Anyone could make up a bunch of fliers and post them all over town in the middle of the night and there would be no way of knowing who did it.
Given that cities had maybe a handful of printing presses, the first thing the authorities would do is visit the pressmen and try to find out who came in and ordered 1,000 copies of a pamphlet printed up.
The material costs don't just apply to the film the scenes are captured onto, but also to each and every copy of the film that is distributed to each and every theater, you silly person.
Unless Lucas is able to get Digital Projection into more theaters, that is.
A Libertarian would never pass any law to promote the internet, and would never let the government spend funding on such a venture.
A Libertarian would never pass any law, because even when they do get elected they're pretty much ineffectual. The major parties don't pay any mind to a lawmaker who doesn't "play the game".
If you're fed up with "the game" too, by all means vote Libertarian. But just keep in mind that the party has been around for 20 years, and it will be at least another 20 before it gains enough legitimacy to actually have an effect on lawmaking.
Your viewpoint would be a lot more palatable if you didn't insist on using a derogatory term like "fuzzies" every time you refer to non-Engineering students.
There is only one culture, and if you can't discourse on the structure of a sonnet and the second law of thermodynamics with equal ease, then you're uncultured, period.
Shit, the vast majority of people don't even know what a sonnet is and have never heard of the laws of thermodynamics.
You make the mistake of assuming that because you have the capability to understand certain concepts, everyone else should be able to as well.
Did you even read any of the previous comments? This is not about retail versions of Windows that are for sale at KMart stores.
Microsoft DID license the software to KMart Corp. They did NOT sell shrinkwrapped boxes for the explicit purpose of redistribution. (At least not in a way that's pertinent to the subject of this story.)
If you were a slave in this analogy, the software license would not belong to you. It would belong to your master. Master (KMart corporate) is the one that originally purchased the license.
That's the question. Did the business unit pay for the licenses, or did the parent corporation pay for them?
I'm guessing it was the parent corp., taking advantage of bulk pricing discounts for all of its business units.
Which (unfortunately for them) means the same discount that saved them money on licensing is going to cost them money since they can't transfer BlueLight's MS software licenses to that division's buyer -- reducing the price they'll be able to sell the division for.
It's dangerous to dismiss a major monopoly with a history of illegally abusing its position as just another company.
You parsed that wrong. You should be outraged that other companies are doing this too.
Yet the rest of your comment is standard "railing against how evil Microsoft is to the exclusion of all other companies, mentioning Bill Gates by name" Slashdot rhetoric.
If KMart also sells off some of their Ford trucks, where would it be Ford's problem if the trucks were sold to someone else? Hell no.
If the contract KMart and Ford signed when KMart leased a fleet of company vehicles stated that KMart could not sub-lease those vehicles to other companies, and that contract was upheld as legally valid, you're damn skippy that it would be Ford's problem.
Microsoft IS able to determine what someone does with their licenses AFTER PURCHASE and WITHOUT SO MUCH AS A SIGNATURE as far as resale and transfer
Bet your ass that there is a signature, made at the time of purchase, in a large corporate licensing contract like this one.
Bet your ass that the poor KMart executive who put his John Hancock on the form is probably in the middle of his exit interview right now.
Microsoft has decided that since there are more than likely multi-millions of dollars "worth" of MS software involved with this transaction, they are going to step in and assert their "rights".
And what's wrong with that? No, really, I want to know what the problem is when an entity attempts to defend rights which were granted to it by law.
It's one thing to guess URL's and obtain advance information for your own personal use; it's quite another to publish it to the rest of the world
The difference is that the former is morally repugnant (insider trading much?), while the latter is a sign of journalism that is more responsible to the public than to artificial "gentleman's agreements" between corporations and the media.
Fact is, there is nothing illegal about them installing software on your computer with your consent.
HOWEVER.
If we accept EULAs at face value, that clicking through a license agreement during an install process legally binds you to the terms of that license, then there's a big problem with the installer clicking through them for you (especially if you're not given the opportunity to read the license terms).
Are you legally bound to the EULA terms if someone else agrees to them on your behalf? It's an interesting question.
Unless you have a tunnel established, I'd say blocking port n at your cable modem pretty well controls your access to services that run on port n, wouldn't you?
Yes, I would. And that's the way it should be.
They're selling you a connection to their network (and probably package other services like POP email accounts which/.ers may or may not even care about). Thus, they can place whatever restrictions the like, on how that connection can be used, within the bounds of law.
Don't like it? Get a fractional T1. Then you can do whatever you want with your bandwidth.
It'll cost 5 times what you're paying for your cable connection, yeah, but doesn't that just go to show you how much money the cable internet company could be losing on each customer?
Or, the editors could have fucking EDITED and taken out that childish Windows-flame before posting the story.
This thread could have been about the Porsche-designed notebook like it should have been, but instead we're complaining about the editors. Thanks, editors.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure there is. Drop out of school.
Anyone could make up a bunch of fliers and post
them all over town in the middle of the night and there would be no way of knowing who did it.
Given that cities had maybe a handful of printing presses, the first thing the authorities would do is visit the pressmen and try to find out who came in and ordered 1,000 copies of a pamphlet printed up.
Not so different from today.
It's just as well. Nearly impossible to find the men's room in the BPL anyway (around the corner, through the courtyard, down to the basement...)
Features? I thought they were annoyances.
The material costs don't just apply to the film the scenes are captured onto, but also to each and every copy of the film that is distributed to each and every theater, you silly person.
Unless Lucas is able to get Digital Projection into more theaters, that is.
Any good pages that will give stances and voting histories?
If you haven't voted yet today, head over to Project Vote Smart and find the candidates you want to vote for. It's a fantastic resource.
A Libertarian would never pass any law to promote the internet, and would never let the government spend funding on such a venture.
A Libertarian would never pass any law, because even when they do get elected they're pretty much ineffectual. The major parties don't pay any mind to a lawmaker who doesn't "play the game".
If you're fed up with "the game" too, by all means vote Libertarian. But just keep in mind that the party has been around for 20 years, and it will be at least another 20 before it gains enough legitimacy to actually have an effect on lawmaking.
It is called SmartStep. That should have been a major clue.
I thought that meant it was optimized for running a NeXT platform on!
I hoped I wouldn't live to see the day when life imitates explodingdog.
Can the monsters and the red robots be far behind?
(George W. Bush was appointed President of the
United States, with a non-trivial amount of financial assistance from Microsoft and its
employees)
Post proof that Microsoft donations made any difference in the outcome of the election, or retract.
I'd retract if I were you.
Your viewpoint would be a lot more palatable if you didn't insist on using a derogatory term like "fuzzies" every time you refer to non-Engineering students.
There is only one culture, and if you can't discourse on the structure of a sonnet and the second law of thermodynamics with equal ease, then you're uncultured, period.
Shit, the vast majority of people don't even know
what a sonnet is and have never heard of the laws of thermodynamics.
You make the mistake of assuming that because you have the capability to understand certain concepts, everyone else should be able to as well.
Did you even read any of the previous comments? This is not about retail versions of Windows that are for sale at KMart stores.
Microsoft DID license the software to KMart Corp. They did NOT sell shrinkwrapped boxes for the explicit purpose of redistribution. (At least not in a way that's pertinent to the subject of this story.)
Where do you get these ideas from?
If you were a slave in this analogy, the software license would not belong to you. It would belong to your master. Master (KMart corporate) is the one that originally purchased the license.
That's the question. Did the business unit pay for the licenses, or did the parent corporation pay for them?
I'm guessing it was the parent corp., taking advantage of bulk pricing discounts for all of its business units.
Which (unfortunately for them) means the same discount that saved them money on licensing is going to cost them money since they can't transfer BlueLight's MS software licenses to that division's buyer -- reducing the price they'll be able to sell the division for.
It's dangerous to dismiss a major monopoly with a history of illegally abusing its position as just another company.
You parsed that wrong. You should be outraged that other companies are doing this too.
Yet the rest of your comment is standard "railing against how evil Microsoft is to the exclusion of all other companies, mentioning Bill Gates by name" Slashdot rhetoric.
If KMart also sells off some of their Ford trucks, where would it be Ford's problem if the trucks were sold to someone else? Hell no.
If the contract KMart and Ford signed when KMart leased a fleet of company vehicles stated that KMart could not sub-lease those vehicles to other companies, and that contract was upheld as legally valid, you're damn skippy that it would be Ford's problem.
Microsoft IS able to determine what someone does with their licenses AFTER PURCHASE and WITHOUT SO MUCH AS A SIGNATURE as far as resale and transfer
Bet your ass that there is a signature, made at the time of purchase, in a large corporate licensing contract like this one.
Bet your ass that the poor KMart executive who put his John Hancock on the form is probably in the middle of his exit interview right now.
Microsoft has decided that since there are more than likely multi-millions of dollars "worth" of MS software involved with this transaction, they are going to step in and assert their "rights".
And what's wrong with that? No, really, I want to know what the problem is when an entity attempts to defend rights which were granted to it by law.
Maybe it means the opposite of "was doing pretty evil". Presumably describing a Windows/IIS server configuration.
Man, true.
I also wonder why a 'faster GUI' would have any impact on server performance.
*/
Windows Media Player Code follows:
*/
Figures that even this amount of MS code contains a bug...
Then how do you explain the 3rd typo ("avance")???
It's one thing to guess URL's and obtain advance information for your own personal use; it's quite another to publish it to the rest of the world
The difference is that the former is morally repugnant (insider trading much?), while the latter is a sign of journalism that is more responsible to the public than to artificial "gentleman's agreements" between corporations and the media.
Fact is, there is nothing illegal about them installing software on your computer with your consent.
HOWEVER.
If we accept EULAs at face value, that clicking through a license agreement during an install process legally binds you to the terms of that license, then there's a big problem with the installer clicking through them for you (especially if you're not given the opportunity to read the license terms).
Are you legally bound to the EULA terms if someone else agrees to them on your behalf? It's an interesting question.
Unless you have a tunnel established, I'd say blocking port n at your cable modem pretty well
/.ers may or may not even care about). Thus, they can place whatever restrictions the like, on how that connection can be used, within the bounds of law.
controls your access to services that run on port n, wouldn't you?
Yes, I would. And that's the way it should be.
They're selling you a connection to their network (and probably package other services like POP email accounts which
Don't like it? Get a fractional T1. Then you can do whatever you want with your bandwidth.
It'll cost 5 times what you're paying for your cable connection, yeah, but doesn't that just go to show you how much money the cable internet company could be losing on each customer?
Or, the editors could have fucking EDITED and taken out that childish Windows-flame before posting the story.
This thread could have been about the Porsche-designed notebook like it should have been, but instead we're complaining about the editors. Thanks, editors.