A lawyer is unnecessary. Here is the actual wording of the law:
17 USC, 1201(a)(3)(B) a technological measure "effectively controls access to a
work" if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain
access to the work.
Source is here. So Adobe implements ROT-x encryption, sets x = 13 (which must be "applied" to gain access), and has full rights under the DMCA.
[Political Party X] will introduce legislation preventing techies from building their own machines at feasible prices within the next 5 years.
You failed to state a rationale for this. You seem to imply it's because corps. will lobby Congress so they can force you to buy whole systems, but the same end-results can be achieved by convincing MS to tighten the screws on its WPA (and Apple can solder its machines shut if it wants).
A better argument would be to point out that as processor speed goes up, so does RF interference. Once it gets to a certain level, the FCC will feel compelled to step in. Of course, that doesn't require Congress to act, either, so I'm still not sure why you said what you did.
Actually, I think Macka is referring to, "What If We Had No Moon?" It was a Discovery Channel documentary narrated by (I think) Patrick Stewart. It discussed theories about how the moon formed, and what kind of effect its presence has had on life. Macka is right: one of the claims made on that show was that the moon somehow stablizes Earth's rotation, and its absence would allow the poles to point every which way.
Interesting side note: the documentary also claimed that the moon is receding at 1.5 inches per year, so we'll lose it eventually anyway.
...copyright is 75 years... for works that are written 'for hire'... . Works generated by individual authors,...have copyrights that extend 50 years beyond the death of the author.
Your information is a little out of date. Both of those terms have been extended by twenty years (retroactively, natch).
...the idea of paying for something that used to be free upset people, and makes them move on to other places.
I think you're looking at things a little too short-term. People used to balk at the idea of paying for television, but now those of us without cable are considered a bit odd. I will grant that your statement holds as long as the "free" replacements are not inconvenient to find/use. For example, thanks to many obscure venues on the Internet, it's been years since anyone had to pay for music, but it took several things (widespread home Internet connections + broadband + MP3 + Napster + cheap CD-R) to make it even vaguely as convenient as buying a CD for the average Joe.
Can you imagine being in a jungle somewhere, trying to call in for an evac when your laptop suddenly declares that you need to register XP again?
That brings up an interesting question: How does Product Activiation (PA) work for laptops? I've always assumed MS could get away with PA on desktops because most home users don't change their hardware (excepting peripherals). In fact, PA could go a long way to deterring users from opening the case (No User-Serviceable Parts Inside). There's an odd remedy to the PC downturn: sales being artificially buoyed by the fact that you can't upgrade a processor/video card/hard drive without buying a new OS. Anyway... Unlike desktops, laptops change hardware configuration constantly. Do any XP beta-testers know how AP works with laptops?
When I pay my neighbor,...by federal law, he must accept US Currency as payment of my debt.
Sorry, no. 31 USC, 5103 is the piece of law you (mis-)quoted. It reads (in relevant part):
United States coins and currency... are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues.
According to the Bureau of Engraving and Printing (part of Department of the Treasury):
This statute means that you have made a valid and legal
offer of payment of your debt when you tender United States currency... . However, there is no Federal statute which mandates that [anyone] must accept cash as a form of payment.
(emaphasis added) Former quote is here; latter is here.
Late 1998, I did contract work at a long-distance company. I worked on a Y2K-compliance team. We did weekly code reviews, just to make sure nobody missed anything, or broke more than they fixed. That was the one and only time I did a code review outside academia.
If other companies got ahold of this algorithm, it would level the playing field and we would no longer be the industry leader.
First, I think you're mis-using the phrase, "level the playing field". To oppose a level playing field is to oppose the idea that your competitors deserve a fair shot at success. Second, if your algorithm is that innovative, you'd probably be better off keeping it a trade secret, where others can only guess what it may be, rather than patent it, where you have to make it public knowledge (allowing similar implementations).
Patenting this is not stifling innovation, it's fostering innovation.
How surprising to hear such omething like that from someone named Win-Developer.:-)
Try getting out there in the real world and being in this situation...you'll change your tune.
Sorry, no. I am in the "real world", and I've found that I don't discard my ethics when they become inconvenient.
I let a whole day elapse before checking for a reply and look what happens! Seeing as multiple threads have sprung up, I'm arbitrarily replying to this post.
if corporations have rights like citizens, then they should face criminal punishment as well as civil.
As pointed out by NearlyHeadless and others, corporations are subject to criminal penalties. I wasn't claiming otherwise, though. My point was that antitrust trials in particular don't penalize, they rememdy.
Actually, this difference works in Microsoft's favor. If they can stall the remedy long enough, they can say, "Look! Because of Linux (or whichever), we no longer oppress the masses. No remedy needed!" And they'd walk out of the courtroom guilty, but unaffected.
No, the court has decided to send the case back down for the *punishment* to be reconsidered...
No, the Court has decided to send the case back down for the remedy to be reconsidered.
In antitrust trials, the guilty party is not punished (that's what civil cases are for). Rather, the goal is to do only as much as is necessary to restore competition.
Of course, if you use a different OS,... Then the windows button is useless.
My window manager (Sawfish) defaulted to using the Windows key for task-switching. Basically, Windows+Tab does for me what Alt+Tab does for Windows. I've actually come to prefer it that way.
If they have no rest mass then they have NO mass at all!
But if photons have a rest mass, then they can't travel at the speed of light (or if you prefer, every photon has infinite mass). This is obviously not the case.
This isn't insightful, it's crap. Win2K's multilanguage UI rocks.
Cut hpa a little slack. While NT has supported Unicode for a while, it wasn't until Win2k that the "swap [locales] on the fly" behavior you mention worked reasonably, and it isn't even an option on Win9x (which is what most home users would have). hpa's info on MS APIs is a little out of date, yes, but his/her OS probably is, too.
We have a mechanism for handling changes in belief, social mores, and taboos. It is called the amendment process. To the extent that we allow prevailing wisdom to change the meaning of the Constitution over time, we might as well not have a constitution.
So, it's your opinion that social mores, etc., have only changed 26 times in the last 200+ years? The constitution is written in deliberately vague terms to permit flexibility. It's a set of guidelines, not a deatiled set of rules. If a document as rigid as you suggest were written, what would be the point of Congress?
The question is whether or not TW can stop you from advertising in East Hogjowl, Nebraska, and my contention is that they cannot.
I will grant you your conclusion, but I think you have the wrong question. To be found liable for anti-competitive behavior under current law, one is not required to have a monopoly on all advertising media, just one.
I suppose we could debate whether such a law is "right" or "wrong", but that moves us into territory that's a bit too philosophical for my taste.
Slashdot Mirror
Is anyone on /. aware that the presentation itself was a DMCA violation?
A lawyer is unnecessary. Here is the actual wording of the law:
Source is here. So Adobe implements ROT-x encryption, sets x = 13 (which must be "applied" to gain access), and has full rights under the DMCA.
[Political Party X] will introduce legislation preventing techies from building their own machines at feasible prices within the next 5 years.
You failed to state a rationale for this. You seem to imply it's because corps. will lobby Congress so they can force you to buy whole systems, but the same end-results can be achieved by convincing MS to tighten the screws on its WPA (and Apple can solder its machines shut if it wants).
A better argument would be to point out that as processor speed goes up, so does RF interference. Once it gets to a certain level, the FCC will feel compelled to step in. Of course, that doesn't require Congress to act, either, so I'm still not sure why you said what you did.
I was just about to post a reply asking you to explain what you meant, but I was suddenly enlightened.
You're right: Stuff is cool.
It's fiction, honest!
Actually, I think Macka is referring to, "What If We Had No Moon?" It was a Discovery Channel documentary narrated by (I think) Patrick Stewart. It discussed theories about how the moon formed, and what kind of effect its presence has had on life. Macka is right: one of the claims made on that show was that the moon somehow stablizes Earth's rotation, and its absence would allow the poles to point every which way.
Interesting side note: the documentary also claimed that the moon is receding at 1.5 inches per year, so we'll lose it eventually anyway.
Your information is a little out of date. Both of those terms have been extended by twenty years (retroactively, natch).
I think you're looking at things a little too short-term. People used to balk at the idea of paying for television, but now those of us without cable are considered a bit odd. I will grant that your statement holds as long as the "free" replacements are not inconvenient to find/use. For example, thanks to many obscure venues on the Internet, it's been years since anyone had to pay for music, but it took several things (widespread home Internet connections + broadband + MP3 + Napster + cheap CD-R) to make it even vaguely as convenient as buying a CD for the average Joe.
Can you imagine being in a jungle somewhere, trying to call in for an evac when your laptop suddenly declares that you need to register XP again?
That brings up an interesting question: How does Product Activiation (PA) work for laptops? I've always assumed MS could get away with PA on desktops because most home users don't change their hardware (excepting peripherals). In fact, PA could go a long way to deterring users from opening the case (No User-Serviceable Parts Inside). There's an odd remedy to the PC downturn: sales being artificially buoyed by the fact that you can't upgrade a processor/video card/hard drive without buying a new OS. Anyway... Unlike desktops, laptops change hardware configuration constantly. Do any XP beta-testers know how AP works with laptops?
When I pay my neighbor, ...by federal law, he must accept US Currency as payment of my debt.
Sorry, no. 31 USC, 5103 is the piece of law you (mis-)quoted. It reads (in relevant part):
According to the Bureau of Engraving and Printing (part of Department of the Treasury):
(emaphasis added) Former quote is here; latter is here.
Late 1998, I did contract work at a long-distance company. I worked on a Y2K-compliance team. We did weekly code reviews, just to make sure nobody missed anything, or broke more than they fixed. That was the one and only time I did a code review outside academia.
If other companies got ahold of this algorithm, it would level the playing field and we would no longer be the industry leader.
First, I think you're mis-using the phrase, "level the playing field". To oppose a level playing field is to oppose the idea that your competitors deserve a fair shot at success. Second, if your algorithm is that innovative, you'd probably be better off keeping it a trade secret, where others can only guess what it may be, rather than patent it, where you have to make it public knowledge (allowing similar implementations).
Patenting this is not stifling innovation, it's fostering innovation.
How surprising to hear such omething like that from someone named Win-Developer. :-)
Try getting out there in the real world and being in this situation...you'll change your tune.
Sorry, no. I am in the "real world", and I've found that I don't discard my ethics when they become inconvenient.
I let a whole day elapse before checking for a reply and look what happens! Seeing as multiple threads have sprung up, I'm arbitrarily replying to this post.
if corporations have rights like citizens, then they should face criminal punishment as well as civil.
As pointed out by NearlyHeadless and others, corporations are subject to criminal penalties. I wasn't claiming otherwise, though. My point was that antitrust trials in particular don't penalize, they rememdy.
Actually, this difference works in Microsoft's favor. If they can stall the remedy long enough, they can say, "Look! Because of Linux (or whichever), we no longer oppress the masses. No remedy needed!" And they'd walk out of the courtroom guilty, but unaffected.
No, the court has decided to send the case back down for the *punishment* to be reconsidered...
No, the Court has decided to send the case back down for the remedy to be reconsidered.
In antitrust trials, the guilty party is not punished (that's what civil cases are for). Rather, the goal is to do only as much as is necessary to restore competition.
Of course, if you use a different OS,... Then the windows button is useless.
My window manager (Sawfish) defaulted to using the Windows key for task-switching. Basically, Windows+Tab does for me what Alt+Tab does for Windows. I've actually come to prefer it that way.
[W]e can get infinitely close without ever reaching our destination
Your whole post is very well put. I would, however, humbly suggest that the word "asymptotically" is more apt than "infinitely".
Einstein: "God does not play with dice."
Hawking: "Not only does play with dice, He sometimes throws them where we can't see them."
If they have no rest mass then they have NO mass at all!
But if photons have a rest mass, then they can't travel at the speed of light (or if you prefer, every photon has infinite mass). This is obviously not the case.
Not to criticize your logic, but how do you reconcile this kind of reasoning to the fact that photons actually don't have a rest mass?
"dark matter" (i.e. anti-matter)
Dark matter and anti-matter are two different things.
Remind me to remove gnucash tonight.
Why? If it's already installed and working, why not use it?
This isn't insightful, it's crap. Win2K's multilanguage UI rocks.
Cut hpa a little slack. While NT has supported Unicode for a while, it wasn't until Win2k that the "swap [locales] on the fly" behavior you mention worked reasonably, and it isn't even an option on Win9x (which is what most home users would have). hpa's info on MS APIs is a little out of date, yes, but his/her OS probably is, too.
We have a mechanism for handling changes in belief, social mores, and taboos. It is called the amendment process.
To the extent that we allow prevailing wisdom to change the meaning of the Constitution over time, we might as well not have a constitution.
So, it's your opinion that social mores, etc., have only changed 26 times in the last 200+ years? The constitution is written in deliberately vague terms to permit flexibility. It's a set of guidelines, not a deatiled set of rules. If a document as rigid as you suggest were written, what would be the point of Congress?
D'oh! I should have said, "it's a very good interpretation of a constitutional amendment."
I think this is very good law.
IANAL
IANAL either, but I know that this isn't a "very good law", it's a very good interpretation of an existing law.
The question is whether or not TW can stop you from advertising in East Hogjowl, Nebraska, and my contention is that they cannot.
I will grant you your conclusion, but I think you have the wrong question. To be found liable for anti-competitive behavior under current law, one is not required to have a monopoly on all advertising media, just one.
I suppose we could debate whether such a law is "right" or "wrong", but that moves us into territory that's a bit too philosophical for my taste.