This is also compelled speech and apparently the defendant didn't even bring that issue up.
Probably because it isn't a viable issue. The courts have ruled that commercial speech isn't as protected as someother kinds of speech, so compelled speech is permissible. It's not an unlimited permission, but the compelled speech has to be pretty harsh before it gets struck down.
You're forgetting something happened in between. The DOJ was doing fine until Microsoft's check to Bush and the other Republicans cleared.
If you think that it's a payoff, do you really think that a Gore administration would have a different position on the issue, since the Democrats received nearly as much? Bush was at least honest enough to question the justification for the case during the campaign, while Gore dodged the question every time it was raised.
I live in Austin, and while I do have medical co-pays, my employer also paid for ISDN until an Internet VPN was available, and will reimburse a home office phone line or a high speed data line if either are required. I haven't requested that my cable modem be reimbursed, as I have the residential service and use it for personal access, but if I were required to upgrade to the business service, I would certainly require, and expect to receive, reimbursement prior to continuing to work from home.
"The goal is to provide our customers with better protection, not to get them to spend a few more dollars," says Vincent Gullotto, director of McAfee's anti-virus lab.
If that's their goal, they should just provide free upgrades.
Question: where do they find the money to provide free updates? Either a) they jack up the price of the original sale to cover all future development work, or b) they charge an ongoing fee for an ongoing service.
Lots of shareware programs do this, like WinZip and mIRC.
And lots of shareware developers, like those of WinZIP and, I suspect, mIRC, so it as a sideline in addition to a full time job, which essentially funds the development.
It would also be nice to have the old versions made free.
Yes, it would, but that doesn't mean that they should be forced to do so. I agree that the duration of copyright protection is obscene, but at the same time, just because the fourth edition of DNS & BIND is out doesn't mean that the first edition should automatically become fully available, and I don't see whe it should hold true for software either.
This Reuters story on Yahoo! could cast an interesting light on the case, as these are companies who are not (currently) directly competing with Microsoft.
What equipment? Quantum Computer ran two on-line servics, Q-Link (for Commodores) and PC-Link (with Tandy), and was developing a third, AppleLink. Instead (apparently due to a falling out between Apple and Quantum), Quantum named the new service "America Online". Two years later, they renamed the company. AOL Timeline
Do we really need these things anymore? I'm sure most television viewers out there can associate shows to networks, these days.
Are you quite sure of that? What network is Law & Order on? Charmed? JAG? If you only gave one answer to each of these, you're wrong, because they all appear on multiple networks - even first run episodes, in the case of Law & Order and Charmed.
When I buy stock, I do not give that money to the company, I loan the money to it.
Ah, no. If you buy stock directly from a company, you are giving money to the company, in return for a share of ownership in the company. (If you bought it from a third party, you gave money to someone who gave money to someone [...] who gave money to the company. Still no loan here.) When you loan money to a company, it's called a bond, and you're in line ahead of the stockholders if the company goes under and the assets are divvied up.
Since it is MY fscking money in the first place, invested on the faith that it will give me an income, I can take it back whenever I feel that my interests are not being met.
If you own stock, you have no rights to take anything back from anyone. You can try finding someone to buy the stock from you, but there's no guarantees. If you own bonds, you might have some rights to cash them in before they mature, but you're more likely to have to find someone else to buy them, with the same lack of guarantees (aside from being ahead of the stockholders).
It's not even writing for the benchmark. If it was writing for the benchmark, then functions heavily used by Quake would be more optimized, but it wouldn't matter if the program which used the functions was named "quake.exe" or "quack.exe". This sounds like a marketing payoff, where the publisher of Quake is paying ATI to slow down competing games. I can't think of any other rational explanation for the drivers to care about the name of the executables.
Why should I tell you I'm blacklisting you? I list 10-30 spamming domains per day in my Sendmail access lists. [...] I see nothing wrong with not telling you that I'm not going to accept mail from you.
And this is the reality that the EFF is ignoring, and that MAPS and ORBS were created to address. Lacking the magically intelligent mail filter, individual ISPs create their own blacklists, and it is impossible to get off of all of the individual blacklists. Using a global blacklist is like democracy - it sucks, but it's better than anything else that's available.
There is no such thing as an illegitimate copy of the binary. If you have a copy of the binary, and distribute it non-commercially, you must pass along the offer xStore made to you, and xStore must honor it. Only if you distribute it commercially do you have to make available the source yourself.
xStore is only obligated to provide source code to those people who received binaries.
Strike "only" from that, and it's a true statement.
If they don't want to give the source to anyone else, then they don't have to.
Yes, they do. Since you apparently missed it above, let me repeat part of the FAQ answer here: "This means that people who did not get the binaries directly from you can still receive copies of the source code, along with the written offer. The reason we require the offer to be valid for any third party is so that people who receive the binaries indirectly in that way can order the source code from you."
In the meantime, please provide xStore with information so that we can send you, the user of this product, the package that you are entitled to. Please provide the serial number of your DiscZerver product and the 'system page' with your response. The 'system page' is located at [http://your_Zerver_name_or_IP_address/admin-cgi/s ystem].
I hope you told them that they cannot limit their obligation to provide copies of the source code to those with DiscZervers. From the GNU GPL FAQ:
What does this "written offer valid for any third party" mean? Does that mean everyone in the world can get the source to any GPL'ed program no matter
what?
"Valid for any third party" means that anyone who has the offer is entitled to take you up on it.
If you commercially distribute binaries not accompanied with source code, the GPL says you must provide a written offer to distribute the source code later. When users non-commercially redistribute the binaries they received from you, they must pass along a copy of this written offer. This means that people who did not get the binaries directly from you can still receive copies of the source code, along with the written offer.
The reason we require the offer to be valid for any third party is so that people who receive the binaries indirectly in that way can order the source code from you.
So "innocent until proven guilty" is only for Americans?
Proof (and disproof) is presented at trial. When a suspect refuses to turn himself in for trial, and he's hiding in someone's house, police can and do go in with guns drawn. This is a bigger "house", but this is a bigger crime.
Yes, the people making these statements were rich, privileged, white men. But look at what happened to the foremost among them - the fifty-six signers of the Declaration of Independence. Twelve lost their homes. Seventeen lost their fortunes. One had his sons captured. Two had their sons killed. Five were themselves captured. Nine lost their lives in the war for independence. Yes, it may seem like it was easy for them to make high-sounding statements, but they put their privilege, their fortunes, and their lives behind their statements. That doesn't mean that those statements are automatically applicable today, but don't automatically dismiss them because they were rich, privileged, white men either.
We gave $40M to the Taleban this year for "anti-drug" efforts, so there is obviously some priortization to work on here, as well.
We provided a package worth $43M to Afghanistan for drought relief, over half of it in wheat. [abcnews.com][enterstageright.com][foxnews.com][state.gov]. Since we're apparently looking to trash people for humanitarian actions, the Clinton State Department provided $70M in relief to Afghanistan in 1999 [state.gov] and over $113M in relief in 2000 [state.gov], and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation gave $1.6M for Kenyan and Afghanistan drought relief efforts [gatesfoundation.org]. Of course, it's much more fun to shout "Bush gave support to the Taliban" than to admit that he shipped grain to Afghanistan.
"My country, right or wrong" is a thing that no patriot would think of saying, except in a desperate case. It is like saying "My mother, drunk or sober." -- G.K. Chesterton,
"The Defendant"
That would be because neither you nor, apparently, Chesterton knew the entire quote. It is not a statement of blind patriotism, but an acknowledgement of responsibility:
Our country right or wrong. When right, to be kept right; when wrong, to be put right. -- Senator Carl Schurz,
United States Senate, January 17, 1872
Now is a time to keep our country right, and, if it goes wrong, to put it right, but it is still our country, and our responsibility, right or wrong.
Well, yes, I'd say that if you're "liberal" by your standards and want to trust people and society to navigate difficult moral ground, yes, that's "open."
That's versus "closed," or the conservative vision that government should step in and use the threat of force to coerce individual or social moral decisions.
By your definition, then, the ACLU is a "conservative" organization since they and their allied organizations turn to the courts to get the government to step in and use force when private organizations don't conform to their moral views.
Yes, there are legitimate moral issues surrounding stem cell research. No, government has no business taking those moral choices away from researchers, academics, and everyday joes.
And, to date, it hasn't. Researchers and academics are still free to do whatever research they can get funded, but they don't have an inherent right to government funding. Not all funding flows from the Federal teat, and it doesn't help matters any when people like Mr Clark dry up alternative funding in "protest".
The best article I've seen attempting to debunk this is The Fable of the Keys. I haven't seen a rebuttal of this from the Dvorak camp, but I'm sure that it exists. In short, the article claims that the Sholes (QWERTY) keyboard, far from being an arbitrary selection, actually was the survivor from a number of conteporaneous keyboard designs. On the other hand, most of the "studies" cited to support the Dvorak arrangement by those advocating the arrangement before hand, or even by LtC Dvorak himself.
The J2ME inherits it's security model from the desktop version, hence wireless apps are essentially running in a sandbox that prevent and prohibit certain types of behavior, almost as if there's an anti-virus tool installed on the device.
Well, that's the design, at least. Unfortunately, that doesn't mean that the implementation lives up to the design. I would be surprised if there isn't at least one J2ME virus which expoits a vulnerability in the sandbox.
Slashdot Mirror
I live in Austin, and while I do have medical co-pays, my employer also paid for ISDN until an Internet VPN was available, and will reimburse a home office phone line or a high speed data line if either are required. I haven't requested that my cable modem be reimbursed, as I have the residential service and use it for personal access, but if I were required to upgrade to the business service, I would certainly require, and expect to receive, reimbursement prior to continuing to work from home.
This Reuters story on Yahoo! could cast an interesting light on the case, as these are companies who are not (currently) directly competing with Microsoft.
What equipment? Quantum Computer ran two on-line servics, Q-Link (for Commodores) and PC-Link (with Tandy), and was developing a third, AppleLink. Instead (apparently due to a falling out between Apple and Quantum), Quantum named the new service "America Online". Two years later, they renamed the company. AOL Timeline
It's not even writing for the benchmark. If it was writing for the benchmark, then functions heavily used by Quake would be more optimized, but it wouldn't matter if the program which used the functions was named "quake.exe" or "quack.exe". This sounds like a marketing payoff, where the publisher of Quake is paying ATI to slow down competing games. I can't think of any other rational explanation for the drivers to care about the name of the executables.
There is no such thing as an illegitimate copy of the binary. If you have a copy of the binary, and distribute it non-commercially, you must pass along the offer xStore made to you, and xStore must honor it. Only if you distribute it commercially do you have to make available the source yourself.
Yes, the people making these statements were rich, privileged, white men. But look at what happened to the foremost among them - the fifty-six signers of the Declaration of Independence. Twelve lost their homes. Seventeen lost their fortunes. One had his sons captured. Two had their sons killed. Five were themselves captured. Nine lost their lives in the war for independence. Yes, it may seem like it was easy for them to make high-sounding statements, but they put their privilege, their fortunes, and their lives behind their statements. That doesn't mean that those statements are automatically applicable today, but don't automatically dismiss them because they were rich, privileged, white men either.
And, to date, it hasn't. Researchers and academics are still free to do whatever research they can get funded, but they don't have an inherent right to government funding. Not all funding flows from the Federal teat, and it doesn't help matters any when people like Mr Clark dry up alternative funding in "protest".
usenet-access.com seems to have better fees, and less onerous terms.
The best article I've seen attempting to debunk this is The Fable of the Keys. I haven't seen a rebuttal of this from the Dvorak camp, but I'm sure that it exists. In short, the article claims that the Sholes (QWERTY) keyboard, far from being an arbitrary selection, actually was the survivor from a number of conteporaneous keyboard designs. On the other hand, most of the "studies" cited to support the Dvorak arrangement by those advocating the arrangement before hand, or even by LtC Dvorak himself.