All that being said though, yeah - I *still* think they may be a little cheaper to operate than inkjets. (With a laser, you don't deal with the penalty of ink drying up if it's not used, and wasted ink used by the printer's cleaning mechanism.)
Yeh, but they have high energy costs, to keep the fuser up to temp, the thing is constantly running and most lasers have huge noisey cooling fans because otherwise the heat from the fuser would mess up the rest of it so its constantly heating and cooling.
Exactly, thankfully we have been buying and selling physical objects long enough that the idea of a EULA like we have for software is considered rediculous.
I don't think that's correct at all.. sort of your mentioning it, I've never heard of the plural of lego being lego and have ofter heard them referred to as legos
Nike respects the first amendment like Enron respects their employees.
Last I checked, Nike is not a gov't agent, so they don't have to respect or even care about your first admendment.. the first admendment protects people from government censorship, not from everyone they want.
I think you are confusing general public relations and advertisement which is also referred to as public relations.. when people use terms interchangably incorrectly, its easy to cause confusion.
When you fail to grasp the basic concepts of corporation law and say stuff like this you just sound funny.
Then I suppose you think corporations (including non-profit corporations, of course) should be denied:
the right to be free of religious persecution -- the government can freely discriminate against Jewish, or Muslim, or atheist corporations (1st amendment).
the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure -- Uncle Sam can just walk into your small business without a warrant and take your stuff. (4th amendment)
the right to due process (5th) and speedy and public jury trials for criminal offenses (6th) -- the government can shut your business down without reason and without telling you what you've been charged with, and give you a secret trial or delay the trial indefinitely.
I'm sorry, I was with you till you suggested that it would be silly for employees to be held responsible for criminal actions of the corporation. Since when do corporations do criminal acts on their own?!? Since when has it been a legal defence that 'The corporation made me do it'. Of course the employees who decide that a corporation should do something illegal should be held to account, surely?
Its because you don't understand how it works legally.. its not something you can be or not be with someone on, its the law.
If someone does an illegal act while working for a company, there are circumstances in which that person can be held personally accountable, but for the most part, the corporation as a whole is held accountable.
If for instance, the corporation builds a dam which later fails, the corporation is the person you sue when your house gets washed away, not the CEO or the bridge builder, assuming each acted as a ordinarily prudent person and it wasn't a forseeable problem and such.
Obviously not the employees- just the *owners*. Stockholders should be liable relative to their stake in the company.
That way, it becomes the stockholder's *responsibility* to know what's going on, rather than simply their right. It also means that boards would be more likely to hire trustworthy people.
No thats not how corporation law works. In the end, the board of directors is the legally responsible body for the corporation since they have access to all records of the company and they can hire and fire the employees.. stockholders are exempted from liability for a couple reasons, because they don't hire the employees, because they don't have a say in the day to day operations in the company, and because if stockholders were liable, no one would even invest in companies..
Yeh, I guess its easier to brand adobe as the bad as opposed to acknowledging the fact that these companies go back and forth pissing on each others shoes every chance they get.
But if corporations don't have free speech, doesn't that mean that the people who work for corporations also don't have free speech? Isn't a corporation just a collection of individuals
No. A corporation is a legal fiction considered to be an entity of its own, with its own set of rights and responsibilities, as long as the people working for the corporation don't do anything wrong, they still have all the rights and responsibilities of a normal person. It's not really a hard concept, just high misunderstood because most people don't take those introductory law classes that most highschools and colleges offer.
When an executive deliberately manipulates earnings statements to drive the price of a stock up so he can sell his stock at a higher price, he should be held fiscally and legally responsible.
They can be, its called peircing the corporate veil. If you don't follow certain guidelines in running a corporation, the law can and will come after individuals.
As it stands, a *corporation* does in fact have the legal rights of a human being.
Actually, you are wrong.. Business Law 101 would tell you that corporations have some of the rights that individuals enjoy, but not all of them. Try a quick google search before you criticize.
If the findlaw article goes further into the legal issues, I'd be surprised to read one that didn't.. one good quote from the findlaw one is
Alan Caplan, one of the plaintiff's lead attorneys, saw a different message in Thursday's ruling. "Every company is going to have to meet the standard now," the Bushnell, Caplan & Fielding partner said. "If you're going to put statements out about [corporate policies], you're going to have to tell the truth."
In that case, I'm all for this decision, regardless of what the aclu wants to complain about.
from Macromedia today for using some patented interface stuff in Flash
One would assume there is prior use for tabbed palettes (which is the interface stuff the mentioned in the article). Adobe has been around for a long time, but I don't see how they can basically patent tabs
At least my submission noted that macromedia is countersuing adobe claiming that Photoshop and GoLive infringe on their patents for web design software.
It went back to the site layout that works and doesn't suck as opposed to the disney-like suck based one that never actually worked correctly. Good move themes.org!
Its about time the mozilla mongers got put in there place.. On the plus side, I guess this means mozilla is getting popular enough now that people bother to find exploits.
Slashdot Mirror
All that being said though, yeah - I *still* think they may be a little cheaper to operate than inkjets. (With a laser, you don't deal with the penalty of ink drying up if it's not used, and wasted ink used by the printer's cleaning mechanism.)
Yeh, but they have high energy costs, to keep the fuser up to temp, the thing is constantly running and most lasers have huge noisey cooling fans because otherwise the heat from the fuser would mess up the rest of it so its constantly heating and cooling.
Exactly, thankfully we have been buying and selling physical objects long enough that the idea of a EULA like we have for software is considered rediculous.
Some cars even require "proprietary" fuel (i.e. race cars because they are specifically designed to perform with a very high-octane fuel).
apples and oranges.. there is a difference between using industry standard high octane gas and using ford-brand gas.
whether or not nike likes or approves or respects the first admendment has nothing to do with whether or not they are entitled to that right
I don't think that's correct at all.. sort of your mentioning it, I've never heard of the plural of lego being lego and have ofter heard them referred to as legos
but the business judgement rule generally protects corporate officers unless they slip up..
Whats so great about the fact that gnumail has been ported?
maybe because mach is basically bsd as well?
Nike respects the first amendment like Enron respects their employees.
Last I checked, Nike is not a gov't agent, so they don't have to respect or even care about your first admendment.. the first admendment protects people from government censorship, not from everyone they want.
I think you are confusing general public relations and advertisement which is also referred to as public relations.. when people use terms interchangably incorrectly, its easy to cause confusion.
When you fail to grasp the basic concepts of corporation law and say stuff like this you just sound funny.
Then I suppose you think corporations (including non-profit corporations, of course) should be denied:
the right to be free of religious persecution -- the government can freely discriminate against Jewish, or Muslim, or atheist corporations (1st amendment).
the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure -- Uncle Sam can just walk into your small business without a warrant and take your stuff. (4th amendment)
the right to due process (5th) and speedy and public jury trials for criminal offenses (6th) -- the government can shut your business down without reason and without telling you what you've been charged with, and give you a secret trial or delay the trial indefinitely.
I'm sorry, I was with you till you suggested that it would be silly for employees to be held responsible for criminal actions of the corporation. Since when do corporations do criminal acts on their own?!? Since when has it been a legal defence that 'The corporation made me do it'. Of course the employees who decide that a corporation should do something illegal should be held to account, surely?
Its because you don't understand how it works legally.. its not something you can be or not be with someone on, its the law.
If someone does an illegal act while working for a company, there are circumstances in which that person can be held personally accountable, but for the most part, the corporation as a whole is held accountable.
If for instance, the corporation builds a dam which later fails, the corporation is the person you sue when your house gets washed away, not the CEO or the bridge builder, assuming each acted as a ordinarily prudent person and it wasn't a forseeable problem and such.
Obviously not the employees- just the *owners*. Stockholders should be liable relative to their stake in the company.
That way, it becomes the stockholder's *responsibility* to know what's going on, rather than simply their right. It also means that boards would be more likely to hire trustworthy people.
No thats not how corporation law works. In the end, the board of directors is the legally responsible body for the corporation since they have access to all records of the company and they can hire and fire the employees.. stockholders are exempted from liability for a couple reasons, because they don't hire the employees, because they don't have a say in the day to day operations in the company, and because if stockholders were liable, no one would even invest in companies..
Yeh, I guess its easier to brand adobe as the bad as opposed to acknowledging the fact that these companies go back and forth pissing on each others shoes every chance they get.
But if corporations don't have free speech, doesn't that mean that the people who work for corporations also don't have free speech? Isn't a corporation just a collection of individuals
No. A corporation is a legal fiction considered to be an entity of its own, with its own set of rights and responsibilities, as long as the people working for the corporation don't do anything wrong, they still have all the rights and responsibilities of a normal person. It's not really a hard concept, just high misunderstood because most people don't take those introductory law classes that most highschools and colleges offer.
Here, here. I prefer Converse tennis shoes ("Chuck Taylors")
which are also made in sweatshops in china now.
When an executive deliberately manipulates earnings statements to drive the price of a stock up so he can sell his stock at a higher price, he should be held fiscally and legally responsible.
They can be, its called peircing the corporate veil. If you don't follow certain guidelines in running a corporation, the law can and will come after individuals.
As it stands, a *corporation* does in fact have the legal rights of a human being.
Actually, you are wrong.. Business Law 101 would tell you that corporations have some of the rights that individuals enjoy, but not all of them. Try a quick google search before you criticize.
If the findlaw article goes further into the legal issues, I'd be surprised to read one that didn't.. one good quote from the findlaw one is
Alan Caplan, one of the plaintiff's lead attorneys, saw a different message in Thursday's ruling. "Every company is going to have to meet the standard now," the Bushnell, Caplan & Fielding partner said. "If you're going to put statements out about [corporate policies], you're going to have to tell the truth."
In that case, I'm all for this decision, regardless of what the aclu wants to complain about.
from Macromedia today for using some patented interface stuff in Flash
One would assume there is prior use for tabbed palettes (which is the interface stuff the mentioned in the article). Adobe has been around for a long time, but I don't see how they can basically patent tabs
Why didn't they post it when I submitted it..
At least my submission noted that macromedia is countersuing adobe claiming that Photoshop and GoLive infringe on their patents for web design software.
It went back to the site layout that works and doesn't suck as opposed to the disney-like suck based one that never actually worked correctly. Good move themes.org!
or Radio CRAP! as you would no doubt call it
If it's not scottish, its crap!
but my copy of Windows doesn't support USB
I think you mean your computer doesn't support USB, I know of no version of win9x and up that don't support or atleast can't be made to support usb.
Its about time the mozilla mongers got put in there place.. On the plus side, I guess this means mozilla is getting popular enough now that people bother to find exploits.