes "sense" from the business point of view... but as a user and customer it makes no sense.
It's what Bitkeepers Lawyers and a Judge think is a competitor that will pertain
If you wanted to improve CVS to have the features that did make it compete with BK (according to BitMover), do you think that would be covered?! Of course... Think about it. Lets say you have a standard source forge project version.0, Ultimate Source Keeper. That doesn't compete with BK because it doesn't exist. Is it their intention to prohibit you from working on it only after they admit that it exceeds the quality of their own product?
I think it's clear they don't want you making CVS (or anything else) better... so that it will continue to not be a competitor. If developers think this is a good idea they havn't thought about all the tools THEY USE! This kind of limitation is ridiculous.
and btw, it doesn't matter what they THINK a competitor is... it matters what the market is choosing between.
Slashdot Mirror
the ACLU brought the Scopes Monkey Trial. It lost. Or wait... did it?
I have to assume they are following up on this idea. It seems so obvious because using a gun and scope like this is like using a sextant... the accuracy comes from training.
Power-lust is a weed that grows only in the vacant lots of an abandoned mind. -- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
how ironic. so true and yet so simultaneously self referential of her. the advocate of unbridled power being self regulating somehow evidently knew better.
the worst thing about Ayn... if you find yourself agreeing with what she says, than you don't really agree with her ideology. A trap set for libertarians, I believe.
and here I thought his name was "Shorn".
"Fire another round, corporal."
"But sir... we're running out of feet."
I think this is part of the process. The judges give you a lot of latitude and show patience. Consider: decisive action isn't making a quick decision and going with it. That's just foolhardy and random. Decisive action is prepared for with a long period of patience and tollerance.
Microsoft, by angering Jackson to the point where he overstepped the bounds of judicial standards, they achieve a sort of dely. But the Thing They Delay itself becomes a much bigger thing. It may look good for Microsoft the company that thinks 2 years ahead. But it is terrible for a company that would want to be around in 100 years.
None of the leniency of the past is lost on the judges. They know MS has been given a chance to reform itself and self direct it's course. They need to know that before they step in an direct it's course themselves, because that is only their role as a last resort.
it also sets up a situation where people will use the Free Version, go ahead and contribute to CVS et al., and then open up themselves and those projects to legal action.
Consider... they will use their product registration databases against lists of open source contributors to pursue legal rather than meritorious competition. RMS is right about this. Leave it to the fanatics to see through the fog.
The logic defending this is the same logic that doesn't understand why entrapment is illegal.
not to mention that the point is the license is ridiculous... and to those who say, "well, just don't use it", that's right. Why bother. I don't work on the client or a competitor.
it's your position that ideology takes the front seat in commercial software?
of course not... they will run other kinds of Unix, most of which will merely be related to linux.
indeed, I saw the same thing on several cable services. The amiga was very popular for character generation and overlay, via the Toaster, which combined with the Amiga made a great cheap platform (offering a reasonable quality version of something for a couple thousand dollars that generally would cost more like 10's of K$)
(+1) Old Man
hole no pity on dakine my dayme,
Newton should have copyrighted those laws!
If justice were fully served, meaning the law of the land was perfectly executed and violations punished as intended by the framers of the laws themselves (iow, an idealized situation), do you think that criminal penalty, such as actual jail time, would be called for in the case of Microsoft and/or it's officers?
exactly, a good CIO slows down the technology himself. If it's six months old, read about it like you would read a sci-fi novel. Unless you have a special business needs that increas the attractiveness of taking a risk on the new solution, don't do it. The CIO is the one who is supposed to find the sensible tempo, it's the job of the software companies to keep moving forward and to create the new technologies today that won't really be mature and generally compelling for five or ten years.
the complexity of those products is nothing compared with the complexity of an OS. Complex things, done over and over, become clear, if still complex. IBM had HUGE endeavors making the OSes for it's early machines, now Linux has caught up. Open source is not always the answer, and it's likely to be a few decades in coming to the more difficult mission critical solutions, but I think it borders on silly to say it can "never" be accomplished. In fact, it will be achieved, it's just that, by that time, hopefully there is a new threshold of complexity at the cutting edge.
if the complaint is that a law is being violated, the organization responsible for determining the validity of that is supposed to be the one to check.
I think you need to focus on law reform of some kind. What if the government just refuses all services to southwest, which if it was a private company it could easily do to get them to comply with their policies (aka laws).
> If one qualified white man and six unqualified black men/women apply for an opening - tell me why on Earth the white man shouldn't be hired.
The real issue is that there is no objective way to measure the "best one for the job"... it's not like the guy's resume or real experience just fit like this big old obvious best or worst plug. Better school? Better, whichever, they don't absolutely tell you and it's often closer than the range of peoples bigoted biases. And insisting on such rules for the prestigious schools was absolutely necessary for there to even BE appropriatelly educated candidates available.
and soon in bars in California, no drinking, or talking!
borrwed from eddie izzard
btw, I meant plural "you", not you in particular, since clearly you were advocating the practicality of ensuring reasonable measures are taken to enable general access.
it's good for skateboarders.
>And because companies are, by definition, selfish entities, we must compel them to behave in a manner that takes into account the greater good of the society.
right, the point is, in the end, these people add important things back to the economy. The "selfishness" of the companies is not complete... there IS profit to be made there, but they let it fall to the side because they don't need it.
On the other hand, the real issue is that he can call in... but that service is starting to seem so inferior, and is not guarenteed to be as cheap... you are saying he has to pay for custom human service, like valet parking. It's EASY to make your site work with the kind of software this guy has purchased for himself.
Don't give that cookie-cutter, libertarian crap. If you don't like the law, work to get it repealed. If more people disagree with you than agree, that's democracy in action.
This is right to the point. After years of studying libertarianism (a philosophy which has certain appeal, I'd say), I think that libertarianism should focus itself on legal reform because that is what it really wants.
Libertarian thought has arrived at the admission that there is certain laws you need to have in common because there is the part about "violating the rights of others", and no one can argue with a straight face that this rule would not need enforcement, so you clearly need personel, if only for hiring the private cops. They split up still from there, as far as I can tell, but essentially if you have given up even a fraction of that you are just arguing that you need rational rules, which are going to be somewhat arbitrary and have to be decided. They advocate minimalism. Here is a good law for a Libertarian Congressman to promote: A law that for every law congress adds in whole or part to the total compendium of laws, it has to redact a law in whole or part from the compendium (It would be years until they got through with laws from 1820 relating to horse parking regulations). The Simplification Law. I could vote libertarian just one time for this.
this is exactly right... "you can't use this phone if you are going to discuss developing a better technology". Some people have defended this EULA on the grounds, for example that, "CVS isn't a competitor to BK" (b/c it's so lowly, I guess).. that is... IT ONLY HOPES TO PROHIBIT THE ADVANCEMENT OF THINGS THAT ARE BETTER! It's specifically wants to slow technology to perpetuate itself. YES, I understand why this makes "sense" from the business point of view... but as a user and customer it makes no sense.
I keep hearing this. What is the major unworkable design flaw?
I think it's clear they don't want you making CVS (or anything else) better... so that it will continue to not be a competitor. If developers think this is a good idea they havn't thought about all the tools THEY USE! This kind of limitation is ridiculous.
and btw, it doesn't matter what they THINK a competitor is... it matters what the market is choosing between.