It is the nature of those in authority to seek out greater power and methods of expanding their empire... While these incentives exist in forproffit businesses at risk of bankrupcy if they fail to operate efficiently, ICAN doesn't have this threat handing over their collective head.
Didn't Cringely claim several months ago that they were going to try to do this? Well, not quite, but back in August he wrote:
According to these programmers, Microsoft wants to replace TCP/IP with a proprietary protocol -- a protocol owned by Microsoft -- that it will tout as being more secure.
So they decided to go up one level of abstraction. Hell why not, that way they break even more competing products.
I've seen better explanations of this term, but this one should do. Just because the consequences of global warming are potentially catastrophic is no validation of the theory.
"Every packet you send can be examined along each router through which is passes."
And every phone call you make can be examined at any of the TELCO offices through which it passes. Your point being?
Oh, maybe you thought that just because it is somewhat easier to snoop internet traffic that it is therefore OK. The whole point of protections against unwarranted search and seizure is to say that the authorities aren't even allowed to try.
He explained his reasons for opposing KDE. As you even said in your summation, it had nothing to do with who was in charge and everything to do with the license. The license has since changed, so there is no more need to oppose KDE.
People who assume his attack on the license was an attack on the people who chose to use that license are the ones who come off as ideologues.
Someone goes back into the past and changes some trivial thing. This change cascades to the point that the inventor of time travel doesn't invent it. But at some later point, someone else invents it. But then someone goes back into the past, changes some trivial thing...
Lather, rinse repeat...
Eventually, humanity will progress from the dawn of civilization to extinction without the discovery ever having been made. That's the world we're in now.
protect us from liability should anyone manage to damage themselves or their own companies with the product you want us to give away.
The fact that our current legal system does nothing to discourage frivolous lawsuits is the real problem here. I agree that it will be raised, and that it is a fact of life. But that's not a problem with copyright law, it's a problem with tort law.
The other question is, if their license-du-jour you create online doesn't stand up in court
Well then, the product would revert to standard copyright, by which no one but the author has any right to do anything with it. Any type of license other than standard copyright is a way of specifying what rights the purchaser/liscensor has to a product. By default, no one but the author has any rights.
Think of it like the team who found the Titanic. Roughly zero scientific learning, but the public interest in it brought in enough money to fund development of the remote vehicles. Once the cameras point to something else, they're left with some expensive new toys to use to do some real work.
Anything that's well written is better than anything that's not, no matter what languages they cover and what ones you're using. As long as you have a decent function reference for your language, the rest is all programming theory anyway.
I'm willing to accept it might be me who's wrong, but my understanding of.NET, according to the way Microsoft themselves have sold it, is that trust of foreign code will be established by reference to a central verifying authority. For example, the way they use Passport to authenticate within Hotmail.
But to me the big issue is more the way MS will use.NET in practice. While the.NET specification could indeed be submitted in its entirety to some standards body, what would prevent Microsoft from adding an additional API into all the services that they actually build off of.NET?
Any ".NET compliant" third-party implementation that is not interoperable with Microsoft's version will be dead in the water.
There could be a problem if MS shifts the spec or extends the spec. At that point if Miguel decides to chase MS he loses. If he decides to "fork".NET and stick with the standards he wins because.NET will become fragmented.
No one who's been paying attention has any doubt whether MS will extend the standard. All they have to do is require a (patented) process to access a single part of the system.
Remember,.NET requires interaction with a server somewhere. If the service you're trying to use is a Microsoft one, that server will be inside Microsoft. Now, if Gnome can't use that service, why would anyone choose to use it.
With Microsoft being the defacto standard, Gnome needs a compelling reason for people to switch. Aiming for where Microsoft was two months ago doesn't provide that. More importantly, if Miguel were to attempt to fork.NET what exactly would be the incentive to stick with his version? Forks are always resolved by market share. Guess who's got it.
Well, it turns out that you have an employee that sent a seemingly innocent comment to his friend at such a company...
You don't even need that much of a "real" issue for this to become an expensive litigation. I once worked for a law firm. (IANAL, no sensitive info coming out here) We represented one of the parties in a patent infringement suit. Just documenting and sorting the contents of a couple of dozen employees' hard drives -- in order to determine what needed to be provided in the discovery phase -- took a team of three people over a week. If you end up in litigation, someone has to go through everything to see what is covered under "all documents or materials relating to... "
There is evidence that people both at Enron and Anderson destroyed documents after being explicitly told by a judge not to destroy anything. I'm not suggesting that some new regulations might not be in order, but I always prefer to improve enforcement of existing regs before we start considering new ones.
And your mother's maiden name, while you're at it. And your home address, SSN, birth certificate.
Nothing to hide, right?
Oh, and that letter you wrote to your realtor telling him the absolute lowest price you would accept for the house you're selling. I'm in the market for a new house and I could really use that information.
Besides, you have nothing to hide.
Jon told us about himself, now how about the web?
on
The End of Cyber BS
·
· Score: 2
We can't characterize ourselves without simultaneously drawing a picture of how the world seems to us, Weinberger says, nor can we describe our world without describing the type of people we are...
In case Weinberger hasn't noticed -- and he hasn't, if the book is any indication -- the Web these days is mostly about sex, free news, entertainment and retailing.
'swapping' of backup disks between people would be uncontrollable, and damaging to Sony as nobody would obviously pay £25-45 for a game
Exactly how is this obvious? It seems to be the same argument that was made against VCRs when they came out. Who was the plaintiff in that one? Why, it was Sony, wasn't it? And has history shown that the argument was true?
You are making the assumption that given sufficient marketshare, AOL/TW wouldn't act exactly like Microsoft and try to gain as much control over their users, and that revenue stream, as MS ever did.
And if another 800 lb. gorilla went toe-to-toe with Microsoft, that would be... competition. In one move, AOL will have solved the problem the DoJ hasn't been able to do anything about: Make MS into a non-monopoly.
We all know coroporations act in their own interests. As long as they are all fighting against each other, they keep each other in check. (In theory.)
Slashdot Mirror
It is the nature of those in authority to seek out greater power and methods of expanding their empire ... While these incentives exist in forproffit businesses at risk of bankrupcy if they fail to operate efficiently, ICAN doesn't have this threat handing over their collective head.
For more examples see here and here and here and here.
Didn't Cringely claim several months ago that they were going to try to do this? Well, not quite, but back in August he wrote:
So they decided to go up one level of abstraction. Hell why not, that way they break even more competing products.
I've seen better explanations of this term, but this one should do. Just because the consequences of global warming are potentially catastrophic is no validation of the theory.
"Every packet you send can be examined along each router through which is passes."
And every phone call you make can be examined at any of the TELCO offices through which it passes. Your point being?
Oh, maybe you thought that just because it is somewhat easier to snoop internet traffic that it is therefore OK. The whole point of protections against unwarranted search and seizure is to say that the authorities aren't even allowed to try.
Ooh, purty.
(Oh god, geek cheesecake photos. This is really embarrasing.)
Aww, crap, it really is a cluster. Well that's not very funny, now is it?
He explained his reasons for opposing KDE. As you even said in your summation, it had nothing to do with who was in charge and everything to do with the license. The license has since changed, so there is no more need to oppose KDE.
People who assume his attack on the license was an attack on the people who chose to use that license are the ones who come off as ideologues.
Unfortunately, checking their website shows that only business machines will have a Linux option; home machines are still WinXP only.
So much for the claim that Linux is only a toy, not ready for the business environment.
Someone goes back into the past and changes some trivial thing. This change cascades to the point that the inventor of time travel doesn't invent it. But at some later point, someone else invents it. But then someone goes back into the past, changes some trivial thing ...
...
Lather, rinse repeat
Eventually, humanity will progress from the dawn of civilization to extinction without the discovery ever having been made. That's the world we're in now.
Moderation Totals: Flamebait=1, Troll=1, Insightful=2, Informative=5, Overrated=2, Total=11.
Okay, who're the idiots? And can someone please mod the parent back up where it belongs, please?
protect us from liability should anyone manage to damage themselves or their own companies with the product you want us to give away.
The fact that our current legal system does nothing to discourage frivolous lawsuits is the real problem here. I agree that it will be raised, and that it is a fact of life. But that's not a problem with copyright law, it's a problem with tort law.
The other question is, if their license-du-jour you create online doesn't stand up in court
Well then, the product would revert to standard copyright, by which no one but the author has any right to do anything with it. Any type of license other than standard copyright is a way of specifying what rights the purchaser/liscensor has to a product. By default, no one but the author has any rights.
Think of it like the team who found the Titanic. Roughly zero scientific learning, but the public interest in it brought in enough money to fund development of the remote vehicles. Once the cameras point to something else, they're left with some expensive new toys to use to do some real work.
Anything that's well written is better than anything that's not, no matter what languages they cover and what ones you're using. As long as you have a decent function reference for your language, the rest is all programming theory anyway.
I'm willing to accept it might be me who's wrong, but my understanding of .NET, according to the way Microsoft themselves have sold it, is that trust of foreign code will be established by reference to a central verifying authority. For example, the way they use Passport to authenticate within Hotmail.
.NET in practice. While the .NET specification could indeed be submitted in its entirety to some standards body, what would prevent Microsoft from adding an additional API into all the services that they actually build off of .NET?
But to me the big issue is more the way MS will use
Any ".NET compliant" third-party implementation that is not interoperable with Microsoft's version will be dead in the water.
There could be a problem if MS shifts the spec or extends the spec. At that point if Miguel decides to chase MS he loses. If he decides to "fork" .NET and stick with the standards he wins because .NET will become fragmented.
.NET requires interaction with a server somewhere. If the service you're trying to use is a Microsoft one, that server will be inside Microsoft. Now, if Gnome can't use that service, why would anyone choose to use it.
.NET what exactly would be the incentive to stick with his version? Forks are always resolved by market share. Guess who's got it.
No one who's been paying attention has any doubt whether MS will extend the standard. All they have to do is require a (patented) process to access a single part of the system.
Remember,
With Microsoft being the defacto standard, Gnome needs a compelling reason for people to switch. Aiming for where Microsoft was two months ago doesn't provide that. More importantly, if Miguel were to attempt to fork
He was congratulating the guy who got the fp, dumberass.
Anyone want to hire me? I can do ... Oh nevermind.
Well, it turns out that you have an employee that sent a seemingly innocent comment to his friend at such a company ...
... "
You don't even need that much of a "real" issue for this to become an expensive litigation. I once worked for a law firm. (IANAL, no sensitive info coming out here) We represented one of the parties in a patent infringement suit. Just documenting and sorting the contents of a couple of dozen employees' hard drives -- in order to determine what needed to be provided in the discovery phase -- took a team of three people over a week. If you end up in litigation, someone has to go through everything to see what is covered under "all documents or materials relating to
" ... Enron ...
... dirty oil company dealings ...
... Iran/Contra ..."
... Cheney
... Reagan/Bush
Clinton! Whitewater!
Clinton! Chinese campaign financing!
Okay, move along, nothing to see here.
There is evidence that people both at Enron and Anderson destroyed documents after being explicitly told by a judge not to destroy anything. I'm not suggesting that some new regulations might not be in order, but I always prefer to improve enforcement of existing regs before we start considering new ones.
After all you have nothing to hide, right?
And your mother's maiden name, while you're at it. And your home address, SSN, birth certificate.
Nothing to hide, right?
Oh, and that letter you wrote to your realtor telling him the absolute lowest price you would accept for the house you're selling. I'm in the market for a new house and I could really use that information.
Besides, you have nothing to hide.
We can't characterize ourselves without simultaneously drawing a picture of how the world seems to us, Weinberger says, nor can we describe our world without describing the type of people we are ...
In case Weinberger hasn't noticed -- and he hasn't, if the book is any indication -- the Web these days is mostly about sex, free news, entertainment and retailing.
I wonder what Jon has bookmarked?
First explain it to me, and then to the judge:
'swapping' of backup disks between people would be uncontrollable, and damaging to Sony as nobody would obviously pay £25-45 for a game
Exactly how is this obvious? It seems to be the same argument that was made against VCRs when they came out. Who was the plaintiff in that one? Why, it was Sony, wasn't it? And has history shown that the argument was true?
You are making the assumption that given sufficient marketshare, AOL/TW wouldn't act exactly like Microsoft and try to gain as much control over their users, and that revenue stream, as MS ever did.
... competition. In one move, AOL will have solved the problem the DoJ hasn't been able to do anything about: Make MS into a non-monopoly.
And if another 800 lb. gorilla went toe-to-toe with Microsoft, that would be
We all know coroporations act in their own interests. As long as they are all fighting against each other, they keep each other in check. (In theory.)