But of course they can continue to use the service - let them continue to log on, and see their character in a jail cell, maybe head out to the exercise yard, be "entertained" by some of the other inmates and/or guards...
No, because you wouldn't be vetting the packets. It's the difference between being the train-riding courier of the white bags of drugs, and running the train services.
I don't see many people buying Ferraris because they want to drive within the legal speed limit.
I do see people buying Toyotas for that, and Toyota does a fine job for it.
If all the people driving above the speed limit vanished tomorrow, Ferrari would vanish as well (and Porsche, and Lamborghini..), since no one would have a use for it. Everything else, however, would remain.
(It's a perfect parallel! Just like Kazaa, Ferrari deliberately designs its product to be capable of flouting the law. Just like Kazaa, Ferrari markets its product as being extremely capable of breaking the law. And finally, just like Kazaa, Ferrari markets its products to people with a prediliction for breaking the law (i.e. all you guys who like fast cars...))
Read the comments on the interview page. There's a link to www.phoneconnector.com, which sells a usb linkup to any phone (including cordless). I'm seriously tempted to buy that now....
It's a little unfair to blame Microsoft for that. I mean, they create a more flexible product, and people take advantage of that to be lazy. Surely it's the fault of the people, not the product creator. Blaming Microsoft in the this instance is like blaming car manufacturers for selling cars with ABS and traction control, since it encourages people to drive badly (e.g. when they change to a car without ABS and traction control).
You CAN do this (or something reasonably close to it) in XP, too. Drag the file you want to the taskbar, on to the tab of the window you want to drag it to. Hold it for a second, and that window will come to the forefront. Move the mouse to the window, drop. Voila! (OK, maybe I've got to move the mouse a few more cm, but then I don't have to find the F11 key either...)
Of course you can do this with a PDA. Think CompactFlash slot. Then think IBM Microdrive (admittedly only 1 GB, but if you really really wanted more, get an iPaq with the PC Card sleeve, then add the Toshiba drive).
The limitation though is battery life. With all the electronics stuffed inside the PDA, the space left for the battery is mighty small indeed. And supporting such a (relatively) humongous - and color - screen ?
Everyone who's commented (so far) upon the basis on which the US will exert jurisdiction over Elcomsoft has cited the physical presence of Elcomsoft's servers in the US.
While that much is unobjectionable (to me at least - if you have a physical presence in a jurisdiction you should expect to be regulated by that jurisdiction) - how about effects jurisdiction ?
AFAIK, the US (and the EU in antitrust cases) are perfectly willing to claim jurisdiction where (1) the act was not done within their territory and (2) the actors have no physical presence within their territory. The (3)rd basis of jurisdiction they call "effects jurisdiction" - the right to regulate anything that has an effect within its territory. That's the basis on which the antitrust suit against De Beers was - De Beers doesn't sell in the US (they do their distribution elsewhere, it's imported into the US by other companies), and has no physical presence in the US. But since their actions affect the price of diamonds in the US, voila ! effects jurisdiction.
In the same way, let's assume for a minute that Elcomsoft didn't have servers in the US, and didn't sell software to US citizens. If they sold software to bypass Adobe's copy protections in Russia, the market for Adobe's software in Russia would be affected. Then the share price of Adobe, a US company, would be affected. Voila ! effects jurisdiction.
That's the objectionable thing. Every conceivable action has an effect somewhere else (even if it's not substantial. Butterflies anyone ?) Therefore, the US is essentially claiming the right to regulate anything anywhere.
Of course, this isn't new. Same old, same old thing which the US has been doing forever (or at least since it became a superpower - I guess the Native Americans never acted this way)
>7. The intent is irrelevant. And a cursory >reading is insufficent. The lawyers maybe off >base and wrong. And if so, the judge will tell >them to disclose congressional contact. But >remember, the intent of the law is useless - its >the words as written that really matter
Yes and no. Yes, it's the words as written that really matter. If the words are clear, then the intent is irrelevant. But if the words are ambiguous and capable of more than one interpretation, then legislative intent becomes relevant for the court's purpose.
The thing is, the nature of the English language is that just about _anything_ is capable of more than one interpretation. Which is another way of saying that if the court agrees with the intent of the legislators, then the court _will_ interpret the express words of the statute as being ambiguous, so that they can refer to legislative intent - thereby thwarting the words as written without beiong accused of judicial law-making.
Would they ? It's exactly the same decision as buying insurance. If I pay $0 for the software, I can't sue anyone. If I pay $x for the software, I can sue the manufacturer.
Now my decision is - how much is the ability to sue the manufacturer worth to me ? Maybe I value it at $400. So if x400, then I use the free software. It's a simple business decision - is the asset you're purchasing worth that price to you ?
Currently the answer is yes. But if software prices started spiralling higher and higher....
Current software prices are in part based on the fact that the software producers don't expect to be held liable for their products' defects. Hence MS can price their products at $X, basically because they don't have to factor in "insurance" costs (notionally - not that any major software company would be able to obtain this sort of insurance). So if MS is now held liable, price of products must go up by $Y, being the cost of paying the damages awarded in litigation.
When price of software spirals even higher, many businesses may decide not to go with closed-source software after all - i.e. they decide to "self-insure" by using software for which no one has liability if there is a problem (i.e. open source).
So, if software producers are held liable for such costs (based on the sale and purchase contract), then that's another competitive advantage that open source software gets.
There have been quite a few posts flogging the dead horse of whether MS is a monopoly.
Enough already ! Listen - it doesn't matter whether you think MS is a monopoly. It doesn't matter, even, that you may think that the judges were wrong in ruling that MS is a monopoly.
The fact is, they did rule that MS is a monopoly. And because of the legal doctrine of issue estoppel (whereby something which has been litigated in court and been the subject of a final decision by the court cannot be relitigated), Be doesn't even have to prove that MS is a monopoly. They can simply tell their judge that the court has ruled that MS is a monopoly - MS cannot argue this point any longer.
So all that Be now has to prove is that MS did some illegal monopolistic acts (remember that certain acts which would be legal for non-monopolists are illegal for monopolists) and that such act caused damage to Be.
IMHO, a fairly simple issue to prove. They don't even need to prove that it caused their downfall, ANY damage is sufficient (it only affects quantum of recovery, and since Be's broke, any money is better than none. Don't forget that since the lawyers are acting on contingency, Be has NO cash outlay for the trial).
The thing is, there's a world of difference between no notice and 2 days' notice, and very little difference between 2 days' notice and 15 days' notice.
The main thing is - when you're sued, how do you prove you gave notice ? The burden will be on SF to prove that they did. What if your email address was invalid ? Do they have to call you at home - what if you're on holiday ? etc. etc. The whole issue of how much they have to do in order to provide "notice" rears its ugly head (check with any lawyer on the long history of proving "notice" in the courts).
So the "no notice" issue is really a escape clause to avoid liability. Shame, but that sort of legalism is what happens when your primary dispute resolution mechanism is litigation. We wouldn't be seeing this kind of technicalities if it were still the village elders settling disputes:)
Therefore, it's perfectly fine according to the tenets of the free-market that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, as long as the total amount of wealth increases.
A purely free-market capitalistic society would be anarchistic, since there would be no need for taxes for socially beneficial services (roads, plumbing etc.) Just let the rich build their own, and the poor walk. (OTOH, one might say this has already happened in the US, as the mighty corporations have purchased the government and so the govt's actions are really those of the corporation).
You want fair treatment for the rich and poor ? Try socialism. Move to Europe. (Of course that's got its own problems, but one can't have everything...)
Hmm, to a non-physicist, that seems to make sense.
Think about it. A still image on the TV is actually 30 (29.97 for NTSC, actually) identical images being shown per second. When one says that the human eye can only see 30 FPS, what you're saying is that if the one of the images was different, we'd be able to see that.
Now, if that's the limit, then we can only detect an image if it lasts longer than 1/30 of a second. So if an image lasts for only 1/100000 of a second, we wouldn't be able to see it.
I'm sure this is wrong but would appreciate someone EXPLAINING why.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, of course it is! It's part of Windows XP - it will appear on every Windows XP box (and yes, that includes XP Home).
It is infinitely improbable that something like that would ever happen ...
He means the price of the Mac Mini is $625 CDN. If you add up the costs he specced, it works out to $480 CDN ...
But of course they can continue to use the service - let them continue to log on, and see their character in a jail cell, maybe head out to the exercise yard, be "entertained" by some of the other inmates and/or guards ...
gee, sales guy at the shop told them that the cheaper computer was useless ... wonder why he would do that?
Plus, of course, there's the scene moments later, when Dark Helmet tells President Skroob the password ....
"Good heavens! That's the password I put on my luggage!"
No, because you wouldn't be vetting the packets. It's the difference between being the train-riding courier of the white bags of drugs, and running the train services.
I don't see many people buying Ferraris because they want to drive within the legal speed limit.
..), since no one would have a use for it. Everything else, however, would remain.
...))
I do see people buying Toyotas for that, and Toyota does a fine job for it.
If all the people driving above the speed limit vanished tomorrow, Ferrari would vanish as well (and Porsche, and Lamborghini
(It's a perfect parallel! Just like Kazaa, Ferrari deliberately designs its product to be capable of flouting the law. Just like Kazaa, Ferrari markets its product as being extremely capable of breaking the law. And finally, just like Kazaa, Ferrari markets its products to people with a prediliction for breaking the law (i.e. all you guys who like fast cars
google toolbar. tells you up front it's collecting information about you (though you can turn it off...)
Need one? I've still got 3 left. Email me at tjuliang at gmail dot com
Read the comments on the interview page. There's a link to www.phoneconnector.com, which sells a usb linkup to any phone (including cordless). I'm seriously tempted to buy that now....
It's a little unfair to blame Microsoft for that. I mean, they create a more flexible product, and people take advantage of that to be lazy. Surely it's the fault of the people, not the product creator. Blaming Microsoft in the this instance is like blaming car manufacturers for selling cars with ABS and traction control, since it encourages people to drive badly (e.g. when they change to a car without ABS and traction control).
Non-technical user? Do software development on??
Agree with the rest, though. (Though I should point out that Photoshop is way overkill for most users who won't know how to use the features).
You CAN do this (or something reasonably close to it) in XP, too. Drag the file you want to the taskbar, on to the tab of the window you want to drag it to. Hold it for a second, and that window will come to the forefront. Move the mouse to the window, drop. Voila! (OK, maybe I've got to move the mouse a few more cm, but then I don't have to find the F11 key either ...)
The privacy policy was not a contract, but the terms of the policy could have been part of the contract of ticket sale. That wasn't raised.
Of course you can do this with a PDA. Think CompactFlash slot. Then think IBM Microdrive (admittedly only 1 GB, but if you really really wanted more, get an iPaq with the PC Card sleeve, then add the Toshiba drive).
The limitation though is battery life. With all the electronics stuffed inside the PDA, the space left for the battery is mighty small indeed. And supporting such a (relatively) humongous - and color - screen ?
Everyone who's commented (so far) upon the basis on which the US will exert jurisdiction over Elcomsoft has cited the physical presence of Elcomsoft's servers in the US.
While that much is unobjectionable (to me at least - if you have a physical presence in a jurisdiction you should expect to be regulated by that jurisdiction) - how about effects jurisdiction ?
AFAIK, the US (and the EU in antitrust cases) are perfectly willing to claim jurisdiction where (1) the act was not done within their territory and (2) the actors have no physical presence within their territory. The (3)rd basis of jurisdiction they call "effects jurisdiction" - the right to regulate anything that has an effect within its territory. That's the basis on which the antitrust suit against De Beers was - De Beers doesn't sell in the US (they do their distribution elsewhere, it's imported into the US by other companies), and has no physical presence in the US. But since their actions affect the price of diamonds in the US, voila ! effects jurisdiction.
In the same way, let's assume for a minute that Elcomsoft didn't have servers in the US, and didn't sell software to US citizens. If they sold software to bypass Adobe's copy protections in Russia, the market for Adobe's software in Russia would be affected. Then the share price of Adobe, a US company, would be affected. Voila ! effects jurisdiction.
That's the objectionable thing. Every conceivable action has an effect somewhere else (even if it's not substantial. Butterflies anyone ?) Therefore, the US is essentially claiming the right to regulate anything anywhere.
Of course, this isn't new. Same old, same old thing which the US has been doing forever (or at least since it became a superpower - I guess the Native Americans never acted this way)
Err, praedor, meet sarcasm. Sarcasm, meet praedor. You two recognize each other the next time you meet, ok ?
>7. The intent is irrelevant. And a cursory >reading is insufficent. The lawyers maybe off >base and wrong. And if so, the judge will tell >them to disclose congressional contact. But >remember, the intent of the law is useless - its >the words as written that really matter
Yes and no. Yes, it's the words as written that really matter. If the words are clear, then the intent is irrelevant. But if the words are ambiguous and capable of more than one interpretation, then legislative intent becomes relevant for the court's purpose.
The thing is, the nature of the English language is that just about _anything_ is capable of more than one interpretation. Which is another way of saying that if the court agrees with the intent of the legislators, then the court _will_ interpret the express words of the statute as being ambiguous, so that they can refer to legislative intent - thereby thwarting the words as written without beiong accused of judicial law-making.
Would they ? It's exactly the same decision as buying insurance. If I pay $0 for the software, I can't sue anyone. If I pay $x for the software, I can sue the manufacturer.
....
Now my decision is - how much is the ability to sue the manufacturer worth to me ? Maybe I value it at $400. So if x400, then I use the free software. It's a simple business decision - is the asset you're purchasing worth that price to you ?
Currently the answer is yes. But if software prices started spiralling higher and higher
What are the consequences ? Hard to predict.
Current software prices are in part based on the fact that the software producers don't expect to be held liable for their products' defects. Hence MS can price their products at $X, basically because they don't have to factor in "insurance" costs (notionally - not that any major software company would be able to obtain this sort of insurance). So if MS is now held liable, price of products must go up by $Y, being the cost of paying the damages awarded in litigation.
When price of software spirals even higher, many businesses may decide not to go with closed-source software after all - i.e. they decide to "self-insure" by using software for which no one has liability if there is a problem (i.e. open source).
So, if software producers are held liable for such costs (based on the sale and purchase contract), then that's another competitive advantage that open source software gets.
There have been quite a few posts flogging the dead horse of whether MS is a monopoly.
Enough already ! Listen - it doesn't matter whether you think MS is a monopoly. It doesn't matter, even, that you may think that the judges were wrong in ruling that MS is a monopoly.
The fact is, they did rule that MS is a monopoly. And because of the legal doctrine of issue estoppel (whereby something which has been litigated in court and been the subject of a final decision by the court cannot be relitigated), Be doesn't even have to prove that MS is a monopoly. They can simply tell their judge that the court has ruled that MS is a monopoly - MS cannot argue this point any longer.
So all that Be now has to prove is that MS did some illegal monopolistic acts (remember that certain acts which would be legal for non-monopolists are illegal for monopolists) and that such act caused damage to Be.
IMHO, a fairly simple issue to prove. They don't even need to prove that it caused their downfall, ANY damage is sufficient (it only affects quantum of recovery, and since Be's broke, any money is better than none. Don't forget that since the lawyers are acting on contingency, Be has NO cash outlay for the trial).
The thing is, there's a world of difference between no notice and 2 days' notice, and very little difference between 2 days' notice and 15 days' notice.
:)
The main thing is - when you're sued, how do you prove you gave notice ? The burden will be on SF to prove that they did. What if your email address was invalid ? Do they have to call you at home - what if you're on holiday ? etc. etc. The whole issue of how much they have to do in order to provide "notice" rears its ugly head (check with any lawyer on the long history of proving "notice" in the courts).
So the "no notice" issue is really a escape clause to avoid liability. Shame, but that sort of legalism is what happens when your primary dispute resolution mechanism is litigation. We wouldn't be seeing this kind of technicalities if it were still the village elders settling disputes
The free market's about wealth creation.
...)
Not wealth distribution.
Therefore, it's perfectly fine according to the tenets of the free-market that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, as long as the total amount of wealth increases.
A purely free-market capitalistic society would be anarchistic, since there would be no need for taxes for socially beneficial services (roads, plumbing etc.) Just let the rich build their own, and the poor walk. (OTOH, one might say this has already happened in the US, as the mighty corporations have purchased the government and so the govt's actions are really those of the corporation).
You want fair treatment for the rich and poor ? Try socialism. Move to Europe. (Of course that's got its own problems, but one can't have everything
Hmm, to a non-physicist, that seems to make sense.
Think about it. A still image on the TV is actually 30 (29.97 for NTSC, actually) identical images being shown per second. When one says that the human eye can only see 30 FPS, what you're saying is that if the one of the images was different, we'd be able to see that.
Now, if that's the limit, then we can only detect an image if it lasts longer than 1/30 of a second. So if an image lasts for only 1/100000 of a second, we wouldn't be able to see it.
I'm sure this is wrong but would appreciate someone EXPLAINING why.