The author of the paper you reference got it wrong. Residential KWh in the U.S. are sold at $CENTS/KWh, and it has always been between 3-10 CENTS per KWh in the recent years.
See this DOE link which shows "Average Revenue per Kilowatthour for the Residential Sector by State and Utility, 2000".
DirecTV and Tivo need POTS because they dial up a remote computer and retrieve data, just like your a normal modem. This is called PPP.
As seen in this post and its replies, Vonage doesn't do PPP over VoIP yet.
Unless/until Tivo offers a way for its machines to get data directly thru a public (though secure) IP gateway, the machines need to dial directly into a POP, thru PPP.
tyco (didn't they used to make toy trians or was that someone else?)
Tyco Toys, Inc. was purchased by Mattel in 1997, and produced several notable toys including the Magic 8-Ball.
Tyco International Ltd. is a diversified manufacturing and service company (similar in concept to the conglomerate that is GE), with revenues of $38 billion and a market cap of $60 billion.
However, I would still say one couldn't successfully bring a charge of barratry - Hasbro might lose the a trademark infringement case, but it is not a baseless claim. And besides, barratry implies comtinued and persistant bringing of groundless lawsuits - a single instance does not qualify.
Rules of Civil Procedure in most jurisdictions do require that the attorney signing the complaint have a defensible legal ground for the claim, at the risk of sanctions. Not barratry, but similar. The standard is not loose, however, and would not apply in this case, either.
Your description about barratry is correct, however, it does not even come close to applying in this case.
Hasbro has a trademark on the term "Monopoly" as used in connection with toys and games. They have the legal right to prevent anyone else from using that term (through C&D letters, and if persuasion doesn't work, then litigation).
While they can't prevent someone from using "Monopoly" if it is outside of the toy & game field, I certainly think that a Game Boy Advance would fall within the protected area.
MS is a monopoly, fine. There is still no reason not to include a browser with the OS, it is common practice in the OS market to do so. I don't know of any OS you pay money for that doesn't come with a browser.
What you fail to realize is contained in what you just said: MS is a monopoly.
A monopoly is obligated to act in a different manner than non-monopolies. Obtaining a monopoly is not illegal, but in doing so, you are taking on a public responsibility to not abuse your position.
You cannot take stewardship of a public trust, like the telephone system of old, and then deny the ability of third-party telephone makers to sell telephones that work with the system. You used to have to buy your phone from the telephone company. No other phones allowed. Seem fair? That is what MS is doing. They own and control the Windows OS as a monopoly, for the benefit of the public. That is not illegal. What MS is trying to do is say that you have to buy your telephone from only them. That is illegal. The alternative proposals from the non-settling states simply want force MS to allow consumers to use non-MS telephones with the MS system.
As such, even if all other OSs include every application under the sun, Microsoft cannot do so if, in doing so, they leverage their monopoly in OSs to promote their non-monopoly in applications.
Now, we can argue all day (and MS and DOJ many years) whether notepad.exe, write.exe, word.exe are OS components or applications. It is definitely not a bright line, and hard to write into a binding order.
If you don't use windows, you don't even deserve to complain.
In reference to the above, the fact that MS has been judged to have a monopoly in consumer OSs means that they hold that monopoly for the benefit of the public. As such, I have the right (and responsibility) to complain about the abuse of that monopoly even if I don't use Windows.
The abuse of the monopoly does not merely affect Windows users (through higher prices, restricted ability to alter Windows, etc.), but it affects the entire market.
It affects us all, whether we use MS Windows or not, because it affects the entire consumer OS market, which determines entrepreneurial activity, R&D investment, new market development and alternative product introduction.
QuickTime (as a set of APIs and collection of codecs) is very different from Microsoft shoving Internet Explorer application into Windows and intertwining it as much as possible.
I'm not so sure there IS a big difference. IE is not "an application", so much as it is a set of components that expose APIs to be used by "IE.exe" (really just a wrapper around a bunch of libraries), the OS proper, Help, various third-party applications, etc.
QT - QuickTime is a complex multimedia framework. You can remove QuickTime Player, and MacOS (or OS X) will still function. You remove all of the QuickTime framework, and (esp. in OS X) a lot of diverse parts of the OS and third-party apps start having problems.
KDE - KDE is a complex user interface framework. You can remove Kwrite, and KDE will still function. You remove all of the KParts framework (incl. khtml), and a lot of diverse parts of KDE and third-party apps start having problems.
Win - IE is really a semi-complex internet, layout and display framework. You can remove IE.exe, and Windows will still function. You remove all of the IE framework, and a lot of diverse parts of the OS and third-party apps start having problems.
See the similaries? IE is NOT "a program" that can simply be removed. IE is a set of components that winds its meandering way through a lot of the nooks and crannies of Windows.
However,
All of that said, I simply cannot belive that Microsoft can not figure out how to modularize the HTML rendering inferfaces of all of those DLLs, COM objects, ActiveX comtrols, etc.
Win98Lite shows that a lot of programing doesn't even have to be done. It will remove tons of cruft that Microsoft installs, buit that is not necessary to proper functioning of the core OS. It also advises (but allows removal) that you leave certain components in place, else certain subsystems (MSHelp) and third party applications that use common components can break (lots of internet-aware apps call MShtml dlls, some IE com objects).
It SHOULD be non-trivial (compared to the total enginneering effort involved in developing and maintaing WinXXYY) for Microsoft to analyse what system calls are being made internally, clean up and document those APIs, and expose them so that MS components can be replaced by third-party components. And in the process, remove non-necessary dependencies that I am positive are there simply to make Windose break when certain things are removed.
Look at KDE - in Konqueror, you can switch from using khtml as the rendering engine to using gecko (Mozilla) as the rendering engine. The "application" stays the same to the end user, but massive flexibility and customization is acheived.
In the end, I just hope that the parties opposing the MS settlement can educate and convince a judge that MS is justing spouting bullshit about the level of integration involved thoughout Windows. Just because is all installs at the same time does not mean that ALL of it is necessary.
$50 (an hour, I am assuming) is $100,000 gross a year. If you are an independent contractor, take 50% of the top for taxes, FICA/SS, matching FICA/SS, health insurance, business license.
Now you have $50,000. Do you actually want to INCREASE the value of your name? Or make a profit if you own the company? Buy a new computer every few years. Office equipment. Training. Professional memberships. Business development. INVEST.
Now you are taking home $40,000 / year. Any this the MAX you'd allow anyone?
I charge what the market will bear. Occasionally I do pro-bono or charity work. If you think this is "taking advantage of you" or "being a bad person in the process", then either you are very naive, or do not fully agree with responsible capitalism.
Either way, good luck to in your chosen profession - you'll need it.
This distribution SOUNDS nice, but plain sucks in practice.
No, this distribution IS nice, but it plain sucks for YOU in practice.
That in itself is the main gripe. Bandwidth is the biggest problem.
Keep in mind, this is YOUR gripe. Bandwidth is only a problem if you are intending on downloading a lot of data,
- like this distribution is designed to do from the ground on up.
Face it, this distribution is for high bandwidth connections, not for us modem users.
So?? How is that a bad thing? Don't use it. Not every distribution was designed for home modem users. I have lots of bandwidth, and am happy that I can compile the entire OS from scratch, using up-to-date sources. Are you going to demand that Debian remove the net install option, too?
You wouldn't be surprised that a PPC distribution doesn't work well on your x86. Dont't be surprised when this bandwidth-required distro doesn't work well on your bandwidth-lacking machine.
I think Daniel (& co.) has done an absolutely awesome job on Gentoo Linux, and deserves compliments, not people criticizing him for designing HIS distribution exactly the way he wants.
no contract can take away fundamental, constitutional rights.
(I am speaking in the context of the U.S.)
You are right about that premise; however, you are misappling the concept.
The First Amendment prevents the government from keeping you from saying this or that. And that most stongly applies to political speech. Commercial speech can be, has been and is regulated by various governments.
However, nothing prevents a non-governmental entity from telling you you cannot say something. That is not unconstitutional in the least, because the First Amendment only applies to the government.
This is just like how you cant sell yourself into slavery with a contract.
Any contract you enter into that is against the law (or gives up constitutional protections) is VOID on its face - it simply doesn't have any effect at all.
Subject to that provision, you DO, however, have the right to enter into a contract in which you give up an otherwise legal right to do or not do something. This includes agreeing to do X, say Y, or not say Z. Basic concept of what a contract is - tit for tat.
- Persons do NOT have the right, under law, to own other persons. Therefore, any contract you enter into to own another person is VOID.
- Persons do NOT have the right to murder humans, therefore any contract you enter into for a hit on someone is VOID.
- Persons DO have the right to say X about a company's product, therefore you DO have right to enter into a valid, enforceable contract to say or not say X.
The UCITA cannot be used as justification for prior restraint. Even the most wacko, most retarded, most far off in the [left/right] wing bozo judge would rule that way.
Prior restraint is the governement telling you that you cannot say what you were planning on saying. It has nothing to do with a company telling you that you cannot say something. The government cannot exercise prior restraint - First Amendment issue, only trumped in extremely limited instances (Pentagon Papers, nuclear secrets, battlefield troop movements,etc.) And maybe not even in those situations. (memory of Con Law fuzzy)
It's my understanding that the UCITA (inter alia) simply recognizes a click-through EULA as a binding contract between you and the company. It has nothing to do with the gov't telling you that you cannot say X.
Now, if Corporation, Inc. sends a letter to you saying that you cannot say X, and you have no relationship with Corp, Inc., then you throw the letter away and yell X at the top of your lungs. No problem.
But if you signed a contract with Corp. Inc. (say, as an NDA rider on your employment contract) to not say X, then you are under obligation to not say X. This does not have anything to do with the First Amendment or constitutionality. You are signing away non-consitutional rights. Which is perfectly legal.
Speak the truth. Tell anyone you want.
Sure, but be prepared to pay for it.
You can either (1) not say X and keep the $$, or (2) say X and get sued for $$$$
---
IIRC, there are some (tenuous) legal theories about enforcement of contracts which would run afoul of the constitution if the governement tried to enforce those same duties. It has to do with the fact that ultimately the courts (ie. Government) are the ones to enforce the contract, and thus are telling you what you can and cannot do/say. Might only apply in certain instances. Again, Con Law & Civil Procedure fuzzy.
Re:Overkill? Not at all.
on
Linux On Big Iron
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
It's not since they already had the hardware and only added a single CPU to their existing mainframe. They got the whole nine yards for $26K, but they don't have to add a new server, license Exchange...
And that's what I think the earlier posters were talking about, and what still hasn't been answered.
It makes sense to spend $26,000 on a zSeries/Linux solution over "spending $150,000 on new hardware and software for a Microsoft Corp. Exchange upgrade."
But why spend to the $26,000 at all if you can support 700 users on a $5,000 semi-high-end traditional Linux x86 email server?
Is it worth the $26k to not have to worry about an extra physical box? The administration is the same, it is just running Linux on a zSeries for $26k vs. running Linux on a x86 SMP for $5k.
What am I missing? Does the $26,000 include a bunch of consulting services that they needed? $26k to have the IBM name and support?
Yes, the Dutch case can be cited. Anything can be cited: the Bible, Greek mythology, 1950's communist newspapers, etc.
The question is "what is the value of that cite"?
In the U.S., only appellate decisions in the same circuit/district, etc. have precedential value - that is, those prior decisions are binding on the court deciding the current case.
Everything else - cases from different circuits & districts, cases from other countires, logical arguements, etc. - has persuasive value.
* Prior decsions of law within the same court structure = precedent
You do not have a "fair use right". Fair use is a defense against copyright infringement, but not an affirmative right.
So, if you are time-shifting, and the copyright holder sues you, you can say "Fair use" as a defense.
However, if the copyright holder is selling a copy-protected version, you cannot demand, as your right, that they produce a version that allows you to easily time-shift.
A splitting-hairs semantic and legal distinction, but one nonetheless.
A company can have shareholders or stockholders (same thing, really), and still be private.
If a company meets qualifications, its certificates of equity (stock and/or shares) can be traded by the public through an exchange. If not, or if a company prefers not to have the public at-large own interests in the company, then the company can decide to not trade its shares on a public exchange. In that case, there are still share/stock holders, it's just the any trades/sales/purchases are done in private.
A corporation, by definition, has at least one shareholder or stockholder. That's what a corporation is, an entity with separate legal liabilty owned by equity holders (stock- or share- holders). These shares can be bought and sold. Those sales can either happen on a large exchange (PUBLIC), or over a lawyer's desk (PRIVATE).
I believe the poster is refering to the overlap of ideas among those who:
1. refuse to acknowledge the rules of civil procedure in our court system - i.e. "My name is not all capital letters, therefore I am free to leave",
and
2. do not believe that the Federal Income Tax is constitutional, do not pay income tax, and in one wierd case, even advocate on a well-attended lecture circuit, the rationale and reason for *you* to not pay income taxex under the guise of unconstitutionality.
All of these people tend to be lumped in together as "extreme right-wingers". This group also includes the "militia" in the mostly-Western states, people who don't acknowledge the legitimate authority of the Federal government, white separtists, strident anti-immigration-ists, etc.
apt-get (the program) is now available for.rpm (the format). As a result, you can have all of the power of apt-get, its tools, the great dependency checking, etc., on a RPM-based system. More and more RPM apt-get-able repositories are coming on line every day.
See the above links for using apt-get to keep a RedHat 7.2 system updated to the very latest in a lot of popular packages. If a lot of good-quality RPM repositories become available (and you can imagine there will be), this might keep me out of Debian's clutches yet:)
however, you must acquire and dedicate a license for each separate computer on which the SOFTWARE PRODUCT is installed or run from the storage device. A license for the SOFTWARE PRODUCT may not be shared or used concurrently on different computers.
By using VNC, you are NOT installing or running the SOTWARE PRODUCT from the the storage device on separate computers. You are installing and running the SOFTWARE PRODUCT on one computer.
The fact that you are viewing it on another would not matter. Any more than you PCAnywhere'ing to your office machine from home, and working in Word, which is installed and running on only one machine, namely your office computer.
Now, Terminal Server might have a different EULA which would classify all clients as "separate computers" for the terms of any other MS license, but I don't agree with your reading of Office EULA.
Well, the kernel's in C, but just run 'linux init=/bin/emacs' (although, is emacs proper written in lisp itself?)
I'm sure every common application has been written in elisp at this point - web server, browser, email app, editor, IDE - although you might have to be the one to write CC in lisp - maybe RMS can help you:) wait, lisp is self-hosting within EMACS, isn't it? - no compiler needed. And then you two could start HURD over in lisp. Another 15 years and we won't need the linux kernel anymore!
Your perfect OS is already on your hard drive! Just a config file away:)
the AVERAGE programmer scores 2 std deviations ABOVE the norm for intelligence - we tend to be around a 150 - 160 on the IQ scale
We have no problems with this "stuff" because we ARE smarter than "they" are. What works for you and I doesn't work for the average user
Jeez, man, jump on down off your high horse. I don't belive you have an IQ of 150, and I am positive that the average computer programmer doesn't.
"We" have no problems with this stuff because we have invested hundreds of hours of CLI work, have installed different OSes many times, tweaked hardware, configured networks and generally made a life's work out of the intricacies of computers.
"They" can model complex financial transactions, design beautiful artwork/buildings/user experiences, do your taxes, write ad copy or plays, make the company you work for operate smoothly, or fix your automatic transmission.
Can't do any of the above? "They" must think you are a luser with a below average IQ. "Bah, all he can do is sit at a computer and be a 'computer geek'."
We have no problems with this "stuff" because we ARE smarter than "they" are.
No, YOU have no problems with this "stuff" because you do it all of the time. YOU have major problems with other "stuff" becuase you do not. Others are the same way. Why do you not see that?
Are your eyes closed on purpose? Is your ass on your shoulders?
Slashdot Mirror
Can you smell what The Rock is cookin'?
The biggest WWF (Worldwide Wrestling Federation) star athlete/entertainer since Hulk/Hollywood Hogan. Now that's sayin' something!
(...and I still wonder why Canada mandates locally produced programming. See what you're missing? Jealous yet?)
The author of the paper you reference got it wrong. Residential KWh in the U.S. are sold at $CENTS/KWh, and it has always been between 3-10 CENTS per KWh in the recent years.
See this DOE link which shows "Average Revenue per Kilowatthour for the Residential Sector by State and Utility, 2000".
They are all around 6 cents /KWh.
0.1 KW (100 watts) constant * 24 * 365 * $.06 = $52.56 per year.
DirecTV and Tivo need POTS because they dial up a remote computer and retrieve data, just like your a normal modem. This is called PPP.
As seen in this post and its replies, Vonage doesn't do PPP over VoIP yet.
Unless/until Tivo offers a way for its machines to get data directly thru a public (though secure) IP gateway, the machines need to dial directly into a POP, thru PPP.
tyco (didn't they used to make toy trians or was that someone else?)
Tyco Toys, Inc. was purchased by Mattel in 1997, and produced several notable toys including the Magic 8-Ball.
Tyco International Ltd. is a diversified manufacturing and service company (similar in concept to the conglomerate that is GE), with revenues of $38 billion and a market cap of $60 billion.
This Tyco is the one that runs undersea cables.
Good point (and your parent post).
However, I would still say one couldn't successfully bring a charge of barratry - Hasbro might lose the a trademark infringement case, but it is not a baseless claim. And besides, barratry implies comtinued and persistant bringing of groundless lawsuits - a single instance does not qualify.
Rules of Civil Procedure in most jurisdictions do require that the attorney signing the complaint have a defensible legal ground for the claim, at the risk of sanctions. Not barratry, but similar. The standard is not loose, however, and would not apply in this case, either.
Your description about barratry is correct, however, it does not even come close to applying in this case.
Hasbro has a trademark on the term "Monopoly" as used in connection with toys and games. They have the legal right to prevent anyone else from using that term (through C&D letters, and if persuasion doesn't work, then litigation).
While they can't prevent someone from using "Monopoly" if it is outside of the toy & game field, I certainly think that a Game Boy Advance would fall within the protected area.
MS is a monopoly, fine. There is still no reason not to include a browser with the OS, it is common practice in the OS market to do so. I don't know of any OS you pay money for that doesn't come with a browser.
What you fail to realize is contained in what you just said: MS is a monopoly.
A monopoly is obligated to act in a different manner than non-monopolies. Obtaining a monopoly is not illegal, but in doing so, you are taking on a public responsibility to not abuse your position.
You cannot take stewardship of a public trust, like the telephone system of old, and then deny the ability of third-party telephone makers to sell telephones that work with the system. You used to have to buy your phone from the telephone company. No other phones allowed. Seem fair? That is what MS is doing. They own and control the Windows OS as a monopoly, for the benefit of the public. That is not illegal. What MS is trying to do is say that you have to buy your telephone from only them. That is illegal. The alternative proposals from the non-settling states simply want force MS to allow consumers to use non-MS telephones with the MS system.
As such, even if all other OSs include every application under the sun, Microsoft cannot do so if, in doing so, they leverage their monopoly in OSs to promote their non-monopoly in applications.
Now, we can argue all day (and MS and DOJ many years) whether notepad.exe, write.exe, word.exe are OS components or applications. It is definitely not a bright line, and hard to write into a binding order.
If you don't use windows, you don't even deserve to complain.
In reference to the above, the fact that MS has been judged to have a monopoly in consumer OSs means that they hold that monopoly for the benefit of the public. As such, I have the right (and responsibility) to complain about the abuse of that monopoly even if I don't use Windows.
The abuse of the monopoly does not merely affect Windows users (through higher prices, restricted ability to alter Windows, etc.), but it affects the entire market.
It affects us all, whether we use MS Windows or not, because it affects the entire consumer OS market, which determines entrepreneurial activity, R&D investment, new market development and alternative product introduction.
That affects me.
QuickTime (as a set of APIs and collection of codecs) is very different from Microsoft shoving Internet Explorer application into Windows and intertwining it as much as possible.
I'm not so sure there IS a big difference. IE is not "an application", so much as it is a set of components that expose APIs to be used by "IE.exe" (really just a wrapper around a bunch of libraries), the OS proper, Help, various third-party applications, etc.
QT - QuickTime is a complex multimedia framework. You can remove QuickTime Player, and MacOS (or OS X) will still function. You remove all of the QuickTime framework, and (esp. in OS X) a lot of diverse parts of the OS and third-party apps start having problems.
KDE - KDE is a complex user interface framework. You can remove Kwrite, and KDE will still function. You remove all of the KParts framework (incl. khtml), and a lot of diverse parts of KDE and third-party apps start having problems.
Win - IE is really a semi-complex internet, layout and display framework. You can remove IE.exe, and Windows will still function. You remove all of the IE framework, and a lot of diverse parts of the OS and third-party apps start having problems.
See the similaries? IE is NOT "a program" that can simply be removed. IE is a set of components that winds its meandering way through a lot of the nooks and crannies of Windows.
However,
All of that said, I simply cannot belive that Microsoft can not figure out how to modularize the HTML rendering inferfaces of all of those DLLs, COM objects, ActiveX comtrols, etc.
Win98Lite shows that a lot of programing doesn't even have to be done. It will remove tons of cruft that Microsoft installs, buit that is not necessary to proper functioning of the core OS. It also advises (but allows removal) that you leave certain components in place, else certain subsystems (MSHelp) and third party applications that use common components can break (lots of internet-aware apps call MShtml dlls, some IE com objects).
It SHOULD be non-trivial (compared to the total enginneering effort involved in developing and maintaing WinXXYY) for Microsoft to analyse what system calls are being made internally, clean up and document those APIs, and expose them so that MS components can be replaced by third-party components. And in the process, remove non-necessary dependencies that I am positive are there simply to make Windose break when certain things are removed.
Look at KDE - in Konqueror, you can switch from using khtml as the rendering engine to using gecko (Mozilla) as the rendering engine. The "application" stays the same to the end user, but massive flexibility and customization is acheived.
In the end, I just hope that the parties opposing the MS settlement can educate and convince a judge that MS is justing spouting bullshit about the level of integration involved thoughout Windows. Just because is all installs at the same time does not mean that ALL of it is necessary.
Welcome to a free market.
$50 (an hour, I am assuming) is $100,000 gross a year. If you are an independent contractor, take 50% of the top for taxes, FICA/SS, matching FICA/SS, health insurance, business license.
Now you have $50,000. Do you actually want to INCREASE the value of your name? Or make a profit if you own the company? Buy a new computer every few years. Office equipment. Training. Professional memberships. Business development. INVEST.
Now you are taking home $40,000 / year. Any this the MAX you'd allow anyone?
I charge what the market will bear. Occasionally I do pro-bono or charity work. If you think this is "taking advantage of you" or "being a bad person in the process", then either you are very naive, or do not fully agree with responsible capitalism.
Either way, good luck to in your chosen profession - you'll need it.
This distribution SOUNDS nice, but plain sucks in practice.
No, this distribution IS nice, but it plain sucks for YOU in practice.
That in itself is the main gripe. Bandwidth is the biggest problem.
Keep in mind, this is YOUR gripe. Bandwidth is only a problem if you are intending on downloading a lot of data,
- like this distribution is designed to do from the ground on up.
Face it, this distribution is for high bandwidth connections, not for us modem users.
So?? How is that a bad thing? Don't use it. Not every distribution was designed for home modem users. I have lots of bandwidth, and am happy that I can compile the entire OS from scratch, using up-to-date sources. Are you going to demand that Debian remove the net install option, too?
You wouldn't be surprised that a PPC distribution doesn't work well on your x86. Dont't be surprised when this bandwidth-required distro doesn't work well on your bandwidth-lacking machine.
I think Daniel (& co.) has done an absolutely awesome job on Gentoo Linux, and deserves compliments, not people criticizing him for designing HIS distribution exactly the way he wants.
no contract can take away fundamental, constitutional rights.
(I am speaking in the context of the U.S.)
You are right about that premise; however, you are misappling the concept.
The First Amendment prevents the government from keeping you from saying this or that. And that most stongly applies to political speech. Commercial speech can be, has been and is regulated by various governments.
However, nothing prevents a non-governmental entity from telling you you cannot say something. That is not unconstitutional in the least, because the First Amendment only applies to the government.
This is just like how you cant sell yourself into slavery with a contract.
Any contract you enter into that is against the law (or gives up constitutional protections) is VOID on its face - it simply doesn't have any effect at all.
Subject to that provision, you DO, however, have the right to enter into a contract in which you give up an otherwise legal right to do or not do something. This includes agreeing to do X, say Y, or not say Z. Basic concept of what a contract is - tit for tat.
- Persons do NOT have the right, under law, to own other persons. Therefore, any contract you enter into to own another person is VOID.
- Persons do NOT have the right to murder humans, therefore any contract you enter into for a hit on someone is VOID.
- Persons DO have the right to say X about a company's product, therefore you DO have right to enter into a valid, enforceable contract to say or not say X.
The UCITA cannot be used as justification for prior restraint. Even the most wacko, most retarded, most far off in the [left/right] wing bozo judge would rule that way.
Prior restraint is the governement telling you that you cannot say what you were planning on saying. It has nothing to do with a company telling you that you cannot say something. The government cannot exercise prior restraint - First Amendment issue, only trumped in extremely limited instances (Pentagon Papers, nuclear secrets, battlefield troop movements,etc.) And maybe not even in those situations. (memory of Con Law fuzzy)
It's my understanding that the UCITA (inter alia) simply recognizes a click-through EULA as a binding contract between you and the company. It has nothing to do with the gov't telling you that you cannot say X.
Now, if Corporation, Inc. sends a letter to you saying that you cannot say X, and you have no relationship with Corp, Inc., then you throw the letter away and yell X at the top of your lungs. No problem.
But if you signed a contract with Corp. Inc. (say, as an NDA rider on your employment contract) to not say X, then you are under obligation to not say X. This does not have anything to do with the First Amendment or constitutionality. You are signing away non-consitutional rights. Which is perfectly legal.
Speak the truth. Tell anyone you want.
Sure, but be prepared to pay for it.
You can either (1) not say X and keep the $$, or (2) say X and get sued for $$$$
---
IIRC, there are some (tenuous) legal theories about enforcement of contracts which would run afoul of the constitution if the governement tried to enforce those same duties. It has to do with the fact that ultimately the courts (ie. Government) are the ones to enforce the contract, and thus are telling you what you can and cannot do/say. Might only apply in certain instances. Again, Con Law & Civil Procedure fuzzy.
What Debian needs a well indexed book of all the typical problems that people go to #debian with. It should....[snip]
I'd have gladly paid $50 for a book like that.
http://www.debian.org/doc/books
See also: http://www.debian.org/doc/
It's not since they already had the hardware and only added a single CPU to their existing mainframe. They got the whole nine yards for $26K, but they don't have to add a new server, license Exchange...
And that's what I think the earlier posters were talking about, and what still hasn't been answered.
It makes sense to spend $26,000 on a zSeries/Linux solution over "spending $150,000 on new hardware and software for a Microsoft Corp. Exchange upgrade."
But why spend to the $26,000 at all if you can support 700 users on a $5,000 semi-high-end traditional Linux x86 email server?
Is it worth the $26k to not have to worry about an extra physical box? The administration is the same, it is just running Linux on a zSeries for $26k vs. running Linux on a x86 SMP for $5k.
What am I missing? Does the $26,000 include a bunch of consulting services that they needed? $26k to have the IBM name and support?
Yes, the Dutch case can be cited. Anything can be cited: the Bible, Greek mythology, 1950's communist newspapers, etc.
The question is "what is the value of that cite"?
In the U.S., only appellate decisions in the same circuit/district, etc. have precedential value - that is, those prior decisions are binding on the court deciding the current case.
Everything else - cases from different circuits & districts, cases from other countires, logical arguements, etc. - has persuasive value.
* Prior decsions of law within the same court structure = precedent
* Everything else = persuasive
Late reply, I know.
You do not have a "fair use right". Fair use is a defense against copyright infringement, but not an affirmative right.
So, if you are time-shifting, and the copyright holder sues you, you can say "Fair use" as a defense.
However, if the copyright holder is selling a copy-protected version, you cannot demand, as your right, that they produce a version that allows you to easily time-shift.
A splitting-hairs semantic and legal distinction, but one nonetheless.
Hope that helps.
A company can have shareholders or stockholders (same thing, really), and still be private.
If a company meets qualifications, its certificates of equity (stock and/or shares) can be traded by the public through an exchange. If not, or if a company prefers not to have the public at-large own interests in the company, then the company can decide to not trade its shares on a public exchange. In that case, there are still share/stock holders, it's just the any trades/sales/purchases are done in private.
A corporation, by definition, has at least one shareholder or stockholder. That's what a corporation is, an entity with separate legal liabilty owned by equity holders (stock- or share- holders). These shares can be bought and sold. Those sales can either happen on a large exchange (PUBLIC), or over a lawyer's desk (PRIVATE).
I believe the poster is refering to the overlap of ideas among those who:
1. refuse to acknowledge the rules of civil procedure in our court system - i.e. "My name is not all capital letters, therefore I am free to leave",
and
2. do not believe that the Federal Income Tax is constitutional, do not pay income tax, and in one wierd case, even advocate on a well-attended lecture circuit, the rationale and reason for *you* to not pay income taxex under the guise of unconstitutionality.
All of these people tend to be lumped in together as "extreme right-wingers". This group also includes the "militia" in the mostly-Western states, people who don't acknowledge the legitimate authority of the Federal government, white separtists, strident anti-immigration-ists, etc.
You
Mean
Like
This
apt-get (the program) is now available for .rpm (the format). As a result, you can have all of the power of apt-get, its tools, the great dependency checking, etc., on a RPM-based system. More and more RPM apt-get-able repositories are coming on line every day.
See the above links for using apt-get to keep a RedHat 7.2 system updated to the very latest in a lot of popular packages. If a lot of good-quality RPM repositories become available (and you can imagine there will be), this might keep me out of Debian's clutches yet :)
however, you must acquire and dedicate a license for each separate computer on which the SOFTWARE PRODUCT is installed or run from the storage device. A license for the SOFTWARE PRODUCT may not be shared or used concurrently on different computers.
By using VNC, you are NOT installing or running the SOTWARE PRODUCT from the the storage device on separate computers. You are installing and running the SOFTWARE PRODUCT on one computer.
The fact that you are viewing it on another would not matter. Any more than you PCAnywhere'ing to your office machine from home, and working in Word, which is installed and running on only one machine, namely your office computer.
Now, Terminal Server might have a different EULA which would classify all clients as "separate computers" for the terms of any other MS license, but I don't agree with your reading of Office EULA.
In today's Grauniad:
Is THAT supposed to be "Guardian" ?!?!?!
Good lord, man, are you typing with your toes? Or maybe that's the name of the paper in Gaelic?
Save the Ph.D. - it's called meth
Well, the kernel's in C, but just run 'linux init=/bin/emacs' (although, is emacs proper written in lisp itself?)
I'm sure every common application has been written in elisp at this point - web server, browser, email app, editor, IDE - although you might have to be the one to write CC in lisp - maybe RMS can help you :) wait, lisp is self-hosting within EMACS, isn't it? - no compiler needed. And then you two could start HURD over in lisp. Another 15 years and we won't need the linux kernel anymore!
Your perfect OS is already on your hard drive! Just a config file away :)
I think it could be a sarcastic reply-in-advance to the slightly insulting comment that he anticipates you might say next.
As in,
"I did them just fine on all the tests, contrary to what you might be thinking right now and planning on saying."
<voice = sarcastic Steve Marin>
"Wellll, thaannkk YOU"
<voice = off>
No etymology links for you, though.
the AVERAGE programmer scores 2 std deviations ABOVE the norm for intelligence - we tend to be around a 150 - 160 on the IQ scale
We have no problems with this "stuff" because we ARE smarter than "they" are. What works for you and I doesn't work for the average user
Jeez, man, jump on down off your high horse. I don't belive you have an IQ of 150, and I am positive that the average computer programmer doesn't.
"We" have no problems with this stuff because we have invested hundreds of hours of CLI work, have installed different OSes many times, tweaked hardware, configured networks and generally made a life's work out of the intricacies of computers.
"They" can model complex financial transactions, design beautiful artwork/buildings/user experiences, do your taxes, write ad copy or plays, make the company you work for operate smoothly, or fix your automatic transmission.
Can't do any of the above? "They" must think you are a luser with a below average IQ. "Bah, all he can do is sit at a computer and be a 'computer geek'."
We have no problems with this "stuff" because we ARE smarter than "they" are.
No, YOU have no problems with this "stuff" because you do it all of the time. YOU have major problems with other "stuff" becuase you do not. Others are the same way. Why do you not see that?
Are your eyes closed on purpose? Is your ass on your shoulders?
First post?