Of course caffine and sugar affects different people in different ways. For some people, caffine is the only way to get any work done, and doesn't affect sleep patterns in the least.
The benefit of this is, of course, to reduce stress and improve health. Properly applied in the right environment, these methods are effective at creating more stable people. These are laudable goals, both from humane and business perspectives. A healthy worker is more productive and misses less days. A calm worker is more productive and doesn't become disgruntled and shoot up the shop.
OTOH, to see this used as motivation is really silly. For example, many companies use the fear of being terminated as a method of motivation, which in turn causes undue stress. Eventually the workers are so stressed that, try as they might, they cannot work anymore. The company then pays for yoga and meditation as way to relax the workers so they can continue worker under the insane conditions.
Wouldn't it just be simpler to have some sort of sane job security situation, where hard work is rewarded by rises or other mutually agreeable benefits? Where people know if they work hard, they will reap rewards and those who do not work hard might be fired, but not before some discussion? Where the person kept on is not the cheapest grudge worker, but he most effective practitioner? Where a person is not going to come in the next day and find that they no longer have a job?
First, there is a shortage of landfill space for certain communities. The communities selling landfill space are merely reducing the landfill space for future generations.
Second, some things should not be land-filled because they are toxic to humans. It is pretty much impossible to design a landfill that will be safe for a significant amount of time. Most rational communities have recycling programs set up so these waste do not end up in the landfill. These are often funded out of the public purse.
The reason recycling efforts, and clean manufacturing efforts, tend not to work in the US is because commercial interests are allowed to externalize disposal costs to the government and future generations, and therefore not make the cost of clean up part of their business plan. Therefore, dirty operations are often artificially more profitable than clean operations.
The problem, as we seem, comes later when the mess has to be cleaned up and a new generation is asked to pay. We see this now with the superfund cleanup status of a number of defunct commercial entities.
To my way of thinking, it's not a matter of "rewarding the strong". It's a matter of incentive --- if people are going to be taken care of no matter whether or not they do any useful work, they simply aren't likely to do any useful work. It's more a matter of rewarding effort than of rewarding strength.
Which is a good point. If we assume that people are only extrinsically motivated, the conservatism is a good policy. The only reason to work is to get food, shelter and increasingly more complicated other stuff for yourself and you dependents. This is a philosophy that has merit, and logically leads to the notion that the best way to get people to work is by negative reinforcement.
The problem is that even it the philosophy is true, there still are problems. As you say, you do not want to reward strength. Why not? Because if only strength is rewarded, then people will just take what they want and no useful work will get done. So you set up rules that say this method of satisfying needs is legal, and that method is illegal. The illegal and legals ways to make money are a vague and often change. For instance, just asking voluntary contributions is sometimes illegal, but selling sugar pills for large sums of money might be legal.
So we either let the strong take what they want, or we set up rules and regulations to insure that effort will be rewarded and the strong will not be able to squelch the effort. While we are at it, we might also set up a system where corporations, and even people, are helped when they harmed by the moving target of acceptable behaviors.
I think the real issue is that IE is a closed and well controlled product, and MS has dedicated themselves to working with the content industry to insure technological solution to protect copyrighted material. Therefore, content providers are going to be much more comfortable with a MS solution. This has been discussed before. We have been expected a continued convergence on MS protocols and isolation of non-MS solutions. This is just the beginning.
For instance, let's say they let an open source browser access the site and download the music. How are they to know that the browser will properly license the product? Isn't it at least possible that the code could be modified to bypass the protection. This is the cleverness of the Apple solution. The store is not accessed through the browser, but through a closed source controlled custom written interface. There are no complaints about browsers because it does not rely on browsers.
Which reminds us that IE is not really a browser. It is a front end for application servers. Part of it's functionality to browse the Internet, but increasingly it will be how customers interact with vendor specific application. And if you don't use windows, you don't do business.
The geeks want IPv6 because it is there. IP addresses for all, too plentiful and too cheap to meter!
The electronics manufacturers want IPv6 to boost sales. Everything having an IP address means everything will need hardware and software to support connectivity. No one will notice another $100 on a refrigerator or tv. Of course, these appliances will be network ready, and will cost another $500 to be network enabled.
The telcos are wondering why the hell they need to pay for IPv6 upgrades since they are making money selling IP addresses one at a time to the consumer. The ISPs are fighting NAT technology to drive these profits, and drive the myth of scarcity, thus increasing the profits.
The hackers are crackling wildly at the new opportunities to snoop, spy, and cause general mayhem. Everything addressable from anywhere. Denial of service attacks on the cable box. The meat industry will hack into refrigerators, check for sufficient quantities of dead animals, and, if it doesn't find it, plant child porn or terrorist plans on the computer.
The sane of us are sitting back chuckling knowing it will happen when it becomes necessary, just like the migration to 10 digit dialing and portable phone numbers.
I think google might take a lesson from Altavista.
Altavista rocked. It was better than anything. Altavista destroyed itself by forgetting it was a search engine.
Google is very focused, but MS has a lot of money. Articles such as this create the impression that google is skewing resutlts, and were created to build distrust in the public.
Amen to that. Lawsuits are certainly an ineffecient method of consumer protection, but it is the one of the few avenues left. Most of the government is under corporate control, and with the current so-called 'lawsuit abuse' legislation, which is really just a further erosion of consumer protection laws, the judical branch may soon become just as useless.
While some would disagree with you statement that the government is not involved, the fact is they are not primarily involved. They are involved, but no more than if one was driving down a US highway, buying food at the store, or just sitting in your house.
I hate to bring this up, but isn't that what we said about the RIAA racketeering. The actions are not targeting at the individual user. They actions are only targeted at distributors and the P2P networks. The actions are only targeted at the really big pirates who have gigabytes of music on their hard disks. You are only in trouble if you don't own the music on your hard disk.
Of course, the RIAA is targeting everyone who puts music on a hard disk, no many what the ownership status. Just like SCO.
It does sound like a british comedy. In fact it sounds like The Brittas Empire. Except in that one Gordon Brittas destroys the entire lesuire centre and comes out a hero. I think it is called rising to your level of incompetence.
The question it really raises is that of inflated levels of self esteem, or perhaps self worth. I prefer to think it is the later. In any case, it certainly illustrates the notion that an ability to initially present yourself as competent may be more important than in fact being competent. Unfortunately being able to fool people for a little while is often all that is needed to succeed.
Off topic, is there any official news on the Red Dwarf movie? Is a vapour or something that might happen?
Let's take this to an analogy. Porsches are designed to be driven very fast. Much faster than the posted speed limits in the U.S. They can be driven within the speed limits, but are engineered to work at peak effeciency when driven above those limits.
Given this fact pattern, it is reasonable for police department to mail out speeding tickets to every Porsche owner on a periodic basis. The dangers of fast driving is much more tangible than the dangers of stealing content. The later we may be taking about a few cents per diluted share. The former we are taking about an innocents person life.
I think by DirectTV reasoning the answer would be yes. The Porsche driver probably does drive above posted speeds. If the ticket were mailed once a year it would only be $100 and a trip to defensive driving.
Why do you think they set the lawsuit at $3,500. It is significant enough number to pay for the harassment process but still small enough so that most people will pay it regardless of actual guilt. Ethics has little to do with it. Unless you are actually making money with the device, there is little incentive for the individual to fight it.
If you are looking for collaborators, turn to the DirectTV customers. they are the one creating the market for the litigation. Look to the U.S. congress. They are the ones who have traded their soul for corporate donations.
It is nice when someone external to the fight chips in to help. Often, such people are the only ones who can truly help. However, if they choose not it is harsh to blame them for the problem
The fact that everyone wants to deny is that MS changes Word formats so often that, out of the box, Word itself has trouble opening up older or cross-platform formats. This has always been the case.
For instance, the version that was realized around the time of Windows 3.11 did not by default install the filters needed to load Word files from many other versions of word, particularly DOS and Macintosh. Even when the filters were installed, corruption of data was common.
More recently certain versions and installations of Word 2000 seemed to chew up my Word 95 files. Headers went missing, text was garbles, all sorts of stuff.
The reality is that MS is so obsessed in keeping monopoly though the closed and convoluted Word format, that they do not seem to care if inter-version file can be moved perfectly. Likewise, they are so obsessed with all user upgrading with every version, they do not seem feel responsible about full support of older formats.
What we need is a really inclusive formatted text file format. If companies like Sun, IBM, Redhat, and Thinkfree would just get together to come up with something, then there could be a competitive force. RTF just does not seem good enough. At this point MS is no longer selling the tool, but the file format. The competition needs to be on that basis.
The reason just windows is because that as much as we hate it, we are in the minority of computer uses, they are not going to Bata test a new technology on a system that only a maximum of 5% of computer users will have (and yes I am being overly optimistic here) if this works for them the next platform will be Mac.
The reality is that everything in election politics has to do with insuring the established powerful elite remain the powerful elite. Very little is just a simple matter of expediency. If something is or is not done, the observant pundit would be remiss to ask who benefits from the action or inaction.
The fact is that the major issue is that those in power, those who have the money, those who control policy, want to retain that money, power and control. One of the main ways to do this is manipulate the elections and reward the corporations that provide money to keep the right officials in office. The manipulation is clear. For instance, even though all Men regardless of race were officially allowed to vote with the 1870 amendment, it was not until the late 1960's that most male minorities were allowed to vote. In the 1948 election the pollster assumed that only the wealthy were worth considerations, and therefore they ignored the portion of the populous that could not afford phones. In hindsight they claim error, but polling was a mature industry, and it is plausible to believe that the poll got the result that the powerful wanted.
Which is why it is silly to assume that the Windows only requirement is innocent. At the very least it is a gift to the MS corporation from the U.S. government to show that their contributions are appreciated, and further contributions would be a good investment. At worst it is a statement by the U.S. government to MS that not is the antitrust investigations over, but the government is going to help implant Windows as the one OS. Clearly, there are reasons to do this. U.S. investigations would benefit from a single OS. Other big contributors, like the RIAA, would benefit from the MS DRM.
As I mentioned before, most discrimination starts as a matter of expediency. It is them or us. It is too small a group a worry about. It is too hard to do. Well, writing cross platform should not be too hard to do for the richest country in the world, and the fact that is wasn't done just smacks of vote manipulation.
The real question is if SCO wants cash as an exit strategy, i.e. to pay off top executives, or if they want a cash flow to keep SCO as a going concern.
If it is the first, then the situation is annoying, but not critical
p.
If it is the later, then we may be in the situation of SCO trying to pull free software back into the closed model to create a revenue stream.
this book will enrich your knowledge and possibly open new doors of opportunity for you
Don't waste you time working for someone else! For only $99 I will send you a kit that will bring you tens of thousands of dollars every week.
Being an experienced LAN/WAN professional with 19 years of experience and dozens of certifications
I did the hard work so you don't have to. Guaranteed wealth!
Comparing this book to others is relatively easy. I haven't found any other publications dedicated to the planning, installation, and maintenance of wireless WANs!
Do not trust imitators. This is the only real original Get Rich Quick plan.
This book will not bog you down in theoretical RF discussions, but rather allows you to learn through the introduction of real-life examples,
No previous experience necessary. Just follow the examples and you can soon could be living a big house, driving a big car, and hiring 3 big hookers every night to play on your bed while you sit impotently on the couch watching.
The book contains no CD-ROM or marketing material. Published in March 2003 (prior to the now finalized 802.11g standard), the book primarily covers 802.11a and 802.11b technologies. Both Mr. Unger and Cisco Press deserve a round of applause!
You know you can trust us because we know complicated industry acronyms.
It is certainly true that the class action joinder rule can take a relatively frivolous individual claim that an attorney would not pursue and transform it into a lucrative and dangerous claim with a potential for high recovery.
Not allowing class action lawsuits are not going to stop frivolous lawsuits. Most of the frivolous lawsuits and appeals that waste the courts time, such as the patents suits, the RIAA suits, SLAPP suites, among many others, are filed by firms who wish to use the court system to defend bad business models or for profit. They have money to spend, they are suing for large amounts of money, and the have a business motivation to peruse the suit. What makes it even more egregious is that the merits of the case are often irrelevant to the firm. The sole intention is to waste the time of the defendant and court.
On the other hand, class action suits are relatively self regulating due to three factors. First, the damage has to have effected many people. This means that it unlikely that some bigwig CEO got his feeling hurt, or some silly patent just came in. Second, the case must make it through the review of paralegals, attorneys and other professionals to prove it has merits. Third, the law firm must make a profit, or at least not too much of a loss on a case. This means that even if the case has merits, it still may not be a good case because it will cost too much to win.
So what does this mean with respect to the Texas spam law. The individual may request a judgment on the order of $10 per spam. In a month the user may receive enough spam for it to be worth requesting a judgment. On the other hand, a large firm may be inundated with enough spam in a day to file for the $10k maximum, but that is still small enough change that they will probably have to pay all costs up front. Again, they may or may not file. In both cases, there is no guarantee that the spammer will pay, and it is likely that they will not.
Class action on the other hand would be powerful. If a spammer sends 1 million messages, with a few percent getting through, over a week, we are talking real money, around $10 million. This will get the lawyers interested. This is enough money to make collection worthwhile. The spammer will go down.
Would class action result in a some bad lawsuits. Sure it will, like for instance the people stupid enough to buy SUVs and then complain that tip over or are not stable at high speeds, or the people who are stupid enough to think a diet or bulking pill will safely work. However, for each of these high profile cases many lives have been saved and many business grievances have been fairly addressed.
Class action help reduce the court load by consolidating cases into a manageable load. Class action helps insure that those harmed can get help regardless of financial resources. The exemption of spammer from class action is there to save the spammer industry, not help the legal system.
Re:Here's an interesting quote
on
Open Source Law
·
· Score: 1
It seems the underlying assumption would be that if the authors are provided some limited protections, then they will be more likely to release their work to the public, and in exchange for such protection such work will enter into the public domain at some agreed to later date. In this way, the primary consideration is the public good and not the authors.
While I believe the P2P networks can help authors, it is still a point of debate whether they provide sufficient protection to encourage authors to produce and release quality work. If the quote speaks to anything, it speaks to the unreasonable long periods before the work is released to public domain.
I think it is a matter of responsibility. To the user the ads, even the pop up ads, appear to originate from the web site the user to currently viewing. This means that any problems with ads are going to addressed to the web site, and not to gator. It is not unlike an email that is forged as originating from an innocent third party. The issue is that the innocent party is inundated by complaints. At the very least, such ads should be clearly identified as not originated from the website, and pop ups should contain an link back to Gator or whoever is pushing them.
If the user has in fact chosen to use Gator or whatever, the identification will not hurt anything. If the user has been tricked into installing the software, then such identification pratice not only helps the web site, but also the user. The only reason not to identify is if the company in fact needs to be dishonest.
Society has made an agreement, via its legislature, that artists have some control over how their works are distributed in order, in part, that they can at least have a fair go at getting some payback for what they did.
Society in the past has made an agreement to give the author time to earn money on his or her creative work. There were assumptions about who the author might be and what a reasonable amount of time might be.
That's a reasonable agreement, and many artists - musicians, authors, directors, etc - have created entirely new works and made them available on the understanding that this agreement stands.
No sane artist is going to claim a completely new work. There is give and take, and in some cases outright theft. Beyond that, the copyright laws are suppose to release works into the public domain on a regular basis so the future artists can create works targeted to new generations.
This is an important and important process or recycling. For example, there is little original in Harry Potter. It is an effective recycling of ideas created by a British writer of other British writers and targeted to the a new generation of children. The same thing is true for Madonna, which just repackaged Blondie's look (and feel) for a new set of teenagers.
Even when one comes up with the argument that there are laws that "no longer represent the majority of the people", it strikes me as bogus to suggest that this immediately makes a law unjust
So it is not just a matter of the people thinking that the laws are wrong. I agree that such a thing is necessary, but not sufficient condition. The real issue is the copyright laws have changed significantly enough so they may not be fair to authors or customers. First, we are being asked to accept that a corporation can be the 'artist.' Though many would say that this is just a natural extension of the law, I think it hurts the true artist. Despite popular opinion, a corporation is not a person, it does not create art, and does not promote creativity. Humans or groups of unincorporated humans are those we wish to encourage to create works, not fictional entities. Second, we are being asked to rescind the requirement that old work go back into the public domain so they can be retooled to new generations. The fact that Disney has made it's fortune, and continues to make it's fortune, doing this is well documented. The fact is that Disney is not the creative, or financial powerhouse, it used to be. If the U.S. needs anything it is a financial powerhouse like Disney used to be. Where is this company going to be if the U.S. has copyright laws that prohibit the use of old work into perpetuity? Outside the U.S., of course, helping another country's economy.
It is becoming increasingly clear that using the word "patriotism" is a misnomer. The kind of rhetoric coming out of Washington, asking for an unthinking fanatical devotion to the country, and maybe even to a single person, is very different from the democratic ideal of a intelligent, thoughtful populous.
To get a better word, we might look at current policies which amount to "let them eat cake", and use the appropriate word.
chauvinism
If the government controled teacher, ministers, preists, etc. have never taught this word to you, look it up.
The civil war, like most wars, has high idealistic goals used to mobilize the populous and basic economic goals used to justify the expense. In the civil war there were many in the North and South that opposed slavery and would support the abolition, even if war was required. The North, OTOH, thought the South had an unfair competitive advantage. This was the required economic reason needed to mobilize the leaders in the North. The schism threatened the Union, and the Union had to be saved.
Of course, this is all explained in the famous quote from Lincoln: I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.
Honestly whether is blackmail or not is moot. It is, in the end, normal business. MS does this with it's customers, giving them a choice between upgrades they don't need or massively expensive full version later on. The car companies, and most recently the airlines, have done this with the U.S. government demanding massive welfare payments to the corporation in exchange for not having massive RIFs. Consumers to this all the time, threatening to post bad reviews if their complaints are not solved.
It seems to me that all these kids wanted was a job. They proved their technical skill to do the work, they showed the perseverance, and appear to be rather clever. Sure the could just send a resume to MS, but who would have looked at it. We are told to be aggressive when looking for a job, but when someone actually is they get accused of blackmail.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course caffine and sugar affects different people in different ways. For some people, caffine is the only way to get any work done, and doesn't affect sleep patterns in the least.
OTOH, to see this used as motivation is really silly. For example, many companies use the fear of being terminated as a method of motivation, which in turn causes undue stress. Eventually the workers are so stressed that, try as they might, they cannot work anymore. The company then pays for yoga and meditation as way to relax the workers so they can continue worker under the insane conditions.
Wouldn't it just be simpler to have some sort of sane job security situation, where hard work is rewarded by rises or other mutually agreeable benefits? Where people know if they work hard, they will reap rewards and those who do not work hard might be fired, but not before some discussion? Where the person kept on is not the cheapest grudge worker, but he most effective practitioner? Where a person is not going to come in the next day and find that they no longer have a job?
First, there is a shortage of landfill space for certain communities. The communities selling landfill space are merely reducing the landfill space for future generations.
Second, some things should not be land-filled because they are toxic to humans. It is pretty much impossible to design a landfill that will be safe for a significant amount of time. Most rational communities have recycling programs set up so these waste do not end up in the landfill. These are often funded out of the public purse.
The reason recycling efforts, and clean manufacturing efforts, tend not to work in the US is because commercial interests are allowed to externalize disposal costs to the government and future generations, and therefore not make the cost of clean up part of their business plan. Therefore, dirty operations are often artificially more profitable than clean operations.
The problem, as we seem, comes later when the mess has to be cleaned up and a new generation is asked to pay. We see this now with the superfund cleanup status of a number of defunct commercial entities.
Which is a good point. If we assume that people are only extrinsically motivated, the conservatism is a good policy. The only reason to work is to get food, shelter and increasingly more complicated other stuff for yourself and you dependents. This is a philosophy that has merit, and logically leads to the notion that the best way to get people to work is by negative reinforcement.
The problem is that even it the philosophy is true, there still are problems. As you say, you do not want to reward strength. Why not? Because if only strength is rewarded, then people will just take what they want and no useful work will get done. So you set up rules that say this method of satisfying needs is legal, and that method is illegal. The illegal and legals ways to make money are a vague and often change. For instance, just asking voluntary contributions is sometimes illegal, but selling sugar pills for large sums of money might be legal.
So we either let the strong take what they want, or we set up rules and regulations to insure that effort will be rewarded and the strong will not be able to squelch the effort. While we are at it, we might also set up a system where corporations, and even people, are helped when they harmed by the moving target of acceptable behaviors.
For instance, let's say they let an open source browser access the site and download the music. How are they to know that the browser will properly license the product? Isn't it at least possible that the code could be modified to bypass the protection. This is the cleverness of the Apple solution. The store is not accessed through the browser, but through a closed source controlled custom written interface. There are no complaints about browsers because it does not rely on browsers.
Which reminds us that IE is not really a browser. It is a front end for application servers. Part of it's functionality to browse the Internet, but increasingly it will be how customers interact with vendor specific application. And if you don't use windows, you don't do business.
The electronics manufacturers want IPv6 to boost sales. Everything having an IP address means everything will need hardware and software to support connectivity. No one will notice another $100 on a refrigerator or tv. Of course, these appliances will be network ready, and will cost another $500 to be network enabled.
The telcos are wondering why the hell they need to pay for IPv6 upgrades since they are making money selling IP addresses one at a time to the consumer. The ISPs are fighting NAT technology to drive these profits, and drive the myth of scarcity, thus increasing the profits.
The hackers are crackling wildly at the new opportunities to snoop, spy, and cause general mayhem. Everything addressable from anywhere. Denial of service attacks on the cable box. The meat industry will hack into refrigerators, check for sufficient quantities of dead animals, and, if it doesn't find it, plant child porn or terrorist plans on the computer.
The sane of us are sitting back chuckling knowing it will happen when it becomes necessary, just like the migration to 10 digit dialing and portable phone numbers.
Altavista rocked. It was better than anything. Altavista destroyed itself by forgetting it was a search engine.
Google is very focused, but MS has a lot of money. Articles such as this create the impression that google is skewing resutlts, and were created to build distrust in the public.
While some would disagree with you statement that the government is not involved, the fact is they are not primarily involved. They are involved, but no more than if one was driving down a US highway, buying food at the store, or just sitting in your house.
Of course, the RIAA is targeting everyone who puts music on a hard disk, no many what the ownership status. Just like SCO.
The question it really raises is that of inflated levels of self esteem, or perhaps self worth. I prefer to think it is the later. In any case, it certainly illustrates the notion that an ability to initially present yourself as competent may be more important than in fact being competent. Unfortunately being able to fool people for a little while is often all that is needed to succeed.
Off topic, is there any official news on the Red Dwarf movie? Is a vapour or something that might happen?
Given this fact pattern, it is reasonable for police department to mail out speeding tickets to every Porsche owner on a periodic basis. The dangers of fast driving is much more tangible than the dangers of stealing content. The later we may be taking about a few cents per diluted share. The former we are taking about an innocents person life.
I think by DirectTV reasoning the answer would be yes. The Porsche driver probably does drive above posted speeds. If the ticket were mailed once a year it would only be $100 and a trip to defensive driving.
If you are looking for collaborators, turn to the DirectTV customers. they are the one creating the market for the litigation. Look to the U.S. congress. They are the ones who have traded their soul for corporate donations.
It is nice when someone external to the fight chips in to help. Often, such people are the only ones who can truly help. However, if they choose not it is harsh to blame them for the problem
For instance, the version that was realized around the time of Windows 3.11 did not by default install the filters needed to load Word files from many other versions of word, particularly DOS and Macintosh. Even when the filters were installed, corruption of data was common.
More recently certain versions and installations of Word 2000 seemed to chew up my Word 95 files. Headers went missing, text was garbles, all sorts of stuff.
The reality is that MS is so obsessed in keeping monopoly though the closed and convoluted Word format, that they do not seem to care if inter-version file can be moved perfectly. Likewise, they are so obsessed with all user upgrading with every version, they do not seem feel responsible about full support of older formats.
What we need is a really inclusive formatted text file format. If companies like Sun, IBM, Redhat, and Thinkfree would just get together to come up with something, then there could be a competitive force. RTF just does not seem good enough. At this point MS is no longer selling the tool, but the file format. The competition needs to be on that basis.
and given some of the silly case mods featured here on /., I am sure you would.
The reality is that everything in election politics has to do with insuring the established powerful elite remain the powerful elite. Very little is just a simple matter of expediency. If something is or is not done, the observant pundit would be remiss to ask who benefits from the action or inaction.
The fact is that the major issue is that those in power, those who have the money, those who control policy, want to retain that money, power and control. One of the main ways to do this is manipulate the elections and reward the corporations that provide money to keep the right officials in office. The manipulation is clear. For instance, even though all Men regardless of race were officially allowed to vote with the 1870 amendment, it was not until the late 1960's that most male minorities were allowed to vote. In the 1948 election the pollster assumed that only the wealthy were worth considerations, and therefore they ignored the portion of the populous that could not afford phones. In hindsight they claim error, but polling was a mature industry, and it is plausible to believe that the poll got the result that the powerful wanted.
Which is why it is silly to assume that the Windows only requirement is innocent. At the very least it is a gift to the MS corporation from the U.S. government to show that their contributions are appreciated, and further contributions would be a good investment. At worst it is a statement by the U.S. government to MS that not is the antitrust investigations over, but the government is going to help implant Windows as the one OS. Clearly, there are reasons to do this. U.S. investigations would benefit from a single OS. Other big contributors, like the RIAA, would benefit from the MS DRM.
As I mentioned before, most discrimination starts as a matter of expediency. It is them or us. It is too small a group a worry about. It is too hard to do. Well, writing cross platform should not be too hard to do for the richest country in the world, and the fact that is wasn't done just smacks of vote manipulation.
and one wonders why the military has such a reputation for egocentrism and lack of culture
If it is the first, then the situation is annoying, but not critical p. If it is the later, then we may be in the situation of SCO trying to pull free software back into the closed model to create a revenue stream.
this book will enrich your knowledge and possibly open new doors of opportunity for you
Don't waste you time working for someone else! For only $99 I will send you a kit that will bring you tens of thousands of dollars every week.
Being an experienced LAN/WAN professional with 19 years of experience and dozens of certifications
I did the hard work so you don't have to. Guaranteed wealth!
Comparing this book to others is relatively easy. I haven't found any other publications dedicated to the planning, installation, and maintenance of wireless WANs!
Do not trust imitators. This is the only real original Get Rich Quick plan.
This book will not bog you down in theoretical RF discussions, but rather allows you to learn through the introduction of real-life examples,
No previous experience necessary. Just follow the examples and you can soon could be living a big house, driving a big car, and hiring 3 big hookers every night to play on your bed while you sit impotently on the couch watching.
The book contains no CD-ROM or marketing material. Published in March 2003 (prior to the now finalized 802.11g standard), the book primarily covers 802.11a and 802.11b technologies. Both Mr. Unger and Cisco Press deserve a round of applause!
You know you can trust us because we know complicated industry acronyms.
Not allowing class action lawsuits are not going to stop frivolous lawsuits. Most of the frivolous lawsuits and appeals that waste the courts time, such as the patents suits, the RIAA suits, SLAPP suites, among many others, are filed by firms who wish to use the court system to defend bad business models or for profit. They have money to spend, they are suing for large amounts of money, and the have a business motivation to peruse the suit. What makes it even more egregious is that the merits of the case are often irrelevant to the firm. The sole intention is to waste the time of the defendant and court.
On the other hand, class action suits are relatively self regulating due to three factors. First, the damage has to have effected many people. This means that it unlikely that some bigwig CEO got his feeling hurt, or some silly patent just came in. Second, the case must make it through the review of paralegals, attorneys and other professionals to prove it has merits. Third, the law firm must make a profit, or at least not too much of a loss on a case. This means that even if the case has merits, it still may not be a good case because it will cost too much to win.
So what does this mean with respect to the Texas spam law. The individual may request a judgment on the order of $10 per spam. In a month the user may receive enough spam for it to be worth requesting a judgment. On the other hand, a large firm may be inundated with enough spam in a day to file for the $10k maximum, but that is still small enough change that they will probably have to pay all costs up front. Again, they may or may not file. In both cases, there is no guarantee that the spammer will pay, and it is likely that they will not.
Class action on the other hand would be powerful. If a spammer sends 1 million messages, with a few percent getting through, over a week, we are talking real money, around $10 million. This will get the lawyers interested. This is enough money to make collection worthwhile. The spammer will go down.
Would class action result in a some bad lawsuits. Sure it will, like for instance the people stupid enough to buy SUVs and then complain that tip over or are not stable at high speeds, or the people who are stupid enough to think a diet or bulking pill will safely work. However, for each of these high profile cases many lives have been saved and many business grievances have been fairly addressed.
Class action help reduce the court load by consolidating cases into a manageable load. Class action helps insure that those harmed can get help regardless of financial resources. The exemption of spammer from class action is there to save the spammer industry, not help the legal system.
While I believe the P2P networks can help authors, it is still a point of debate whether they provide sufficient protection to encourage authors to produce and release quality work. If the quote speaks to anything, it speaks to the unreasonable long periods before the work is released to public domain.
If the user has in fact chosen to use Gator or whatever, the identification will not hurt anything. If the user has been tricked into installing the software, then such identification pratice not only helps the web site, but also the user. The only reason not to identify is if the company in fact needs to be dishonest.
Society in the past has made an agreement to give the author time to earn money on his or her creative work. There were assumptions about who the author might be and what a reasonable amount of time might be.
That's a reasonable agreement, and many artists - musicians, authors, directors, etc - have created entirely new works and made them available on the understanding that this agreement stands.
No sane artist is going to claim a completely new work. There is give and take, and in some cases outright theft. Beyond that, the copyright laws are suppose to release works into the public domain on a regular basis so the future artists can create works targeted to new generations.
This is an important and important process or recycling. For example, there is little original in Harry Potter. It is an effective recycling of ideas created by a British writer of other British writers and targeted to the a new generation of children. The same thing is true for Madonna, which just repackaged Blondie's look (and feel) for a new set of teenagers.
Even when one comes up with the argument that there are laws that "no longer represent the majority of the people", it strikes me as bogus to suggest that this immediately makes a law unjust
So it is not just a matter of the people thinking that the laws are wrong. I agree that such a thing is necessary, but not sufficient condition. The real issue is the copyright laws have changed significantly enough so they may not be fair to authors or customers. First, we are being asked to accept that a corporation can be the 'artist.' Though many would say that this is just a natural extension of the law, I think it hurts the true artist. Despite popular opinion, a corporation is not a person, it does not create art, and does not promote creativity. Humans or groups of unincorporated humans are those we wish to encourage to create works, not fictional entities. Second, we are being asked to rescind the requirement that old work go back into the public domain so they can be retooled to new generations. The fact that Disney has made it's fortune, and continues to make it's fortune, doing this is well documented. The fact is that Disney is not the creative, or financial powerhouse, it used to be. If the U.S. needs anything it is a financial powerhouse like Disney used to be. Where is this company going to be if the U.S. has copyright laws that prohibit the use of old work into perpetuity? Outside the U.S., of course, helping another country's economy.
To get a better word, we might look at current policies which amount to "let them eat cake", and use the appropriate word.
chauvinism
If the government controled teacher, ministers, preists, etc. have never taught this word to you, look it up.
Of course, this is all explained in the famous quote from Lincoln:
I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.
It seems to me that all these kids wanted was a job. They proved their technical skill to do the work, they showed the perseverance, and appear to be rather clever. Sure the could just send a resume to MS, but who would have looked at it. We are told to be aggressive when looking for a job, but when someone actually is they get accused of blackmail.