Negative. The corporation doesn't even own every single store
That's why it's called a franchise - and it's completely beside the point.
It's possible to own land independantly of the building (and even business(es) within the building) that occupies the land.
Here's an example: I own some land. I *rent* the land to a developer who builds a building. The developer rents the *building* to several businesses.
Saying "I own the land" does not mean that I own the businesses or the buildings the land sits on. It just means I own the land.
It's perfectly possible that McDonalds does own the land, and rents it to the franchisee as part of the franchise. (Note that a franchise contract typically states where your business will be located - you're not allowed to move without permission of the head office.)
the sales contract has words to the effect of Novell retaining copyrights etc. EXCEPT those necessary for SCO to enforce their ownership of the Unix business
No, it doesn't. The sales contract explicitly states that SCO gets no copyrights, period.
Amendment No 2. (which took effect over a year after the sale was executed) said that SCO gets some copyrights, if they can show they "need" them.
Yes, it does - continue reading my post (the end of the next paragraph)
They have the tracker so they control the swarm.
But they don't control the *content* - which was exactly my point. They can't control what you *do* with it.
The real way to control content is DRM.
No, there is *no* way to control content - that's the problem. DRM will fail because it's trying to solve an unsolvable problem: "How do we prevent someone from having something after we've given it to them?"
my TOS with my ISP forbids downloading copyright protected works
Well, considering that almost *everything* on the internet is protected by copyrighted (thank you, Berne Convention), your ISP must only allow you to visit Project Gutenberg, right?
What the hell are you doing reading this?!? It's copyrighted! Get the hell off the damn internet before your ISP shuts you down!
even the entertainment industry could use BitTorrent-like technology to offer video or music on demand without having to invest truckloads of money into bandwidth
They *could*, but they won't, because it deprives them the means to control distribution.
This is an industry whose MO has been to resist *every* new technology, whether it's beneficial to them or not - look at the lawsuit launched by Disney/Universal against the VCR - they wanted it banned, caput, illegal... even though today home video sales make up a huge percentage of their profits, they still hate it, because they no longer control the distribution (once they sell a video, they can't stop you from selling it to someone else.)
Look at the music industry, who fought tooth-and-nail against *radio*, claiming it would end music (after all, who would pay to go to a concert when you can get the music for free in your own home, and if nobody will pay for live music, how will musicians earn money?) It wasn't until they discovered they could control the airwaves that they finally (and begrudgingly) gave in - until the advent of the home tape recorder gave them new reason to fear.
The entertainment industries don't *care* about any potential benefits new technology will bring them, they're stuck in their old business model ways, and fear anything that might possibly provide competition for their cartels.
Bush is only for free trade on exports - which isn't really "free".
If he were *really* for free trade, he'd not have allowed the steel and softwood lumber tarriffs (both of which impartial courts have decided are unfair and in violation of NAFTA) and would lift the ban on importation of live Canadian beef.
If I gave my children the vote, it'd be candy for every meal, and staying up all night. Requiring vegetables and a bed time isn't popular, but it is the right thing to do.
You can't *possibly* be arguing that the US is a "grown-up", and the rest of the world's countries are children, can you?
Perhaps it's *you* that needs to get some historical perspective.
The reality is, when you are a leader, you are NOT doing what everyone else thinks you should be doing. You are doing what needs to be done.
The thing is that the US is *NOT* a leader. In the context of your analogy above, it would be like one of your children being a 3-meter tall, 500KG mutant spoiled 6-year-old, and *TELLING* you that they want candy for dinner, and beating the shit out of you when you try to tell them to eat their vegetables.
And the sad fact is that you *think* that invading another country for no reason is "leadership".
It all depends on whether the file "-r" is first the collating sequence.
Not under any version of Linux I've used (every version of Slackware since 3.0, Redhat 5, 6, 7 and 8, Mandrake 8, and Debian.)
In Linux, the following two commands are perform identically: $ ping 127.0.0.1 -c 5 $ ping -c 5 127.0.0.1
The BSDs have this peculiarity that requires flags to precede arguments, so under a BSD-derived OS, the first command above would fail, but the second would work. However, Linux is a little more flexible.
Why is it that the countries listed as the most "permissive" in terms of intellectual property laws are the ones that seem to create the least amount of intellectual property worth protecting?
Before we begin, perhaps you can let us all know why you believe that some people's material is worth protecting more than others. Shouldn't all of it be protected exactly the same?
Take India, for example.
Yes, lets.
While they may have pop singers and the like who are enormously popular domestically, the global market for such music doesn't even begin to approach that of America's
First of all, that's complete bullshit. Please provide a link to back up your claims. And even if you were correct (which you are not) are you saying that popularity is relevant as to whether something should receive copyright? As in "if something is more unpopular, then it shouldn't receive copyright protection" - if so, your hypocrisy is palpable.
It's a lot easier to take that kind of stand on IP (I.E. that it's not worth protecting) when you have nothing of your own to protect and everything to take.
So what have *you* come up with? What songs/stories/movies have you written/perofrmed?
But we have technology that works almost perfectly with existing SMTP servers that combats this very threat.
No, we most certainly don't.
SPF, Sender ID et al are designed to confirm that the sender or sending domain is reflected accurately.
And how, exactly, does this "combat" anything?
Assume a scammer wants to extort money from "UpstandingCo.com". What's to stop them from registering "UpstandingCo.cx", "Upstanding-Co.com", "UpstandingCompany.com", or any one of a zillion other domains, setting up the appropriate SPF/SenderID record, and using that to send out their hoax emails?
Anyone who would believe that "UpstandingCo.com" would send kiddie porn in the first place isn't going to be smart enough to realize that "Upstanding-Co.com" isn't the same outfit.
*THAT* is the problem here. It's not a technical problem, it's a social one - and you can't solve a social problem with a technical solution.
a motor home company got sued by someone who put his vehicle in cruise control, then went to the back to sleep
OK, true story here. This happened around 1981 or so (I was in boyscouts.) The scout troupe was going on a fishing expedition - the scout leader (a dentist) took us in his new motor home (although just for transportation, it was a 4 hour hike from the parking lot to the campsite.)
A couple of us were playing cards in the berth above the driver/passenger seat, when one of the boys looks up to see the scout leader pouring himself a cup of coffee at the kitchenette. In a slightly panicked voice, he asked "hey! Who's driving!"
The scout leader shrugged and said "I've got it on cruise!"
The kid freaked out, screaming "it doesn't work like that", and jumped down to see the other scout master behind the wheel - at which point we all burst out laughing.
Whenever I hear the story of the "cruise control accident" I always think "you know, not even a 10-year-old kid would believe that."
If people had the same amount of choices with software as they had when they are looking for a car, your scenario would work.
I'm not quite sure I understand you - are you claiming that if there was competition in the OS market, that it would dramatically increase the marginal cost of MS software? If so, I'd like to know how you rationalize that statement.
I sure as hell hope you aren't talking about the software, because you would be dead wrong.
I am talking about software, and you only think I'm wrong because you don't understand what I'm saying.
You have to pay SOMEONE to write the software, and in MS's case, that's a lot of someones over a long period of time. I would imagine it's cost them billion+ to write the current version of XP.
You don't understand the concept of marginal cost, do you?
It doesn't *matter* how much it costs to write, that's all taken under R&D. Do you think that *HARDWARE* is designed and created for free? No, that costs R&D money as well - money that is also not factored into margin.
Marginal cost refers to the *COST OF PRODUCTION*. Writing the software is *NOT* measured, because it's cost of design, not production.
Slashdot Mirror
reputable contractors or Cletus the gapped tooth back hoe operator
:o)
Hey, Cletus and Merle did damn good work!
Just make sure they keep the dog away from the cement mixer.
Negative. The corporation doesn't even own every single store
That's why it's called a franchise - and it's completely beside the point.
It's possible to own land independantly of the building (and even business(es) within the building) that occupies the land.
Here's an example:
I own some land. I *rent* the land to a developer who builds a building. The developer rents the *building* to several businesses.
Saying "I own the land" does not mean that I own the businesses or the buildings the land sits on. It just means I own the land.
It's perfectly possible that McDonalds does own the land, and rents it to the franchisee as part of the franchise. (Note that a franchise contract typically states where your business will be located - you're not allowed to move without permission of the head office.)
Probably my favourite, because I solved it by myself, and it wasn't completely trivial (like the Missing Link.)
the sales contract has words to the effect of Novell retaining copyrights etc. EXCEPT those necessary for SCO to enforce their ownership of the Unix business
No, it doesn't. The sales contract explicitly states that SCO gets no copyrights, period.
Amendment No 2. (which took effect over a year after the sale was executed) said that SCO gets some copyrights, if they can show they "need" them.
Maybe spammers will filter out addresses with the word 'abuse' in them, so as not to provoke abuse desks?
Nope, I regularly see spam addressed to abuse@, and postmaster@ addresses.
No it doesn't.
Yes, it does - continue reading my post (the end of the next paragraph)
They have the tracker so they control the swarm.
But they don't control the *content* - which was exactly my point. They can't control what you *do* with it.
The real way to control content is DRM.
No, there is *no* way to control content - that's the problem. DRM will fail because it's trying to solve an unsolvable problem: "How do we prevent someone from having something after we've given it to them?"
Yes, this chart is made up; however if you use real data, you do get something that looks similar, if not so distorted.
.png.
Kerry on top, Bush at the bottom, middle is a mish-mash.
Although not as funny as the
my TOS with my ISP forbids downloading copyright protected works
Well, considering that almost *everything* on the internet is protected by copyrighted (thank you, Berne Convention), your ISP must only allow you to visit Project Gutenberg, right?
What the hell are you doing reading this?!? It's copyrighted! Get the hell off the damn internet before your ISP shuts you down!
even the entertainment industry could use BitTorrent-like technology to offer video or music on demand without having to invest truckloads of money into bandwidth
They *could*, but they won't, because it deprives them the means to control distribution.
This is an industry whose MO has been to resist *every* new technology, whether it's beneficial to them or not - look at the lawsuit launched by Disney/Universal against the VCR - they wanted it banned, caput, illegal... even though today home video sales make up a huge percentage of their profits, they still hate it, because they no longer control the distribution (once they sell a video, they can't stop you from selling it to someone else.)
Look at the music industry, who fought tooth-and-nail against *radio*, claiming it would end music (after all, who would pay to go to a concert when you can get the music for free in your own home, and if nobody will pay for live music, how will musicians earn money?) It wasn't until they discovered they could control the airwaves that they finally (and begrudgingly) gave in - until the advent of the home tape recorder gave them new reason to fear.
The entertainment industries don't *care* about any potential benefits new technology will bring them, they're stuck in their old business model ways, and fear anything that might possibly provide competition for their cartels.
Bush is only for free trade on exports - which isn't really "free".
If he were *really* for free trade, he'd not have allowed the steel and softwood lumber tarriffs (both of which impartial courts have decided are unfair and in violation of NAFTA) and would lift the ban on importation of live Canadian beef.
If I gave my children the vote, it'd be candy for every meal, and staying up all night. Requiring vegetables and a bed time isn't popular, but it is the right thing to do.
You can't *possibly* be arguing that the US is a "grown-up", and the rest of the world's countries are children, can you?
Perhaps it's *you* that needs to get some historical perspective.
The reality is, when you are a leader, you are NOT doing what everyone else thinks you should be doing. You are doing what needs to be done.
The thing is that the US is *NOT* a leader. In the context of your analogy above, it would be like one of your children being a 3-meter tall, 500KG mutant spoiled 6-year-old, and *TELLING* you that they want candy for dinner, and beating the shit out of you when you try to tell them to eat their vegetables.
And the sad fact is that you *think* that invading another country for no reason is "leadership".
Look on the bright side..
:o)
You still might get some use out of that bunker you had built for Y2K.
It all depends on whether the file "-r" is first the collating sequence.
Not under any version of Linux I've used (every version of Slackware since 3.0, Redhat 5, 6, 7 and 8, Mandrake 8, and Debian.)
In Linux, the following two commands are perform identically:
$ ping 127.0.0.1 -c 5
$ ping -c 5 127.0.0.1
The BSDs have this peculiarity that requires flags to precede arguments, so under a BSD-derived OS, the first command above would fail, but the second would work. However, Linux is a little more flexible.
Hehe.. I *love* this bit..
the language and comments in your thread [...] may constitute hate speech
Really? And it *may* constitute a fuzzy bunny named George!
Why is it that the countries listed as the most "permissive" in terms of intellectual property laws are the ones that seem to create the least amount of intellectual property worth protecting?
Before we begin, perhaps you can let us all know why you believe that some people's material is worth protecting more than others. Shouldn't all of it be protected exactly the same?
Take India, for example.
Yes, lets.
While they may have pop singers and the like who are enormously popular domestically, the global market for such music doesn't even begin to approach that of America's
First of all, that's complete bullshit. Please provide a link to back up your claims. And even if you were correct (which you are not) are you saying that popularity is relevant as to whether something should receive copyright? As in "if something is more unpopular, then it shouldn't receive copyright protection" - if so, your hypocrisy is palpable.
It's a lot easier to take that kind of stand on IP (I.E. that it's not worth protecting) when you have nothing of your own to protect and everything to take.
So what have *you* come up with? What songs/stories/movies have you written/perofrmed?
Yeah, I thought so.
If you aren't going to watch it again, then why do you need to keep it?
Where did he say he wasn't going to watch it again?
But we have technology that works almost perfectly with existing SMTP servers that combats this very threat.
No, we most certainly don't.
SPF, Sender ID et al are designed to confirm that the sender or sending domain is reflected accurately.
And how, exactly, does this "combat" anything?
Assume a scammer wants to extort money from "UpstandingCo.com". What's to stop them from registering "UpstandingCo.cx", "Upstanding-Co.com", "UpstandingCompany.com", or any one of a zillion other domains, setting up the appropriate SPF/SenderID record, and using that to send out their hoax emails?
Anyone who would believe that "UpstandingCo.com" would send kiddie porn in the first place isn't going to be smart enough to realize that "Upstanding-Co.com" isn't the same outfit.
*THAT* is the problem here. It's not a technical problem, it's a social one - and you can't solve a social problem with a technical solution.
a motor home company got sued by someone who put his vehicle in cruise control, then went to the back to sleep
OK, true story here. This happened around 1981 or so (I was in boyscouts.) The scout troupe was going on a fishing expedition - the scout leader (a dentist) took us in his new motor home (although just for transportation, it was a 4 hour hike from the parking lot to the campsite.)
A couple of us were playing cards in the berth above the driver/passenger seat, when one of the boys looks up to see the scout leader pouring himself a cup of coffee at the kitchenette. In a slightly panicked voice, he asked "hey! Who's driving!"
The scout leader shrugged and said "I've got it on cruise!"
The kid freaked out, screaming "it doesn't work like that", and jumped down to see the other scout master behind the wheel - at which point we all burst out laughing.
Whenever I hear the story of the "cruise control accident" I always think "you know, not even a 10-year-old kid would believe that."
Yep. Everyone except YOU
i ng-privs conspiracy is useless!
Crap, why'd you tell him? Now, the whole keep-wheany-from-knowing-about-ls-and-mkdir-dropp
That's it. The next time we do this, you're not invited!
Surely we just have to send a load of bogus reports to root@addlebrain.com and he'll have a fun time trying to find the genuine ones.
.mil and .gov sites. :o)
If you do, make sure the IP addresses are of
where did the rumor that IBM said it couldn't find the sources come from ?
Ask and ye shall receive
Umm, legislation is pretty much the *only* way to fix social problems.
Just like any other form of fraud, you can't eliminate it completely, but you can certainly slow it down.
Spam will never end as long as there will be fools who buy products advertised by unsolicited commercial e-mail.
No, spam will never end as long as there are fools who *THINK* that people will buy products advertised via spam.
The spammers making money *aren't* doing so by selling products, they are making money by getting fools who have products to pay them to spam.
Looks like they've suckered you into believing their lies.
Sorry, I misread the post I was replying to. Please ignore.
If people had the same amount of choices with software as they had when they are looking for a car, your scenario would work.
I'm not quite sure I understand you - are you claiming that if there was competition in the OS market, that it would dramatically increase the marginal cost of MS software? If so, I'd like to know how you rationalize that statement.
I sure as hell hope you aren't talking about the software, because you would be dead wrong.
I am talking about software, and you only think I'm wrong because you don't understand what I'm saying.
You have to pay SOMEONE to write the software, and in MS's case, that's a lot of someones over a long period of time. I would imagine it's cost them billion+ to write the current version of XP.
You don't understand the concept of marginal cost, do you?
It doesn't *matter* how much it costs to write, that's all taken under R&D. Do you think that *HARDWARE* is designed and created for free? No, that costs R&D money as well - money that is also not factored into margin.
Marginal cost refers to the *COST OF PRODUCTION*. Writing the software is *NOT* measured, because it's cost of design, not production.