There's also the matter of ensuring the security of data carried on the
handheld device (or anywhere on a computer system, for that matter).
Generally speaking, security and patient privacy are the reasons why
hospitals and clinics are reluctant to put many types of patient information
online (particulary chart information). If a hacker gets your credit card
number, you generally are not out much (if anything), and you can replace
the number easily. If a hacker gets your medical information (or, more
likely, if some employee at the hospital or clinic decides to look up your
info during the employee's coffee break), it can be well nigh impossible to
undo the damage there. Plus, as mentioned in the article, HIPAA (Health
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) will require healthcare
providers to take much better care of their confidential patient data (or
face stiff penalties).
This is not to say that paper records are that secure. In fact, it is
probably the case that electronic records can be much more tightly
controlled than paper ones. It's really analogous to airplanes and their
safety. The airlines may have fewer accidents and fatalities per mile
travelled and per passenger, but the accidents that do happen are real
doozies.
While I'm very happy that Jennifer Dukes Lee (who I met during my brief days at the Iowa State Daily) made Slashdot (go Jenny!), I'm not seeing the news value of a discovery whose significance was recognised "in a 1994 scientific journal called Cell." Just wondering about that.
The United States Congress in fact grants federal charters to corporations. Do a search on "corporation" at http://thomas.loc.gov/ for some examples. 'Course, corporations much more typically get charters from individual states (and sometimes they get a charter from the Feds and from a state).
This is more an issue of contract law. A federal court would probably find that it does not unduly burden interstate commerce, and it provides a legitimate local benefit, so it would pass constitutional muster.
If it's at all helpful, just think of those warranty notices that state that your rights under the warranty may vary depending on the state where you live.
It's not a states rights issue.
on
Fighting UCITA
·
· Score: 1
It is perfectly within the rights of the state of Iowa to pass laws that affect people (and companies) within its jurisdiction. For example, say that I purchased a license for a faulty program, and I went to an Iowa court to sue the company that authored the program. In this case it's the business of no other state but Iowa.
Were the company to sue me under the terms of the license, I could tell the court (in whatever state) that I'm a citizen of Iowa, the contract was agreed to in the state of Iowa and is subject to its laws, and the law in Iowa is yadda yadda yadda. The case could then be appealed to a Federal court (as they have jurisdiction over "controversies...between citizens of different states"). In that case, the court would merely be balancing the rights of the state of Iowa versus the other state.
Regarding Congress and interstate commerce, this is something that has been strictly a state issue (as most contract disputes are). If the federal government would get involved at all, it would be the courts that would get involved (as mentioned earlier).
Need to be a resident of Iowa.
on
Fighting UCITA
·
· Score: 1
It says so explicitly in the bill (see my note below). After all, you're not agreeing to the license when you purchase the product; you're agreeing to it when you load it and click the "yes" button.
Here's the relevant section of the bill (HF 2205).
on
Fighting UCITA
·
· Score: 2
BTW, looks like it's passed both the House and Senate and is ready for the Gov's signature.
A transaction that is subject to a computer information contract which provides that the contract is to be interpreted pursuant to the laws of a state that has enacted the uniform computer information transactions Act, as proposed by the national conference of commissioners on uniform state laws, or any substantially similar law, is null and void and the contract shall be interpreted pursuant to the laws of this state if at least one party to the contract is a resident or has its principal place of business located in this state.
For purposes of this subsection, a "computer information contract" means a contract that would be governed by the uniform computer information transactions Act or substantially similar law as enacted in the state of residence of the other person to the contract if that state's law were applied to the contract.
Fact is, sales taxes hit the poor and middle class harder than they do the rich, even if you exempt drugs, food, etc. The paper rather overstates it's case regarding how much money there is out there, but the point is well taken that much (if not most) of the revenue would be eaten up in transaction fees. There are simply more efficient and less regressive ways to raise revenue than collecting sales taxes on Internet transactions.
I grant that the less wealthy out there do not have access to the Internet (so they couldn't take full advantage of this). This is to some extent an intractable problem (a certain percent of the population will never get wired, no matter how cheap or easy it becomes). OTOH, it doesn't take too much resourcefulness to find a friend who is Internet-savvy, so this may not be nearly the problem it seems to be on the surface.
Vietnam qualifies insofar as the technology available to the U.S. at the time (airmobile units, napalm, jet bombers, etc.) allowed Johnson et. al. to delude themselves into thinking that we could defeat the NVA and VC with a minimal loss of life and without calling up the reserves.
The Bulge was fought in eastern Belgium and northern Luxembourg. None of the Maginot Line fortifications were used, since they are all in France.
Granted the fortifications around Metz gave Patton 40 fits in autumn of '44, but that's another story. (I don't think that the Metz fortifications were an official part of the Maginot Line anyway.)
If you're just fiddling around with peas for the fun of it, OK. I'll smile and nod and go around with whatever you're saying.
If you're claiming to be the second coming of Albert "Freakin'" Einstein and Thomas "Freakin'" Edison all wrapped up in one, and there's tons of money involved, I'm not going to take your word for it, nor the word of any number of _Village Voice_ reporters, nor even the word of twelve Purdue physics grad students on leave. I'm not just going to keep my eyes on your hands, I'm going to see if the tips of your fingernails are snow white.
The whole case hangs on (a) whether Microsoft has preponderant market power in the market of Intel-based operating systems and (b) whether it used this power anticompetitively. What IBM and Apple did (especially what they did befofe Microsoft acquired its monopoly) is irrelevant, except for purposes of comparison with Microsoft's behavior.
Let me put this another way. IBM screwed up in the early '90s, which resulted in Microsoft's acquisition of preponderant market power in the Intel-based computer operating system market. Nothing wrong with that, as far as anti-trust law goes. Microsoft then used the market power it acquired to reward OEMs who sold computers with Windows products only and punish those who sold OS/2 or Lotus Smartsuite. That is anticompetitive behavior, and the law has a big problem with that.
I would like to add to the discussion the fact that Jerry completely glossed over the main contention in the case (that is, Microsoft pushed IE to protect the applications barrier to entry). In fact, Apple, IBM, Real, Intel, and other companies were mentioned in the judges opinion mainly to support his findings on what Microsoft did to Netscape and Sun. Any attempt to argue against the judge's findings based upon what Apple and IBM did misses the point by a mile.
To be specific, Apple has a monopoly on the production of Apple computer systems. As noted in the FoF, the market for Apple computer systems is separate from the market for Intel-based computer operating systems, and Apple has an absolute lock on that market.
However, being a monopoly is not in and of itself illegal. Apple maintains its monopoly through its use of patent and copyright law and its refusal to sell MacOS separately from its hardware. These are legally sanctioned ways for a monopoly to maintain itself.
The difference between Apple and Microsoft is that, to quote Judge Jackson, "[Apple does] not share Microsoft's interest in protecting the applications barrier to entry." (para. 229) For example, Apple was willing to give its dealers much greater freedom in what was preinstalled on the desktop than Microsoft was, and preinstalled Navigator as the default browsing software for Macs until Microsoft "convinced" them to do otherwise.
In contrast, Microsoft spent considerable amounts of money and gave up several potential sources of revenue for the purpose of increasing IE's market share and reducing Navigator's market share. These actions would have been OK had Microsoft been satisfied with giving IE away for free, advertising IE as a feature of Windows, and making IE as simple to remove or replace as Notepad. However, the lengths to which Microsoft went cannot be explained in any way other than that they were attempting to remove the threat that Navigator posed to the applications barrier to entry.
Levy's analysis is a stunningly naive take on the way things are.
For starters, he complains that the judge's definition of the market in question (Intel-based personal computer systems) as too narrow. He trots out the Mac, server systems, home-brew systems, and handhelds as examples of competition with Microsoft. Fact is, even though Macs and Wintel boxes have many things in common, the types of people who would buy Macs would not buy Windows (and vice versa). Servers, home-brew systems, and handhelds are completely different animals. It's like arguing that you don't have a monopoly on bottled water because there are other people who sell beer. The amount of discretion that Microsoft seems to have regarding how it prices Windows licenses indicates powerfully that Microsoft considers itself to be a monopoly. Ditto for the ways in which they use this discretion to reward friendly OEMs and punish unfriendly ones.
Next he finds that the applications barrier to entry is no barrier at all because of middleware software (such as a browser). You know, I find the most jaw-dropping thing about Microsoft partisans is how they argue that Microsoft is not a monopoly _now_ because they could lose their franchise in any number of ways _several years in the future._ I like Mapquest just as well as the next guy, but I can't seem to find a browser that will get my scanner to scan pictures. If you find one, please let me know.
As for point three, even if it were true that there is "virtually no new application software using client-specific code" being written (a dubious assertion at best), is this necessarily evidence that competition is alive and well in the Intel-based personal computer market? I don't think so! Same goes for the "Windowless" products that Levy points to (which do not exist yet and which may never exist).
Finally we get to Levy's central point (which has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion up to that point): "The government's focus in this case has been to safeguard Microsoft's competitors rather than protect consumers." Indeed, to many consumers (including, as it seems, Mr. Levy), Microsoft is that wonderful company that distributes that super-duper web browser for free (and is more than willing to cram it down your--er--make it available in any way possible). How dare the government dump on Microsoft for giving us free goodies?
To answer this, I simply need to point out that Bill Gates is not distributing that browser because he is a nice boy. (Well, maybe for his loyal MS users, but certainly not for Mac users.) No, as the judge says, the preponderance of the evidence is that he was doing so to protect the "applications barrier to entry." Sure you're getting a "free" brower, but you already paid for it (indirectly) through your Windows license fee, and you'll be paying for it over and over again once Bill gets control of the standards through his control of Internet Explorer.
Also sprach Cochran's German Review Grammar (pg. 16):
Where English uses the indefinite article as a determiner before a predicate noun denoting vocation, rank, or nationality, German idiom requires that the article be omitted. This is a source of repeated difficulty for English-speaking learners of German.
Ex.: Meine Schwaegerin ist Aerztin. My sister-in-law is a physician.
Ich bin Berliner. I am a citizen of Berlin.
Therefore it is more idiomatic to leave out the article (though I think everybody understood what he meant).
'Course, the real clincher that Kennedy said he was a jelly doughnut is that Kennedy said that during the '60's. QED.
Unlike PCs, the Sun network can allow users to access personal files from anywhere in the world.
How, precisely, would a school student access their schoolwork from home? (For standard word processing files without a lot of pictures, PCs allow you to copy your work to a floppy and take that home with you. Not very reliable, but you have the original at school if the disk fails.)
2. If the school provides a way to access files on the school server from home, does that entail that the school provides 24h/7d support for that server? (Or even 18h/7d support?)
3. If the school does not provide a way to access files from home, would the school provide open labs after school so that students can do their homework?
One possible answer to 1. (if the school didn't keep their servers going after hours) would be for the student to e-mail their homework to their home address (and then e-mail the file back to school the next day). A bit time-consuming for somebody with a modem connection, but possible.
(That's not to say that the NC scheme isn't workable; just that I have a few concerns about it. Naturally I think that the idea of freeing ordinary teachers from having to fix PCs after the little nits break them is a Good Thing.)
Reminds me of when I was going to Iowa State University. They constructed a Mac lab and a Windows lab side-by-side in the dorm. Early in the semester the Mac lab was always full and the Windows lab was always empty. Midway through the semester somebody discovered that you could install Castle Wolfenstein on the network. From that time on, you couldn't get any work done in the Windows lab because everybody was playing games!
is whether the apps they want to run on the client PCs are available for the OS. If you want to use Word, for example, you're limited to Windows or Mac. If you want to use Frame for desktop publishing, then you can go UNIX.
If the college is buying the client PC, price is a minor consideration, since the school can assess a higher "computer fee" to the students without too much trouble. It may be a different story if the students are the ones who are purchasing the computers, but students generally don't want to introduce too many compatibility problems between their PCs and the school's PCs.
As for the server side, since the techy people are (to an extent) in charge of those computers, I think you would find that the liberal arts schools would have the same situation as any other school.
They can't prohibit others from profiting by copying the database and providing a similar service, but they have the right to profit from it themselves (if they can). The whole thing about NSI or Commerce "owning" public, factual information strikes me as absurd.
Things would get a little more complicated if they decided to disallow queries to their version of the database. That would be a somewhat different issue, though.
Four of the reasons that you can't compete with Microsoft is that they are ruthless, effective, persistent, and have an unwavering devotion to the Pope.
And if you don't believe me, we'll have to put you into... the Comfy Chair!
Looks like the guestbook wasn't locked down...
on
CrackThisBox Updates
·
· Score: 1
If you have Javascript enabled, you get a stupid popup that won't go away.
If you have Javascript disabled, you zap off to a porn site (mentioned before).
Looks like MS wasn't the only one with guestbook problems. I can still get to the main page, though.
He has a similar idea (uses the Photoshop example too). Not that I think the idea doesn't have problems, but perhaps someone smarter than I could figure out how to get it to work.
Slashdot Mirror
There's also the matter of ensuring the security of data carried on the
handheld device (or anywhere on a computer system, for that matter).
Generally speaking, security and patient privacy are the reasons why
hospitals and clinics are reluctant to put many types of patient information
online (particulary chart information). If a hacker gets your credit card
number, you generally are not out much (if anything), and you can replace
the number easily. If a hacker gets your medical information (or, more
likely, if some employee at the hospital or clinic decides to look up your
info during the employee's coffee break), it can be well nigh impossible to
undo the damage there. Plus, as mentioned in the article, HIPAA (Health
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) will require healthcare
providers to take much better care of their confidential patient data (or
face stiff penalties).
This is not to say that paper records are that secure. In fact, it is
probably the case that electronic records can be much more tightly
controlled than paper ones. It's really analogous to airplanes and their
safety. The airlines may have fewer accidents and fatalities per mile
travelled and per passenger, but the accidents that do happen are real
doozies.
While I'm very happy that Jennifer Dukes Lee (who I met during my brief days at the Iowa State Daily) made Slashdot (go Jenny!), I'm not seeing the news value of a discovery whose significance was recognised "in a 1994 scientific journal called Cell." Just wondering about that.
The United States Congress in fact grants federal charters to corporations. Do a search on "corporation" at http://thomas.loc.gov/ for some examples. 'Course, corporations much more typically get charters from individual states (and sometimes they get a charter from the Feds and from a state).
This is more an issue of contract law. A federal court would probably find that it does not unduly burden interstate commerce, and it provides a legitimate local benefit, so it would pass constitutional muster.
If it's at all helpful, just think of those warranty notices that state that your rights under the warranty may vary depending on the state where you live.
It is perfectly within the rights of the state of Iowa to pass laws that affect people (and companies) within its jurisdiction. For example, say that I purchased a license for a faulty program, and I went to an Iowa court to sue the company that authored the program. In this case it's the business of no other state but Iowa.
Were the company to sue me under the terms of the license, I could tell the court (in whatever state) that I'm a citizen of Iowa, the contract was agreed to in the state of Iowa and is subject to its laws, and the law in Iowa is yadda yadda yadda. The case could then be appealed to a Federal court (as they have jurisdiction over "controversies...between citizens of different states"). In that case, the court would merely be balancing the rights of the state of Iowa versus the other state.
Regarding Congress and interstate commerce, this is something that has been strictly a state issue (as most contract disputes are). If the federal government would get involved at all, it would be the courts that would get involved (as mentioned earlier).
It says so explicitly in the bill (see my note below). After all, you're not agreeing to the license when you purchase the product; you're agreeing to it when you load it and click the "yes" button.
BTW, looks like it's passed both the House and Senate and is ready for the Gov's signature.
From the Iowa General Assembly web site:
A transaction that is subject to a computer information contract which provides that the contract is to be interpreted pursuant to the laws of a state that has enacted the uniform computer information transactions Act, as proposed by the national conference of commissioners on uniform state laws, or any substantially similar law, is null and void and the contract shall be interpreted pursuant to the laws of this state if at least one party to the contract is a resident or has its principal place of business located in this state.
For purposes of this subsection, a "computer information contract" means a contract that would be governed by the uniform computer information transactions Act or substantially similar law as enacted in the state of residence of the other person to the contract if that state's law were applied to the contract.
...no matter where it comes from.
Fact is, sales taxes hit the poor and middle class harder than they do the rich, even if you exempt drugs, food, etc. The paper rather overstates it's case regarding how much money there is out there, but the point is well taken that much (if not most) of the revenue would be eaten up in transaction fees. There are simply more efficient and less regressive ways to raise revenue than collecting sales taxes on Internet transactions.
I grant that the less wealthy out there do not have access to the Internet (so they couldn't take full advantage of this). This is to some extent an intractable problem (a certain percent of the population will never get wired, no matter how cheap or easy it becomes). OTOH, it doesn't take too much resourcefulness to find a friend who is Internet-savvy, so this may not be nearly the problem it seems to be on the surface.
Vietnam qualifies insofar as the technology available to the U.S. at the time (airmobile units, napalm, jet bombers, etc.) allowed Johnson et. al. to delude themselves into thinking that we could defeat the NVA and VC with a minimal loss of life and without calling up the reserves.
Now *that's* a sentence.
The Bulge was fought in eastern Belgium and northern Luxembourg. None of the Maginot Line fortifications were used, since they are all in France.
Granted the fortifications around Metz gave Patton 40 fits in autumn of '44, but that's another story. (I don't think that the Metz fortifications were an official part of the Maginot Line anyway.)
If you're just fiddling around with peas for the fun of it, OK. I'll smile and nod and go around with whatever you're saying.
If you're claiming to be the second coming of Albert "Freakin'" Einstein and Thomas "Freakin'" Edison all wrapped up in one, and there's tons of money involved, I'm not going to take your word for it, nor the word of any number of _Village Voice_ reporters, nor even the word of twelve Purdue physics grad students on leave. I'm not just going to keep my eyes on your hands, I'm going to see if the tips of your fingernails are snow white.
In other words, watch your wallet.
Here's an ABCNEWS.com article about it:n dex.html
http://abcne ws.go.com/ABC2000/popoff/new_moon_991220_popoff/i
The whole case hangs on (a) whether Microsoft has preponderant market power in the market of Intel-based operating systems and (b) whether it used this power anticompetitively. What IBM and Apple did (especially what they did befofe Microsoft acquired its monopoly) is irrelevant, except for purposes of comparison with Microsoft's behavior.
Let me put this another way. IBM screwed up in the early '90s, which resulted in Microsoft's acquisition of preponderant market power in the Intel-based computer operating system market. Nothing wrong with that, as far as anti-trust law goes. Microsoft then used the market power it acquired to reward OEMs who sold computers with Windows products only and punish those who sold OS/2 or Lotus Smartsuite. That is anticompetitive behavior, and the law has a big problem with that.
I would like to add to the discussion the fact that Jerry completely glossed over the main contention in the case (that is, Microsoft pushed IE to protect the applications barrier to entry). In fact, Apple, IBM, Real, Intel, and other companies were mentioned in the judges opinion mainly to support his findings on what Microsoft did to Netscape and Sun. Any attempt to argue against the judge's findings based upon what Apple and IBM did misses the point by a mile.
To be specific, Apple has a monopoly on the production of Apple computer systems. As noted in the FoF, the market for Apple computer systems is separate from the market for Intel-based computer operating systems, and Apple has an absolute lock on that market.
However, being a monopoly is not in and of itself illegal. Apple maintains its monopoly through its use of patent and copyright law and its refusal to sell MacOS separately from its hardware. These are legally sanctioned ways for a monopoly to maintain itself.
The difference between Apple and Microsoft is that, to quote Judge Jackson, "[Apple does] not share Microsoft's interest in protecting the applications barrier to entry." (para. 229) For example, Apple was willing to give its dealers much greater freedom in what was preinstalled on the desktop than Microsoft was, and preinstalled Navigator as the default browsing software for Macs until Microsoft "convinced" them to do otherwise.
In contrast, Microsoft spent considerable amounts of money and gave up several potential sources of revenue for the purpose of increasing IE's market share and reducing Navigator's market share. These actions would have been OK had Microsoft been satisfied with giving IE away for free, advertising IE as a feature of Windows, and making IE as simple to remove or replace as Notepad. However, the lengths to which Microsoft went cannot be explained in any way other than that they were attempting to remove the threat that Navigator posed to the applications barrier to entry.
Levy's analysis is a stunningly naive take on the way things are.
For starters, he complains that the judge's definition of the market in question (Intel-based personal computer systems) as too narrow. He trots out the Mac, server systems, home-brew systems, and handhelds as examples of competition with Microsoft. Fact is, even though Macs and Wintel boxes have many things in common, the types of people who would buy Macs would not buy Windows (and vice versa). Servers, home-brew systems, and handhelds are completely different animals. It's like arguing that you don't have a monopoly on bottled water because there are other people who sell beer. The amount of discretion that Microsoft seems to have regarding how it prices Windows licenses indicates powerfully that Microsoft considers itself to be a monopoly. Ditto for the ways in which they use this discretion to reward friendly OEMs and punish unfriendly ones.
Next he finds that the applications barrier to entry is no barrier at all because of middleware software (such as a browser). You know, I find the most jaw-dropping thing about Microsoft partisans is how they argue that Microsoft is not a monopoly _now_ because they could lose their franchise in any number of ways _several years in the future._ I like Mapquest just as well as the next guy, but I can't seem to find a browser that will get my scanner to scan pictures. If you find one, please let me know.
As for point three, even if it were true that there is "virtually no new application software using client-specific code" being written (a dubious assertion at best), is this necessarily evidence that competition is alive and well in the Intel-based personal computer market? I don't think so! Same goes for the "Windowless" products that Levy points to (which do not exist yet and which may never exist).
Finally we get to Levy's central point (which has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion up to that point): "The government's focus in this case has been to safeguard Microsoft's competitors rather than protect consumers." Indeed, to many consumers (including, as it seems, Mr. Levy), Microsoft is that wonderful company that distributes that super-duper web browser for free (and is more than willing to cram it down your--er--make it available in any way possible). How dare the government dump on Microsoft for giving us free goodies?
To answer this, I simply need to point out that Bill Gates is not distributing that browser because he is a nice boy. (Well, maybe for his loyal MS users, but certainly not for Mac users.) No, as the judge says, the preponderance of the evidence is that he was doing so to protect the "applications barrier to entry." Sure you're getting a "free" brower, but you already paid for it (indirectly) through your Windows license fee, and you'll be paying for it over and over again once Bill gets control of the standards through his control of Internet Explorer.
Also sprach Cochran's German Review Grammar (pg. 16):
Where English uses the indefinite article as a determiner before a predicate noun denoting vocation, rank, or nationality, German idiom requires that the article be omitted. This is a source of repeated difficulty for English-speaking learners of German.
Ex.: Meine Schwaegerin ist Aerztin.
My sister-in-law is a physician.
Ich bin Berliner.
I am a citizen of Berlin.
Therefore it is more idiomatic to leave out the article (though I think everybody understood what he meant).
'Course, the real clincher that Kennedy said he was a jelly doughnut is that Kennedy said that during the '60's. QED.
Do you have pictures available so we Nosey Parkers can see how bad it is?
Good luck. Hope that the insurance adjustor gods are kind to you.
1. The article says,
How, precisely, would a school student access their schoolwork from home? (For standard word processing files without a lot of pictures, PCs allow you to copy your work to a floppy and take that home with you. Not very reliable, but you have the original at school if the disk fails.)
2. If the school provides a way to access files on the school server from home, does that entail that the school provides 24h/7d support for that server? (Or even 18h/7d support?)
3. If the school does not provide a way to access files from home, would the school provide open labs after school so that students can do their homework?
One possible answer to 1. (if the school didn't keep their servers going after hours) would be for the student to e-mail their homework to their home address (and then e-mail the file back to school the next day). A bit time-consuming for somebody with a modem connection, but possible.
(That's not to say that the NC scheme isn't workable; just that I have a few concerns about it. Naturally I think that the idea of freeing ordinary teachers from having to fix PCs after the little nits break them is a Good Thing.)
Reminds me of when I was going to Iowa State University. They constructed a Mac lab and a Windows lab side-by-side in the dorm. Early in the semester the Mac lab was always full and the Windows lab was always empty. Midway through the semester somebody discovered that you could install Castle Wolfenstein on the network. From that time on, you couldn't get any work done in the Windows lab because everybody was playing games!
is whether the apps they want to run on the client PCs are available for the OS. If you want to use Word, for example, you're limited to Windows or Mac. If you want to use Frame for desktop publishing, then you can go UNIX.
If the college is buying the client PC, price is a minor consideration, since the school can assess a higher "computer fee" to the students without too much trouble. It may be a different story if the students are the ones who are purchasing the computers, but students generally don't want to introduce too many compatibility problems between their PCs and the school's PCs.
As for the server side, since the techy people are (to an extent) in charge of those computers, I think you would find that the liberal arts schools would have the same situation as any other school.
They can't prohibit others from profiting by copying the database and providing a similar service, but they have the right to profit from it themselves (if they can). The whole thing about NSI or Commerce "owning" public, factual information strikes me as absurd.
Things would get a little more complicated if they decided to disallow queries to their version of the database. That would be a somewhat different issue, though.
Four of the reasons that you can't compete with Microsoft is that they are ruthless, effective, persistent, and have an unwavering devotion to the Pope.
And if you don't believe me, we'll have to put you into... the Comfy Chair!
If you have Javascript enabled, you get a stupid popup that won't go away.
If you have Javascript disabled, you zap off to a porn site (mentioned before).
Looks like MS wasn't the only one with guestbook problems. I can still get to the main page, though.
...and not Debra Winger (An Officer and a Gentleman).
Yeah, I know, it's late, and I'm tired too. Good night.
He has a similar idea (uses the Photoshop example too). Not that I think the idea doesn't have problems, but perhaps someone smarter than I could figure out how to get it to work.