The Squeezebox outputs analog using Burr-Brown DACs. It's not, of course, an ipod-type MP3 player, but rather an audio system component, so you might like it.
I know what you're thinking of, but that's not correct in several respects.
Yikes, you're right -- I was mixing up a few things. But that was really just an aside. That'll teach me to dash off a response without first reflecting on how long it's been since I've spent much time with IP law in any detail.:)
Well, anything could potentially be a fair use....
True; I only mean to say it has never been an obvious, settled fair use that, in the admittedly very simple hypothetical of having a scratched/broken CD, would allow one to download another copy off a file-sharing network.
There has never been a fair use right for any copyrighted material that worked that way. Say you had a book that you accidentally dropped in the bathtub and was ruined, or maybe it was in your bookbag that was stolen. You don't have some fair use right to another copy, whether a new paperback or a digital one, just because it wasn't your fault that you lost the original copy; it's tough luck, buy another book. In fact, with music, you actually have an extra *statutory* right -- the right to make a backup. You still can't photocopy or scan an entire book to make a "backup" of it!
The key point to remember that often gets lost on people, and this is what the lawyer was referring to when he said he didn't know where the questioner was getting his/her preconception, is that copyright gives the copyright owner the right to control the making of *copies* of original works. All the questions of the questioner seem to be missing this fundamental point (although they do end up touching that important copyright issue of fair use). Unfortunately, I suspect that the idea of a license to copyrighted works -- particularly the way licenses are used with software -- has kind of screwed up people's understanding of copyrights.
What exactly are your numbers supposed to represent? You might want to just look at MSFT's historical financials to get a reasonable idea of their revenues by segment. Their annual or quarterly reports, say. Then you'd find out that last fiscal year, MSFT brought in about $12 billion in revenue (about $9.5 billion profit) in their client OS business, $10 billion in revenue (about $3.2 billion profit) in their server and tools business (includes not only server OS products but all of their other server products; exchange, sql, etc.), and $11 billion ($7 billion profit) in their "information worker" business, which includes not only office but project, visio, livemeeting, etc.
All told, far lower than your numbers -- lower even than your calculation for JUST XP Pro assuming everyone bought from places like Newegg! -- AND MSFT's growth also appears to be slowing down.
Certainly that's lots of money; I'm not saying they're hurting or anything. But maybe you oughtta work on those back of the envelope calculations!
GHWB was CIA director between 1976-1977. There were 7 DCIs between Bush and Goss. How is that a "perfect straight line"? No reasonable person could blame the state of the CIA on a director that spent one year leading it 30 years ago.
While your overall point's still fine, it's funny that you call out the National Enquirer and People magazine. The National Enquirer currently enjoys a strong reputation for accuracy; during the OJ Simpson trial, for example, the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal and many other "trusted" sources quoted National Enquirer stories because they were consistently correct and timely. From what I understand, People magazine is also considered highly accurate. Their subject matter may be sensational and even vapid, but you apparently can't knock their accuracy.
The other thing that seems weird is the insistence that Google, a corporation, use its market power to influence China. I thought people didn't like corporations trying to influence government. I guess that's still true -- unless it's to support values or actions that you agree with.
Private companies are not held to the same reporting rules by the SEC and FTC as public companies. In the SEC case they have ZERO authority because well, they have no securitys being exchanged. The only reporting they would have to do is to the IRS.
Private companies are not generally held to the same public reporting rules as public companies, but that's not the same as saying that the SEC has no authority over them. The SEC ALWAYS has securities-related authority over them. If a private company issues stock without following the rules, the SEC certainly can step in.
The deal is still subject to antitrust review. The government can't shoot a merger down before (1) there's in fact a merger to shoot down and (2) it knows about it, can it?
You should remember that most patents are assigned to the employer of the inventor(s). A patent application needs to list as the inventor(s) real people, not companies, but the assignee is the one that gets the benefit of the patent. That's why it's less important, from the PTO's perspective -- the inventor is not usually the stakeholder when a patent is challenged or enforced.
Yahoo finance's insider roster "is derived solely from the last 24 months of Form 3, Form 4 and Form 144 SEC filings." It has been more than two years since Pixar's IPO, which is when he would have filed a Form 3, and apparently Steve hasn't bought or sold any shares over the last couple years, so he thus doesn't show up in the roster.
Under many states' corporations laws, some shareholder resolutions can't be binding on the company's management (if such a resolution is drafted as binding, it's considered not a proper subject for action and can be excluded from consideration at a shareholders' meeting).
Capping CEO pay is probably one type of shareholder resolution that can't be binding. (Indeed, the article you link to mentions Morgan Stanley's recent consideration of such a shareholder resolution; that resolution began "The shareholders urge the Board of Directors...")
I'm a lawyer, not an engineer, so my perspective might be different, but knowledge management is critical in my job. I completely agree that the ideal solution is to hire a knowledge manager, but they aren't really librarians in the dictionary sense because they need to know the knowledge they're managing (I know you point this out, but I wanted to expand). At my firm, we have both librarians and knowledge management people. The knowledge managers (we have both corporate and litigation managers) are lawyers themselves that have practiced and know how the data is going to be used or searched, what additional knowledge would be useful, what kinds of knowledge are produced in our work and how to mine that knowledge or convert it into something even more useful, and know how to ask for and distill feedback from users better than if a non-lawyer were doing the job. I think that familiarity with the business is extremely important for effective knowledge management. Librarians are important too, but their job is to know where to find information from sources outside of the firm, and they don't need to know more about how the information is going to be used.
You're absolutely right that it's not just search, but rather a process that needs to be carefully considered and implemented. Knowledge management is a process best done as a home-grown initiative, though the supporting software is an integral piece.
I use Ephpod instead of iTunes, which I think is bloated and doesn't play well with my PC setup (though I fully admit I haven't used iTunes for a couple years now, so I have no idea if it has improved). I really like EphPod.
governments of many nations (particularly the US) are quite intertwined with the energy industries
Interesting that you say "particularly the US" when there are so many countries that either own energy companies or have a significant or controlling stake, and you seem to be aware of this. Just in Western Europe, there's British Petroleum, Elf Aquitaine (France), TOTAL (France), ENI (Italy), Petro Canada, Repsol (Spain) and Statoil (Norway). Then look at all the Latin American and Eastern European countries that do the same. The U.S. doesn't have a state-owned energy company, so no matter what, it is not as "intertwined" as other countries (though I certainly agree with you that there is intertwining).
The First Amendment has to do with the *government's* ability (or rather, inability) to restrict a person's speech, specifically by way of a "prior restraint". The fact that the government is the one that enforces defamation laws against private parties does not implicate the First Amendment because it isn't a prior restraint by the government. A prior restraint would be something like a law "saying 'Bob is a moron' is illegal" or "if you say 'Amy is an idiot' we will penalize you $10". Defamation laws say essentially "A person who is defamed by another person can enjoin or recover damages against the defamer", which isn't a prior restraint.
Also, to invite the argument that because the government enforces a law as it applies between two private parties (like a tort) government action is implied is to put into question a lot of private acts, since the Constitution restricts so many actions of the government but not of private citizens. That is not a good thing.
"So far, the files they have vacuumed up are not classified secrets, but many are sensitive and subject to strict export-control laws, which means they are strategically important enough to require U.S. government licenses for foreign use."
The article's author is kind of misleading here. The files so far vacuumed up are not classified BECAUSE there's an air gap. The author implies, however, that it's only a matter of time that these hackers will get through.
When I was a child, we were taught in school to write script with a slant to the right, which I still do to this day. YMMV -- e.g., I'm American -- but I doubt you can read anything much into it. Incidentally, I wonder if kids today even have penmanship class anymore?
Did you miss the bullet point that said "Yes, I know. I wrote that line in the docs. It's still really irritating"? As an Apache project member that primarily contributes documentation, I think he has RTFM -- in fact, he has WTFM.;)
Re:Reminds me of why I hate banking websites
on
A $251 Million Typo
·
· Score: 1
Totally agree, B of A's online banking is great. FYi about My Portfolio, though -- it's actually licensed from Yodlee, Inc. Many banks use the same feature.
Slashdot Mirror
Kozinski is Jewish; in fact, his parents were Holocaust survivors. I wouldn't be concerned.
The Squeezebox outputs analog using Burr-Brown DACs. It's not, of course, an ipod-type MP3 player, but rather an audio system component, so you might like it.
I know what you're thinking of, but that's not correct in several respects.
:)
Yikes, you're right -- I was mixing up a few things. But that was really just an aside. That'll teach me to dash off a response without first reflecting on how long it's been since I've spent much time with IP law in any detail.
Well, anything could potentially be a fair use....
True; I only mean to say it has never been an obvious, settled fair use that, in the admittedly very simple hypothetical of having a scratched/broken CD, would allow one to download another copy off a file-sharing network.
There has never been a fair use right for any copyrighted material that worked that way. Say you had a book that you accidentally dropped in the bathtub and was ruined, or maybe it was in your bookbag that was stolen. You don't have some fair use right to another copy, whether a new paperback or a digital one, just because it wasn't your fault that you lost the original copy; it's tough luck, buy another book. In fact, with music, you actually have an extra *statutory* right -- the right to make a backup. You still can't photocopy or scan an entire book to make a "backup" of it!
The key point to remember that often gets lost on people, and this is what the lawyer was referring to when he said he didn't know where the questioner was getting his/her preconception, is that copyright gives the copyright owner the right to control the making of *copies* of original works. All the questions of the questioner seem to be missing this fundamental point (although they do end up touching that important copyright issue of fair use). Unfortunately, I suspect that the idea of a license to copyrighted works -- particularly the way licenses are used with software -- has kind of screwed up people's understanding of copyrights.
Hm, seems like he was brought in at the end by Perkins...
Sorry, didn't mean to sound snarky!
:)
:)
I think he needs to give a million or so to me. I'm not trying to be greedy or anything.
He could give me $100k, I'd be fine, gotta share the wealth.
What exactly are your numbers supposed to represent? You might want to just look at MSFT's historical financials to get a reasonable idea of their revenues by segment. Their annual or quarterly reports, say. Then you'd find out that last fiscal year, MSFT brought in about $12 billion in revenue (about $9.5 billion profit) in their client OS business, $10 billion in revenue (about $3.2 billion profit) in their server and tools business (includes not only server OS products but all of their other server products; exchange, sql, etc.), and $11 billion ($7 billion profit) in their "information worker" business, which includes not only office but project, visio, livemeeting, etc.
All told, far lower than your numbers -- lower even than your calculation for JUST XP Pro assuming everyone bought from places like Newegg! -- AND MSFT's growth also appears to be slowing down.
Certainly that's lots of money; I'm not saying they're hurting or anything. But maybe you oughtta work on those back of the envelope calculations!
GHWB was CIA director between 1976-1977. There were 7 DCIs between Bush and Goss. How is that a "perfect straight line"? No reasonable person could blame the state of the CIA on a director that spent one year leading it 30 years ago.
While your overall point's still fine, it's funny that you call out the National Enquirer and People magazine. The National Enquirer currently enjoys a strong reputation for accuracy; during the OJ Simpson trial, for example, the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal and many other "trusted" sources quoted National Enquirer stories because they were consistently correct and timely. From what I understand, People magazine is also considered highly accurate. Their subject matter may be sensational and even vapid, but you apparently can't knock their accuracy.
The other thing that seems weird is the insistence that Google, a corporation, use its market power to influence China. I thought people didn't like corporations trying to influence government. I guess that's still true -- unless it's to support values or actions that you agree with.
Private companies are not held to the same reporting rules by the SEC and FTC as public companies. In the SEC case they have ZERO authority because well, they have no securitys being exchanged. The only reporting they would have to do is to the IRS.
Private companies are not generally held to the same public reporting rules as public companies, but that's not the same as saying that the SEC has no authority over them. The SEC ALWAYS has securities-related authority over them. If a private company issues stock without following the rules, the SEC certainly can step in.
The deal is still subject to antitrust review. The government can't shoot a merger down before (1) there's in fact a merger to shoot down and (2) it knows about it, can it?
You should remember that most patents are assigned to the employer of the inventor(s). A patent application needs to list as the inventor(s) real people, not companies, but the assignee is the one that gets the benefit of the patent. That's why it's less important, from the PTO's perspective -- the inventor is not usually the stakeholder when a patent is challenged or enforced.
Yahoo finance's insider roster "is derived solely from the last 24 months of Form 3, Form 4 and Form 144 SEC filings." It has been more than two years since Pixar's IPO, which is when he would have filed a Form 3, and apparently Steve hasn't bought or sold any shares over the last couple years, so he thus doesn't show up in the roster.
Under many states' corporations laws, some shareholder resolutions can't be binding on the company's management (if such a resolution is drafted as binding, it's considered not a proper subject for action and can be excluded from consideration at a shareholders' meeting).
Capping CEO pay is probably one type of shareholder resolution that can't be binding. (Indeed, the article you link to mentions Morgan Stanley's recent consideration of such a shareholder resolution; that resolution began "The shareholders urge the Board of Directors...")
Professor Lessig, the legal hero of many on Slashdot, clerked for Justice Scalia. Does that change anything for you?
I'm a lawyer, not an engineer, so my perspective might be different, but knowledge management is critical in my job. I completely agree that the ideal solution is to hire a knowledge manager, but they aren't really librarians in the dictionary sense because they need to know the knowledge they're managing (I know you point this out, but I wanted to expand). At my firm, we have both librarians and knowledge management people. The knowledge managers (we have both corporate and litigation managers) are lawyers themselves that have practiced and know how the data is going to be used or searched, what additional knowledge would be useful, what kinds of knowledge are produced in our work and how to mine that knowledge or convert it into something even more useful, and know how to ask for and distill feedback from users better than if a non-lawyer were doing the job. I think that familiarity with the business is extremely important for effective knowledge management. Librarians are important too, but their job is to know where to find information from sources outside of the firm, and they don't need to know more about how the information is going to be used.
You're absolutely right that it's not just search, but rather a process that needs to be carefully considered and implemented. Knowledge management is a process best done as a home-grown initiative, though the supporting software is an integral piece.
I use Ephpod instead of iTunes, which I think is bloated and doesn't play well with my PC setup (though I fully admit I haven't used iTunes for a couple years now, so I have no idea if it has improved). I really like EphPod.
governments of many nations (particularly the US) are quite intertwined with the energy industries
Interesting that you say "particularly the US" when there are so many countries that either own energy companies or have a significant or controlling stake, and you seem to be aware of this. Just in Western Europe, there's British Petroleum, Elf Aquitaine (France), TOTAL (France), ENI (Italy), Petro Canada, Repsol (Spain) and Statoil (Norway). Then look at all the Latin American and Eastern European countries that do the same. The U.S. doesn't have a state-owned energy company, so no matter what, it is not as "intertwined" as other countries (though I certainly agree with you that there is intertwining).
The sense of OP's post is correct.
The First Amendment has to do with the *government's* ability (or rather, inability) to restrict a person's speech, specifically by way of a "prior restraint". The fact that the government is the one that enforces defamation laws against private parties does not implicate the First Amendment because it isn't a prior restraint by the government. A prior restraint would be something like a law "saying 'Bob is a moron' is illegal" or "if you say 'Amy is an idiot' we will penalize you $10". Defamation laws say essentially "A person who is defamed by another person can enjoin or recover damages against the defamer", which isn't a prior restraint.
Also, to invite the argument that because the government enforces a law as it applies between two private parties (like a tort) government action is implied is to put into question a lot of private acts, since the Constitution restricts so many actions of the government but not of private citizens. That is not a good thing.
The article says:
"So far, the files they have vacuumed up are not classified secrets, but many are sensitive and subject to strict export-control laws, which means they are strategically important enough to require U.S. government licenses for foreign use."
The article's author is kind of misleading here. The files so far vacuumed up are not classified BECAUSE there's an air gap. The author implies, however, that it's only a matter of time that these hackers will get through.
When I was a child, we were taught in school to write script with a slant to the right, which I still do to this day. YMMV -- e.g., I'm American -- but I doubt you can read anything much into it. Incidentally, I wonder if kids today even have penmanship class anymore?
Nowhere in that article does it say or imply that the reason MSFT removed Monad is because of the recent news about its "virus" vulnerabilities.
Did you miss the bullet point that said "Yes, I know. I wrote that line in the docs. It's still really irritating"? As an Apache project member that primarily contributes documentation, I think he has RTFM -- in fact, he has WTFM. ;)
Totally agree, B of A's online banking is great. FYi about My Portfolio, though -- it's actually licensed from Yodlee, Inc. Many banks use the same feature.