Then it becomes a matter of, will you pass on the virus to others after your treatment, or will they be able to provide an antibody that will allow the immune system to latch onto and destroy the modified virus?
The whole point of my statement was that the US knows that a nation has (or is rumored to have) nuclear weaponry. Even if the delivery system is inadequate to hit the continental US, these weapons can still be detonated and their 'spray' (fallout pattern) may well encompass other nations. However, the country is content to sit back and be left alone, it's just that we, the US, feel that noone but us should have nukes (apparently). So we go in there and try to invade, all in the name of 'disarmament'. They set off their weapons, and while the US didn't directly set them off, the US was the antagonist that broke the peace (such as it was).
If North Korea decided to level South Korea, then the international community would very likely support any action by any of the member nations (including the US) to reestablish the boundries. At the point at which such weapons are used, first, and without other provocation (ie: they were not used in defense), the nation that uses them is a threat to the safety of other nations and must be dealt with. It isn't until that point that any other nation has any right what-so-ever to invade, no matter what our feelings are on a nation like North Korea pursuing nuclear weapons.
The way I see it, the US just wants to remain the Big Man on the Block, the only ones "authorized" to have 'weapons of mass destruction' just because we had them first. Frankly, in that reguard, the US can stuff it if they don't like being equals on an international basis.
You don't nuke your own country as a defensive measure against invading forces. Well you can, but that's like chopping off your leg
I'm reminded of the USSR's tactic in one of the World Wars (probably WW2, but I'm no historian). Germany invaded, and the Soviets withdrew, burning the land behind them. They kept up that retreat until the German front line was so stretched out, so resource poor (cannot harvest resources from the countryside you take if it's dead), and so demoralized that the Soviets could switch the run and mow over them. I know this tactic has been given a name, but I don't know what it is.
Thing is, even having 'low yield' nuclear weapons can be a deterrant. If you bomb your outlying areas (where invading troops would have to come through) or whether you disassemble and FedEx your parts to another location to be reassembled in, say, the US and detonated in some city here, simple potential for them to be used may make people think twice. The only time when I can see it would not be a deterrant is if the leaders of the invading country felt that they could (or had) neutralize(d) all of the weapons.
I mean, seriously. If the US were to invade a country that couldn't reach the continental US, and wound up detonating the weapons on the borders of their own country, do you think the rest of the world would look favorably on the US if they went ahead with it anyways?
Re:Gave up because the installer wouldn't let them
on
iPod Shuffle RAID
·
· Score: 1
Many machines these days accept a USB (or alternative-media drive) to be an acceptable boot device to start from. In fact, this handy little NC6000 from HP can boot from USB, or even from the SD card reader it has embedded. All it does is lump it in with 'removable media' and goes from there.
That is, of course, the flip side of the coin. Digitally encoded biometric data that cannot be changed (fingerprint, retinal scan, etc) but can be fed to a computer in some manner or another can be used to falsify your identity. At a cashier's lane, this is kind of difficult to do, as you are under scrutiny. Online, or any place you can use it where you are not under scrutiny, or any delivery method that can be made transparent even when observed will break this kind of authentication scheme, with no way to undo the damage once its done (think DeCSS except with your entire life at stake).
I had actually thought about the theft of biometric data previously (past few weeks), but apparently forgot it when writing. Credit card numbers are changable. Fingerprints, not so much so. Such stores would need both files on hand to do proper authentication, and frankly, I just do not trust any computer system to be 100% unbreakable at all times
Of course, let's not mention that, if they wanted to do that now, all they'd have to do is.. well.. revoke or suspend your credit cards. It doesn't sound like they refuse cash, or even that they could (foodstamps, etc). Just, if you want to use a credit card with them, you use your thumb instead of signature as proof.
Rather it be "I keep my ccard number until I come into the store and sign my transaction with my fingerprint" rather than "Here's my ccard information, let me authorize it by only ever showing my fingerprint." The former is more secure. The latter opens the possibility for their systems to be broken into (internally or externally) and lots of credit card info stolen.
While the 5th Amendment allows you to abstain from testomony that would otherwise incriminate yourself, the notion of bringing forward witnesses (hostile or otherwise), placing them before the court, getting them to swear to tell the truth before the court under penalty of purgory, and then questioning them is, in essence, subpoena-ing(?) someone's thoughts. You have put them into a situation where they must reply to the questions put forth, or provide a valid reason why they cannot answer, or they face jail time for falsifying their statement. However, as stated before, the 5th Amendment gives you the right to refuse to testify against yourself, making your thoughts and (likely, though IANAL) any privately held documents by yourself and only by yourself "relatively" safe. I'm sure I'm to be corrected post-haste on that one, though.
While on the surface what you propose is bad, it is not suppression or control of your thoughts and actions, it is investigation of what happened after the fact. It is an attempt to sort through the things that happened, both public and private, in order to find out who did what wrong. To that end, and only towards that end, is the information to be collected and used.
The problem about teaching children is that they start out as very trusting creatures. They believe anything you tell them until you tell them they shouldn't, or they learn why they shouldn't. If you tell your children time and again that they should keep their mouth shut, that they shouldn't speak their mind, that they have no right to talk, then then will eventually believe that, even if they are later taught differently.
To add to that, if this is their opinion, and the group that hold this opinion starts to exceed those that feel that this right is proper and just, it may be ammended out of the constitution, and you will wind up having no right to free speech. It is this reason why there is cause for concern.
While this group of business owners are likely not the same ones in power when the Ma Bell breakup happened, the behavior of companies that have a monopoly position has not gotten better. They do not welcome competition into the marketplace. They do not wish to provide the best service possible, once they have a monopoly. Their goal is simply to get paid. When noone can say "Go suck an egg" and find some other provider, they can do it with impunity.
There are some things such as natural monopolies. Power, water, sewer. These things are best done by a single company that covers everywhere. However, these things are also heavily regulated. Before data circuits became prevelent, the telephone was as well.
We should be cautious about the Bell companies merging again. What proof do we have that they will behave better should they regain their monopoly status? I mean, after all, considering what Microsoft can get away with these days...
DRM is a necessity of the digital economy. What's needed is a fair DRM scheme, not to abolish all DRM schemes.
Sorry, but that's bullshit. DRM may allow content creators to prevent copying of their material. Maybe they stop piracy. Ooh yay. That's cool. However, corporations won't stop where it's moral to do so. They'll use DRM to ensure that their copyright never expires (along with laws to outlaw same). They'll use DRM to continue price fixing. They'll use DRM to force you into subscription models instead of purchasing a copy to use at your whim.
What the customer wants, the customer gets. If the customer isn't happy enough, companies collapse. This needs to be reinforced in today's economy.
What could have happened is irrelevent in legal proceedings. What did happen is. This boy did release a virus, modified (would AV scanners automatically pick up a 'close, but not quite' virus to something it knew?) that did infect a good number of PCs. That is an act of computer vandalism (or whatever it was he was conviced of).
Saying that they could or would have been compromised is like me saying you could or would have been killed if you stood in front of a drive by shooting. No crime is committed until an act occurs.
I doubt that, if he is kept in school, and learns some structure from being incarcerated, and comprehends right from wrong (releasing a virus into the wilds of the internet is not that innocent). What you describe is generally what occurs if you put them in a hole and forget about them for the length of their sentance.
While I concur that the legal remedy for crimes is generally pretty screwed up, in this case, I do not think they will make a useless person out of this.
This must be a change from days past, when they would seal one screw hole with an easily destroyed sticker, or tape it over a seam you would have to part in order to open the case. It was the tamper seal and would basically tell them if you jacked with the hardware inside or not.
I have seen less and less of those kinds of things, but at the same time, I have also not bought an OEM machine (save my laptop, which you can't DIY). Last ones I've seen from OEM's have either been on the job (we do our own support, typically) or in the stores.
If you know networking, consider that WiFi is like using a hub. The more users you have in the area, the worse your signal gets because of all the cross-communication and chatter from the associated endpoints. Consider that WiFi is also broadcasting to everyone, even those that are not using the network, so security can be iffy at best. It also must deal with interference (nature, badly tuned transmitters, etc) which can significantly degrade performance.
Compare that to wired communications. Point to Point on a switched network (you get only traffic that the switch has no clue where to send, or for you) means you channel is generally clean and open any time you want it. It is secure, in that it requires physical access to the network in order to tap into it (what's that wire running out the patio door, dear?). It can also be less prone (shielded cables) or immune (fiber) to EMF interferance, something to consider in places where a lot of EMF is generated.
While wireless communications may be in the future, there will always be a place for wired communications.
It is generally accepted by any hardware manufacturer that once you, the untrained user, opens the case, you can introduce elements into the system that may have unintended consiquences. The manufacturer warrenties that what they gave you will work for the length of the warrenty, at a minimum. If you change what they gave you, they can no longer make that guarontee. Having a sealed case (and hense, opening it voiding any warrenty) just makes tracking that easier.
All the right in the world? Show me a contract that I agreed to beforehand, and I might believe you. Show me the law where such non-transferable authority is placed upon the manufacturer. Prove to me it's legit and legal, and maybe I'll believe you.
The only thing I'm aware that applies is Copyright law, and if I had signed a contract, the legal provisions therein.
I write and publish a book, and it gets sold as a part of a 'home package', giving you something to read while you're at home. However, I put something on the cover to the effect of "This can only be read in this house". How likely do you think that is to stand up as a lawful or sane restriction? If I take it to another house (hense, removing it from the first one), I do not break copyright, but I break the "OEM license" by taking it somewhere else to read.
Any deal for special pricing was between Microsoft and the OEM, not me directly, as I don't see any itemization for the price of the OS I bought. For all I know or care, that discounted price to OEMs is a bulk-rate discount, similar to the ones normal individuals can see buying the same item between Walmart and Sams Club (as an example).
No, I'm sorry. I'm still not convinced that OEM License restrictions are in any way legally binding to me. No contract, no foreknowledge of the terms to be applied to my purchase, and most importantly, MS and the OEM only have implied consent (dubious, since I could be unaware) not explicit consent to the restrictions placed upon my purchase of the OS.
I signed no contract to authorize additional terms beyond copyright restrictions. Copyright restrictions do not allow me to make additional copies (not installed on two at once), but do not restrict me from moving it from place to place.
As for the cost, I don't give a damn what it costs in the overall price. Why should I? I bought a copy of the operating system with the machine. The machine doesn't work, but the software still does. Besides, when I bought my laptop with XP Pro (an upgrade from XP Home), I recall having to pay something like $50-100 more for the privilage (exact amount unknown, since my sales bill is not with me).
But basically, no signed contract, no right to enforce additional restrictions not covered by law. "OEM Licensing" is not a term defined by law, as far as I'm aware.
Problem here lies that the original idea of patents was to give the inventor time to make exclusive use of their idea for their own profit for a period of time. What chips did Intergraph make that had their patents in use in them? I mean, taken from the article:
Based in Huntsville, Ala., Intergraph provides software and services for plant design, ship construction and geospatial mapping, among other things.
Apparently, computer chip design isn't notable enough in their list of products to actually be included in such a short little blurb. So they patented an idea outside their main field... for what reason?
Oh, and this line from your comment is also pretty bogus:
And the latest generation of PCs wouldn't have a combined Cache/MMU controller, and therefore they would be less good.
And that means technology *has* progressed.
Problem is that Intel and company did not license and probably did not dig through the patent library to find this idea and benefit directly from Intergraph's research/think tank. Therefor, they came up with their own idea for integrating the Cache/MMU controller on their own. Not only that, not having licensed the work (proven by the fact they got sued) means that Intergraph did not offer their patent ideas to chip makers elsewhere. Technology did not progress by Intergraph's hands.
Consider the opposite, if everyone had known about Intergraph's patents, and Intergraph did not license the idea to them. All those fancy pentium chips you see out there would certainly not be in production today as they are. Degraded performance, alternative design, whatever, technology overall would have suffered from being unable to include this idea until the patent had expired. How is this progress again?
It's funny how Microsoft seems to want people to take them seriously when they talk about pirating their stuff, yet pretty much rip off their customers any time they can. System dies and you want to transfer the license? Sorry! You have to buy it again! Why? You paid for it once, now on a system that will no longer function. Provided that you don't repair the old system and bring it online, what valid reason other than "we want more of your money" do they have for such restrictions? What makes them believe they have the authority to make such restrictions in the first place?
You may be willing to permit this moment of charitable good will to cloud whatever else he has done, but it's my perogative to look beyond that. I don't dispute the act of donating to be useless, as certainly many more children will not suffer and die, and that is good. However, I don't hold the same belief that doing good things for bad reasons will only ever be good, especially since in humanity it tends to be a tool of manipulating good will.
Wealthy people use charities such as this to further their own interests. A true telling point about the wealthy is if they would have donated if they got nothing for it (no tax breaks, no publicity, and noone knew about it but them). While "good" comes of it, I don't rate it high on the list of 'noble' things unless they would have done it even if noone knew.
Not really. It's that people are praising him for doing something good, just because he's donating money for a good cause, ignoring the fact that his company, proven to abuse a monopoly position illegally, is quite literally amoral when it comes to operating as a business.
Big whup.
He does one small redeaming act that takes a minor fragment of his time, while he spends the rest of it helping to run a company that continues to attempt borderline illegal acts to remain "successful". That does not make him a saint. It makes his motives questionable, having already proven himself an expert at manipulating the system.
I give praise to someone who gets a whole ton of money through moral business practices, and donates to charities. Such people are few and far between.
That's kind of funny. Suppose you ruthlessly pursue all manner of business and acquisition of wealth that you can, stealing jobs, contracts, and money that could go to good people with good families. Then, in a fit of generosity, turn around and give just a small portion of that back for something as noble as vaccinations. Well, hell, you've just wiped the slate clean and made yourself into a good guy, especially in the eyes of those you wrong.
No, I don't think that this donation is going to directly influence anyone that Microsoft put into poverty by it's marketing machine. A selfish-based motivation for a generous contribution still means you're selfish, no matter what you did. Considering the company that Gates lead, what they've done, and what they continue to get away with, I question the motive of the man, even if he personally handed out the money.
Money is a 'cheap' way to buy favor with people, when you donate it. It doesn't cost you any time other than deciding to, and writing the check. You go on your way, raping and pillaging the proverbial IT landscape, while behind you people worship the fact that some of that ill-gotten gain was "graciously" and "generously" given back, helping you, the less fortunate, ignore their behavior because.. Damn if he isn't such a great guy by returning a pittance for something that was needed.
Generosity is just a way for many financial "elite" to cover over their past wrongdoings. Were it me, I'd tell'm to take a long walk off a short pier and keep my dignity.
No. It's a bit problematic to use something heavily when you are unable to use it except in some small little corner. What you need is the desire to use it, and quite a big desire, and petition the companies to include support for said format in their devices. MP3 support, Real support, WMA support.. all those things quite likely got included into hardware devices because the patent owners or interested parties said "Hey, let's get this thing done to benefit the both of us".
You're right. Waiting will not bring it about quickly. Convincing the manufacturers that inclusion is trivial and the benefit is significant is what makes things happen. Use never guarontees anything.
Once again, the ignorance of some people truely amazes me.
If you are unwilling to look beyond your small little world and see that there's a big f'king planet around you, then noone can help you. If you can't seem to understand that removing trees (CO2 reducers) and adding power plants (CO2 producers), even without any kind of degree what so ever, will tend to increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, noone can help you.
I wonder what it would take to convince someone like you that there was a problem. Maybe not having any food to eat? Maybe trying to live through 150 degree days? Oh, I'm sure that having no snow ever would truely ruin your day, too, even if you can't comprehend the signifigance of it. Problem is, by the time all that happens, you won't be able to fix it before you die. Even if you stopped all CO2 production caused by humanity (basically, putting us in the dark with no electricity and no cars), the atmospheric composition would not change overnight.
This problem was started long before you or I were born. We probably won't have to deal with the problems, but if you ever plan on reproducing, your children sure as hell will.
Slashdot Mirror
Then it becomes a matter of, will you pass on the virus to others after your treatment, or will they be able to provide an antibody that will allow the immune system to latch onto and destroy the modified virus?
The whole point of my statement was that the US knows that a nation has (or is rumored to have) nuclear weaponry. Even if the delivery system is inadequate to hit the continental US, these weapons can still be detonated and their 'spray' (fallout pattern) may well encompass other nations. However, the country is content to sit back and be left alone, it's just that we, the US, feel that noone but us should have nukes (apparently). So we go in there and try to invade, all in the name of 'disarmament'. They set off their weapons, and while the US didn't directly set them off, the US was the antagonist that broke the peace (such as it was).
If North Korea decided to level South Korea, then the international community would very likely support any action by any of the member nations (including the US) to reestablish the boundries. At the point at which such weapons are used, first, and without other provocation (ie: they were not used in defense), the nation that uses them is a threat to the safety of other nations and must be dealt with. It isn't until that point that any other nation has any right what-so-ever to invade, no matter what our feelings are on a nation like North Korea pursuing nuclear weapons.
The way I see it, the US just wants to remain the Big Man on the Block, the only ones "authorized" to have 'weapons of mass destruction' just because we had them first. Frankly, in that reguard, the US can stuff it if they don't like being equals on an international basis.
I'm reminded of the USSR's tactic in one of the World Wars (probably WW2, but I'm no historian). Germany invaded, and the Soviets withdrew, burning the land behind them. They kept up that retreat until the German front line was so stretched out, so resource poor (cannot harvest resources from the countryside you take if it's dead), and so demoralized that the Soviets could switch the run and mow over them. I know this tactic has been given a name, but I don't know what it is.
Thing is, even having 'low yield' nuclear weapons can be a deterrant. If you bomb your outlying areas (where invading troops would have to come through) or whether you disassemble and FedEx your parts to another location to be reassembled in, say, the US and detonated in some city here, simple potential for them to be used may make people think twice. The only time when I can see it would not be a deterrant is if the leaders of the invading country felt that they could (or had) neutralize(d) all of the weapons.
I mean, seriously. If the US were to invade a country that couldn't reach the continental US, and wound up detonating the weapons on the borders of their own country, do you think the rest of the world would look favorably on the US if they went ahead with it anyways?
Many machines these days accept a USB (or alternative-media drive) to be an acceptable boot device to start from. In fact, this handy little NC6000 from HP can boot from USB, or even from the SD card reader it has embedded. All it does is lump it in with 'removable media' and goes from there.
That is, of course, the flip side of the coin. Digitally encoded biometric data that cannot be changed (fingerprint, retinal scan, etc) but can be fed to a computer in some manner or another can be used to falsify your identity. At a cashier's lane, this is kind of difficult to do, as you are under scrutiny. Online, or any place you can use it where you are not under scrutiny, or any delivery method that can be made transparent even when observed will break this kind of authentication scheme, with no way to undo the damage once its done (think DeCSS except with your entire life at stake).
I had actually thought about the theft of biometric data previously (past few weeks), but apparently forgot it when writing. Credit card numbers are changable. Fingerprints, not so much so. Such stores would need both files on hand to do proper authentication, and frankly, I just do not trust any computer system to be 100% unbreakable at all times
Of course, let's not mention that, if they wanted to do that now, all they'd have to do is.. well.. revoke or suspend your credit cards. It doesn't sound like they refuse cash, or even that they could (foodstamps, etc). Just, if you want to use a credit card with them, you use your thumb instead of signature as proof.
Rather it be "I keep my ccard number until I come into the store and sign my transaction with my fingerprint" rather than "Here's my ccard information, let me authorize it by only ever showing my fingerprint." The former is more secure. The latter opens the possibility for their systems to be broken into (internally or externally) and lots of credit card info stolen.
While the 5th Amendment allows you to abstain from testomony that would otherwise incriminate yourself, the notion of bringing forward witnesses (hostile or otherwise), placing them before the court, getting them to swear to tell the truth before the court under penalty of purgory, and then questioning them is, in essence, subpoena-ing(?) someone's thoughts. You have put them into a situation where they must reply to the questions put forth, or provide a valid reason why they cannot answer, or they face jail time for falsifying their statement. However, as stated before, the 5th Amendment gives you the right to refuse to testify against yourself, making your thoughts and (likely, though IANAL) any privately held documents by yourself and only by yourself "relatively" safe. I'm sure I'm to be corrected post-haste on that one, though.
While on the surface what you propose is bad, it is not suppression or control of your thoughts and actions, it is investigation of what happened after the fact. It is an attempt to sort through the things that happened, both public and private, in order to find out who did what wrong. To that end, and only towards that end, is the information to be collected and used.
The problem about teaching children is that they start out as very trusting creatures. They believe anything you tell them until you tell them they shouldn't, or they learn why they shouldn't. If you tell your children time and again that they should keep their mouth shut, that they shouldn't speak their mind, that they have no right to talk, then then will eventually believe that, even if they are later taught differently.
To add to that, if this is their opinion, and the group that hold this opinion starts to exceed those that feel that this right is proper and just, it may be ammended out of the constitution, and you will wind up having no right to free speech. It is this reason why there is cause for concern.
While this group of business owners are likely not the same ones in power when the Ma Bell breakup happened, the behavior of companies that have a monopoly position has not gotten better. They do not welcome competition into the marketplace. They do not wish to provide the best service possible, once they have a monopoly. Their goal is simply to get paid. When noone can say "Go suck an egg" and find some other provider, they can do it with impunity.
There are some things such as natural monopolies. Power, water, sewer. These things are best done by a single company that covers everywhere. However, these things are also heavily regulated. Before data circuits became prevelent, the telephone was as well.
We should be cautious about the Bell companies merging again. What proof do we have that they will behave better should they regain their monopoly status? I mean, after all, considering what Microsoft can get away with these days...
Sorry, but that's bullshit. DRM may allow content creators to prevent copying of their material. Maybe they stop piracy. Ooh yay. That's cool. However, corporations won't stop where it's moral to do so. They'll use DRM to ensure that their copyright never expires (along with laws to outlaw same). They'll use DRM to continue price fixing. They'll use DRM to force you into subscription models instead of purchasing a copy to use at your whim.
What the customer wants, the customer gets. If the customer isn't happy enough, companies collapse. This needs to be reinforced in today's economy.
What could have happened is irrelevent in legal proceedings. What did happen is. This boy did release a virus, modified (would AV scanners automatically pick up a 'close, but not quite' virus to something it knew?) that did infect a good number of PCs. That is an act of computer vandalism (or whatever it was he was conviced of).
Saying that they could or would have been compromised is like me saying you could or would have been killed if you stood in front of a drive by shooting. No crime is committed until an act occurs.
I doubt that, if he is kept in school, and learns some structure from being incarcerated, and comprehends right from wrong (releasing a virus into the wilds of the internet is not that innocent). What you describe is generally what occurs if you put them in a hole and forget about them for the length of their sentance.
While I concur that the legal remedy for crimes is generally pretty screwed up, in this case, I do not think they will make a useless person out of this.
This must be a change from days past, when they would seal one screw hole with an easily destroyed sticker, or tape it over a seam you would have to part in order to open the case. It was the tamper seal and would basically tell them if you jacked with the hardware inside or not.
I have seen less and less of those kinds of things, but at the same time, I have also not bought an OEM machine (save my laptop, which you can't DIY). Last ones I've seen from OEM's have either been on the job (we do our own support, typically) or in the stores.
If you know networking, consider that WiFi is like using a hub. The more users you have in the area, the worse your signal gets because of all the cross-communication and chatter from the associated endpoints. Consider that WiFi is also broadcasting to everyone, even those that are not using the network, so security can be iffy at best. It also must deal with interference (nature, badly tuned transmitters, etc) which can significantly degrade performance.
Compare that to wired communications. Point to Point on a switched network (you get only traffic that the switch has no clue where to send, or for you) means you channel is generally clean and open any time you want it. It is secure, in that it requires physical access to the network in order to tap into it (what's that wire running out the patio door, dear?). It can also be less prone (shielded cables) or immune (fiber) to EMF interferance, something to consider in places where a lot of EMF is generated.
While wireless communications may be in the future, there will always be a place for wired communications.
It is generally accepted by any hardware manufacturer that once you, the untrained user, opens the case, you can introduce elements into the system that may have unintended consiquences. The manufacturer warrenties that what they gave you will work for the length of the warrenty, at a minimum. If you change what they gave you, they can no longer make that guarontee. Having a sealed case (and hense, opening it voiding any warrenty) just makes tracking that easier.
Or maybe I missed the point of the question.
All the right in the world? Show me a contract that I agreed to beforehand, and I might believe you. Show me the law where such non-transferable authority is placed upon the manufacturer. Prove to me it's legit and legal, and maybe I'll believe you.
The only thing I'm aware that applies is Copyright law, and if I had signed a contract, the legal provisions therein.
I write and publish a book, and it gets sold as a part of a 'home package', giving you something to read while you're at home. However, I put something on the cover to the effect of "This can only be read in this house". How likely do you think that is to stand up as a lawful or sane restriction? If I take it to another house (hense, removing it from the first one), I do not break copyright, but I break the "OEM license" by taking it somewhere else to read.
Any deal for special pricing was between Microsoft and the OEM, not me directly, as I don't see any itemization for the price of the OS I bought. For all I know or care, that discounted price to OEMs is a bulk-rate discount, similar to the ones normal individuals can see buying the same item between Walmart and Sams Club (as an example).
No, I'm sorry. I'm still not convinced that OEM License restrictions are in any way legally binding to me. No contract, no foreknowledge of the terms to be applied to my purchase, and most importantly, MS and the OEM only have implied consent (dubious, since I could be unaware) not explicit consent to the restrictions placed upon my purchase of the OS.
I signed no contract to authorize additional terms beyond copyright restrictions. Copyright restrictions do not allow me to make additional copies (not installed on two at once), but do not restrict me from moving it from place to place.
As for the cost, I don't give a damn what it costs in the overall price. Why should I? I bought a copy of the operating system with the machine. The machine doesn't work, but the software still does. Besides, when I bought my laptop with XP Pro (an upgrade from XP Home), I recall having to pay something like $50-100 more for the privilage (exact amount unknown, since my sales bill is not with me).
But basically, no signed contract, no right to enforce additional restrictions not covered by law. "OEM Licensing" is not a term defined by law, as far as I'm aware.
Based in Huntsville, Ala., Intergraph provides software and services for plant design, ship construction and geospatial mapping, among other things.
Apparently, computer chip design isn't notable enough in their list of products to actually be included in such a short little blurb. So they patented an idea outside their main field... for what reason?
Oh, and this line from your comment is also pretty bogus:
And the latest generation of PCs wouldn't have a combined Cache/MMU controller, and therefore they would be less good.
And that means technology *has* progressed.
Problem is that Intel and company did not license and probably did not dig through the patent library to find this idea and benefit directly from Intergraph's research/think tank. Therefor, they came up with their own idea for integrating the Cache/MMU controller on their own. Not only that, not having licensed the work (proven by the fact they got sued) means that Intergraph did not offer their patent ideas to chip makers elsewhere. Technology did not progress by Intergraph's hands.
Consider the opposite, if everyone had known about Intergraph's patents, and Intergraph did not license the idea to them. All those fancy pentium chips you see out there would certainly not be in production today as they are. Degraded performance, alternative design, whatever, technology overall would have suffered from being unable to include this idea until the patent had expired. How is this progress again?
It's funny how Microsoft seems to want people to take them seriously when they talk about pirating their stuff, yet pretty much rip off their customers any time they can. System dies and you want to transfer the license? Sorry! You have to buy it again! Why? You paid for it once, now on a system that will no longer function. Provided that you don't repair the old system and bring it online, what valid reason other than "we want more of your money" do they have for such restrictions? What makes them believe they have the authority to make such restrictions in the first place?
You may be willing to permit this moment of charitable good will to cloud whatever else he has done, but it's my perogative to look beyond that. I don't dispute the act of donating to be useless, as certainly many more children will not suffer and die, and that is good. However, I don't hold the same belief that doing good things for bad reasons will only ever be good, especially since in humanity it tends to be a tool of manipulating good will.
Wealthy people use charities such as this to further their own interests. A true telling point about the wealthy is if they would have donated if they got nothing for it (no tax breaks, no publicity, and noone knew about it but them). While "good" comes of it, I don't rate it high on the list of 'noble' things unless they would have done it even if noone knew.
Not really. It's that people are praising him for doing something good, just because he's donating money for a good cause, ignoring the fact that his company, proven to abuse a monopoly position illegally, is quite literally amoral when it comes to operating as a business.
Big whup.
He does one small redeaming act that takes a minor fragment of his time, while he spends the rest of it helping to run a company that continues to attempt borderline illegal acts to remain "successful". That does not make him a saint. It makes his motives questionable, having already proven himself an expert at manipulating the system.
I give praise to someone who gets a whole ton of money through moral business practices, and donates to charities. Such people are few and far between.
That's kind of funny. Suppose you ruthlessly pursue all manner of business and acquisition of wealth that you can, stealing jobs, contracts, and money that could go to good people with good families. Then, in a fit of generosity, turn around and give just a small portion of that back for something as noble as vaccinations. Well, hell, you've just wiped the slate clean and made yourself into a good guy, especially in the eyes of those you wrong.
No, I don't think that this donation is going to directly influence anyone that Microsoft put into poverty by it's marketing machine. A selfish-based motivation for a generous contribution still means you're selfish, no matter what you did. Considering the company that Gates lead, what they've done, and what they continue to get away with, I question the motive of the man, even if he personally handed out the money.
Money is a 'cheap' way to buy favor with people, when you donate it. It doesn't cost you any time other than deciding to, and writing the check. You go on your way, raping and pillaging the proverbial IT landscape, while behind you people worship the fact that some of that ill-gotten gain was "graciously" and "generously" given back, helping you, the less fortunate, ignore their behavior because.. Damn if he isn't such a great guy by returning a pittance for something that was needed.
Generosity is just a way for many financial "elite" to cover over their past wrongdoings. Were it me, I'd tell'm to take a long walk off a short pier and keep my dignity.
No. It's a bit problematic to use something heavily when you are unable to use it except in some small little corner. What you need is the desire to use it, and quite a big desire, and petition the companies to include support for said format in their devices. MP3 support, Real support, WMA support.. all those things quite likely got included into hardware devices because the patent owners or interested parties said "Hey, let's get this thing done to benefit the both of us".
You're right. Waiting will not bring it about quickly. Convincing the manufacturers that inclusion is trivial and the benefit is significant is what makes things happen. Use never guarontees anything.
Once again, the ignorance of some people truely amazes me.
If you are unwilling to look beyond your small little world and see that there's a big f'king planet around you, then noone can help you. If you can't seem to understand that removing trees (CO2 reducers) and adding power plants (CO2 producers), even without any kind of degree what so ever, will tend to increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, noone can help you.
I wonder what it would take to convince someone like you that there was a problem. Maybe not having any food to eat? Maybe trying to live through 150 degree days? Oh, I'm sure that having no snow ever would truely ruin your day, too, even if you can't comprehend the signifigance of it. Problem is, by the time all that happens, you won't be able to fix it before you die. Even if you stopped all CO2 production caused by humanity (basically, putting us in the dark with no electricity and no cars), the atmospheric composition would not change overnight.
This problem was started long before you or I were born. We probably won't have to deal with the problems, but if you ever plan on reproducing, your children sure as hell will.