I don't think the complaint is valid. I think vendors of software should be legally responsible for the software features they advertise and little else
Is there any real evidence that they sabotaged Novell's programs? The judge is saying that didn't happen.
So short of a conspiracy to conceal changes in the API from Novell for the purpose of making their product incompatible with Novell's apps, what's wrong? Does a software company have to keep every old API feature the same so everthing is backward compatible to heiroglyphics? Or are they free to change up their API to whatever extent they think is reasonable and publish the new API? Or do they even have a responsibility to publish their API at all? If there's an error in the description of the API or if the beta release is not the same as the final release, shoud that be a matter for litigation?
There's such a thing as letting the courts too much in your business. Could Linux or FreeBSD even exist under the restrictions you think to impose on companies like Microsoft?
No they're probably wrong then too. They said that overall there's no correlation between what people think about temperature and actual temperature records.
Since in most areas the temperatures actually have increased slightly, it would seem liberals' beliefs about temperature are on average a little closer to the truth. But there's no evidence that is based on perception of reality. It's based on an ideology that values science coupled with science that says on the whole temperature has gone up.
Putting a human gene in a retrovirus creates a new possibly patentable invention even if the gene and the original retrovirus are not patentable. But you should have to demonstrate utility. If there's no demonstrated utility the patent should be barred.
You're right to observe both that JavaScript keywords don't mean the same thing as natural language English words and that actually learning English is unnecessary. (Translated documentation is though.) But for English readers, they do help as mnemonics, and they probably do the same for at least Germanic and Romance language speakers. For Chinese speakers they're no help at all.
But imagine having 200 language shims in a browser so it can understand JSBasque correctly. This to benefit the 20 programmers who want to use it.
For major languages like Spanish, Chinese and Arabic, such tools make sense as front ends for code development, but the code that gets distributed wil have to be run through a translation filter.
I disagree. If the final ruling goes against Microsoft it could set an ugly precedent that an OS must forever remain backward compatible to whatever version some developer used in its earliest version. App developers could sue Apple over iOS and MacOS changes. Web developers would be suing Oracle over Java changes, Adobe over Flash versioning, Linux developers suing one another over every change.... legal chaos.
So for the sake of convenience, they made the keys identical and therefore not secure.
Same as any other security system: convenience and security are incompatible goals.
Yes. But the question is does it apply to a person who records HIS OWN TESTIMONY to the Grand Jury. This seems to get into the area where it might become protected speech. There's no rule that a person can't talk about his testimony to a GJ, and the 1st Amendment ought to protect it, given the Constitution has higher standing than any court rule. Logically in a showdown between the GJ rules and the 1st Amendment, the 1st Amendment would win. But judges do not like to be thwarted, so Mr. House is probably in trouble.
6.e.2.B.v forbids disclosing any transcript of testimony.
It would appear the government attorney was correct on the face of it, but if House is charged, it may be found that his record of his own testimony is protected speech.
As much as I don't like the idea of turning control of my car over to a computer, I like Google's method better. I think it's much safer. MIT's system is more likely to get implemented sooner and I think that's pretty scary. If people start trusting *something else* to get you out of dangerous situations, the immediately respond by relying too much on that trust and putting themselves in more dangerous situations. People with these things in their cars will drive like complete idiots and the computers won't be able to avoid ALL of the dangerous situations. Probably in the end about the same number of crashes per driver-year will occur, but in the meantime, people will have forgotten *or never learned* how to drive a vehicle safely without computer assistance. Also, just because your auto-driver takes over and protects YOU from the consequences of your stupidity, it doesn't mean that you didn't cause another driver to react to your being out of position or going too fast and have an accident.
Something would have to be done to reduce this effect. First, you should have to drive unassisted to qualify for a license, or in an auto-driver assist vehicle with the machine making a log of the times it "came awake" because you were doing something foolish or illegal. Once you're a licensed driver, the car could emit radio message each time you do something stupid and the police could be alerted. This would act as a disincentive to be a complete shit while driving, especially if there's a threshold above which you will be fined for dangerous driving. And such a system would have to be tamper resistant so the typical driver can't turn it off.
Not really. Every election cycle we have more than three candidates for President and many other offices. It's the election system that dictates that at most two have any chance of winning.
Slashdot Mirror
Google wishes to embrace and exploit.
Who doesn't?
I don't think the complaint is valid. I think vendors of software should be legally responsible for the software features they advertise and little else
Is there any real evidence that they sabotaged Novell's programs? The judge is saying that didn't happen.
So short of a conspiracy to conceal changes in the API from Novell for the purpose of making their product incompatible with Novell's apps, what's wrong? Does a software company have to keep every old API feature the same so everthing is backward compatible to heiroglyphics? Or are they free to change up their API to whatever extent they think is reasonable and publish the new API? Or do they even have a responsibility to publish their API at all? If there's an error in the description of the API or if the beta release is not the same as the final release, shoud that be a matter for litigation?
There's such a thing as letting the courts too much in your business. Could Linux or FreeBSD even exist under the restrictions you think to impose on companies like Microsoft?
But when the offer is directly made by the police officer or a person acting on their herald it becomes entrapment.
Certainly as populations have increased more people ( though not a greater proportion) are in harm's way.
I think that correlation held even when political orientationwas removed and vice versa.
No they're probably wrong then too. They said that overall there's no correlation between what people think about temperature and actual temperature records.
Since in most areas the temperatures actually have increased slightly, it would seem liberals' beliefs about temperature are on average a little closer to the truth. But there's no evidence that is based on perception of reality. It's based on an ideology that values science coupled with science that says on the whole temperature has gone up.
Putting a human gene in a retrovirus creates a new possibly patentable invention even if the gene and the original retrovirus are not patentable. But you should have to demonstrate utility. If there's no demonstrated utility the patent should be barred.
You're right to observe both that JavaScript keywords don't mean the same thing as natural language English words and that actually learning English is unnecessary. (Translated documentation is though.) But for English readers, they do help as mnemonics, and they probably do the same for at least Germanic and Romance language speakers. For Chinese speakers they're no help at all.
But imagine having 200 language shims in a browser so it can understand JSBasque correctly. This to benefit the 20 programmers who want to use it. For major languages like Spanish, Chinese and Arabic, such tools make sense as front ends for code development, but the code that gets distributed wil have to be run through a translation filter.
I disagree. If the final ruling goes against Microsoft it could set an ugly precedent that an OS must forever remain backward compatible to whatever version some developer used in its earliest version. App developers could sue Apple over iOS and MacOS changes. Web developers would be suing Oracle over Java changes, Adobe over Flash versioning, Linux developers suing one another over every change.... legal chaos.
AndNovell is history because they didn't keep up with hundreds of other software companies -- not just Microsoft.
It damn well should be over. The issues at hand are 17 years stale.
Bases on that summary, Google is fast becoming God so they should be tax exempt as a religion.
That would be before stars faded into the city glare.
Why stop there? Google can learn your preferences and make every woman appear sexy to you.
So for the sake of convenience, they made the keys identical and therefore not secure. Same as any other security system: convenience and security are incompatible goals.
Yes. But the question is does it apply to a person who records HIS OWN TESTIMONY to the Grand Jury. This seems to get into the area where it might become protected speech. There's no rule that a person can't talk about his testimony to a GJ, and the 1st Amendment ought to protect it, given the Constitution has higher standing than any court rule. Logically in a showdown between the GJ rules and the 1st Amendment, the 1st Amendment would win. But judges do not like to be thwarted, so Mr. House is probably in trouble.
6.e.2.B.v forbids disclosing any transcript of testimony. It would appear the government attorney was correct on the face of it, but if House is charged, it may be found that his record of his own testimony is protected speech.
Since Blankfein thinks he is God, that makes sense.
As much as I don't like the idea of turning control of my car over to a computer, I like Google's method better. I think it's much safer. MIT's system is more likely to get implemented sooner and I think that's pretty scary. If people start trusting *something else* to get you out of dangerous situations, the immediately respond by relying too much on that trust and putting themselves in more dangerous situations. People with these things in their cars will drive like complete idiots and the computers won't be able to avoid ALL of the dangerous situations. Probably in the end about the same number of crashes per driver-year will occur, but in the meantime, people will have forgotten *or never learned* how to drive a vehicle safely without computer assistance. Also, just because your auto-driver takes over and protects YOU from the consequences of your stupidity, it doesn't mean that you didn't cause another driver to react to your being out of position or going too fast and have an accident.
Something would have to be done to reduce this effect. First, you should have to drive unassisted to qualify for a license, or in an auto-driver assist vehicle with the machine making a log of the times it "came awake" because you were doing something foolish or illegal. Once you're a licensed driver, the car could emit radio message each time you do something stupid and the police could be alerted. This would act as a disincentive to be a complete shit while driving, especially if there's a threshold above which you will be fined for dangerous driving. And such a system would have to be tamper resistant so the typical driver can't turn it off.
Americans speak distinctive dialects.
Not really. Every election cycle we have more than three candidates for President and many other offices. It's the election system that dictates that at most two have any chance of winning.
The pedestrians will be automated too.
Facebook can read your posts and chats. It's in their terms of service.
Because I don't want my tax dollars going to try to elect YOUR favorite candidate.