You're undermining yourself quoting kohlberg, after all, going as high as you can go:
Stage 6: Universal Principles. Stage 5 respondents are working toward a conception of the good society. They suggest that we need to (a) protect certain individual rights and (b) settle disputes through democratic processes. However, democratic processes alone do not always result in outcomes that we intuitively sense are just. A majority, for example, may vote for a law that hinders a minority. Thus, Kohlberg believes that there must be a higher stage--stage 6--which defines the principles by which we achieve justice.
Microsoft is certainly bad for society (a universal principal), therefore any strategy which can be used against microsoft is good. Therefore you should say in response to are software patents good, precisely: "Yes, if used against M$".
I think in this case it seems relatively clear that Microsoft was aware of the patent, but chose to ignore it, and quash a smalltime innovator. Possibly they believed the patent would be invalidated in the long run, and therefore felt like the best way to proceed would be to violate and then litigate the patent.
And just in case you weren't joking, this won't in any way sink microsoft. At worst they pay a penalty proportional to the damages, which would be quite small (for microsoft), and be forced to either license the patent or do without tcp offloading in their OS.
Now now, the job of an employee of a company is not to make money. Remember, the mission statement must inspire the employees of the company, and is not just a statement of the mission of the company.
Unless you love dogs in general, in which case trying to put the bad vet out of business (as large number of charge disputes will quickly do) may be the right strategy.
Thanks, I always appreciate a humorous spin supporting my point. So much better for getting people to read, but I didn't have the energy to come up with one myself this morning.
Well, they'd have to put into place a no personal calls on company time policy, and define what company time was, so that isn't going to happen to me, nor do I think it's likely to happen to most slashdotters.
OTOH, I give my company a lot of time for free, so in my particular case I wouldn't really be cheating them.
The problem is, it isn't necessarily wrong to take someone's music without paying. If you overhear a live performance because you live near a theater, that isn't wrong. If you record a live performance in a park, that isn't wrong. If your friend gives you a tape of a song he recorded off the radio that he thought was cool, that isn't wrong. Even better, none of the above are even illegal.
When you start to get into P2P, you reach more of a gray area in terms of right and legal.
Which the parents agreed to. Imagine the alternative, where you invest thousands in training a minor, but that minor is then free to walk away at any time. Either you can make contracts (and thereby spending decisions) with the parents of a minor, or you can't.
I would actually prefer to see it be impossible in general, but having meaningless contracts makes no sense at all.
No, that was including all the printing costs, that's my realized long term cost per page of printing. The paper itself only costs about 6c a sheet. The other 9c a page covers everything else.
I don't see why it should be so expensive. I could print 2 bills to the page at a cost of no more than 15c. If they are $2 bills that page is worth $4, which seems like a $3.85 profit to me.
Now granted they wouldn't be the most convincing fakes, but given the low recognition rates, it seems like you'd have a decent chance to pass them.
I have to back up the grandparent. The $1 are frequently mistaken for quarters. I've had to argue with cashiers at no less than 5 different locations about their value.
I don't think you understand how the blacklists works. It's exactly like posting a notice. When people decide not to do business with you because you're at a blacklisted site, that's their decision, not the blacklists decision.
For your friend, i'm afraid the argument 'I didn't know' has long been held an unacceptable defense. She even knows spam on the internet is a problem, but doesn't know to talk to her internet provider about it?
Slashdot Mirror
You're undermining yourself quoting kohlberg, after all, going as high as you can go:
Stage 6: Universal Principles. Stage 5 respondents are working toward a conception of the good society. They suggest that we need to (a) protect certain individual rights and (b) settle disputes through democratic processes. However, democratic processes alone do not always result in outcomes that we intuitively sense are just. A majority, for example, may vote for a law that hinders a minority. Thus, Kohlberg believes that there must be a higher stage--stage 6--which defines the principles by which we achieve justice.
Microsoft is certainly bad for society (a universal principal), therefore any strategy which can be used against microsoft is good. Therefore you should say in response to are software patents good, precisely: "Yes, if used against M$".
That seems to be what they're doing ... I don't see in this anywhere that microsoft has decided to license rather than fight?
I think in this case it seems relatively clear that Microsoft was aware of the patent, but chose to ignore it, and quash a smalltime innovator. Possibly they believed the patent would be invalidated in the long run, and therefore felt like the best way to proceed would be to violate and then litigate the patent.
And just in case you weren't joking, this won't in any way sink microsoft. At worst they pay a penalty proportional to the damages, which would be quite small (for microsoft), and be forced to either license the patent or do without tcp offloading in their OS.
The really scary thought is that both might be computers, and they might be having meaningful communication none of us can understand.
Now now, the job of an employee of a company is not to make money. Remember, the mission statement must inspire the employees of the company, and is not just a statement of the mission of the company.
Cmon, slashdot mods may be dumb, but that dumb?
Unless you love dogs in general, in which case trying to put the bad vet out of business (as large number of charge disputes will quickly do) may be the right strategy.
Thanks, I always appreciate a humorous spin supporting my point. So much better for getting people to read, but I didn't have the energy to come up with one myself this morning.
Well, even if that's true, PR investments still cost money.
Well, they'd have to put into place a no personal calls on company time policy, and define what company time was, so that isn't going to happen to me, nor do I think it's likely to happen to most slashdotters.
OTOH, I give my company a lot of time for free, so in my particular case I wouldn't really be cheating them.
It wouldn't even be a legal contract, there has to be interest for both parties defined.
The problem is, it isn't necessarily wrong to take someone's music without paying. If you overhear a live performance because you live near a theater, that isn't wrong. If you record a live performance in a park, that isn't wrong. If your friend gives you a tape of a song he recorded off the radio that he thought was cool, that isn't wrong. Even better, none of the above are even illegal.
When you start to get into P2P, you reach more of a gray area in terms of right and legal.
Sure, if you do it during work hours so you get paid for doing it. It's like raising your hourly wage by $10 if you can do it in an hour.
Which the parents agreed to. Imagine the alternative, where you invest thousands in training a minor, but that minor is then free to walk away at any time. Either you can make contracts (and thereby spending decisions) with the parents of a minor, or you can't.
I would actually prefer to see it be impossible in general, but having meaningless contracts makes no sense at all.
That was my point. ;-)
Blue Music Video of Death
Pervert.
Lazy lazy lazy. Did you even _try_ to overclock your P4 to this speed?
Cool, where can I buy subsidized PC hardware?
No, that was including all the printing costs, that's my realized long term cost per page of printing. The paper itself only costs about 6c a sheet. The other 9c a page covers everything else.
I don't see why it should be so expensive. I could print 2 bills to the page at a cost of no more than 15c. If they are $2 bills that page is worth $4, which seems like a $3.85 profit to me.
Now granted they wouldn't be the most convincing fakes, but given the low recognition rates, it seems like you'd have a decent chance to pass them.
I have to back up the grandparent. The $1 are frequently mistaken for quarters. I've had to argue with cashiers at no less than 5 different locations about their value.
Surely that's exactly why they're all packaged with one or two free lame games.
I don't think you understand how the blacklists works. It's exactly like posting a notice. When people decide not to do business with you because you're at a blacklisted site, that's their decision, not the blacklists decision.
For your friend, i'm afraid the argument 'I didn't know' has long been held an unacceptable defense. She even knows spam on the internet is a problem, but doesn't know to talk to her internet provider about it?
It is a problem. A user should be able to bring their own software to a system, sit down, and use it.
What they shouldn't be able to do is harm the system in any way by doing so.
That's why you should buy one of those services that dials into 911 every 5 or 10 minutes to check the connection.