In your case Word's mail merge function is enough to make you upgrade. That's fine, for you. For me, it isn't enough, yet, and I shouldn't have to drag sixteen attorneys and staff members though an upgrade they don't want just for something we don't need.
one who is legally appointed to transact business on another's behalf; specifically : a legal agent qualified to act for suitors and defendants in legal proceedings
Synonyms lawyer, attorney-at-law
Lawyer:
one whose profession is to conduct lawsuits for clients or to advise as to legal rights and obligations in other matters
Synonyms attorney, attorney-at-law; pettifogger
(both from the Merriam-Webster online dictionary & theosauros)
I'm an attorney at a law office with about 16 computers. We are still using WordPerfect for Windows 6.1. Why?
Because EVERY new release since then, of both WordPerfect and Word, hasn't given me (I make the IT decisions) a sufficiently good enough reason to ask the staff to learn how to use a new system.
Contrary to those bashing Microsoft, this isn't MS's fault, and it's not a case where people using Macs just don't have this problem. It's really simple - Once you get used to a system, you don't want to change, as long as the system you know does what you want.
We've gone though multiple changes in software - WordPerfect for Windows 6.1 was much easier to use than WordPerfect 5.1, ACT! has improved over time, and we've more or less kept upgrading Windows whenever Bill Gates wanted more money. Except for ME, each windows upgrade was worth it, from a usability and reliability standpoint.
But we still use WP6.1, even though it has 8.3 filenames and an automated template system that's crippled (and was finally finally fixed in WP10). Not only is this program reliable and does what we need it to do, it's faster than any of its successors because it was written for computers running 80386's.
Also, I have to say that the WP6.1 file dialogue boxes, are just plain better than anything I've seen since. Who in the hell thought that a sideways scrolling file-open dialogue box filled with useless icons was a good idea, especially when you can have really long filenames that take up half the screen?
Before I upgrade our software, there's got to be a reason better than "there's a new version out". The new software has to fill a need that isn't filled by the old software, or it has to solve serious reliability problems.
The Cole didn't get a shot off at four men attacking in a rowboat because it did not have the capability of doing so. The Cole had enough.50 cal machine guns to do the job. What happened is that the Cole did not recognize the threat.
This is significant. Remember that one of our Ticonderoga class missile cruisers shot down a commerical airliner flying from Iran carrying pilgrams to Mecca. The crewmen on the Cole, if even alerted to the threat, may have hesitated because the boat showed no open threat and could have been completely innocent.
When you are dealing with terrorist threats, it's easy to overreact. Or underreact.
Actually there's a big hunk of metal that keeps the missile launchers from pointing towards any portion of the ship - at least for the non-VLS launchers.
Now the VLS (vertical launch system) launchers, the missile more or less goes straight up until it curves in a trajectory towards its target. There's no way it's going to hit its own ship. I suppose with the programmable waypoints in the Harpoon and Tomahawk missiles, it's possible to program the missile to fly out, turn around 180, and come right back, but that kind of programming isn't that easy under current systems - not to mention that the pcworld article's emphasis was on monitoring ship control systems (values, gauges, etc.) remotely via wireless LAN, rather than controlling ship weapon systems. The whole idea here seems to be to replace a lot of copper wire that has nothing to do with firing weapons with a wireless LAN.
...computer. It'll never work. I mean, there can't possibly be any technical solution allowing each internet retailer to keep track of the proper amount of sales tax to charge for each jurisdiction. Gee, you'd have to put a street map of the whole US on the Internet, and we all know that's impossible.
Seriously, this can be done. I'm not sure if it's a good thing or not, but there's no technical hurdle to having an online database coupled with mapping software that will allow a retailer to get easy confirmation of the proper amount of tax for any given transaction.
Will this kill internet commerce? No. It'll just cost more. I don't really believe that people will give up amazon.com and bn.com, etc. if their customers have to pay tax the way everyone else does.
Bash M$ all you want, but Halo is a great game. It wasn't "ruined" by Microsoft, unless your definition of ruined means "You can't have it unless you give money to Microsoft".
Sure, MS bought bungie and now Halo is XBox only. So what? You won't see any Mario Bros. games come out for the PC or Mac soon, and Square won't make a PC version of FF9 or FF10 the way they did with FF7 and FF8. What MS did with Halo isn't different from any of the other "Exclusive to " titles.
The amusing thing about it is that PC's running Windows are the closest thing we have to a "universal gaming platform" just because of the M$ near-monopoly.
Not at all. If the Supreme Court grants cert. and takes on the case, it will only decide the issue as to whether or not the federal constitution prohibits California courts from hearing the DCMA case against Pavlovich. It's not a DCMA issue at all - it's a jurisdictional issue, ie:
Does posting something on the Internet expose you to lawsuits in other states in which other parties who may be indirectly injured by your posting are harmed?
It's an important internet-related legal issue, because if Pavlovich loses, you can be hauled into court in other states for what you post on the internet in your own state of residence - even if you are not doing business in those other states.
If Pavlovich loses, then the trial court will consider the DCMA issue.
As I understand it, leaded gas in an "unleaded gas only" car will damage the catalytic converter, costing you a lot of money in repairs the next time you need to smog-check your vehicle.
IANAAMOAE (I Am Not An Auto Mechanic Or Automotive Engineer).
Since signing the NDA wasn't a condition of employment at the time that it was signed, the NDA cannot be enforcable against the employee unless it is supported by consideration (ie, they must PAY you something for signing the NDA). Without consideration (a legal term), there is no contract.
The paranoid lawyer within me says that the they gave you an NDA without a date to muddy the waters and try to cover up the fact that it was signed after you were given employment, and was not in fact a condition of employment. The lawyers knew there was a potential problem and tried to bury it.
However, keep in mind that the lack of an NDA does not fully excuse an employee for liability for leaking trade secrets.
IAAL, but IANAELA (I am not an Employment Law Attorney).
It's not really irrelevant. It's a matter of damages. The guy violated the NDA. He got fired, and he's getting sued. The court will probably find him in breach of the NDA. However, before the court will award a money judgment to Apple, Apple must prove that they were in fact damaged by the disclosure of the allegedly confidential material. No damages = no recovery.
The real question in the civil case is this: What, exactly, did Apple lose by this disclosure. Can they prove that their sales revenue dropped as a result of people delaying the purchase of Apple computers, waiting for the new model to come out - the new model that everyone more or less already knows is comeing out? Are more people buying Dells because Dell "borrowed" the style of the case when the came out with their new models before Apple could come out with theirs? Who knows - the judge and jury will figure it out - but the principal remains. No blood, no foul.
I hope this isn't considered a troll, or flamebait, but I have to disagree with you about your opinion of Microsoft's attitude towards ergonomics - at least with respect toward's Microsoft's hardware division.
IMHO, the Microsoft Natural Keyboard is, for people who are trained to type, the best keyboard presently available. On the other hand, Apple keyboards have always seemed to me to be exercises in style over substance. They sure look pretty, but as keyboards, they leave much to be desired. And let's not even talk about the original iMac "hockey-puck" mouse. Apple does a great job, most of the time, at creating a superior user experience, and their machines sure do look good, but I don't think serious typists should have to put up with what they call keyboards in Cupertino.
Take away my XP if you want, but I'll never let you have my keyboard.
Seriously. If people are spending money on Locutus of Borg dummies (how much would a lifesize, vibrating 7 of 9 go for?), you know that they would buy a PCS phone that looks like a classic trek communicator. Paramount can't be so much above being greedy that they cannot have figured this one out.
Then again, maybe that would push the creation of the Church of Star Trek, and if you watch Futurama, you know what that means...
With respect to the McDonald's lawsuit, the multimillion dollar verdict was reduced by the judge as being too excessive, and the plaintiff settled for much less. The people who point out this lawsuit as an example of tort abuse never seem to mention this fact.
The concept of punitive damages is that it acts as a punishment for intentional or grossly negligent behavior, and is intended to discourage future improper behavior. In the McDonald's case, the McDonald's corporation was aware of a number of previous burn incidents and more or less decided that they would keep their coffee as hot as it was, and would simply pay damages whenever they get sued and lost. This is the same finanically based decision that Ford made when they neglected to do anything about the Pinto's exploding gas tank. The purpose behind imposing punitive damages is to make the defendant come to the realization that it's economically better for them to behave properly.
Oh yeah, and the woman received 3rd degree burns. From coffee.
This is a legal tactic. I'm sure that in whatever passes for a class action lawsuit in Japan, they'll be willing to settle for new DVD's and some amount of legal fees to feed the lawyers.
I do wish to point out that you can sue under the DCMA, or any other federal statute, or the federal constitution, in any state court. State courts apply federal law on a regular basis.
The issue in this case, was only an issue of "personal jurisdiction" - whether or not the state courts in California had the power to haul Pavolich into court. Here, the Supreme Court of California said no, because Pavolich was not a resident of California and did not have sufficient personal contacts in California to allow the exercise of personal jurisdiction.
If he did - let's say he operated a business in California, then the courts in California could apply both state and federal law, including the DCMA, to adjudicate the dispute.
I think what's happening here is that despite a great deal of criticism, Windows XP is pretty stable if installed by the OEM. The typical user only upgrades when there's a need. Until now, one of the reasons to upgrade was the elusive search for reliability. As XP is largely reliable (although certainly not perfect), users with XP computers are not as likely to upgrade because of reliability issues - they'll upgrade when new "must-have" bloatware comes out that requires faster computers with more memory. Or because they want to play Doom III.
Forget all of the debate here on/. about whether or not copying copyrighted material is theft. For these 100 midshipmen, the real question is whether or not the Naval Academy will consider their acts as "theft" and charge them with violating the Honor Concept.
Naval Academy Midshipmen serve under an Honor Concept, which states:
"A midshipman does not lie, cheat, or steal."
Penalties for violating the Honor Concept include: reprimand, being sent to the fleet for a year (and maybe being allowed to come back), and getting thrown out of the Naval Academy.
Hopefully, the Honor Board won't get involved and these midshipmen will be subjected to only administrative discipline (loss of weekend liberty for a period of time, etc.).
You can count on one thing though - Everyone at the Naval Academy will get lectured on how they can't illegally duplicate copywritten material, and the next midshipmen who get caught won't get off so easily.
IAAUSNAG - I am a United States Naval Academy Graduate
I certainly agree with the general sentiment that Microsoft has egg on its face. Again. But, really, the faux-switcher website cannot be considered as a high profile ad campaign by any stretch of the imagination. Where are the TV ads and radio spots? The X-10 pop-up ads have had much more of an impact than the Microsoft webpage. Most of us learned about the MS ad here on/., not via any source of mainstream media.
Perhaps this wasn't Ballmer's idea - at least he's trying to present a claim of plausible deniability - not that it matters. MS is certainly responsible here - but blowing the fraud out of proportion isn't doing any good. It will simply allow MS to downplay criticism of their greater crimes with a "there they go again" excuse.
...arging that the statute violates the Fifth Amendment prohibition against government takings without just compensation?
Here's the theory: Because of existing copyright law, whenever a creator creates a work, the creator brings into being a bundle of property rights, analogous to the various rights associated with the ownership of real property. Essentially, the copyright is divided into two interests:
1. A present interest owned by the creator of the work (and his assignees) for the duration of the period set forth in copyright law; and
2. A future interest in the public domain.
By extending copyright retroactively, Congress is taking a property right away from the public domain without any compensation in violation of the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment.
There are hurdles to cross, such as whether or not the "public domain" has any rights. In the alternative, I would argue that the public domain is held in trust by the government for all the people, in the same way that the area between high tide and low tide is held in the public trust, and apply the law related to public trust land to the public domain rights created by copyright.
Slashdot Mirror
In your case Word's mail merge function is enough to make you upgrade. That's fine, for you. For me, it isn't enough, yet, and I shouldn't have to drag sixteen attorneys and staff members though an upgrade they don't want just for something we don't need.
Attorney:
one who is legally appointed to transact business on another's behalf; specifically : a legal agent qualified to act for suitors and defendants in legal proceedings
Synonyms lawyer, attorney-at-law
Lawyer:
one whose profession is to conduct lawsuits for clients or to advise as to legal rights and obligations in other matters
Synonyms attorney, attorney-at-law; pettifogger
(both from the Merriam-Webster online dictionary & theosauros)
IAAPettifogger? I guess.
I'm an attorney at a law office with about 16 computers. We are still using WordPerfect for Windows 6.1. Why?
Because EVERY new release since then, of both WordPerfect and Word, hasn't given me (I make the IT decisions) a sufficiently good enough reason to ask the staff to learn how to use a new system.
Contrary to those bashing Microsoft, this isn't MS's fault, and it's not a case where people using Macs just don't have this problem. It's really simple - Once you get used to a system, you don't want to change, as long as the system you know does what you want.
We've gone though multiple changes in software - WordPerfect for Windows 6.1 was much easier to use than WordPerfect 5.1, ACT! has improved over time, and we've more or less kept upgrading Windows whenever Bill Gates wanted more money. Except for ME, each windows upgrade was worth it, from a usability and reliability standpoint.
But we still use WP6.1, even though it has 8.3 filenames and an automated template system that's crippled (and was finally finally fixed in WP10). Not only is this program reliable and does what we need it to do, it's faster than any of its successors because it was written for computers running 80386's.
Also, I have to say that the WP6.1 file dialogue boxes, are just plain better than anything I've seen since. Who in the hell thought that a sideways scrolling file-open dialogue box filled with useless icons was a good idea, especially when you can have really long filenames that take up half the screen?
Before I upgrade our software, there's got to be a reason better than "there's a new version out". The new software has to fill a need that isn't filled by the old software, or it has to solve serious reliability problems.
The Cole didn't get a shot off at four men attacking in a rowboat because it did not have the capability of doing so. The Cole had enough .50 cal machine guns to do the job. What happened is that the Cole did not recognize the threat.
This is significant. Remember that one of our Ticonderoga class missile cruisers shot down a commerical airliner flying from Iran carrying pilgrams to Mecca. The crewmen on the Cole, if even alerted to the threat, may have hesitated because the boat showed no open threat and could have been completely innocent.
When you are dealing with terrorist threats, it's easy to overreact. Or underreact.
Actually there's a big hunk of metal that keeps the missile launchers from pointing towards any portion of the ship - at least for the non-VLS launchers.
Now the VLS (vertical launch system) launchers, the missile more or less goes straight up until it curves in a trajectory towards its target. There's no way it's going to hit its own ship. I suppose with the programmable waypoints in the Harpoon and Tomahawk missiles, it's possible to program the missile to fly out, turn around 180, and come right back, but that kind of programming isn't that easy under current systems - not to mention that the pcworld article's emphasis was on monitoring ship control systems (values, gauges, etc.) remotely via wireless LAN, rather than controlling ship weapon systems. The whole idea here seems to be to replace a lot of copper wire that has nothing to do with firing weapons with a wireless LAN.
...computer. It'll never work. I mean, there can't possibly be any technical solution allowing each internet retailer to keep track of the proper amount of sales tax to charge for each jurisdiction. Gee, you'd have to put a street map of the whole US on the Internet, and we all know that's impossible.
Seriously, this can be done. I'm not sure if it's a good thing or not, but there's no technical hurdle to having an online database coupled with mapping software that will allow a retailer to get easy confirmation of the proper amount of tax for any given transaction.
Will this kill internet commerce? No. It'll just cost more. I don't really believe that people will give up amazon.com and bn.com, etc. if their customers have to pay tax the way everyone else does.
Bash M$ all you want, but Halo is a great game. It wasn't "ruined" by Microsoft, unless your definition of ruined means "You can't have it unless you give money to Microsoft".
Sure, MS bought bungie and now Halo is XBox only. So what? You won't see any Mario Bros. games come out for the PC or Mac soon, and Square won't make a PC version of FF9 or FF10 the way they did with FF7 and FF8. What MS did with Halo isn't different from any of the other "Exclusive to " titles.
The amusing thing about it is that PC's running Windows are the closest thing we have to a "universal gaming platform" just because of the M$ near-monopoly.
I predict that Duke Nukem Forever will be billed as the Phantom's flagship game, the way that Halo was moved by Bungie over to the XBox.
"One more time: The rights outlined in the Ammendments to the Constitution apply only to US citizens. Not a difficult concept, I should think."
I think you mean individuals (actual living breathing persons), rather than citizens.
Not at all. If the Supreme Court grants cert. and takes on the case, it will only decide the issue as to whether or not the federal constitution prohibits California courts from hearing the DCMA case against Pavlovich. It's not a DCMA issue at all - it's a jurisdictional issue, ie:
Does posting something on the Internet expose you to lawsuits in other states in which other parties who may be indirectly injured by your posting are harmed?
It's an important internet-related legal issue, because if Pavlovich loses, you can be hauled into court in other states for what you post on the internet in your own state of residence - even if you are not doing business in those other states.
If Pavlovich loses, then the trial court will consider the DCMA issue.
You forgot the technique of discussing the viability of creating Beowolf Clusters of just about damn near everything.
As I understand it, leaded gas in an "unleaded gas only" car will damage the catalytic converter, costing you a lot of money in repairs the next time you need to smog-check your vehicle.
IANAAMOAE (I Am Not An Auto Mechanic Or Automotive Engineer).
I bet it was written by a lawyer.
Since signing the NDA wasn't a condition of employment at the time that it was signed, the NDA cannot be enforcable against the employee unless it is supported by consideration (ie, they must PAY you something for signing the NDA). Without consideration (a legal term), there is no contract.
The paranoid lawyer within me says that the they gave you an NDA without a date to muddy the waters and try to cover up the fact that it was signed after you were given employment, and was not in fact a condition of employment. The lawyers knew there was a potential problem and tried to bury it.
However, keep in mind that the lack of an NDA does not fully excuse an employee for liability for leaking trade secrets.
IAAL, but IANAELA (I am not an Employment Law Attorney).
It's not really irrelevant. It's a matter of damages. The guy violated the NDA. He got fired, and he's getting sued. The court will probably find him in breach of the NDA. However, before the court will award a money judgment to Apple, Apple must prove that they were in fact damaged by the disclosure of the allegedly confidential material. No damages = no recovery.
The real question in the civil case is this: What, exactly, did Apple lose by this disclosure. Can they prove that their sales revenue dropped as a result of people delaying the purchase of Apple computers, waiting for the new model to come out - the new model that everyone more or less already knows is comeing out? Are more people buying Dells because Dell "borrowed" the style of the case when the came out with their new models before Apple could come out with theirs? Who knows - the judge and jury will figure it out - but the principal remains. No blood, no foul.
I hope this isn't considered a troll, or flamebait, but I have to disagree with you about your opinion of Microsoft's attitude towards ergonomics - at least with respect toward's Microsoft's hardware division.
IMHO, the Microsoft Natural Keyboard is, for people who are trained to type, the best keyboard presently available. On the other hand, Apple keyboards have always seemed to me to be exercises in style over substance. They sure look pretty, but as keyboards, they leave much to be desired. And let's not even talk about the original iMac "hockey-puck" mouse. Apple does a great job, most of the time, at creating a superior user experience, and their machines sure do look good, but I don't think serious typists should have to put up with what they call keyboards in Cupertino.
Take away my XP if you want, but I'll never let you have my keyboard.
Seriously. If people are spending money on Locutus of Borg dummies (how much would a lifesize, vibrating 7 of 9 go for?), you know that they would buy a PCS phone that looks like a classic trek communicator. Paramount can't be so much above being greedy that they cannot have figured this one out.
Then again, maybe that would push the creation of the Church of Star Trek, and if you watch Futurama, you know what that means...
With respect to the McDonald's lawsuit, the multimillion dollar verdict was reduced by the judge as being too excessive, and the plaintiff settled for much less. The people who point out this lawsuit as an example of tort abuse never seem to mention this fact.
The concept of punitive damages is that it acts as a punishment for intentional or grossly negligent behavior, and is intended to discourage future improper behavior. In the McDonald's case, the McDonald's corporation was aware of a number of previous burn incidents and more or less decided that they would keep their coffee as hot as it was, and would simply pay damages whenever they get sued and lost. This is the same finanically based decision that Ford made when they neglected to do anything about the Pinto's exploding gas tank. The purpose behind imposing punitive damages is to make the defendant come to the realization that it's economically better for them to behave properly.
Oh yeah, and the woman received 3rd degree burns. From coffee.
This is a legal tactic. I'm sure that in whatever passes for a class action lawsuit in Japan, they'll be willing to settle for new DVD's and some amount of legal fees to feed the lawyers.
1. Y2K Bunker
2. Hobbit Hole Conversion Kit
3. Profit!
I do wish to point out that you can sue under the DCMA, or any other federal statute, or the federal constitution, in any state court. State courts apply federal law on a regular basis.
The issue in this case, was only an issue of "personal jurisdiction" - whether or not the state courts in California had the power to haul Pavolich into court. Here, the Supreme Court of California said no, because Pavolich was not a resident of California and did not have sufficient personal contacts in California to allow the exercise of personal jurisdiction.
If he did - let's say he operated a business in California, then the courts in California could apply both state and federal law, including the DCMA, to adjudicate the dispute.
I think what's happening here is that despite a great deal of criticism, Windows XP is pretty stable if installed by the OEM. The typical user only upgrades when there's a need. Until now, one of the reasons to upgrade was the elusive search for reliability. As XP is largely reliable (although certainly not perfect), users with XP computers are not as likely to upgrade because of reliability issues - they'll upgrade when new "must-have" bloatware comes out that requires faster computers with more memory. Or because they want to play Doom III.
Forget all of the debate here on /. about whether or not copying copyrighted material is theft. For these 100 midshipmen, the real question is whether or not the Naval Academy will consider their acts as "theft" and charge them with violating the Honor Concept.
Naval Academy Midshipmen serve under an Honor Concept, which states:
"A midshipman does not lie, cheat, or steal."
Penalties for violating the Honor Concept include: reprimand, being sent to the fleet for a year (and maybe being allowed to come back), and getting thrown out of the Naval Academy.
Hopefully, the Honor Board won't get involved and these midshipmen will be subjected to only administrative discipline (loss of weekend liberty for a period of time, etc.).
You can count on one thing though - Everyone at the Naval Academy will get lectured on how they can't illegally duplicate copywritten material, and the next midshipmen who get caught won't get off so easily.
IAAUSNAG - I am a United States Naval Academy Graduate
You people never get it. Protons don't kill people. People kill people!
I certainly agree with the general sentiment that Microsoft has egg on its face. Again. But, really, the faux-switcher website cannot be considered as a high profile ad campaign by any stretch of the imagination. Where are the TV ads and radio spots? The X-10 pop-up ads have had much more of an impact than the Microsoft webpage. Most of us learned about the MS ad here on /., not via any source of mainstream media.
Perhaps this wasn't Ballmer's idea - at least he's trying to present a claim of plausible deniability - not that it matters. MS is certainly responsible here - but blowing the fraud out of proportion isn't doing any good. It will simply allow MS to downplay criticism of their greater crimes with a "there they go again" excuse.
...arging that the statute violates the Fifth Amendment prohibition against government takings without just compensation?
Here's the theory: Because of existing copyright law, whenever a creator creates a work, the creator brings into being a bundle of property rights, analogous to the various rights associated with the ownership of real property. Essentially, the copyright is divided into two interests:
1. A present interest owned by the creator of the work (and his assignees) for the duration of the period set forth in copyright law; and
2. A future interest in the public domain.
By extending copyright retroactively, Congress is taking a property right away from the public domain without any compensation in violation of the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment.
There are hurdles to cross, such as whether or not the "public domain" has any rights. In the alternative, I would argue that the public domain is held in trust by the government for all the people, in the same way that the area between high tide and low tide is held in the public trust, and apply the law related to public trust land to the public domain rights created by copyright.