You don't like a business, or their practices? You vote with your MONEY, or *anything else* you can.
I don't like the recording industryk, I don't like the *idea* of sdmi, so why on earth would I assist them in doing anything?
The only thing a business understands is lack of business.
Besides, you know, all this commercial bickering is making so many of us lose sight of what technology means to us. Us geeks have *always* built our own society, culture, whatever based on our access and knowledge of technology. It's only with the internet that the media has become involved. Why make a choice at all? Just because they say I should? Feh.
Well.. I have the same set of people, whom I have never met in person, who I speak with on a daily basis about a great deal of things, for the past 5 years or so. Are they not part of my 'virtual community'?
I order supplies at work online, and deal with sales people virtually all the time. I almost never talk to them on the phone.. aren't they part of my virtual community?
I've never met my stock broker in person.. I look at my account online, email him, and talk to him on the phone (good to do SOME things on the phone)_. Isn't htat kind of virtual?
And I videoconference with our head office 4000 miles away. Isn't that 'virtual'?
1) Wouldn't get them far in business if theyt did not conform to the standards.
2) Aren't barcodes somewhat patented, and licensed to a degree? Not in an exploitive manner, but I believe the patent holders use this to make sure the system doesn't fail?
I say cheque because that's the appropriate Canadian spelling, but I'm actually referring to US law.
I take this from the web page http://www.goodthink.com/$$parti.html
I realize this is not really a legal citation, however..
Here is the excerpt:
Then my eyes caught sight of a small, pocket-sized book titled Negotiable Instruments and Check Collection, a guide for laymen. And plain as day, it listed the nine criteria for a negotiable instrument. Read for yourself what I read, and I believe you'll yell out loud just as I did when I came to the very last word:
"1. Must be in writing.
2. Signed by maker or drawer.
3. Promise or order....A check usually meets the requirement because the drawee's name is printed and encoded on the face of the instrument.
4. Unconditional....
5. Order to pay money.
6. Must be a fixed amount.
7. Payable on demand or at a definite time....
8. Payable to order or to bearer....
9. No other undertaking or instruction. The final requirement of negotiability is that beyond the maker's order...the instrument must not contain 'any other undertaking or instruction'....The opposite issue is whether or not the parties can use a form that is a negotiable instrument and avoid negotiability by declaring, on the instrument, that it is not negotiable. The answer is yes, except for a check."
BTW.. it's an interesting story. Basically, it ammounts to the fact that a cheque cannot be made non-negotiable simply by writing 'non-negotiable' on it.
It was no biggie in the first place; simplys stating that, as an option, a network could choose to use the last 48 bits of their address space by simply using the mac address of the respective computer. Darn good idea, ensures unique space, makes management easier.
These are 'prefferred' shares, right?
Are they not convertible to 'common' shares, under certain terms? Perhaps those terms hinge on performance of corel?
1) This is about 1/4 of corels' outstanding shares.
2) This is NON-VOTING. They have *NO* say in what corel does, period.
3) It IS a good investment. Corel stock is low; linux might be big; and microsoft IS a business.
4) Competition, or perceived competition, is GOOD for Microsoft.
What's wrong with making an investment? This is non-voting stock; purely an investment> That's all it CAN be.
In any chaotic system (complex system) small changes in one place can effect huge changes elsewhere. Our environment (both microscopially and macroscopially) is such a system.
One would surmise that the good lord would build something a little more tolerant of change;)
How that proves there is a diety.. I dunno..
A study shows that over 90% of people who died of cancer in the last 20 years ate carrots throughout their lives. So carrots cause cancer?
I'm not sure.. there are rules stating what things a cheque needs to have in order to be valid.
One of them is a signature from the issuer.
The reason many cheques can be cashed without either party signing them, especially when deposited through ATMs and such, is that it is more economical for the banks to simply pass them all and deal with any issues that arise than it is to visually inspect each and every cheque.
A check is not a contract per-se, it is an instrument of trade. The bank says that if you hand a document with your signature, your account number, the payee, and a few other minor details, they will honor it.
The purpose of the law is to make digital signatures (a purposefully vague term) have the same legal standing as written ones. This is becuase, BEFORE this law existed, it was very easy to dismiss most 'contracts' that didn't have a written signature.
Now, in order to enforce something, you will *still* have to prove that a signature was that of the person who you think signed it. Just like with handwriting.
Of course fraud can happen as well. Thats' what witnesses are for.
If someone signs my name on a cheque, and buys something.. I can walk in and say 'look, this is NOT mine, I did not sign this'. Unless they can prove I did.. they are out of luck. Generally this can be done by handwriting analysis, fairly easily.
For more serious contracts, there are *always* witnesses. Notaries even. People who actually ask you for ID as well before they notarize what's going on.
So now, the point is, this can be done digitally, and the contracts can't be invalidated solely because the signature was digital.
However, I believe knowingly aiding in a criminal act *IS* a crime itself.
If these people at ISONEWS know that these are *illegal* ISOs that are being announced, they could perhaps be seen as assisting in their spread, even if it's just to make people aware they exist.
Now, with larger chain stores, I bet they now have somewhat centralized databases... however.
Having seen a spanky new IBM POS (point of sale, not that other term) installed in our family owned supermarket.... I know that some employees spent several weeks of large overtime scanning & entering in prices for every single product we carried.
This really is quite easy once the initial push is done.. adding a new item to the store takes only a minute. Of course, adding the first 500 thousand takes considerably longer.
If Windows were to cost $1000, who would buy it? I mean, seriously. They have to meet demand.. and *especially* if they are broken up and their stranglehold is somewhat abated... there WILL be other choices.
As for 'the world economy taking a 300 billion dollar hit'.. that's meaningless. You cannot judge the effect of something purely on economic numbers.
Slashdot Mirror
LOTS of people use win2k on laptops, because it works WELL.
More stable than the 9x line, (duh). Proper multitasking. (at least compared to 9x). It works GREAT.
Laptops are not so properietary these days, and manufacturers are quite forthcoming with technical details.
Wow. I wonder how 'a beam of invisible light' becomes visible when it hits something...
Because, doorknob, the Cuecat is not *licensed* it is GIVEN away, and it is HARDWARE.
Nobody is making any claims about the software at all.
1) Leave the domain structure as it is; it's heirarchial; anyone is free to expan beneath their current domain as much as they want.
2) Come up with a NEW lookup service for the WWW. DNS was *NOT* invented for the WWW. IT was not designed with this kind of use in mind.
You know.. it's a *really* simple concept.
You don't like a business, or their practices? You vote with your MONEY, or *anything else* you can.
I don't like the recording industryk, I don't like the *idea* of sdmi, so why on earth would I assist them in doing anything?
The only thing a business understands is lack of business.
Besides, you know, all this commercial bickering is making so many of us lose sight of what technology means to us. Us geeks have *always* built our own society, culture, whatever based on our access and knowledge of technology. It's only with the internet that the media has become involved. Why make a choice at all? Just because they say I should? Feh.
I'll just ignore them, thank you very much.
Well.. I have the same set of people, whom I have never met in person, who I speak with on a daily basis about a great deal of things, for the past 5 years or so. Are they not part of my 'virtual community'?
I order supplies at work online, and deal with sales people virtually all the time. I almost never talk to them on the phone.. aren't they part of my virtual community?
I've never met my stock broker in person.. I look at my account online, email him, and talk to him on the phone (good to do SOME things on the phone)_. Isn't htat kind of virtual?
And I videoconference with our head office 4000 miles away. Isn't that 'virtual'?
1) Wouldn't get them far in business if theyt did not conform to the standards.
2) Aren't barcodes somewhat patented, and licensed to a degree? Not in an exploitive manner, but I believe the patent holders use this to make sure the system doesn't fail?
I say cheque because that's the appropriate Canadian spelling, but I'm actually referring to US law.
I take this from the web page http://www.goodthink.com/$$parti.html
I realize this is not really a legal citation, however..
Here is the excerpt:
Then my eyes caught sight of a small, pocket-sized book titled Negotiable Instruments and Check Collection, a guide for laymen. And plain as day, it listed the nine criteria for a negotiable instrument. Read for yourself what I read, and I believe you'll yell out loud just as I did when I came to the very last word:
"1. Must be in writing.
2. Signed by maker or drawer.
3. Promise or order....A check usually meets the requirement because the drawee's name is printed and encoded on the face of the instrument.
4. Unconditional....
5. Order to pay money.
6. Must be a fixed amount.
7. Payable on demand or at a definite time....
8. Payable to order or to bearer....
9. No other undertaking or instruction. The final requirement of negotiability is that beyond the maker's order...the instrument must not contain 'any other undertaking or instruction'....The opposite issue is whether or not the parties can use a form that is a negotiable instrument and avoid negotiability by declaring, on the instrument, that it is not negotiable. The answer is yes, except for a check."
BTW.. it's an interesting story. Basically, it ammounts to the fact that a cheque cannot be made non-negotiable simply by writing 'non-negotiable' on it.
Land Of The Free.
That's basically exactly the logic they used. And you can also change your mac easily.
They didn't want your mac to change just because your network card blew up.
Kudos to them.
It was no biggie in the first place; simplys stating that, as an option, a network could choose to use the last 48 bits of their address space by simply using the mac address of the respective computer. Darn good idea, ensures unique space, makes management easier.
Not at all necessary, or required.
I would not pay. Not unless the service was a *LOT* better.
The only hope is that the *public* who wants to buy internet service *demands* the service they want.
Unrestricted IP access, routing updates, unfiltered connections, and if any limits are placed, they should be strictly on bandwidth.
No matter what restrictions are put in place, we can always tunnel around them, so why make us do it?
These are 'prefferred' shares, right?
Are they not convertible to 'common' shares, under certain terms? Perhaps those terms hinge on performance of corel?
1) This is about 1/4 of corels' outstanding shares.
2) This is NON-VOTING. They have *NO* say in what corel does, period.
3) It IS a good investment. Corel stock is low; linux might be big; and microsoft IS a business.
4) Competition, or perceived competition, is GOOD for Microsoft.
What's wrong with making an investment? This is non-voting stock; purely an investment> That's all it CAN be.
In any chaotic system (complex system) small changes in one place can effect huge changes elsewhere. Our environment (both microscopially and macroscopially) is such a system. ;)
One would surmise that the good lord would build something a little more tolerant of change
How that proves there is a diety.. I dunno..
A study shows that over 90% of people who died of cancer in the last 20 years ate carrots throughout their lives. So carrots cause cancer?
Neither.
The law simply means that the signatures in and of themselves cannot be invalidated simply because they are not handwritten, and are digital.
I'm not sure.. there are rules stating what things a cheque needs to have in order to be valid.
One of them is a signature from the issuer.
The reason many cheques can be cashed without either party signing them, especially when deposited through ATMs and such, is that it is more economical for the banks to simply pass them all and deal with any issues that arise than it is to visually inspect each and every cheque.
A check is not a contract per-se, it is an instrument of trade. The bank says that if you hand a document with your signature, your account number, the payee, and a few other minor details, they will honor it.
The purpose of the law is to make digital signatures (a purposefully vague term) have the same legal standing as written ones. This is becuase, BEFORE this law existed, it was very easy to dismiss most 'contracts' that didn't have a written signature.
Now, in order to enforce something, you will *still* have to prove that a signature was that of the person who you think signed it. Just like with handwriting.
Of course fraud can happen as well. Thats' what witnesses are for.
If someone signs my name on a cheque, and buys something.. I can walk in and say 'look, this is NOT mine, I did not sign this'. Unless they can prove I did.. they are out of luck. Generally this can be done by handwriting analysis, fairly easily.
For more serious contracts, there are *always* witnesses. Notaries even. People who actually ask you for ID as well before they notarize what's going on.
So now, the point is, this can be done digitally, and the contracts can't be invalidated solely because the signature was digital.
Unfortunately for everyone, Apple, as a publicly traded company, cannot just do an about face and become a new company.
They could have simply not used a 1-click shopping method, that woudl have been fine.
But if they want to, they HAVE to license it from Amazon. If they don't, they would be knowingly exposing the company to lititgation.
Note: In big business, you don't let a small licensing fee on a little patent ruin your business.
Neither can I.
However, I believe knowingly aiding in a criminal act *IS* a crime itself.
If these people at ISONEWS know that these are *illegal* ISOs that are being announced, they could perhaps be seen as assisting in their spread, even if it's just to make people aware they exist.
Yes, actually, that's *exactly* what happens.
Now, with larger chain stores, I bet they now have somewhat centralized databases... however.
Having seen a spanky new IBM POS (point of sale, not that other term) installed in our family owned supermarket.... I know that some employees spent several weeks of large overtime scanning & entering in prices for every single product we carried.
This really is quite easy once the initial push is done.. adding a new item to the store takes only a minute. Of course, adding the first 500 thousand takes considerably longer.
Hunh? I thought they had *parody* storyboards, that were not infact Lucasfilm's at all?
Companies do not have the legal power to 'order' people to do things. Only the courts do.
If Windows were to cost $1000, who would buy it? I mean, seriously. They have to meet demand.. and *especially* if they are broken up and their stranglehold is somewhat abated... there WILL be other choices.
As for 'the world economy taking a 300 billion dollar hit'.. that's meaningless. You cannot judge the effect of something purely on economic numbers.