None of it violates the DMCA. Books are not devices. They do not violate the DMCA. Ever.
It's easy - DMCA - Sec. 1201: (2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof that--
`(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological protection measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;
Emphasis mine. Books qualify as products, don't they? I think free speech violates DMCA - that's the problem.
Hmm, okay, so let's say I make a Microsoft-ish spoof page with a border that has "king", "snoopy" or "brutus" all around, and half the visitors will recognise their page with their unique pooch's name on it, and will give me their credit card number in total confidence. Hmmm....
I was thinking that too. Then I read the article:
"A hacker can create a spoof page with dogs' names running along the border but, in all likelihood, not one reading "Buffy, Skip and Jack Daniels--and in that order," Biddle said."
True, but anyone could just create a similar-looking window, and just put words "Secure Window" instead of "Buffy, Skip and Jack Daniels". Guess which one will look to be secure and which one will not.
Also, if this system is not clearly explained to non-savvy users (and I am guessing it will not be), then there will be other implications as well - such as people typing in their passwords, or realizing their pet name *is* their password, etc. I look forward to how they implement this and confuse users.
This/. article is an illegal sample of the real article at mtv.com. Slashdot should expect to hear from MTV's lawyers shortly and expect to be sued for $3.5mil. Also, the jury will find that this is fair use, free speech, all the good stuff, but will still fine/. for $1.5mil anyway. Good luck!
Microsoft included a bug in the Win 3.1 Beta that caused Dr. DOS users to crash.
Unsurprisingly the makers of Dr. DOS lost their jobs, like many other victims of malicious code.
This sounds like Doctor DOS to me. Shouldn't it be DR DOS as in DOS made by Digital Research? OT, but I remember using DR DOS on my Olivetti laptop (read suitcase) with a blue-pixel CGA LCD, loaded with Norton Commander, GW-Basic, TurboC, and Framework III - old days.
It's WAY to slow without compressing, which means sending it through some kind of tunnel. Personally, I think it's way too slow anyway. RealVNC beats it for bandwidth usage...
You are comparing apples and oranges. You need to learn the difference between X client/server vs what VNC does. In the former case, X client is running on the client machine and X server on the server machine; in the latter case, X server, client, and VNC server are running on the server machine, and only VNC client on the client machine. They each have different capabilities, pros/cons, and different uses as well.
That there is the SCO reply saying that they have hired consultants and found major code duplications between UnixWare and Linux, although they will not release the information about what parts of code they are talking about that has been duplicated. Article also quotes SCO's Darl McBride:
"We feel very good about the evidence that is going to show up in court. We will be happy to show the evidence we have at the appropriate time in a court setting."
I hope they are bluffing, or IBM will just buy SCO out and be done with it.
However, since this patent appears to be about design instead of literal function, I'd say that's not likely. The author is still responsible.
"Appears to be"? Did you read the patents? The patents are about "browser", "method of browsing", "method of navigating" and not about frames in HTML code and text as served by servers.
They are going after wrong people in my opinion. But, hey, try going after MS or AOL for IE and Mozilla, see how far that gets them.
That being said, I'm not as cynical as the majority here on Slashdot, who believe that the value of dollar is the only way to get things done in government. I would say a bigger problem is ignorance of technological issues among those who pass the laws in the first place.
Well, I guess you could call it ignorance. When all the money, campaign contributions, and legal bribes are on one side, and losing in the elections on the other - well, you kinda bypass or ignore the latter. In that sense, it is ignorance.
Theres no privacy at all if this is law, anyone not just the RIAA, but ANYONE can claim you are a copyright infringer.
When will you learn? You can only use laws to your advantage if you have paid for them. RIAA, MPAA, and few tech companies paid for DMCA and they will get all the benefits from it. Anyone else claiming anything under DMCA will be referred to as pirate, outlaw, illegal schmuck, and be accused of violating the "law" themselves.
The sponsors of the law and their respective "associations" will always get benefit of the doubt.
The Matrix trailer was hosted on AOL servers, this one is served from Akamai. It has nothing to do with Apple - other than probably they (along with the studios) are paying for the bandwidth. Akamai routes/serves more bandwidth per day than/. has in its lifetime.
It's true though - this one is a lower quality, nothing like the Matrix trailer.
Now I know that you might think that the companies involved are scummy or evil, but remember - if we didn't have the legal frameworks in place that we do, then the evil companies would do a lot more than overcharge you.
You'd be their slaves.
I am wondering when they are going to arrest and jail the illegal, anti-competitive, price-fixing, anti-privacy, anti-any-rights, monopolistic, control-freak, entertainment industry cartel member corporations and give all of them 5 years jailtime; so that they can't do any business in 5 years - none. I'm still waiting for this one.
Ohh... you mean they can't do that to corporations? But... but... corporations aren't even eligible for voting in most countries, howcome they are the ones with the most influence over the laws being passed? More and more of such laws take away from people and give slam dunk short-term prospects, money, and control to corporations, their executives, lawyers, and other millionaires and billionaires. Did I mention at the expense of people's rights and freedoms?
What happened with DMCA and its equivalents? What happened with copyrights in the U.S.? What is happening with software and other patents? What happened with USA PATRIOT Act? What happened with Microsoft's "punishment"?
Face the reality = you ARE their slave!!!... Or maybe I am imagining stuff... I certainly hope so!
If we want to make corporate responsibility a real thing in the post-Enron days, this sort of thing is going to have to happen. Lots of people want laws to enable us to go after people who lie to shareholders or pollute the environment,
I thought this "corporate responsibility" stuff was about corporate executives using corporate (read investors') funds for their own personal profit and advantage in an illegal manner. Don't let this reverse on you making investors responsible for corporate executives' decisions and actions.
but the sword cuts both ways. If you want to make it more difficult for someone (either a real person or another corporation) to hide behind a corporation after engaging in illegal activity, you're going to have to accept that these laws will be used by people we don't like (RIAA) to go after people we do like (Napster) breaking laws we don't like.
Just as I said, you have confused yourself with terms like "hide behind" and "go after". In essence, you are saying that every investor should be responsible for actions of the businesses they have invested in. Therefore, if you had in the past owned a stock of a cigarette manufacturer, then *you* personally could be sued for the company's actions. While investors trust corporations with their funds to provide a product that's legal and profitable to earn them money, they are in no way involved in many day-to-day decision-making and corporate affairs.
Moreover, nobody can expect every investor to make a judgement of their own with regards to the legality of any corporate product or service. Example, if you invest in AMD, can you be 100% sure they did not and will not in the future violate anyone's copyrights or patents? Can you be expected to make such judgement? And, more importantly, can you be held liable if such acts are committed by AMD?
The legality of any corporate product or service, if challenged, is determined by courts. No investor can, or should be expected to, predict such determination, or any future court cases and decisions at the time of investment. And, more importantly, no investor should or can be liable for corporate misbehavior. If anything, investors should get compensated for being deceived by corporate fraud.
How is this such a wrong thing anyway? Hummer Winblad knew that Napster operated by exploiting copyrights they did not own, but they gave them money anyway.
Nobody knew Napster operated anything illegal until courts ruled so. Napster didn't exploit copyrights - it provided tools and service to facilitate such acts by its users.
Giving money to a terrorist group that will commit crimes is illegal; why shouldn't it be illegal to give money to a company that will commit crimes also? Ignore whether the law is just; as it stands right now, Napster was illegal.
Ahh.. the familiar terrorist reference. I'm sure Ashcroft and Co. and RIAA appreciate that. Everybody is a terrorist! They *steal* our content and then hold it hostage!!! They are terrorists! Arrest all of them... well... after giving us all their money. From this point on, I may consider comparing Microsoft and its actions (that it was convicted for) with different acts of terrorism and murder. At the very least, it's bad logic.
if they arrested people in cars playing it loud under the 'public performanc' aspect I'd be all for it. Many times now I've been ambling through a migraine, trying to make it through the day, to have some idiot drive by, booming noise as loud as he can, with the windows down, making life unbearable.
I think this would be applying wrong laws to wrong cases. You should be checking your local nuisance laws rather than copyright infringement, don't you think?
Whatever way you look at it, imho Napster was a tool to violate copyrights. Yes, perhaps Shaun didn't originally plan it like that, but in the final days, that is mainly what it was used for.
Beyond the obvious question of - should every investor be liable for the actions of the companies they have invested in (God forbid you hold any mutual funds)? - but beyond that.
Can the same logic be applied to Microsoft - Windows, IE, and other applications were tools with which Microsoft committed illegal acts, violated the law, and was convicted in court. Can we, then, as consumers, sue Microsoft's *investors*, i.e. Bill Gates and others for enabling and aiding Microsoft to commit such acts? How about $120K for every Windows and IE licensed?
You'd probably have a hard time defending a plane named "Cessna BMW", but not a Learjet 325, Airbus 9-5, or Piper 480SL.
Well, I don't think "325" the number is a trademark, this case is closer to "Cessna BMW", "Cessna Toyota", or "Cessna Camry" even.
Having never heard of either Firebird: if the Firebird database is made by the Firebird [company/organization], then they have every reason to fear that the Firebird browser may be confused as being a Firebird Company product. Otherwise, it's the difference between a Boeing 737 and a BMW 735.
I agree with your initial statement, but latter part - I don't think so - you are equating numbers with words; if you substitute "BMW 735" and "Boeing 737" with a "Toyota Camry" vs. "Piper Camry" the case is likely to be totally different.
Trademarking the name wouldn't have mattered. In the eyes of the law, a browser and a database are probably just as far apart as a car and a plane. Sure, they're the same thing in an extremely general sense, like "software" and "vehicles", but in actuality, they are very different.
Dude, this is a very good example to prove exactly the opposite of your argument. There are many car manufacturers that are also in the airplane industry. Even for the ones that are not, does not automatically enable anyone to take their trademarks and use them to name their planes. Saab makes both cars and airplane parts and engines. So does Rolls Royce; and many others. Toyota is/was planning to make an easy-to-fly, cheap plane. I can't take "Saab" or "Toyota" trademarks and use them with my planes names. And, no I can't name my planes "Mercedes", "BMW" or "Volvo" either.
That said, in the article, they address this question - in legal terms, the article says, there is a software category that covers all software. Mozilla could, in theory, apply for and register a trademark on "Firebird" claiming to only use it in a very specific narrow field, but otherwise it is likely to be violating the database project's trademark.
In my opinion, this makes sense. Going beyond the cars and airplanes, if Firebird database project were to produce a database browser and integrated products for web services on top of their database, etc. that would cause more confusion than a simple - "ahh anybody can tell a difference between DB and a browser" - may suggest.
The only reason people think that trademarks are such overwhelmingly powerful things that give you total control over a name in all areas of business is because of how easy it is to steal domain names and such away from people through third parties that have nothing to do with the law, such as ICANN. In legal practice, trademarks aren't really that broad, and this is a legal matter.
Well, trademarks don't give you power "in all areas of business"; as I understand there are defined categories for trademark use and laws on what can and cannot constitute a trademark. This has nothing to do with ICANN and their practices, or domain names even.
Verizon already started doing this couple of months ago. It's funny - even though Verizon was the one most opposed to this FCC regulation, they started implementing it first. Others, I am guessing will stretch out to November until the deadline.
And you've had a better luck also. Twice last year I tried to get a rebate from, I think it was a video card and something else that I can't remember... It seemed easy enough - fill stuff out, give all your personal details, send it in... oops - after 3 months I find out in a letter that the store (Best Buy) had printed out the wrong rebate forms (yes, multiple), and that the processing company didn't accept it. Hell, after three months I can't return the product, the rebate period is over, and I don't even have the correct receipt.
And don't worry - talking to the salespeople at Best Buy is like directing a monkey parade - they seem too entrenched in their so-called "system", and rebate processing company is not their business either. Few years back I've bought a pack of floppies that were supposed to be "free" after rebate - yeah, right!
Most "rebates" are deceptive marketing that should be illegal; I expect to pay whatever I shell out at the counter and not depend on ripoff schemes such as "mail-in rebates".
The NSA website has an interesting kids section - it has some educational material as well as a lot of related puzzles. Kids interested in computers and/or cryptography or solving puzzles in general will enjoy it.
From the article: The Microsoft approach "lends itself to market domination..."
Does anyone think Microsoft would have it any other way?
DOJ sues MS for violating U.S. antitrust laws. Courts whole-heartedly agree and rule that MS is guilty. Courts do virtually nothing to protect consumers and tech industry, and literally nothing to punish MS. Courts do not implement any *preventive* measures against MS - as required by the law. MS goes on breaking the same law again and again - nobody pays any attention. MS widely announces its plans (as a marketing campaign) to break the same law again in many-fold worse than before - Palladium - nobody cares.
MS has literally and (seems) legally bribed all - legislative, executive, and judicial - branches of government in order to escape and be exempt from the law, even after it has been convicted of violating it. At some point, the government corruption needs to end, but noone knows how; in the information age where most of the "information" is spoon-fed by corporations that are part of the corruption scheme, the masses will never be on the reform side.
How many people will accidently install the Firebird RDBMS thinking it is the web browser....
As opposed to how many people would install Phoenix BIOS thinking it is the Phoenix browser? And how many people would install Phoenix browser thinking they have to have it because they live in Phoenix?
I'd say Phoenix at first spot, RDBMS second, and BIOS last.
... that Microsoft employees are extremely devoted to RFCs and all public standards. Here's a Microsoft employee who, in good faith, researched and tried to contribute to the development of a new RFC - all this before (s)he even got and read the manager's memo saying it was April 1st.
Slashdot Mirror
None of it violates the DMCA. Books are not devices. They do not violate the DMCA. Ever.
It's easy - DMCA - Sec. 1201:
(2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof that--
`(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological protection measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;
Emphasis mine. Books qualify as products, don't they? I think free speech violates DMCA - that's the problem.
Hmm, okay, so let's say I make a Microsoft-ish spoof page with a border that has "king", "snoopy" or "brutus" all around, and half the visitors will recognise their page with their unique pooch's name on it, and will give me their credit card number in total confidence. Hmmm ....
I was thinking that too. Then I read the article:
"A hacker can create a spoof page with dogs' names running along the border but, in all likelihood, not one reading "Buffy, Skip and Jack Daniels--and in that order," Biddle said."
True, but anyone could just create a similar-looking window, and just put words "Secure Window" instead of "Buffy, Skip and Jack Daniels". Guess which one will look to be secure and which one will not.
Also, if this system is not clearly explained to non-savvy users (and I am guessing it will not be), then there will be other implications as well - such as people typing in their passwords, or realizing their pet name *is* their password, etc. I look forward to how they implement this and confuse users.
This /. article is an illegal sample of the real article at mtv.com. Slashdot should expect to hear from MTV's lawyers shortly and expect to be sued for $3.5mil. Also, the jury will find that this is fair use, free speech, all the good stuff, but will still fine /. for $1.5mil anyway. Good luck!
Microsoft included a bug in the Win 3.1 Beta that caused Dr. DOS users to crash.
Unsurprisingly the makers of Dr. DOS lost their jobs, like many other victims of malicious code.
This sounds like Doctor DOS to me. Shouldn't it be DR DOS as in DOS made by Digital Research? OT, but I remember using DR DOS on my Olivetti laptop (read suitcase) with a blue-pixel CGA LCD, loaded with Norton Commander, GW-Basic, TurboC, and Framework III - old days.
It's WAY to slow without compressing, which means sending it through some kind of tunnel. Personally, I think it's way too slow anyway. RealVNC beats it for bandwidth usage ...
You are comparing apples and oranges. You need to learn the difference between X client/server vs what VNC does. In the former case, X client is running on the client machine and X server on the server machine; in the latter case, X server, client, and VNC server are running on the server machine, and only VNC client on the client machine. They each have different capabilities, pros/cons, and different uses as well.
That there is the SCO reply saying that they have hired consultants and found major code duplications between UnixWare and Linux, although they will not release the information about what parts of code they are talking about that has been duplicated. Article also quotes SCO's Darl McBride:
"We feel very good about the evidence that is going to show up in court. We will be happy to show the evidence we have at the appropriate time in a court setting."
I hope they are bluffing, or IBM will just buy SCO out and be done with it.
However, since this patent appears to be about design instead of literal function, I'd say that's not likely. The author is still responsible.
"Appears to be"? Did you read the patents? The patents are about "browser", "method of browsing", "method of navigating" and not about frames in HTML code and text as served by servers.
They are going after wrong people in my opinion. But, hey, try going after MS or AOL for IE and Mozilla, see how far that gets them.
Mozilla Murano. I think that sounds nice.
Number 4 step is: Bundle it with Norton Commander!
That being said, I'm not as cynical as the majority here on Slashdot, who believe that the value of dollar is the only way to get things done in government. I would say a bigger problem is ignorance of technological issues among those who pass the laws in the first place.
Well, I guess you could call it ignorance. When all the money, campaign contributions, and legal bribes are on one side, and losing in the elections on the other - well, you kinda bypass or ignore the latter. In that sense, it is ignorance.
Theres no privacy at all if this is law, anyone not just the RIAA, but ANYONE can claim you are a copyright infringer.
When will you learn? You can only use laws to your advantage if you have paid for them. RIAA, MPAA, and few tech companies paid for DMCA and they will get all the benefits from it. Anyone else claiming anything under DMCA will be referred to as pirate, outlaw, illegal schmuck, and be accused of violating the "law" themselves.
The sponsors of the law and their respective "associations" will always get benefit of the doubt.
The Matrix trailer was hosted on AOL servers, this one is served from Akamai. It has nothing to do with Apple - other than probably they (along with the studios) are paying for the bandwidth. Akamai routes/serves more bandwidth per day than /. has in its lifetime.
It's true though - this one is a lower quality, nothing like the Matrix trailer.
Now I know that you might think that the companies involved are scummy or evil, but remember - if we didn't have the legal frameworks in place that we do, then the evil companies would do a lot more than overcharge you.
... Or maybe I am imagining stuff... I certainly hope so!
You'd be their slaves.
I am wondering when they are going to arrest and jail the illegal, anti-competitive, price-fixing, anti-privacy, anti-any-rights, monopolistic, control-freak, entertainment industry cartel member corporations and give all of them 5 years jailtime; so that they can't do any business in 5 years - none. I'm still waiting for this one.
Ohh... you mean they can't do that to corporations? But... but... corporations aren't even eligible for voting in most countries, howcome they are the ones with the most influence over the laws being passed? More and more of such laws take away from people and give slam dunk short-term prospects, money, and control to corporations, their executives, lawyers, and other millionaires and billionaires. Did I mention at the expense of people's rights and freedoms?
What happened with DMCA and its equivalents? What happened with copyrights in the U.S.? What is happening with software and other patents? What happened with USA PATRIOT Act? What happened with Microsoft's "punishment"?
Face the reality = you ARE their slave!!!
Allow me to dissect what you are saying.
If we want to make corporate responsibility a real thing in the post-Enron days, this sort of thing is going to have to happen. Lots of people want laws to enable us to go after people who lie to shareholders or pollute the environment,
I thought this "corporate responsibility" stuff was about corporate executives using corporate (read investors') funds for their own personal profit and advantage in an illegal manner. Don't let this reverse on you making investors responsible for corporate executives' decisions and actions.
but the sword cuts both ways. If you want to make it more difficult for someone (either a real person or another corporation) to hide behind a corporation after engaging in illegal activity, you're going to have to accept that these laws will be used by people we don't like (RIAA) to go after people we do like (Napster) breaking laws we don't like.
Just as I said, you have confused yourself with terms like "hide behind" and "go after". In essence, you are saying that every investor should be responsible for actions of the businesses they have invested in. Therefore, if you had in the past owned a stock of a cigarette manufacturer, then *you* personally could be sued for the company's actions. While investors trust corporations with their funds to provide a product that's legal and profitable to earn them money, they are in no way involved in many day-to-day decision-making and corporate affairs.
Moreover, nobody can expect every investor to make a judgement of their own with regards to the legality of any corporate product or service. Example, if you invest in AMD, can you be 100% sure they did not and will not in the future violate anyone's copyrights or patents? Can you be expected to make such judgement? And, more importantly, can you be held liable if such acts are committed by AMD?
The legality of any corporate product or service, if challenged, is determined by courts. No investor can, or should be expected to, predict such determination, or any future court cases and decisions at the time of investment. And, more importantly, no investor should or can be liable for corporate misbehavior. If anything, investors should get compensated for being deceived by corporate fraud.
How is this such a wrong thing anyway? Hummer Winblad knew that Napster operated by exploiting copyrights they did not own, but they gave them money anyway.
Nobody knew Napster operated anything illegal until courts ruled so. Napster didn't exploit copyrights - it provided tools and service to facilitate such acts by its users.
Giving money to a terrorist group that will commit crimes is illegal; why shouldn't it be illegal to give money to a company that will commit crimes also? Ignore whether the law is just; as it stands right now, Napster was illegal.
Ahh.. the familiar terrorist reference. I'm sure Ashcroft and Co. and RIAA appreciate that. Everybody is a terrorist! They *steal* our content and then hold it hostage!!! They are terrorists! Arrest all of them... well... after giving us all their money. From this point on, I may consider comparing Microsoft and its actions (that it was convicted for) with different acts of terrorism and murder. At the very least, it's bad logic.
if they arrested people in cars playing it loud under the 'public performanc' aspect I'd be all for it. Many times now I've been ambling through a migraine, trying to make it through the day, to have some idiot drive by, booming noise as loud as he can, with the windows down, making life unbearable.
I think this would be applying wrong laws to wrong cases. You should be checking your local nuisance laws rather than copyright infringement, don't you think?
Whatever way you look at it, imho Napster was a tool to violate copyrights. Yes, perhaps Shaun didn't originally plan it like that, but in the final days, that is mainly what it was used for.
Beyond the obvious question of - should every investor be liable for the actions of the companies they have invested in (God forbid you hold any mutual funds)? - but beyond that.
Can the same logic be applied to Microsoft - Windows, IE, and other applications were tools with which Microsoft committed illegal acts, violated the law, and was convicted in court. Can we, then, as consumers, sue Microsoft's *investors*, i.e. Bill Gates and others for enabling and aiding Microsoft to commit such acts? How about $120K for every Windows and IE licensed?
You'd probably have a hard time defending a plane named "Cessna BMW", but not a Learjet 325, Airbus 9-5, or Piper 480SL.
Well, I don't think "325" the number is a trademark, this case is closer to "Cessna BMW", "Cessna Toyota", or "Cessna Camry" even.
Having never heard of either Firebird: if the Firebird database is made by the Firebird [company/organization], then they have every reason to fear that the Firebird browser may be confused as being a Firebird Company product. Otherwise, it's the difference between a Boeing 737 and a BMW 735.
I agree with your initial statement, but latter part - I don't think so - you are equating numbers with words; if you substitute "BMW 735" and "Boeing 737" with a "Toyota Camry" vs. "Piper Camry" the case is likely to be totally different.
Trademarking the name wouldn't have mattered. In the eyes of the law, a browser and a database are probably just as far apart as a car and a plane. Sure, they're the same thing in an extremely general sense, like "software" and "vehicles", but in actuality, they are very different.
Dude, this is a very good example to prove exactly the opposite of your argument. There are many car manufacturers that are also in the airplane industry. Even for the ones that are not, does not automatically enable anyone to take their trademarks and use them to name their planes. Saab makes both cars and airplane parts and engines. So does Rolls Royce; and many others. Toyota is/was planning to make an easy-to-fly, cheap plane. I can't take "Saab" or "Toyota" trademarks and use them with my planes names. And, no I can't name my planes "Mercedes", "BMW" or "Volvo" either.
That said, in the article, they address this question - in legal terms, the article says, there is a software category that covers all software. Mozilla could, in theory, apply for and register a trademark on "Firebird" claiming to only use it in a very specific narrow field, but otherwise it is likely to be violating the database project's trademark.
In my opinion, this makes sense. Going beyond the cars and airplanes, if Firebird database project were to produce a database browser and integrated products for web services on top of their database, etc. that would cause more confusion than a simple - "ahh anybody can tell a difference between DB and a browser" - may suggest.
The only reason people think that trademarks are such overwhelmingly powerful things that give you total control over a name in all areas of business is because of how easy it is to steal domain names and such away from people through third parties that have nothing to do with the law, such as ICANN. In legal practice, trademarks aren't really that broad, and this is a legal matter.
Well, trademarks don't give you power "in all areas of business"; as I understand there are defined categories for trademark use and laws on what can and cannot constitute a trademark. This has nothing to do with ICANN and their practices, or domain names even.
Verizon already started doing this couple of months ago. It's funny - even though Verizon was the one most opposed to this FCC regulation, they started implementing it first. Others, I am guessing will stretch out to November until the deadline.
And you've had a better luck also. Twice last year I tried to get a rebate from, I think it was a video card and something else that I can't remember... It seemed easy enough - fill stuff out, give all your personal details, send it in... oops - after 3 months I find out in a letter that the store (Best Buy) had printed out the wrong rebate forms (yes, multiple), and that the processing company didn't accept it. Hell, after three months I can't return the product, the rebate period is over, and I don't even have the correct receipt.
And don't worry - talking to the salespeople at Best Buy is like directing a monkey parade - they seem too entrenched in their so-called "system", and rebate processing company is not their business either. Few years back I've bought a pack of floppies that were supposed to be "free" after rebate - yeah, right!
Most "rebates" are deceptive marketing that should be illegal; I expect to pay whatever I shell out at the counter and not depend on ripoff schemes such as "mail-in rebates".
The NSA website has an interesting kids section - it has some educational material as well as a lot of related puzzles. Kids interested in computers and/or cryptography or solving puzzles in general will enjoy it.
Check it out http://www.nsa.gov/programs/kids/.
From the article: The Microsoft approach "lends itself to market domination..."
Does anyone think Microsoft would have it any other way?
DOJ sues MS for violating U.S. antitrust laws. Courts whole-heartedly agree and rule that MS is guilty. Courts do virtually nothing to protect consumers and tech industry, and literally nothing to punish MS. Courts do not implement any *preventive* measures against MS - as required by the law. MS goes on breaking the same law again and again - nobody pays any attention. MS widely announces its plans (as a marketing campaign) to break the same law again in many-fold worse than before - Palladium - nobody cares.
MS has literally and (seems) legally bribed all - legislative, executive, and judicial - branches of government in order to escape and be exempt from the law, even after it has been convicted of violating it. At some point, the government corruption needs to end, but noone knows how; in the information age where most of the "information" is spoon-fed by corporations that are part of the corruption scheme, the masses will never be on the reform side.
Volvos are more classy than Thunderbirds
Maybe, in the past, but new Thunderbird looks very nice, and is very classy. I'd take that over most Volvos.
How many people will accidently install the Firebird RDBMS thinking it is the web browser....
As opposed to how many people would install Phoenix BIOS thinking it is the Phoenix browser? And how many people would install Phoenix browser thinking they have to have it because they live in Phoenix?
I'd say Phoenix at first spot, RDBMS second, and BIOS last.
... that Microsoft employees are extremely devoted to RFCs and all public standards. Here's a Microsoft employee who, in good faith, researched and tried to contribute to the development of a new RFC - all this before (s)he even got and read the manager's memo saying it was April 1st.