Oil will never run out, it will just become more and more expensive. As the price increases, people will find replacements or do without. But there's no guarantee that the replacement technologies will give off less CO2 (think of coal).
It took three years after the law is signed to get the first conviction. That's pretty sad. The Wikipedia article notes that, "The law requires the FTC to report back to congress within 24 months of the effectiveness of the act." With billions of spam sent every day and only one conviction three years after the law is signed, I would have to say that the effectiveness is quite low.
While it does sound far-fetched, there's a link to the Fas.org site under "Related" header on the right side of TFA. http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/2006trends.pdf (2.4 MB PDF warning). Due to the JavaScript vulnerability in Acrobat Reader, I have not read the file myself.
Inconveniencing a vendor counts as being a jerk? He didn't tie up their tech support folks for an hour unnecessarily -- he tied them up because Dell made a conscious decision to make it difficult for him to reject the Windows EULA. The people at Dell either a) have their heads up their asses, or b) know about Windows Refund Day and its variants. Versions of this story are several years old and have made Slashdot several times, so I'm going with b. Dell could train its workers to make it easy for customers to reject the EULA, but the company has chosen not to do so. Dell's refusal to train their workers in this area does not make this customer a jerk - it makes him a victim.
I don't think Windows-cide en masse would be very effective. Better to do it by the death of a thousand cuts.
Also, I fail to see how it could do more harm than good. Let's say they're not offering a no-OS option on a laptop. There are three basic scenarios: nobody requests a Windows refund (your proposal), a small number (I'll use 22) of people request it (this seems to be your fear), or a lot of people request it.
Scenario 1: Nobody requests a Windows refund.
Result 1: they continue to not offer a no-OS option.
Scenario 2: 22 people request a Windows refund.
Result 2: they continue to not offer a no-OS option.
Scenario 3: A lot of people request a Windows refund.
Result 3: They take the hint and offer a no-OS option.
Results 1 and 2 are the same! So why not request it?
However, I was pissed about the lack of real OBEX profiles, and then when my camera lens just shattered mysteriously one day (No, I have no idea how) they wanted me to pay $100 for a far inferior phone if I was to replace it. So, we both said screw it, took the $350 hit on the early termination and went to T-Mobile.
(emphasis added) No, you're not paraphrasing correctly. You took out the dependent clause and independent clause which directly preceded the action of saying 'screw it'. I guess the joke's not as funny this way, though.
What I can't figure out is why somebody who's too cheap to pay a quarter to upload a photo would take a $350 hit to cancel a contract.
(a) Criminal Infringement. - Any person who infringes a copyright willfully either -
(1) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, or
(2) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000,
shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, United States Code. For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement.
Although I have to say I'm a little puzzled by the last sentence. If "evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement.", what would be sufficient? Selling copyrighted works, maybe? Anyway, from http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/u sc_sec_18_00002319----000-.html:
(a) Whoever violates section 506 (a) (relating to criminal offenses) of title 17 shall be punished as provided in subsections (b) and (c) of this section and such penalties shall be in addition to any other provisions of title 17 or any other law.
(b) Any person who commits an offense under section 506 (a)(1) of title 17--
(1) shall be imprisoned not more than 5 years, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense consists of the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of at least 10 copies or phonorecords, of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $2,500;
(2) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense is a second or subsequent offense under paragraph (1); and
(3) shall be imprisoned not more than 1 year, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, in any other case.
So, yes, his kids may well be subject to criminal prosecution. Any Time/Warner shareholders want to start a shareholder lawsuit to get the company to press charges against the CEO's kids (remember that CEOs just run the company; they don't own it)? If not, then why is the company pressing charges against other people's kids?
Now that Novell is all kissy-kissy with Microsoft, having Novell go first in the lawsuit vs. SCO might not be so good. As we all know, Microsoft basically funded SCO's Unix IP fishing expedition with a $50 million "licensing" deal. I'd much rather have IBM be the one to grind SCO to a pulp. Hopefully, Novell will not pull any punches, and IBM can continue the beating after Novell's had their fill.
I wonder if the farmer whose dog was stolen is going to want a cut of the movie's revenue. Maybe he will press charges against Katz for receiving a stolen dog. I hope not; I don't want Katz to go to jail, which would give him even more time to turn out more drivel.
I like the "underground railroad" aspect of it; likens the dog to a human slave, with all the attendant sympathies. Maybe I should try that excuse if I get picked up for shoplifting: "But this $400 leather jacket was being abused, just sitting there on the rack. I didn't steal it -- I rescued it. I was going to send it on to my fence^W underground railroad connections."
I'll pay for something, and have support and a legal avenue if it falls over.
What, precisely, are your legal options if Oracle falls over? It's pretty standard in the software world (COTS or otherwise) to disclaim liability for every type of damage known to man, and to disclaim warrants of fitness for a particular purpose.
If they own it, its an asset, it must have value, be on their books, be depreciated. None of which is true.
Whoa there! Just because you own the rights to something doesn't mean it has to be on your balance sheet. Coca-Cola does not list "right to the Coke trademark" on their balance sheet, but they still have that right. Similarly, Microsoft does not list copyright to all of its software on its balance sheet. There's no good way to value these types of IP assets, so they're not listed on the balance sheet, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.
I hate to break it to you, but the lawyers are not claiming that JMRI's software is in the public domain. They're claiming that the violation was not one of copyright, but one of licensing. From http://jmri.sourceforge.net/k/docket/100.pdf (PDF warning; see page 13):
"Generally, a copyright owner who grants a nonexclusive license to use his copyrighted material waives his right to sue the licensee for copyright infringement and can only sue for breach of contract." Id. (citing Graham v. James, 144 F.3d 229, 236 (2nd Cir. 1998)).
Not that I agree with this argument, but it's what they're making. They're not making an argument that the software is public domain. In fact, the phrase "public domain" does not appear in the filing.
The filing also references Sun v Microsoft. It's also interesting because if you successfully apply this argument to other software, you would be immune from prosecution for running a warez site, though you'd still be on the hook for contract violation. IANAL, of course.
Automatic Updates will first notify you when Internet Explorer 7 is ready to install and then show a welcome screen that presents key features and the choice to accept, decline or postpone installation....
Upgrading will preserve your current home page, search settings, favorites, and compatible toolbars and will not change your default browser. You will be able to roll back to Internet Explorer 6 at any point by using the Add/Remove Programs utility in the Windows Control Panel. (To learn more about Automatic Updates please visit the Microsoft Security site.)
Personally, I downloaded IE manually (I know, I know) and installed it, but promptly uninstalled it when I found that iexplore.exe couldn't be launched with file:/// URLs. So I can vouch for the uninstall.
Wouldn't it be hilarious if it turns out these teens actually set up this MySpace riff on the asst-Principal from the school. What's the school to do then, sue themselves?
Newsflash: being at a certain location when you perform a defamatory act does not absolve you of the liability for that act. If I write a defamatory MySpace page from a library's computer, I can't use "but I was at the library" as a defense to my actions; I'm still liable. The library may, hypothetically, have contributory negligence and be named as a party to the suit, but I'm not off the hook. So in TFA, the fact that a school computer may have been used does not absolve the student of anything; it just gives the school one fewer party to sue. Or do you think the student could use, "the school should have prevented me from doing this on their computer" as a defense? Good luck with that one.
If indeed there was defamatory content on the page, I think this case is a slam dunk. Parents are civilly liable for the actions of their minor children; there are probably thousands of cases on this. The "should the parents have been spying on them? huh?" argument is basically worthless. The answer is, "Whether the parents spy on the kids or not is up to them, but if the kids screw up, the parents are on the hook."
By "it strikes me as odd that students must leave campus to learn", I think the submitter meant "to learn in the most efficient way". Nobody thinks learning is impossible without the Internet, but in some fields it can be very difficult to keep up on the latest research without the Internet. For example, http://arxiv.org/ has changed the way research in physics is shared among institutions. OK, so the university in question isn't blocking arxiv.org, but in general there is going to be additional information on the Internet that your university doesn't have.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm, are you in some other universe that is about 5 years behind ours? Last time I checked, it is not 2002 any more.
I use EverythingIsn't hosts file to block ads, plus AdBlock in Firefox.
I'm not sure if you know this, but the Home and Student edition has been around for several years. http://www.amazon.com/Microsoft-Office-Student-Tea cher-2003/dp/B0000C0XT1
Oil will never run out, it will just become more and more expensive. As the price increases, people will find replacements or do without. But there's no guarantee that the replacement technologies will give off less CO2 (think of coal).
The robotic arm was not supposed to touch the roof. It was moving to pick up some other car and happened to hit the roof of the unfortunate vehicle.
Many scientists now refer to "global climate change" rather than "global warming" for precisely this reason.
It took three years after the law is signed to get the first conviction. That's pretty sad. The Wikipedia article notes that, "The law requires the FTC to report back to congress within 24 months of the effectiveness of the act." With billions of spam sent every day and only one conviction three years after the law is signed, I would have to say that the effectiveness is quite low.
While it does sound far-fetched, there's a link to the Fas.org site under "Related" header on the right side of TFA. http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/2006trends.pdf (2.4 MB PDF warning). Due to the JavaScript vulnerability in Acrobat Reader, I have not read the file myself.
Inconveniencing a vendor counts as being a jerk? He didn't tie up their tech support folks for an hour unnecessarily -- he tied them up because Dell made a conscious decision to make it difficult for him to reject the Windows EULA. The people at Dell either a) have their heads up their asses, or b) know about Windows Refund Day and its variants. Versions of this story are several years old and have made Slashdot several times, so I'm going with b. Dell could train its workers to make it easy for customers to reject the EULA, but the company has chosen not to do so. Dell's refusal to train their workers in this area does not make this customer a jerk - it makes him a victim.
Also, I fail to see how it could do more harm than good. Let's say they're not offering a no-OS option on a laptop. There are three basic scenarios: nobody requests a Windows refund (your proposal), a small number (I'll use 22) of people request it (this seems to be your fear), or a lot of people request it.
- Scenario 1: Nobody requests a Windows refund.
- Result 1: they continue to not offer a no-OS option.
- Scenario 2: 22 people request a Windows refund.
- Result 2: they continue to not offer a no-OS option.
- Scenario 3: A lot of people request a Windows refund.
- Result 3: They take the hint and offer a no-OS option.
Results 1 and 2 are the same! So why not request it?The adults have the freedom to choose another ISP.
What I can't figure out is why somebody who's too cheap to pay a quarter to upload a photo would take a $350 hit to cancel a contract.
Now that Novell is all kissy-kissy with Microsoft, having Novell go first in the lawsuit vs. SCO might not be so good. As we all know, Microsoft basically funded SCO's Unix IP fishing expedition with a $50 million "licensing" deal. I'd much rather have IBM be the one to grind SCO to a pulp. Hopefully, Novell will not pull any punches, and IBM can continue the beating after Novell's had their fill.
I wonder if the farmer whose dog was stolen is going to want a cut of the movie's revenue. Maybe he will press charges against Katz for receiving a stolen dog. I hope not; I don't want Katz to go to jail, which would give him even more time to turn out more drivel.
I like the "underground railroad" aspect of it; likens the dog to a human slave, with all the attendant sympathies. Maybe I should try that excuse if I get picked up for shoplifting: "But this $400 leather jacket was being abused, just sitting there on the rack. I didn't steal it -- I rescued it. I was going to send it on to my fence^W underground railroad connections."
Not that I agree with this argument, but it's what they're making. They're not making an argument that the software is public domain. In fact, the phrase "public domain" does not appear in the filing.
The filing also references Sun v Microsoft. It's also interesting because if you successfully apply this argument to other software, you would be immune from prosecution for running a warez site, though you'd still be on the hook for contract violation. IANAL, of course.
If indeed there was defamatory content on the page, I think this case is a slam dunk. Parents are civilly liable for the actions of their minor children; there are probably thousands of cases on this. The "should the parents have been spying on them? huh?" argument is basically worthless. The answer is, "Whether the parents spy on the kids or not is up to them, but if the kids screw up, the parents are on the hook."
By "it strikes me as odd that students must leave campus to learn", I think the submitter meant "to learn in the most efficient way". Nobody thinks learning is impossible without the Internet, but in some fields it can be very difficult to keep up on the latest research without the Internet. For example, http://arxiv.org/ has changed the way research in physics is shared among institutions. OK, so the university in question isn't blocking arxiv.org, but in general there is going to be additional information on the Internet that your university doesn't have.