Yeah, until the NEXT time Microsoft changes the licensing scheme to suck more money out of its far-flung empire. Your assumption: "pay this non-stop forever and they dont have to ever worry..." in the context of Microsoft is a huge reach, IMO.
This is a good point. If ISPs are any indication, MS's plan will probably let them change the EULA (and price) with little-to-no warning and (naturally) leave subscribers with no recourse.
Companies would like to get the latest software,...
My experience has been that companies would rather standardize and leave it be. You mention 40% of businesses use Office 2k; that means that 60% don't want to upgrade.
Now, instead of paying for it all at once, maybe it'd be nice for them to pay $75/month for three years.
Nope. It's (to use your example) $75/month forever. Any company that decides it wants off the upgrade treadmill still has to continue paying.
I'll accept that interpretation; it certainly explains why Rambus is so adamant about appealing. I guess a better way to say what I meant was that Rambus still has the patents, but the judge simply narrowed their scope to exclude Infineon's work. It's still theorhetically possible for someone else to violate those patents. All in all, it still isn't good for a company to base its income on licensing and lawsuits.
Indeed. To the less-clued, "Shared Source" sounds a lot like "Open Source". It's a tougher E&E, because it's purely a matter of mind-share, but they're pretty good at that sort of thing.
btw, not to start a flame-war or anything, but couldn't RMS use this as evidence of why "Open Source" should be shunned in favor of "Free"?
Um, monopoly is defined as 80% or more of the market share, not 100%.
Actually, there's no fixed percentage. It's more along the lines of, "big enough that even if the company drastically raises prices, the public perceives no viable alternative.
...the judges seemed fairly skeptical..., trying to insist that widepsread and massive copyright infringement due to DeCSS must be occurring, somehow, somewhere. It just must be.
Since when is this a valid legal argument? IANAL, but I always thought "probably" didn't cut it as far as evidence goes.
Surely, [AG Atler] said, the government could ban the publication of programs which were a threat to people's lives.
As others have pointed out, DeCSS is not life-threatening; at most it's proft-threatening. I think a good "slippery slope" argument; extend it to its extreme.
...picketers were successfully prevented from picketing due to the functional intent of the picketing, which was apparently to violate certain laws.... Alter argued... the intent of distributing DeCSS is to promote violations of copyright law, therefore the speech part of such distribution can be ignored by the courts...
This is a bad analogy. (Adopting the opposition's opinion for argument's sake only.) The purpose of DeCSS is to violate copyright law, allowing its speech component to be ignored. Alter is arguing that the NYT isn't permitted to cover the picketers, because the picketers were committing a crime.
[Alter] stated flatly that the problem with digital works is that they can be copied.
Actually, doesn't this beg the question of why the MPAA is going to digital at all?
The point Alter narrowly evaded evaded it (sic) is that the act of publishing a copyrighted work to the world is a copyright violation in the traditional sense, and is punishable under traditional laws.
This is something that needs to be driven home to the judges, because it serves as yet another example of the "less restrictive means" Congress is obliged to use.
I hope these are some useful points Ms. Sullivan could raise.
Since what I know of this guy is limited to this thread, I have no real opinion on him one way or the other. I was simply highlighting two of your comments that seem odd when juxtaposed.
...It's astonishing that you would accept the conclusion of that web site over the testimony of a person who claims to have actually done the deed.
What I find astonishing is that you manage to be so derisive of an argument that boils down to "cos I saw it on the web", but have no more evidence to the contrary than "cos a con artist said so".
Given two conflicting testimonies and absent any further evidence you can only rely on your perceptions of who is telling the truth.
Granted. I just don't understand how you have enough evidence to be as certain of your position as you seem. Maybe if I read his book I'd be convinced, but given that he's a professional liar, I have to take everything he says with a sizeable grain of salt.
Re:cloning a whole human won't become epidemic
on
Send out the Clones?
·
· Score: 1
Unless of course we've developed something that can accelerate your growth tremendously and also dump knowledge directly into the brain...
And why should such advances be the sole province of clones? I'd rather dump knowledge directly into my own brain than let some younger look-alike run off with the Nobel prize.
I read an article some time back that hypothesized a clone running for president. Assuming s/he was born in the U.S. (ban or no ban) and at least thrity-five years old, is s/he eligible? The author thought so, since being the child of a felon is not a ban to public service.
If the DMCA were to be ruled unconstitutional by the Court, congress would be under treaty obligation to draft another piece of legislation doing exactly the same thing.
I'm afraid this is wrong on two counts.
As the EFF points out in its briefs, the WIPO treaty isn't quite as Draconian as the DMCA. Congress could write something less harsh and still meet its treaty obligations.
Even if the WIPO treaty were as bad as the DMCA, Congress can't use treaty obligations as an excuse to violate the constitution. For example, could Congress establish a national religion just because of some international treaty? I think it's more likely they'd be forced to bow out.
The RIAA knows that the mere threat of legal action is enough to shut most everyone up.
Here's where things get complex. The DMCA's creepiest element (IMHO) is that it turns copyright violations into criminal violations as well as civil. Herein lies way to salvation. If the RIAA can threaten Professor Felton with civil liability, one can argue the DOJ could threaten him with criminal liability. Since the government is coercing him into silence with threats (as opposed to actions), the DMCA creates a prior restraint on free speech, which is unconstitutional.
Sorry, you do. From Hotmail's TOS: "Some MSN Sites/Services automatically provide you with a Microsoft Passport account when you open an account (e.g. Hotmail, MSN Explorer),..." [emphasis added].
Does anybody seriously believe scientists, or even most businessmen, seek to stop 'the clock of history'?
Certainly scientists don't, but there's a fair bit of evidence that businesses do. The repeated extensions of copyright terms at the behest of Corporate America leaps to mind. Some would argue that the primary purpose of DVDs is to erect a series technological and legal barriers to maintain the status quo (or maybe even tilt things further in the MPAA's favor). Ask Napster if the RIAA, when threatened with obsolescence, wanted to stop "the clock of history". And depending on where your loyalties lie, you can buy Microsoft's argument that the anti-trust trial was just Netscape trying to maintain its market share.
You'll get no argument from me about Heinlein being "the zealot's zealot", but that fact alone doesn't refute his claims.
It's a little easier to protest when you've got tenure.
Actually, the ease of protesting comes from solidarity (over fifteen thousand protestors) and from the fact that there are no contractual obligations getting in the way.
...anti-gravity is required to explain the current cosmology of the universe...
Not exactly. Anti-gravity's best hope is the discovery of a graviton (thus implying an anti-graviton). The accelerating expansion of the universe (assuming it's genuine) is more likely caused by a previously unknown force, too weak to be measured over short distances.
Unfortunately, I cannot find anything definitive here (Title 57 of the revised code for tax laws), but who knows how often these sites are updated?
The main reason I brought up the use tax is because I had to file in two states this year, and both of them made prominent mention of their use taxes on the forms.
Ohio... introduced a "Voluntary" tax on Interenet purchases....I have been informed... that I have to pay this tax, reguardless.
IANAAccountant
Are you referring to the Ohio Use Tax? (IT-1040 line 16 or IT-1040 EZ line 11) That tax has been around since 1936. It was originally passed to allow Ohio to collect sales tax on catalog purchases. Retailers are generally only required to collect sales tax if they have a "presence" within the state. If they do not have a presence, then the Ohio resident is responsible for paying the use tax (which exactly equals the sales tax) when they file. Applying this law to Internet purchases is perfectly reasonable.
What I liked most about this story (or a similar variation on it that I once heard) is that it so obviously pre-dates the notion of an encyclopedia on a CD-ROM. The author tries to make the point that it would be absurd to try and put such an enormous amount of data into any "reasonable"-sized storage medium, but here we are.
Then again, I've always enjoyed reading old SF to see the odd mix of things which are mundane to us but impossible to them and vice versa (sp?).
Keep 6 months worth of salery in a savings account.
Despite some dissenting posts, this is a must, though personally, I'd recommend something with a slightly higher return, such as a money market account, or CDs.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, until the NEXT time Microsoft changes the licensing scheme to suck more money out of its far-flung empire. Your assumption: "pay this non-stop forever and they dont have to ever worry..." in the context of Microsoft is a huge reach, IMO.
This is a good point. If ISPs are any indication, MS's plan will probably let them change the EULA (and price) with little-to-no warning and (naturally) leave subscribers with no recourse.
Companies would like to get the latest software,...
My experience has been that companies would rather standardize and leave it be. You mention 40% of businesses use Office 2k; that means that 60% don't want to upgrade.
Now, instead of paying for it all at once, maybe it'd be nice for them to pay $75/month for three years.
Nope. It's (to use your example) $75/month forever. Any company that decides it wants off the upgrade treadmill still has to continue paying.
I'll accept that interpretation; it certainly explains why Rambus is so adamant about appealing. I guess a better way to say what I meant was that Rambus still has the patents, but the judge simply narrowed their scope to exclude Infineon's work. It's still theorhetically possible for someone else to violate those patents. All in all, it still isn't good for a company to base its income on licensing and lawsuits.
even though the patents have been invalidated
The patents haven't been invalidated (yet). The judge merely declared that Infineon didn't violate them.
Indeed. To the less-clued, "Shared Source" sounds a lot like "Open Source". It's a tougher E&E, because it's purely a matter of mind-share, but they're pretty good at that sort of thing.
btw, not to start a flame-war or anything, but couldn't RMS use this as evidence of why "Open Source" should be shunned in favor of "Free"?
Um, monopoly is defined as 80% or more of the market share, not 100%.
Actually, there's no fixed percentage. It's more along the lines of, "big enough that even if the company drastically raises prices, the public perceives no viable alternative.
Since when is this a valid legal argument? IANAL, but I always thought "probably" didn't cut it as far as evidence goes.
Surely, [AG Atler] said, the government could ban the publication of programs which were a threat to people's lives.
As others have pointed out, DeCSS is not life-threatening; at most it's proft-threatening. I think a good "slippery slope" argument; extend it to its extreme.
This is a bad analogy. (Adopting the opposition's opinion for argument's sake only.) The purpose of DeCSS is to violate copyright law, allowing its speech component to be ignored. Alter is arguing that the NYT isn't permitted to cover the picketers, because the picketers were committing a crime.
[Alter] stated flatly that the problem with digital works is that they can be copied.
Actually, doesn't this beg the question of why the MPAA is going to digital at all?
The point Alter narrowly evaded evaded it (sic) is that the act of publishing a copyrighted work to the world is a copyright violation in the traditional sense, and is punishable under traditional laws.
This is something that needs to be driven home to the judges, because it serves as yet another example of the "less restrictive means" Congress is obliged to use.
I hope these are some useful points Ms. Sullivan could raise.
Since what I know of this guy is limited to this thread, I have no real opinion on him one way or the other. I was simply highlighting two of your comments that seem odd when juxtaposed.
What I find astonishing is that you manage to be so derisive of an argument that boils down to "cos I saw it on the web", but have no more evidence to the contrary than "cos a con artist said so".
Given two conflicting testimonies and absent any further evidence you can only rely on your perceptions of who is telling the truth.
Granted. I just don't understand how you have enough evidence to be as certain of your position as you seem. Maybe if I read his book I'd be convinced, but given that he's a professional liar, I have to take everything he says with a sizeable grain of salt.
Unless of course we've developed something that can accelerate your growth tremendously and also dump knowledge directly into the brain...
And why should such advances be the sole province of clones? I'd rather dump knowledge directly into my own brain than let some younger look-alike run off with the Nobel prize.
I read an article some time back that hypothesized a clone running for president. Assuming s/he was born in the U.S. (ban or no ban) and at least thrity-five years old, is s/he eligible? The author thought so, since being the child of a felon is not a ban to public service.
Any thoughts?
Twins are the same age (give or take a few minutes). Clones aren't.
What if I produce two clones at once?
Just because they automaticaly provide you with an account doesn't mean you have to use it.
Really? It's been my understanding that all attempts to log in automatically rerouted you through passport.com.
There are ways to log into Hotmail without using Passport.
Could you maybe drop me a hint about how to do that? I'd be much obliged.
If the DMCA were to be ruled unconstitutional by the Court, congress would be under treaty obligation to draft another piece of legislation doing exactly the same thing.
I'm afraid this is wrong on two counts.
The RIAA knows that the mere threat of legal action is enough to shut most everyone up.
Here's where things get complex. The DMCA's creepiest element (IMHO) is that it turns copyright violations into criminal violations as well as civil. Herein lies way to salvation. If the RIAA can threaten Professor Felton with civil liability, one can argue the DOJ could threaten him with criminal liability. Since the government is coercing him into silence with threats (as opposed to actions), the DMCA creates a prior restraint on free speech, which is unconstitutional.
You don't need to use passport to use hotmail.
Sorry, you do. From Hotmail's TOS: "Some MSN Sites/Services automatically provide you with a Microsoft Passport account when you open an account (e.g. Hotmail, MSN Explorer),..." [emphasis added].
From higher in the thread:
Let me tell you... how stupid most americans are. ... Americans... see a person in uniform and do what he says.
From immediately above:
I read the book and saw him on TV he seemed believable to me. ... I think I'll choose to believe the man... [over] these bozos with a web site...
What an unusual way to illustrate your point.
Does anybody seriously believe scientists, or even most businessmen, seek to stop 'the clock of history'?
Certainly scientists don't, but there's a fair bit of evidence that businesses do. The repeated extensions of copyright terms at the behest of Corporate America leaps to mind. Some would argue that the primary purpose of DVDs is to erect a series technological and legal barriers to maintain the status quo (or maybe even tilt things further in the MPAA's favor). Ask Napster if the RIAA, when threatened with obsolescence, wanted to stop "the clock of history". And depending on where your loyalties lie, you can buy Microsoft's argument that the anti-trust trial was just Netscape trying to maintain its market share.
You'll get no argument from me about Heinlein being "the zealot's zealot", but that fact alone doesn't refute his claims.
It's a little easier to protest when you've got tenure.
Actually, the ease of protesting comes from solidarity (over fifteen thousand protestors) and from the fact that there are no contractual obligations getting in the way.
Not exactly. Anti-gravity's best hope is the discovery of a graviton (thus implying an anti-graviton). The accelerating expansion of the universe (assuming it's genuine) is more likely caused by a previously unknown force, too weak to be measured over short distances.
Heck, under this way of thinking nobody would have believed Columbus...
Just remember that regardless of who Columbus managed to convince, or what the eventual outcome, he was still wrong.
Unfortunately, I cannot find anything definitive here (Title 57 of the revised code for tax laws), but who knows how often these sites are updated?
The main reason I brought up the use tax is because I had to file in two states this year, and both of them made prominent mention of their use taxes on the forms.
Ohio... introduced a "Voluntary" tax on Interenet purchases. ...I have been informed... that I have to pay this tax, reguardless.
IANAAccountant
Are you referring to the Ohio Use Tax? (IT-1040 line 16 or IT-1040 EZ line 11) That tax has been around since 1936. It was originally passed to allow Ohio to collect sales tax on catalog purchases. Retailers are generally only required to collect sales tax if they have a "presence" within the state. If they do not have a presence, then the Ohio resident is responsible for paying the use tax (which exactly equals the sales tax) when they file. Applying this law to Internet purchases is perfectly reasonable.
What I liked most about this story (or a similar variation on it that I once heard) is that it so obviously pre-dates the notion of an encyclopedia on a CD-ROM. The author tries to make the point that it would be absurd to try and put such an enormous amount of data into any "reasonable"-sized storage medium, but here we are.
Then again, I've always enjoyed reading old SF to see the odd mix of things which are mundane to us but impossible to them and vice versa (sp?).
Keep 6 months worth of salery in a savings account.
Despite some dissenting posts, this is a must, though personally, I'd recommend something with a slightly higher return, such as a money market account, or CDs.
Ballblazer. WAY fun.
Agreed. It's the main reason I can't bear to part with my Atari 7800.