...given away for free...can anything be done about it? At the least, the violators can be ordered to stop. At worst, they could be charged under criminal provisions of patent law.
You can't just sue some of them, can you? Sure you can. Cops just give tickets to some speeders, after all. The only way you might have an out is if the patent holder only sued protected minorities.
And you can't charge them royalties because they are not selling anything. Yes, you can. They didn't make any money to pay for those royalties, but that's their problem. Patent holders have nearly total control over their "inventions". The idea isn't "only the patent holder can make money off the patent"; the idea is "the patent holder can make money off the patent". If you give the product away, the patent holder can't sell it, and you are liable for his losses.
...encryption source code is considered free speech... ONE appeals court (which does NOT have national jurisdiction) has ruled that ONE particular piece of source code is free speech. I've got my fingers crossed that ultimately it will be as you describe, but that will have to wait for the Supreme Court's ruling.
The way the system works is that someone files an obvious patent, rattles a saber, and then someone else in the industry goes to court to prove the patent obvious and thus unenforcable. That is exactly what is going to happen here.
My $.02 -
No corporation would EVER allow a judge to rule on their obvious patents, because they know they'd lose them. They'd settle out of court.
The way the system works is that big corporations file obvious patents and rattle a saber. Then all the other big corporations rattle their sabers (their obvious patents). Then they all get together and cross-license their obvious patents. Then, when an upstart startup comes along (without a $10E6 legal budget), all the big corporations in the industry rattle their collective sabers and chase the little guys out of town.
Obvious patents thus function as a barrier to entry. No sane non-lawyer would check to see if an obvious idea was patented, since (conventional wisdom) you can't patent obvious ideas. it wouldn't even occur to them that some procedure or algorithm they were using was patented. So a patent violation gets put into production and the giant corporate patent holder sues them out of business.
Copyrights last longer but aren't as all-encompassing as patents. Copyrights have a higher voltage, but patents have a higher amperage - and it's the amperage that kills you (OK, so it's a silly analogy).
If I patent an algorithm, you can't implement it without my permission for 20 years. Period. End of discussion. You can't even improve upon it, because that requires my original algorithm. On the other hand, if I copyright my algorithm, all you have to do is implement it in a different language or on a different architecture, or think of a different way to do the same thing.
You can't copyright an idea, but you can patent one. The creator of Visicalc (Dan Bricklin?) could have patented the software but made an informed decision not to do so. If he had, though, no one would have been able to create a spreadsheet program legally without getting his permission - he would have been RICH.
The patent law definitely has more teeth than the copyright law, and software patents are definitely bad. And I think the 75 years you mention is actually 75 years after the death of the creator, so if a corporation holds the copyright, it never ends. Though I could be wrong about that.
IANA Patent L, but I believe patents are intended to prevent the very situation you describe. Some inventions are obvious once you see them, but it can take years of development to create them. If you can look at my invention and reproduce it, I have no way to recoup the cost of developing it. If you
(the following assumes NO windshield wipers yet exist) I can't patent the concept of wiping the windows, but I can patent a particular process - for example, I could patent the dual synchronized radial windshield wiper (the process used on most cars - and I made the name up). If I were actually doing research on windshield wiping, I would look at lots of different methods. I would market and produce only the best method I discovered, but I'd patent them all, even the crappy ones. That way, if you decided, after seeing my windshield wipers, to make wipers based on a different process (since I can't patent the idea, you're free to try), you would find that I'd already been there.
What you could do, though, is try to patent all possible improvements to my original patents. Then, if I wanted to improve my windshield wipers, I'd find that YOU were already there. So we'd sign a cross-licensing agreement, and I wouldn't have to worry about getting sued for improving my product, and in return you could use my original patents.
I once read that some Japanese consumer electronics companies were good at building "walls" of patents. For example, they'd take the basic VCR and improve on it in myriads of ways, patenting every improvement. They'd have to pay a license to produce a VCR, but theirs would be better than American ones. If the American firm tried to sell an improved product, they'd find the Japanese firm already held a patent on the improvement.
If I were really mean, once I'd done all my R&D for my original wipers, I would start the patent process, and drag it out r-e-a-l s-l-o-w. You'd see my windshield wipers, check for a patent, find there wasn't one, and start copying them like crazy (which is legal to do, right, since there's no patent on them). Several years later, though, I get my patent, which is "valid" from the original application date. So I sue you, since you were violating my patent. This kind of patent is known as a submarine patent, and many patent lawyers have gotten rich this way. Submarine patents are BAD.
So anyway, yes, algorithms and processes can be patented. Individual implementations of those algorithms can be copyrighted. Other algorithms which were slightly different but essentially the same would violate the patent but not a copyright. When MS starts revealing all their submarine software patents, we are all gonna die.
The post is two words long and adds NOTHING to the discussion; "word up" is a fresher way of saying "me too!". Unfortunately, there's not an option that says that.
Every two years, traffic accidents kill as many Americans as died in the entire Viet Nam war. More children died in traffic accidents in the last month than died in school shootings in the entire year.
Everything we do has a risk associated with it. Americans are unspeakably bad at assessing risks, and are therefore unspeakably bad at fixing real problems; they instead focus on trivial but vastly hyped news stories like Susan Smith, Monica Lewinsky, or Littleton.
Never lived in any other country, so I can't say whether or not these facts are applicable to other nationalities.
The article mentions that John Carmack came from Kansas City (where I taught high school once upon a time). His picture bore a distinct resemblance to a David Carmack that I once taught; David was pretty brilliant. I wonder if they are related. Anybody know anything about John Carmack's family and roots?
IANAL, but it seems that you overlooked the last clause (pointless verbiage removed): ...with the intent that...information be used for...a Federal crime of violence
In other words, it is illegal only if the person who disseminates the information intends it to be used for a crime. If it is used strictly for informational purposes, it appears to be legal.
Presumably this would be used to prosecute people who are not directly involved in a bombing but who provided useful information to the bombers, with the knowledge that the bombers WOULD commit a crime. It would allow prosecutors to charge bombing conspirators with yet another violation of the law.
I still think it's a bad thing. If a law (like conspiracy, or RICO, or aiding and abetting, etc) isn't preventing violence, how would another law help? I would tell the bozos in Congress to fund enforcement of laws currently on the books rather than making more laws and spreading law enforcement resources even thinner.
You're an AC; it'd be pretty hard to track you. Although, I could identify you if I saw you in a crowd, as trolls tend to stand out.
P.S. I work at Sprint, the proxy server would indicate that, and you'd be a moron to accept as true anything I said about Sprint's internal systems based solely on my say-so.
Well, since you responded to my (feeble) attempt at humor seriously, I'll reply seriously. Three links have been posted in this thread. You claim they are all dead, but I only had problems with one. The other two links point to essentially the same article by John Taves, who claims to have used Linux to implemented an OCR solution for the USPS. I first read this about a year ago, and I'm sure many others are familiar with the article.
Now, to take your post point-by-point... How about some evidence that USPS uses Linux in the first place? There's nothing even worth basing a rumor on here Look at the August 1998 issue of Linux Journal (it's one of those links you said was broken). While publication does not equal proof, I think it is evidence that the USPS is using Linux. Your counter evidence would be...?
Oh no, that's right. Let's just perpetuate false rumors. That's much better. Several have pointed to John Taves' article and said essentially "You say the USPS doesn't use Linux; ok, so what's up with this guy?" Telling someone what you read about and then showing them what you read about is not rumor-mongering. And again, what proof do you have that Mr. Taves is lying, since that's what you seem to be implying?
Sure. The USPS uses all Linux boxes.... Whatever. Nobody said that either. "Using Linux for some OCR" is not "Using all Linux boxes".
The article indicates hundreds of these machines in use by the USPS. It's entirely possible the USPS is using Linux and doesn't know it. After all, do you really think they know what OS or software is used on all their embedded systems? Merely the say-so of an employee of the USPS won't cut it in my book. It'd have to be someone who could say authoritatively "All our OCR systems, nationwide, use ABC software and XYZ OS". If you can do that, think of the fun you could have with the staff of Linux Journal by exposing a fraud.
Hey, there, mr. humanoid with that big bushy beard, funny pointy hat, huge teeth and long claws, you must be a TROLL! Or perhaps you have some evidence to the contrary?
My NT workstation can stay up for 14 days. Our NT server in the back room can go as long as three weeks. I can bench press twenty pounds. I can eat an egg (think Cool Hand Luke).
That guy with the linux kernel at least had some code
Right, and that guy with the web site at least had a web site. What can you offer? Can you do a better job? Have you put up the $$$ for a domain dedicated to tuning? Have you paid to have a tuning site hosted? At the very least, can you point the rest of us in the direction of a project that is doing a better job than this one? If not, then kwitcherwhinin. If so, share the info.
I agree that it would be better if this project were finished, and it seems a little silly to put up a site devoid of useless information. Give it a week or three. If it hasn't incorporated some of the suggestions from the discussion on slashdot, then feel free to dismiss it for the time being. In the meantime, give it a chance to try to grow up.
I think Eric Raymond made a point in at least one of those two papers (Cathedral and Bazaar and Homesteading the Noosphere) that open source projects don't tend to succeed unless they start from a functional project. (Mozilla is a good example of this; it has required a lot more effort to get off the ground because there was not a functional product to start with) So I don't think "misunderstanding" is not the problem, more like "ignoring" - like, this part sounds cool, but this part sounds like work, so forget about it.
On the other hand, what do you consider a working product for a web site? The site in question has doubtless gleaned some useful information from this discussion, and if he has half a brain will spend the next day or so tracking info down and updating his page.
On the other hand, unless he's really dedicated, it's liable to peter out after a month or so. This kind of project requires hard work for a long time to be successful.
On the other hand - by now I'm a quadruped - thats all I wanted to say:)
Let a guy who has some KNOWLEDGE about tuning put up a site not just a guy who can put up a webpage
I would suggest that if someone is going to design a free unix kernel, it should be someone with a a master's in comp sci and at least ten years' experience programming operating systems in C with a major American corporation. It should certainly NOT be a Finnish student whose main experience with Unix was using it or writing programs for it.
This is not a corporation where you can assign jobs to people, ordemand that someone with qualifications X, Y, and Z be found to do the job. Instead, the work gets done by whoever chooses to do the job. I don't see any experts coming forward to maintain a repository of all Linux tuning information, or even a clearinghouse of where it can be found. The people who can do a better job are probably not that interested in being librarians, as they are busy being programmers.
I've always had a rule that I think is applicable here: feel free to criticize someone else's work if you can demonstrate the ability to do a better job.
I am dissapointed that this site is Live and yet doesn't contain any useful information what so ever. By publicizing this site in this way, the author is accumulating quite a few pointers to useful information. The author demonstrates some level of commitment and credibility by investing time and $$$ to create this site (though admittedly not a WHOLE lot).
How is this going to co-ordinate itself with the kernel-doc effort being placed by riel@humbolt.nl.linux.org? Ask the site maintainer - how is anyone else supposed to know the answer to this question? Oh wait - you didn't mean to be helpful, did you? You just wanted to criticize.
Mindcraft/Microsoft will be laughing at this site. And it will fuel their FUD that everything under Linux is Alpha/Beta software in the public domain. What this author is proposing will not spring into view fully formed. It will take a lot of work and effort by a lot of people because no one has all the answers. The author clearly felt that the best way to grow his site was to go public as soon as he could. With a lot of work and a little luck, it will grow up.
I think it should be taken off until the author knows at least some links to Kernel tuning sites - the author could at least put up some "Under Construction" signs... Once again, you demonstrate your desire not to help but to criticize. What are those links? Do you know where such information is? Why aren't you sharing it? The site's author is trying to be helpful; I see no evidence of that from you.
I, too, was disappointed at the lack of information on this site, but I could see that it was a work in progress. It takes a real jackass to say that because something isn't finished it isn't worth spending time on.
Technet, or Microsoft's Knowledge Base, or www.microsoft.com...
I find it laughable that a bunch of geeks can't find technical information for the most widely disseminated OS in the world. The answers aren't easy to find, but they are centrally located, and everything there is (theoretically) authoritative. And if you can't find the answer from Microsoft, you won't find an answer. Every answer I've ever gotten from a non-Microsoft source has turned out to be either a dumbed down version of Microsoft's info or plain wrong.
P.S. I don't claim to be a fan of MS, but I did support their products for about three years.
Statements like this one make me want to SCREAM! The US already has sufficient consumer protection laws in place. Software companies are smart enough NOT to specify what their software will do, and consumers are foolish enough to purchase it anyway. Most EULAs that I've seen (and not just MS's) say something like "This product is not warranted for any particular purpose", meaning there's no guarantee that the software will do anything - ie, the word processor may not be able to process words. Software companies say "Here's some bits, they might do something, they might not. Do you want them?" and the market says "Yes!".
Slashdot Mirror
...given away for free...can anything be done about it?
...encryption source code is considered free speech...
At the least, the violators can be ordered to stop. At worst, they could be charged under criminal provisions of patent law.
You can't just sue some of them, can you?
Sure you can. Cops just give tickets to some speeders, after all. The only way you might have an out is if the patent holder only sued protected minorities.
And you can't charge them royalties because they are not selling anything.
Yes, you can. They didn't make any money to pay for those royalties, but that's their problem. Patent holders have nearly total control over their "inventions". The idea isn't "only the patent holder can make money off the patent"; the idea is "the patent holder can make money off the patent". If you give the product away, the patent holder can't sell it, and you are liable for his losses.
ONE appeals court (which does NOT have national jurisdiction) has ruled that ONE particular piece of source code is free speech. I've got my fingers crossed that ultimately it will be as you describe, but that will have to wait for the Supreme Court's ruling.
Sorry. ARPA. Prior art.
Whoops, maybe you meant ethernet, the most popular LAN technology. Sorry. Xerox PARC. Prior art.
Wait, I'll bet you meant WAN links. Sorry. AT&T. Prior art.
Sigh...I guess you got me on the sneakernet thing, so - well, look at the time! Over 20 years since the invention of the floppy! Sorry.
P.S. "lucent" is a registered trademark of Lucent Technologies. Our lawyers will now take possession of your immortal soul.
:)
The way the system works is that someone files an obvious patent, rattles a saber, and then someone else in the industry goes to court to prove the patent obvious and thus unenforcable. That is exactly what is going to happen here.
My $.02 -
No corporation would EVER allow a judge to rule on their obvious patents, because they know they'd lose them. They'd settle out of court.
The way the system works is that big corporations file obvious patents and rattle a saber. Then all the other big corporations rattle their sabers (their obvious patents). Then they all get together and cross-license their obvious patents. Then, when an upstart startup comes along (without a $10E6 legal budget), all the big corporations in the industry rattle their collective sabers and chase the little guys out of town.
Obvious patents thus function as a barrier to entry. No sane non-lawyer would check to see if an obvious idea was patented, since (conventional wisdom) you can't patent obvious ideas. it wouldn't even occur to them that some procedure or algorithm they were using was patented. So a patent violation gets put into production and the giant corporate patent holder sues them out of business.
Copyrights last longer but aren't as all-encompassing as patents. Copyrights have a higher voltage, but patents have a higher amperage - and it's the amperage that kills you (OK, so it's a silly analogy).
If I patent an algorithm, you can't implement it without my permission for 20 years. Period. End of discussion. You can't even improve upon it, because that requires my original algorithm. On the other hand, if I copyright my algorithm, all you have to do is implement it in a different language or on a different architecture, or think of a different way to do the same thing.
You can't copyright an idea, but you can patent one. The creator of Visicalc (Dan Bricklin?) could have patented the software but made an informed decision not to do so. If he had, though, no one would have been able to create a spreadsheet program legally without getting his permission - he would have been RICH.
The patent law definitely has more teeth than the copyright law, and software patents are definitely bad. And I think the 75 years you mention is actually 75 years after the death of the creator, so if a corporation holds the copyright, it never ends. Though I could be wrong about that.
IANA Patent L, but I believe patents are intended to prevent the very situation you describe. Some inventions are obvious once you see them, but it can take years of development to create them. If you can look at my invention and reproduce it, I have no way to recoup the cost of developing it. If you
(the following assumes NO windshield wipers yet exist) I can't patent the concept of wiping the windows, but I can patent a particular process - for example, I could patent the dual synchronized radial windshield wiper (the process used on most cars - and I made the name up). If I were actually doing research on windshield wiping, I would look at lots of different methods. I would market and produce only the best method I discovered, but I'd patent them all, even the crappy ones. That way, if you decided, after seeing my windshield wipers, to make wipers based on a different process (since I can't patent the idea, you're free to try), you would find that I'd already been there.
What you could do, though, is try to patent all possible improvements to my original patents. Then, if I wanted to improve my windshield wipers, I'd find that YOU were already there. So we'd sign a cross-licensing agreement, and I wouldn't have to worry about getting sued for improving my product, and in return you could use my original patents.
I once read that some Japanese consumer electronics companies were good at building "walls" of patents. For example, they'd take the basic VCR and improve on it in myriads of ways, patenting every improvement. They'd have to pay a license to produce a VCR, but theirs would be better than American ones. If the American firm tried to sell an improved product, they'd find the Japanese firm already held a patent on the improvement.
If I were really mean, once I'd done all my R&D for my original wipers, I would start the patent process, and drag it out r-e-a-l s-l-o-w. You'd see my windshield wipers, check for a patent, find there wasn't one, and start copying them like crazy (which is legal to do, right, since there's no patent on them). Several years later, though, I get my patent, which is "valid" from the original application date. So I sue you, since you were violating my patent. This kind of patent is known as a submarine patent, and many patent lawyers have gotten rich this way. Submarine patents are BAD.
So anyway, yes, algorithms and processes can be patented. Individual implementations of those algorithms can be copyrighted. Other algorithms which were slightly different but essentially the same would violate the patent but not a copyright. When MS starts revealing all their submarine software patents, we are all gonna die.
The post is two words long and adds NOTHING to the discussion; "word up" is a fresher way of saying "me too!". Unfortunately, there's not an option that says that.
Situation current double plus ungood.
Every two years, traffic accidents kill as many Americans as died in the entire Viet Nam war. More children died in traffic accidents in the last month than died in school shootings in the entire year.
Everything we do has a risk associated with it. Americans are unspeakably bad at assessing risks, and are therefore unspeakably bad at fixing real problems; they instead focus on trivial but vastly hyped news stories like Susan Smith, Monica Lewinsky, or Littleton.
Never lived in any other country, so I can't say whether or not these facts are applicable to other nationalities.
The article mentions that John Carmack came from Kansas City (where I taught high school once upon a time). His picture bore a distinct resemblance to a David Carmack that I once taught; David was pretty brilliant. I wonder if they are related. Anybody know anything about John Carmack's family and roots?
IANAL, but it seems that you overlooked the last clause (pointless verbiage removed):
...with the intent that...information be used for...a Federal crime of violence
In other words, it is illegal only if the person who disseminates the information intends it to be used for a crime. If it is used strictly for informational purposes, it appears to be legal.
Presumably this would be used to prosecute people who are not directly involved in a bombing but who provided useful information to the bombers, with the knowledge that the bombers WOULD commit a crime. It would allow prosecutors to charge bombing conspirators with yet another violation of the law.
I still think it's a bad thing. If a law (like conspiracy, or RICO, or aiding and abetting, etc) isn't preventing violence, how would another law help? I would tell the bozos in Congress to fund enforcement of laws currently on the books rather than making more laws and spreading law enforcement resources even thinner.
You're an AC; it'd be pretty hard to track you. Although, I could identify you if I saw you in a crowd, as trolls tend to stand out.
P.S. I work at Sprint, the proxy server would indicate that, and you'd be a moron to accept as true anything I said about Sprint's internal systems based solely on my say-so.
What has it been used for, besides its own compiler?
Well, since you responded to my (feeble) attempt at humor seriously, I'll reply seriously. Three links have been posted in this thread. You claim they are all dead, but I only had problems with one. The other two links point to essentially the same article by John Taves, who claims to have used Linux to implemented an OCR solution for the USPS. I first read this about a year ago, and I'm sure many others are familiar with the article.
Now, to take your post point-by-point...
How about some evidence that USPS uses Linux in the first place? There's nothing even worth basing a rumor on here
Look at the August 1998 issue of Linux Journal (it's one of those links you said was broken). While publication does not equal proof, I think it is evidence that the USPS is using Linux. Your counter evidence would be...?
Oh no, that's right. Let's just perpetuate false rumors. That's much better.
Several have pointed to John Taves' article and said essentially "You say the USPS doesn't use Linux; ok, so what's up with this guy?" Telling someone what you read about and then showing them what you read about is not rumor-mongering. And again, what proof do you have that Mr. Taves is lying, since that's what you seem to be implying?
Sure. The USPS uses all Linux boxes.... Whatever.
Nobody said that either. "Using Linux for some OCR" is not "Using all Linux boxes".
The article indicates hundreds of these machines in use by the USPS. It's entirely possible the USPS is using Linux and doesn't know it. After all, do you really think they know what OS or software is used on all their embedded systems? Merely the say-so of an employee of the USPS won't cut it in my book. It'd have to be someone who could say authoritatively "All our OCR systems, nationwide, use ABC software and XYZ OS". If you can do that, think of the fun you could have with the staff of Linux Journal by exposing a fraud.
Hey, there, mr. humanoid with that big bushy beard, funny pointy hat, huge teeth and long claws, you must be a TROLL! Or perhaps you have some evidence to the contrary?
My NT workstation can stay up for 14 days. Our NT server in the back room can go as long as three weeks. I can bench press twenty pounds. I can eat an egg (think Cool Hand Luke).
Brag when you've got something to brag about.
That guy with the linux kernel at least had some code
Right, and that guy with the web site at least had a web site. What can you offer? Can you do a better job? Have you put up the $$$ for a domain dedicated to tuning? Have you paid to have a tuning site hosted? At the very least, can you point the rest of us in the direction of a project that is doing a better job than this one? If not, then kwitcherwhinin. If so, share the info.
I agree that it would be better if this project were finished, and it seems a little silly to put up a site devoid of useless information. Give it a week or three. If it hasn't incorporated some of the suggestions from the discussion on slashdot, then feel free to dismiss it for the time being. In the meantime, give it a chance to try to grow up.
I think Eric Raymond made a point in at least one of those two papers (Cathedral and Bazaar and Homesteading the Noosphere) that open source projects don't tend to succeed unless they start from a functional project. (Mozilla is a good example of this; it has required a lot more effort to get off the ground because there was not a functional product to start with) So I don't think "misunderstanding" is not the problem, more like "ignoring" - like, this part sounds cool, but this part sounds like work, so forget about it.
:)
On the other hand, what do you consider a working product for a web site? The site in question has doubtless gleaned some useful information from this discussion, and if he has half a brain will spend the next day or so tracking info down and updating his page.
On the other hand, unless he's really dedicated, it's liable to peter out after a month or so. This kind of project requires hard work for a long time to be successful.
On the other hand - by now I'm a quadruped - thats all I wanted to say
Let a guy who has some KNOWLEDGE about tuning put up a site not just a guy who can put up a webpage
I would suggest that if someone is going to design a free unix kernel, it should be someone with a a master's in comp sci and at least ten years' experience programming operating systems in C with a major American corporation. It should certainly NOT be a Finnish student whose main experience with Unix was using it or writing programs for it.
This is not a corporation where you can assign jobs to people, ordemand that someone with qualifications X, Y, and Z be found to do the job. Instead, the work gets done by whoever chooses to do the job. I don't see any experts coming forward to maintain a repository of all Linux tuning information, or even a clearinghouse of where it can be found. The people who can do a better job are probably not that interested in being librarians, as they are busy being programmers.
I've always had a rule that I think is applicable here: feel free to criticize someone else's work if you can demonstrate the ability to do a better job.
I am dissapointed that this site is Live and yet doesn't contain any useful information what so ever.
By publicizing this site in this way, the author is accumulating quite a few pointers to useful information. The author demonstrates some level of commitment and credibility by investing time and $$$ to create this site (though admittedly not a WHOLE lot).
How is this going to co-ordinate itself with the kernel-doc effort being placed by riel@humbolt.nl.linux.org?
Ask the site maintainer - how is anyone else supposed to know the answer to this question? Oh wait - you didn't mean to be helpful, did you? You just wanted to criticize.
Mindcraft/Microsoft will be laughing at this site. And it will fuel their FUD that everything under Linux is Alpha/Beta software in the public domain.
What this author is proposing will not spring into view fully formed. It will take a lot of work and effort by a lot of people because no one has all the answers. The author clearly felt that the best way to grow his site was to go public as soon as he could. With a lot of work and a little luck, it will grow up.
I think it should be taken off until the author knows at least some links to Kernel tuning sites - the author could at least put up some "Under Construction" signs...
Once again, you demonstrate your desire not to help but to criticize. What are those links? Do you know where such information is? Why aren't you sharing it? The site's author is trying to be helpful; I see no evidence of that from you.
I, too, was disappointed at the lack of information on this site, but I could see that it was a work in progress. It takes a real jackass to say that because something isn't finished it isn't worth spending time on.
Technet, or
Microsoft's Knowledge Base, or
www.microsoft.com...
I find it laughable that a bunch of geeks can't find technical information for the most widely disseminated OS in the world. The answers aren't easy to find, but they are centrally located, and everything there is (theoretically) authoritative. And if you can't find the answer from Microsoft, you won't find an answer. Every answer I've ever gotten from a non-Microsoft source has turned out to be either a dumbed down version of Microsoft's info or plain wrong.
P.S. I don't claim to be a fan of MS, but I did support their products for about three years.
Statements like this one make me want to SCREAM! The US already has sufficient consumer protection laws in place. Software companies are smart enough NOT to specify what their software will do, and consumers are foolish enough to purchase it anyway. Most EULAs that I've seen (and not just MS's) say something like "This product is not warranted for any particular purpose", meaning there's no guarantee that the software will do anything - ie, the word processor may not be able to process words. Software companies say "Here's some bits, they might do something, they might not. Do you want them?" and the market says "Yes!".
You've got to admit, there's serious money to be made helping college boys jack off.
Oh please! The only pornography I know of that is banned in this country involves children.
The FCC argument is...
The FCC was created to regulate radio frequencies at the urging of the TV and radio industry, which reminds me of the story of the camel's nose.
subject...