What's really cool is that diamond is flammable =)
Re:Foolish Punishment?!??
on
Kevin Free
·
· Score: 2
Kevin goes to prison for 5 years Kevin was refused bail. You can argue the legality or morality of that. HOWEVER, the time spent in jail was KEVIN'S doing. KNOWING that he couldn't leave jail until after his trial, he kept requesting that his court date be postponed.
Billions in criminal penalties to be paid to non-profit IT industry groups that Microsoft has no influence over...the only one that comes to mind is the FSF =)
...it is first necessary to secure the operating system that most frequently is connected to it, ie Windows. There's little point in securing every non-Windows server (or even every server, Windows or not) if an insecure client platform (read: Windows + IE + Outlook) permits a small group of individuals to own enough client PCs to DOS the root servers. Or the 50 largest e-commerce sites. Or the most popular intercontinental routers. This is feasible NOW; all it needs is a determined, intelligent adversary (China, perhaps?). Even scarier is the possibility that there will be intelligent use of DOS attacks (hijacking of presumed secure connections, perhaps), but I'd rather not consider that while sober.
Rethink that statement. The settlement was about $100 million in a year that Microsoft had revenues of about $2 billion - see here for reference. That's about 5% of their annual revenue. That's like a $100 speeding ticket for someone earning $20,000 annually. It's like having $50,000 in income and paying $2,500 in taxes. It's like spilling one mouthful from a can of beer.
BTW, I can no longer find Stac Electronics on the web. I doubt that the cash settlement meant much to them. Microsoft, on the other hand, now has a cash pool of something like $42 billion. They could afford to lose $100 million 400 times.
I really don't care what kind of energy policy Bush has with Iraq. I get legal and cheap oil. And I don't care what you say about capitalism's evil business practices. But I don't see fuels that are amazing in the USA. I mean biodiesel is good and all but it doesn't even come close. I already pay the IRS thousands of dollars every year and if some kind of energy policy with Iraq puts cheap gas in my car I got no problem with it.
(Naturally the people who see no problem in the original poster's statements will see no problem in mine...sigh. See other less cerebral post.)
Ah. So. You believe that there is some as-yet-unidentified phenomenon which both causes companies to advertise and to sell ltos of product. This is precisely the stand of the tobacco companies WRT smoking and lung cancer. Do you also believe that there is not necessarily a causatal relationship between smoking and lung cancer? Or do you perhaps believe that a tendency to lung cancer somehow CAUSES people to smoke?
While I agree with you in principle, I have to say that Occam's Razor pretty much requires mandates that marketing causes product purchase in this case.
I really get sick of the anti-infanticide movement being called "pro-life". They are nor pro-anything - they are just opposed to a woman's right to choose infanticide.
Yup. Government standards are why you can buy screws and nuts from different manufacturers and have them work together. They are why you can buy "orange juice" at the grocery store and know that it's not "juice" wrung out of a pile of autumn leaves (hey, it's juice, it's orange, what more do you want?). Government standards are why you can fill fly in an airplane and know it won't crash.
Sure, all these needs could be fulfilled by voluntary industry standards, if it weren't for those pesky human beings, fallible and greedy creatures that they are.
Ummm...did you even read the post you replied to? Or the FAQ on the topic? Which was quoted in the post you replied to? Apparently not. Here's the bit that's relevant to your comment:
"If the story is still quiet, we may pull it down. However, once the comments are rolling in, we often leave the story up so that the discussion can continue."
Why are they so rich? Because making money is not about making quality product. (At best, it is about making a product mildly better than the competitors). Making money is all about delivering product and creating a market for it. THAT is what business people are good at. They are hired to lie ("Our company/product/service is BETTER than our competitors!" when in fact it's about the same) and we wonder why they rip us off (a la Enron).
"When" is a pretty strong term, though. Attorneys avoid going to trial like the plague - they settle out of court whenever possible, because trials are a crap-shoot. In a case like this, it's even worse: it's his word against hers. They were alone in an office an no one else observed what happened. She would have to recant under oath and I can't see that happening.
That's the point...he can defend himself, he can counter-sue, he can do anything he likes, but all the girl had to do was to make an accusation and stick with it for a little while. It cost her nothing but the teacher has to pay an attorney.
And I think that's an ESSENTIAL distinction. If intent is not one of the determining factors, then Dell, Gateway, Compaq, HP, etc are all guilty of violating the DMCA. Why? Because they provide general purpose computing devices. These are demonstrably capable of subverting copy-protection mechanisms.
I agree in principle, but in practice, the EULAs are overbroad and are enforced that way. In other words, the corps get not only the rights they need, but a whole class of rights.
It's as if MS needs the number 4 and 2000 but asserts that they have a right to all the integers. Sure, they just want to be sure that you don't misuse the numbers that are theirs, but you can be sure that some enterprising manager will find a way to take advantage of all those extra numbers.
The GIF patent is another example of this. It is clear by the actions of the patent holders that they did not intend (originally) to maliciously enforce it, but somebody at the corp that held the patent saw a great way to produce revenue for the corp and (more importantly) inflate his/her own importance (look at the cash I generated for the company!). Intentions don't matter, really. No matter how much you trust the current management of the corporation, future management may decide to follow through on doing all that you said they could.
it's a very good idea to assume that contracts really do mean what they say
This should be hammered into every person - there is no such thing as "boilerplate" in a contract. There is a REASON for EVERY SINGLE WORD (unless the attorney who prepared it is guilty of malpractice) It doesn't "become operative someday" - it is in force the second you agree to it. You may not understand the purpose of all the text in the contract, but the attorneys who prepared it do, and will enforce it if you arouse their ire.
I'm thinking that you must have seen the film right after it was produced, before the protomatter used to make the film turned it into dreck. Protomatter is bad stuff. It turns planets into magma. It's also why bacteria evolve into worms in a couple of days. Yeah, and it makes Spock grow up at the same time. But since Kirstie Allie wouldn't have sex with Spock, someone else took her place. Oh, and that pesky family connection of Kirk's - it's gone now.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah...good read. Of course, Diablo was doing it six years ago.
What's really cool is that diamond is flammable =)
Kevin goes to prison for 5 years
Kevin was refused bail. You can argue the legality or morality of that. HOWEVER, the time spent in jail was KEVIN'S doing. KNOWING that he couldn't leave jail until after his trial, he kept requesting that his court date be postponed.
Know the facts.
Billions in criminal penalties to be paid to non-profit IT industry groups that Microsoft has no influence over...the only one that comes to mind is the FSF =)
...it is first necessary to secure the operating system that most frequently is connected to it, ie Windows. There's little point in securing every non-Windows server (or even every server, Windows or not) if an insecure client platform (read: Windows + IE + Outlook) permits a small group of individuals to own enough client PCs to DOS the root servers. Or the 50 largest e-commerce sites. Or the most popular intercontinental routers. This is feasible NOW; all it needs is a determined, intelligent adversary (China, perhaps?). Even scarier is the possibility that there will be intelligent use of DOS attacks (hijacking of presumed secure connections, perhaps), but I'd rather not consider that while sober.
No mod points, but LOL...
a rather large court settlement
Rethink that statement. The settlement was about $100 million in a year that Microsoft had revenues of about $2 billion - see here for reference. That's about 5% of their annual revenue. That's like a $100 speeding ticket for someone earning $20,000 annually. It's like having $50,000 in income and paying $2,500 in taxes. It's like spilling one mouthful from a can of beer.
BTW, I can no longer find Stac Electronics on the web. I doubt that the cash settlement meant much to them. Microsoft, on the other hand, now has a cash pool of something like $42 billion. They could afford to lose $100 million 400 times.
True, but I don't think it's "news for nerds" when Mutual of Omaha or Razorblades, Inc. sues or gets sued.
More succinctly:
"Me no care if thing evil or not if me get thing CHEAP!"
I really don't care what kind of energy policy Bush has with Iraq. I get legal and cheap oil. And I don't care what you say about capitalism's evil business practices. But I don't see fuels that are amazing in the USA. I mean biodiesel is good and all but it doesn't even come close. I already pay the IRS thousands of dollars every year and if some kind of energy policy with Iraq puts cheap gas in my car I got no problem with it.
(Naturally the people who see no problem in the original poster's statements will see no problem in mine...sigh. See other less cerebral post.)
Ah. So. You believe that there is some as-yet-unidentified phenomenon which both causes companies to advertise and to sell ltos of product. This is precisely the stand of the tobacco companies WRT smoking and lung cancer. Do you also believe that there is not necessarily a causatal relationship between smoking and lung cancer? Or do you perhaps believe that a tendency to lung cancer somehow CAUSES people to smoke?
While I agree with you in principle, I have to say that Occam's Razor pretty much requires mandates that marketing causes product purchase in this case.
I really get sick of the anti-infanticide movement being called "pro-life". They are nor pro-anything - they are just opposed to a woman's right to choose infanticide.
I'll see your IDKFA, and raise you an IDDQD
Yup. Government standards are why you can buy screws and nuts from different manufacturers and have them work together. They are why you can buy "orange juice" at the grocery store and know that it's not "juice" wrung out of a pile of autumn leaves (hey, it's juice, it's orange, what more do you want?). Government standards are why you can fill fly in an airplane and know it won't crash.
Sure, all these needs could be fulfilled by voluntary industry standards, if it weren't for those pesky human beings, fallible and greedy creatures that they are.
Ummm...did you even read the post you replied to? Or the FAQ on the topic? Which was quoted in the post you replied to? Apparently not. Here's the bit that's relevant to your comment:
"If the story is still quiet, we may pull it down. However, once the comments are rolling in, we often leave the story up so that the discussion can continue."
Why are they so rich? Because making money is not about making quality product. (At best, it is about making a product mildly better than the competitors). Making money is all about delivering product and creating a market for it. THAT is what business people are good at. They are hired to lie ("Our company/product/service is BETTER than our competitors!" when in fact it's about the same) and we wonder why they rip us off (a la Enron).
I could read at 1200 bps. At 2400 I lost it.
"When" is a pretty strong term, though. Attorneys avoid going to trial like the plague - they settle out of court whenever possible, because trials are a crap-shoot. In a case like this, it's even worse: it's his word against hers. They were alone in an office an no one else observed what happened. She would have to recant under oath and I can't see that happening.
That's the point...he can defend himself, he can counter-sue, he can do anything he likes, but all the girl had to do was to make an accusation and stick with it for a little while. It cost her nothing but the teacher has to pay an attorney.
It does indeed suck.
And I think that's an ESSENTIAL distinction. If intent is not one of the determining factors, then Dell, Gateway, Compaq, HP, etc are all guilty of violating the DMCA. Why? Because they provide general purpose computing devices. These are demonstrably capable of subverting copy-protection mechanisms.
And is the sole heir to the richest hobbit in the shire? Recall that his mithril armor was worth as much as the entire shire...
I agree in principle, but in practice, the EULAs are overbroad and are enforced that way. In other words, the corps get not only the rights they need, but a whole class of rights.
It's as if MS needs the number 4 and 2000 but asserts that they have a right to all the integers. Sure, they just want to be sure that you don't misuse the numbers that are theirs, but you can be sure that some enterprising manager will find a way to take advantage of all those extra numbers.
The GIF patent is another example of this. It is clear by the actions of the patent holders that they did not intend (originally) to maliciously enforce it, but somebody at the corp that held the patent saw a great way to produce revenue for the corp and (more importantly) inflate his/her own importance (look at the cash I generated for the company!). Intentions don't matter, really. No matter how much you trust the current management of the corporation, future management may decide to follow through on doing all that you said they could.
it's a very good idea to assume that contracts really do mean what they say
This should be hammered into every person - there is no such thing as "boilerplate" in a contract. There is a REASON for EVERY SINGLE WORD (unless the attorney who prepared it is guilty of malpractice) It doesn't "become operative someday" - it is in force the second you agree to it. You may not understand the purpose of all the text in the contract, but the attorneys who prepared it do, and will enforce it if you arouse their ire.
I'm thinking that you must have seen the film right after it was produced, before the protomatter used to make the film turned it into dreck. Protomatter is bad stuff. It turns planets into magma. It's also why bacteria evolve into worms in a couple of days. Yeah, and it makes Spock grow up at the same time. But since Kirstie Allie wouldn't have sex with Spock, someone else took her place. Oh, and that pesky family connection of Kirk's - it's gone now.
I only wish I'd seen the movie you saw...
What's the difference between cellular automata and finite state machines? Isn't the former just a whole bunch of the latter?