I imagine this is simply a "testing the waters" type lawsuit. If they win, count on them going after other hardware manufacturers. Not microsoft, though, because as others have pointed out, microsoft doesn't really manufacture WinCE devices. --
Antitrust laws breaks up companies when they create monopolies and consumers are harmed..by your argument, consumers weren't harmed.
IANAL, but is it not the case that consumers are harmed when competative office-style products are kept from the market due to file format incompatibilies? That is, when a word-processor under development which has better features than Word is discontinued because noone can exchange files with with Word? And what about differing versions within the Word product line? When consumers are forced to upgrade to the latest version in order to read documents created by their clients and/or vendors, regardless of whether or not said documents use any of the new gee-whiz features (if any) provided by the new version?
Introducing artificial barriers to interoperability when one is a monopoly seems to me to harm the consumer.
However, in sexually reproducing creatures, you can define the species line as whether or not two creatures can breed a non-sterile child.
From the page I have linked above: "5.3.1 Drosophila paulistorum Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky (1971) reported a speciation event that occurred in a laboratory culture of Drosophila paulistorum sometime between 1958 and 1963. The culture was descended from a single inseminated female that was captured in the Llanos of Colombia. In 1958 this strain produced fertile hybrids when crossed with conspecifics of different strains from Orinocan. From 1963 onward crosses with Orinocan strains produced only sterile males. Initially no assortative mating or behavioral isolation was seen between the Llanos strain and the Orinocan strains. Later on Dobzhansky produced assortative mating (Dobzhansky 1972)." So we have seen the type of speciation which you claim we haven't.
This is what we have not observed, the creation of a new species.
It is a good one, and it is the only one that makes sense if you posit the lack of existance of a creating force.
You've got it backwards. There is no evidence which suggests a creative force with intent, therefore one is not posited.
However the fanatical willingness to overlook flaws in the model is just as much a matter of religious (atheist) dogma as some of the twisted logic of some of its opponents.
Even if every non-Christian in the U.S. were to accept evolution, the majority of those who accept evolution are Christian. Nothing in evolution requires atheism. Evolution and Christianity, excepting a paticularly narrow class of sects, are perfectly compatible.
However, as someone who does not assume that there is no God
Though I am an atheist, I don't assume there are no gods; I merely don't assume there are in the absence of any reason to do so.
I have no turned a blind eye to flaws in evolutionist doctine
What flaws does evolution have that other sciences do not?
A privacy policy which says, "We keep all your information private", when in fact the company sells everything it knows about you to the highest bidder, is also a perfectly valid (though untruthful) privacy policy.
What they mean is "We keep all your information private" as in private property. That is, we'll sell it, not publish it.
The first place you should look for the purpose of patents and copyrights (at least wrt U.S. versions thereof) would be Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, where it says
"The Congress shall have power... [t]o promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries"
Emphasis mine. To the authors and inventors, not to the publishing companies and financiers. It is my personal opinion that these rights ought to be non-transferable. They should be allowed to be assigned via contract, but not transferred from the individuals or enumerated and specified group of individuals to whom the right originally applied. If I work for a corporation (or University,) I and possibly an enumerated and specified group of people from the company should be assigned exclusive rights (licensed back to the company via contract) and exclusivity should expire after some fixed time not to exceed the lifetimes of the persons who hold said rights.
>> I've said it before and I'll say it again, all coders should get out of the states
>Do you mean the uSA or the U.S. ?
>Yes, uSA is spelt right, and there IS a difference.
>The preamble:
>The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
>And the last paragraph:
>We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America
>Do not just take my word for it, but please read it for yourself: Declaration of Independance (http://www.nara.gov/exhall/charters/declaration/d eclaration.html)
The Declaration is not the founding document of the federal government, Constitution (http://www.nara.gov/exhall/charters/constitution/ constitution.html) is, and it capitalizes "United." Additionally, it begins "We the People of the United States," rather than "We the States." Granted, the government layed out in the Constitution is more or less a federation of individual states (which I believe is the point you were making with your uSA capitalization,) subsequent amendments have made clear that we are not a pure federation of states, but also a nation of people with rights and priveledges that can not be withdrawn by the states (well, unless they're fighting a "War on Drugs." Or the corporations pay enough politicians off. Or the particular withdrawel of a right or proviledge is something that might win a few votes for some politician.)
My main beef with many States' rights advocates is that, while superficially they talk about getting an intrusive federal government off of the backs of the people, what they really seem to mean is that they are against the federal government intervening with a state or local government's intrusiveness. I'm not accusing you of this, just noting my own experience with others.
To answer the original question (and to make some attempt to get back on topic,) If I were inclined to leave the U.S., I'd probably move to Holland given their history of tolerance. But I'm not giving up on the U.S.A. (or the u.S.A. if you prefer,) yet.
Well, I am generally socially liberal and fiscally moderate-to-conservative. Which puts me more in line with Gore than with any other candidate, including Nader. But what really solidifies my vote is the future of the supreme court: "Even while disavowing any anti-abortion litmus test, Republican nominee-apparent George W. Bush has said he will seek to appoint more Justices like Scalia and Thomas to the Supreme Court." While these justices claim to want to follow the original intent, they seem to ignore the intent of James Madison regarding the rights of conscience. Additionally, when individual rights and liberties come in conflict with the powers of a civil authority, they almost always vote to support the civil authority. That is the biggest reason I'll be voting for Gore.
This is typical libberish-- "economics is not exact". Hell, physics is not an exact science; just because they use a lot of math doesn't make it so.
Call me when they build the economics equivalent of a manned mission to the moon.
Yet after issuing such a statement, they still will try to hold that the Secular Humanist creed (also known as "theory") of Evolution is science.
Well, various parts of the theory of Evolution are commonly used in Medicine and Engineering. The evidence for the utility of differential reproductive success based on heritable traits as a method for generating specified complexity is so overwhelming that its opponents attack it as a tautology (as if that were somehow damning.) The evidence for common descent is so overwhelming that almost no publishing scientists in the field of biology have raised any specific objections to it.
Where has the Laffer Curve been used to accurately predict anything in the real world?
To (try to) bring this back on topic, though, the TW/AOL folks do not in any way fit any free-market model, supply-side or otherwise, so the point is moot.
I have no problem with there being no support for Linux by hardware manufacturers. Tech Support is a huge expense, and training personel how to deal with one OS family is hard enough.
What I do have a problem with is the failure to be open with technical information. The presentation of such information could be done via web page (as is done with many drive manufacturers,) explicitly without warranty of accuracy, etc, thus minimizing the cost while maintaining a larger population of possible consumers for their product.
Regarding the print server, I don't see why they don't (assuming they don't) let it be both a standard JetDirect (i.e. lpd) server as will as a SMB share. --
Slashdot Mirror
I imagine this is simply a "testing the waters" type lawsuit. If they win, count on them going after other hardware manufacturers. Not microsoft, though, because as others have pointed out, microsoft doesn't really manufacture WinCE devices.
--
Introducing artificial barriers to interoperability when one is a monopoly seems to me to harm the consumer.
-Craig
--
we have not seen any fundamentally new species occur
We have, in fact, observed the emergence of new species.
However, in sexually reproducing creatures, you can define the species line as whether or not two creatures can breed a non-sterile child.
From the page I have linked above: "5.3.1 Drosophila paulistorum Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky (1971) reported a speciation event that occurred in a laboratory culture of Drosophila paulistorum sometime between 1958 and 1963. The culture was descended from a single inseminated female that was captured in the Llanos of Colombia. In 1958 this strain produced fertile hybrids when crossed with conspecifics of different strains from Orinocan. From 1963 onward crosses with Orinocan strains produced only sterile males. Initially no assortative mating or behavioral isolation was seen between the Llanos strain and the Orinocan strains. Later on Dobzhansky produced assortative mating (Dobzhansky 1972)." So we have seen the type of speciation which you claim we haven't.
This is what we have not observed, the creation of a new species.
You are mistaken.
-Craig
--
Oh, but in many ways it is a religious belief.
It is no more a religious belief than any other science.
Let us remember what so many in the scientific establishment attempt to deny: evolution is nothing but a theory.
Evolution is both a fact and theory
It is a good one, and it is the only one that makes sense if you posit the lack of existance of a creating force.
You've got it backwards. There is no evidence which suggests a creative force with intent, therefore one is not posited.
However the fanatical willingness to overlook flaws in the model is just as much a matter of religious (atheist) dogma as some of the twisted logic of some of its opponents.
Even if every non-Christian in the U.S. were to accept evolution, the majority of those who accept evolution are Christian. Nothing in evolution requires atheism. Evolution and Christianity, excepting a paticularly narrow class of sects, are perfectly compatible.
However, as someone who does not assume that there is no God
Though I am an atheist, I don't assume there are no gods; I merely don't assume there are in the absence of any reason to do so.
I have no turned a blind eye to flaws in evolutionist doctine
What flaws does evolution have that other sciences do not?
-Craig
--
A privacy policy which says, "We keep all your information private", when in fact the company sells everything it knows about you to the highest bidder, is also a perfectly valid (though untruthful) privacy policy.
What they mean is "We keep all your information private" as in private property . That is, we'll sell it, not publish it.
-Craig
--
The first place you should look for the purpose of patents and copyrights (at least wrt U.S. versions thereof) would be Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, where it says
... [t]o promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries"
"The Congress shall have power
Emphasis mine. To the authors and inventors, not to the publishing companies and financiers. It is my personal opinion that these rights ought to be non-transferable. They should be allowed to be assigned via contract, but not transferred from the individuals or enumerated and specified group of individuals to whom the right originally applied. If I work for a corporation (or University,) I and possibly an enumerated and specified group of people from the company should be assigned exclusive rights (licensed back to the company via contract) and exclusivity should expire after some fixed time not to exceed the lifetimes of the persons who hold said rights.
-Craig
--
>> I've said it before and I'll say it again, all coders should get out of the states
d eclaration.html)
/ constitution.html) is, and it capitalizes "United." Additionally, it begins "We the People of the United States," rather than "We the States." Granted, the government layed out in the Constitution is more or less a federation of individual states (which I believe is the point you were making with your uSA capitalization,) subsequent amendments have made clear that we are not a pure federation of states, but also a nation of people with rights and priveledges that can not be withdrawn by the states (well, unless they're fighting a "War on Drugs." Or the corporations pay enough politicians off. Or the particular withdrawel of a right or proviledge is something that might win a few votes for some politician.)
>Do you mean the uSA or the U.S. ?
>Yes, uSA is spelt right, and there IS a difference.
>The preamble:
>The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
>And the last paragraph:
>We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America
>Do not just take my word for it, but please read it for yourself: Declaration of Independance (http://www.nara.gov/exhall/charters/declaration/
The Declaration is not the founding document of the federal government, Constitution (http://www.nara.gov/exhall/charters/constitution
My main beef with many States' rights advocates is that, while superficially they talk about getting an intrusive federal government off of the backs of the people, what they really seem to mean is that they are against the federal government intervening with a state or local government's intrusiveness. I'm not accusing you of this, just noting my own experience with others.
To answer the original question (and to make some attempt to get back on topic,) If I were inclined to leave the U.S., I'd probably move to Holland given their history of tolerance. But I'm not giving up on the U.S.A. (or the u.S.A. if you prefer,) yet.
Cheers,
Craig
--
Well, I am generally socially liberal and fiscally moderate-to-conservative. Which puts me more in line with Gore than with any other candidate, including Nader. But what really solidifies my vote is the future of the supreme court: "Even while disavowing any anti-abortion litmus test, Republican nominee-apparent George W. Bush has said he will seek to appoint more Justices like Scalia and Thomas to the Supreme Court." While these justices claim to want to follow the original intent, they seem to ignore the intent of James Madison regarding the rights of conscience. Additionally, when individual rights and liberties come in conflict with the powers of a civil authority, they almost always vote to support the civil authority. That is the biggest reason I'll be voting for Gore.
Cheers,
Craig
--
This is typical libberish-- "economics is not exact". Hell, physics is not an exact science; just because they use a lot of math doesn't make it so.
Call me when they build the economics equivalent of a manned mission to the moon.
Yet after issuing such a statement, they still will try to hold that the Secular Humanist creed (also known as "theory") of Evolution is science.
Well, various parts of the theory of Evolution are commonly used in Medicine and Engineering. The evidence for the utility of differential reproductive success based on heritable traits as a method for generating specified complexity is so overwhelming that its opponents attack it as a tautology (as if that were somehow damning.) The evidence for common descent is so overwhelming that almost no publishing scientists in the field of biology have raised any specific objections to it.
Where has the Laffer Curve been used to accurately predict anything in the real world?
To (try to) bring this back on topic, though, the TW/AOL folks do not in any way fit any free-market model, supply-side or otherwise, so the point is moot.
Cheers,
Craig
--
I have no problem with there being no support for Linux by hardware manufacturers. Tech Support is a huge expense, and training personel how to deal with one OS family is hard enough.
What I do have a problem with is the failure to be open with technical information. The presentation of such information could be done via web page (as is done with many drive manufacturers,) explicitly without warranty of accuracy, etc, thus minimizing the cost while maintaining a larger population of possible consumers for their product.
Regarding the print server, I don't see why they don't (assuming they don't) let it be both a standard JetDirect (i.e. lpd) server as will as a SMB share.
--