The _original_ play station was a cdrom module for (iirc) the SNES. Sony would build 'em in cooperation with Nintendo. But the deal fell through and Sony got stuck having spent a lot of money to develop this stuff, and no way to make it up.
So they redesigned it as the Play Station X, as a standalone cdrom console. Somewhere the X got dropped, but everyone tended to call it psx anyway. and sony eventually convinced enough suckers to buy them to cover the development costs;)
so the new machine is the PS2, even though it really ought to be the PS3 or the PSY or PSXI or something along those lines.
i'm sure someone around here knows more of the details than i do.
Works written by Shakespeare and Voltaire were in the public domain the second they were written. There was no copyright law at the time. (there were licenses for presses though - the government censored anything they didn't like)
Furthermore, the only definitive word on the subject in the US is that Congress _can_ grant copyrights, if it wants, but that they are: 1) of limited duration 2) only granted to promote the useful arts and sciences
So I get really upset thinking about modern copyright laws. I'd much prefer a return to older forms of the law, wherein copyrights expired rapidly. IIRC the original copyright law had a 14 year duration. After that, your work was public domain. Sounds good to me - otherwise what incentive is there for people to keep creating new works, when they can ride on an old but popular one for their lives, plus another 70 years or so?
Disney's wasted Mickey Mouse for decades, and changed the law so that he wouldn't end up in the public domain. What good is that? (particularly when we could get back to the original Mickey Mouse, who was pretty crude)
Region coding is evil. While the US (and a few other countries, incld. Japan) use NTSC, and most everyone else uses PAL, DVDs use neither.
DVDs use MPEG2. The _player_ then converts it into PAL or NTSC or whatever. Just 'cos a disc says NTSC or PAL on it, doesn't make it true.
Otherwise people couldn't reasonably import discs. Funny thing is, they do. Region 1 discs are pretty common all around the world.
Re:"Silicon Snake Oil" doesn't do its subject just
on
Laptops In Education
·
· Score: 1
Well dtp has not necessarily made things better - just easier.
This has the unfortunate side effect of letting any idiot who buys PageMaker think that he can set up a book without any training.
Better comes from artistic talent and design sense. You don't have to be trained in it, but in order to actually produce good stuff in the printing world there is a lot of additional stuff that you need to know.
Wired was, for a long time a bastion of ugly, impractical design. They've mellowed out in recent years though. Having an unreadable magazine can be an interesting thing in itself. But it obscures the message that the design is supposed to facilitate the conveyance of. So if you want people to read the articles too, you're in trouble. Most publications tend to favor the content above the packaging for some reason. Can't imagine why.
In the hands of someone with some knowledge and skills though, dtp has been nearly a godsend. Of course, typesetting work has largely gotten dumped on authors and/or layout. The stripping and platemaking guys are next to be out of work. Kind of sad, really.
Naw. IANAL, but I think that the situation is like this:
If the ISP, on it's own inititive looks for or takes action against illegal material on their net, they're liable for *all* illegal material on their net. This is because they are willing to hunt it down themselves. But god help them if they're not thorough enough, because it's their fault if they miss something.
OTOH, if they don't touch the traffic on the net (aside from at the request of courts, etc.) they're not liable because they haven't done anything that shifts responsibility to them.
So the only way that ISPs (or telcos, or couriers, etc., where these rules originated) can avoid ultimately getting sued is to not take any action on their own accord. Wait for a judge to issue an order.
I dunno. I've seen a fair number of ordinary names in fantasy novels and such. Sam from LotR, ferinstance.
Really about the best non-ordinary name I can think of both describes its' bearer (for a while) and makes fun of the use of weird names. This would of course be Schmendrick the Magician from Peter Beagle's "The Last Unicorn."
Sony had the opportunity to make some improvement, but didn't. You did. It's yours - earned by the sweat of your brow... er, mouse clicking finger and their unwillingness to do the same.
just because they could magically create gold or whatever is irrelevant - if they did it would devalue and defeat the purpose. sony can be hung by their own petard if they try to avoid this.
The real government still trumps the psuedo government in the game, when you involve them through some real world transaction (e.g. you can't defraud people when selling virtual property and expect to get away with it). I'd let purely game world transactions be subject only to the game rules, and let the buyer beware.
it took a long time to develop a rather trustworthy economy in the real world - if sony wants one they can put some effort into it.
Michael is a good biblical name. So is Joseph. I'd rather expect to see either in a medieval European setting. Of course, probably not in English - it was substantially different at the time. But those names were around.
Frankly though, the best solution i can see is peer pressure, not fiats from up on high. Refuse to interact with people who don't have names that you like. Or tell them that you're so sorry that they have to go through life with that name. Sooner or later, if enough people do that you may see some change.
Or you may be considered to be a royal jerk (excuse me, jerque) because you place such a high importance on an illusion which you feel is easily shattered.
ObSimpsons: Mine ears are only open to the pleas of those who speak ye olde English.
wrt randomness, that seems rather dumb. if i kill all the monsters in a given area, they should stay dead. new monsters can wander in, or be imported, but sooner or later, if there's a concerted effort, they'll be extinct.
i'd say that one answer would be for characters above a particular level (e.g. evil wizards; might be npcs or pcs) to be able to attract or summon hordes of creatures, and for there to be some coming from the borders periodically (who would have guessed that trolls are migratory)
having stuff regularly appear in the same location is a little odd, and doesn't lend itself to the sorts of economic models that we're all used to.
As for treasure of course, there is a good KoDT in which they encounter a dragon who is wealthy, but invested his gold in stocks and bonds. They didn't get any treasure, but did get some good investment tips;)
You think that a strict control over goods by the powerful is somehow not what's likely to happen in any social group sooner or later? There's a reason there are precious few working communes you know. EQ might want to consider setting up an in-game legal system or something (preferably with players as judges/juries, and not the company)
I've actually never played any RPG (excepting maybe Sierra-type games) that wasn't pencil and paper. I can't believe that a computer can deal with the unforseen tangents that players always come up with. (e.g. "You see an abandoned spaceship" "Okay, I ignore it - let's go to the planet of the Green-Skinned Bikini-Clad Nurses")
At any rate though, why would that destroy an illusion? Obviously this is not the Roman Empire where they only had 20 or so names to go around, and women were frequently named according to the order of their birth. There's not a significant difference between Bob and Baughb, except that one looks kind of dumb. Do you really get upset when you interact with real people named Joe or Mike?
Me, I'd like to have a PC with no name at all - it worked for Clint Eastwood.
Obviously EQ is going mad with power (obStonecutters) what with the earlier attempt to prevent people from firmly bashing on the rules, and now this.
Sure, you're a dope if you pay for potion or castle that doesn't exist, but why not let the dopes do what they like? Put a disclaimer regarding the fact that it's all Unreal Estate and you ought to be set.
What especially galls me though is the names. I've played characters in fantasy settings who had normal names. At the moment in the GURPS campaign I'm in, my character is named Mack. Another PC is Nate. Who came up with this stupid rule that all fantasy names have to sound like exotic chemicals and/or have apostrophes in them?
I've never understood this fascination with going to Alpha Centauri. There's not likely to be much there (ob Bob the Angry Flower). Just 'cos it's nearby doesn't strike me as a particularly good reason.
I mean, I live in Seattle, but you don't catch me going to Redmond, and that's not far.;)
If it's bird costumes, then you're likely thinking of Battle of the Planets (or some other Gatchaman-derived series, like G-Force)
Whilst the ship in that series wasn't a gestalt ship, it did tend to grab other vehicles and store them inside, IIRC.
But there were no costumes in TB2086, nor were any of the vehicles (aside from the flying surfboards) small by any means. While TB1-4 were the most commonly seen, just as in the old Thunderbirds series there were others. TB11 (i think it was) was a space station.
And of course, what's so great about Escaflowne for (imho a significant portion of) the/. crowd is that your appreciation of what's going on can only be improved by a good grounding in science.
To say more would be to give away major parts of the story - perhaps as vile a sin as spoiling B5 episodes. But me and my fellow sci geeks dropped our jaws on the floor for a pretty large part of the series.
True, true. I was trying just to list stuff that's both accessible and on DVD (the best thing to happen to anime since laserdisks;) For whatever reason, the sf stuff makes up a large part of the population than the fantasy stuff.
So let's add: *Fushigi Yuugi
as well as some that aren't on DVD yet: *El-Hazard: The Mysterious World (the subtitle is actually quite important here) *Grave of the Fireflies *Kiki's Delivery Service *Maison Ikkoku *My Neighbor Totoro *Record of Lodoss War: Chronicles of the Heroic Knight (again the subtitle distinguishes different series) *Wings of Honneamise
Sadly, some of my favorites are a bit too slow, or aren't self-contained, or are just plain weird to suggest to a newbie. The last one there is cutting it close. But once you get the bug you'd be suprised at the lengths an anime otaku will go through to get videos.
Star Blazers is of course very cool. I never actually saw it til I was in college. It was a bit before my time - I'm of the group that grew up with Battle of the Planets and Tranzor Z.
Those were all fun, but the series that got me into anime were Robotech and the rare, but cool, Thunderbirds 2086. God knows only two other people that I know of ever saw the latter. Anyone else ever see it?
Stuff I'd reccomend to anyone looking to get into anime: *Serial Experiments Lain *Macross Plus *Vision of Escaflowne (this is one of my favorites) *Neon Genesis Evangelion *Cowboy Bebop
Of course many anime series have tightly scripted plots that run through the series' length. So you have to watch 'em in order. This was always the bane of the american dubbed series on tv.
Well sure. They're considered to be evil because of their illegal and immoral business practices. Their shoddy products are just the result of a lot of that.
You _did_ read the post that I was replying to, did you not? The AC's argument is essentially that many/.ers, particularly those who complain about only some copyright holders (e.g. members of the RIAA) and not others (e.g. authors of GPL'ed software) are acting hypocritically.
However, I believe that some of these people are acting in a manner consistant with their morals, even if it sometimes conflicts with the law. Thus the questions is raised, 'may laws transcend morality?' and 'do laws need to be in any way related to the morals of the people who are bound by them?'
So in that light, my argument is that there have been many laws which are utterly repugnant to the average person's morals. Slavery is one instance of this. That it was legal does not, to my mind, legitimize it in any way. The law was clearly *wrong*.
I doubt that you'll argue that point.
So his sweeping generalization about/.ers acting hypocritically is revealed to have little foundation. Many (obviously not all - I'm not stupid) of the people he's complaining about are not acting hypocritically, they are acting pretty consistantly but to a different set of criteria than the AC claimed.
For example, let us suppose that I am involved in a protest at some nuclear power plant. It may appear as though I am protesting the use of nuclear energy in general. However, it is also entirely possible that I am protesting the particular goings-on at this one plant, and that I believe that under different circumstances nuclear power is not offensive at all.
So is it not possible that there are some people who have been unfairly labeled here, who illegally redistribute music associated with companies which they are opposed to, but who do not do the same to companies who's practices they find acceptable.
Obviously this is not an excuse for breaking the law. But it is a defense against attacks such as the AC made. However when there is widespread disregard for the law, it is time to closely examine why this is so, and if the intent of the law, and the uses of it are worthwhile in the end.
For instance, there have been attacks made on first amendment rights (in fact, copyright laws infringe on the first amendment - you do not have the freedom to reproduce copyrighted material) for a very long time. But the extreme importance of the rights guaranteed by that amendment are frequently deemed more important. Sometimes there are exceptions - copyrights, libel, what can be said in particular venues - but typically the courts lean towards permissiveness because of the importance of those freedoms.
Clearly it does not hurt to closely examine why people wish to break the law, and whether or not the law is still justified in light of that. Sometimes it will be, and sometimes it won't.
But it's important to note that I am broadly trying to discuss the relations between laws and morals, more than I wish to discuss any particular conflict between them. (and that IANAL, but I play one on TV)
Now, getting over to the copyright law issue, I disagree that I'm a moron. There are no actual copyright laws in the Constitution. What _is_ in the constitution is the foundation for copyright law, which I do not have any significant problems with.
What the constitution says (Article I, Section 8, Clause 8) is: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
The gist of current copyright law is that any author has the copyright on their work for their entire lifetime, plus another 70 years after they die. And there has been a trend for large copyright-holding concerns to periodically extend the length of time that a copyright exists retroactively so that in effect copyrights are no longer of limited length. That is unconstitutional, imho. It's as though Congress did not infringe on the freedom of speech, but did require that you get a revokable license in order to be able to exercise that freedom in any reasonable way.
Why do you assume that their interests are identical to Microsofts? It's hardly unusual for someone who opposes a particular company to own a very small amount of stock - just enough to attend shareholder meetings and influence the company.
Any of those people who can vote should. It's 'one person, one vote,' not 'one dollar, one vote.'
As I understand it (I'm a Mac person myself) WinModems shift a lot of the work of the modem off into software that runs on the CPU. This is a hell of a lot more work b/c you're not just sending commands to a black box - you have to rewrite half of the box to begin with.
Additionally, that's a fairly inelegant way of doing that right now (particularly given how many cycles it eats up) and so I don't think anyone really wants to support them.
Slashdot Mirror
Heh. This actually requires a little history.
;)
The _original_ play station was a cdrom module for (iirc) the SNES. Sony would build 'em in cooperation with Nintendo. But the deal fell through and Sony got stuck having spent a lot of money to develop this stuff, and no way to make it up.
So they redesigned it as the Play Station X, as a standalone cdrom console. Somewhere the X got dropped, but everyone tended to call it psx anyway. and sony eventually convinced enough suckers to buy them to cover the development costs
so the new machine is the PS2, even though it really ought to be the PS3 or the PSY or PSXI or something along those lines.
i'm sure someone around here knows more of the details than i do.
Works written by Shakespeare and Voltaire were in the public domain the second they were written. There was no copyright law at the time. (there were licenses for presses though - the government censored anything they didn't like)
Furthermore, the only definitive word on the subject in the US is that Congress _can_ grant copyrights, if it wants, but that they are:
1) of limited duration
2) only granted to promote the useful arts and sciences
So I get really upset thinking about modern copyright laws. I'd much prefer a return to older forms of the law, wherein copyrights expired rapidly. IIRC the original copyright law had a 14 year duration. After that, your work was public domain. Sounds good to me - otherwise what incentive is there for people to keep creating new works, when they can ride on an old but popular one for their lives, plus another 70 years or so?
Disney's wasted Mickey Mouse for decades, and changed the law so that he wouldn't end up in the public domain. What good is that? (particularly when we could get back to the original Mickey Mouse, who was pretty crude)
Region coding is evil. While the US (and a few other countries, incld. Japan) use NTSC, and most everyone else uses PAL, DVDs use neither.
DVDs use MPEG2. The _player_ then converts it into PAL or NTSC or whatever. Just 'cos a disc says NTSC or PAL on it, doesn't make it true.
Otherwise people couldn't reasonably import discs. Funny thing is, they do. Region 1 discs are pretty common all around the world.
Well dtp has not necessarily made things better - just easier.
This has the unfortunate side effect of letting any idiot who buys PageMaker think that he can set up a book without any training.
Better comes from artistic talent and design sense. You don't have to be trained in it, but in order to actually produce good stuff in the printing world there is a lot of additional stuff that you need to know.
Wired was, for a long time a bastion of ugly, impractical design. They've mellowed out in recent years though. Having an unreadable magazine can be an interesting thing in itself. But it obscures the message that the design is supposed to facilitate the conveyance of. So if you want people to read the articles too, you're in trouble. Most publications tend to favor the content above the packaging for some reason. Can't imagine why.
In the hands of someone with some knowledge and skills though, dtp has been nearly a godsend. Of course, typesetting work has largely gotten dumped on authors and/or layout. The stripping and platemaking guys are next to be out of work. Kind of sad, really.
Naw. IANAL, but I think that the situation is like this:
If the ISP, on it's own inititive looks for or takes action against illegal material on their net, they're liable for *all* illegal material on their net. This is because they are willing to hunt it down themselves. But god help them if they're not thorough enough, because it's their fault if they miss something.
OTOH, if they don't touch the traffic on the net (aside from at the request of courts, etc.) they're not liable because they haven't done anything that shifts responsibility to them.
So the only way that ISPs (or telcos, or couriers, etc., where these rules originated) can avoid ultimately getting sued is to not take any action on their own accord. Wait for a judge to issue an order.
I dunno. I've seen a fair number of ordinary names in fantasy novels and such. Sam from LotR, ferinstance.
Really about the best non-ordinary name I can think of both describes its' bearer (for a while) and makes fun of the use of weird names. This would of course be Schmendrick the Magician from Peter Beagle's "The Last Unicorn."
You can't sell that! Karma can only be portioned out by the cosmos.
;)
how about squatter's rights.
Sony had the opportunity to make some improvement, but didn't. You did. It's yours - earned by the sweat of your brow... er, mouse clicking finger and their unwillingness to do the same.
just because they could magically create gold or whatever is irrelevant - if they did it would devalue and defeat the purpose. sony can be hung by their own petard if they try to avoid this.
The real government still trumps the psuedo government in the game, when you involve them through some real world transaction (e.g. you can't defraud people when selling virtual property and expect to get away with it). I'd let purely game world transactions be subject only to the game rules, and let the buyer beware.
it took a long time to develop a rather trustworthy economy in the real world - if sony wants one they can put some effort into it.
Michael is a good biblical name. So is Joseph. I'd rather expect to see either in a medieval European setting. Of course, probably not in English - it was substantially different at the time. But those names were around.
Frankly though, the best solution i can see is peer pressure, not fiats from up on high. Refuse to interact with people who don't have names that you like. Or tell them that you're so sorry that they have to go through life with that name. Sooner or later, if enough people do that you may see some change.
Or you may be considered to be a royal jerk (excuse me, jerque) because you place such a high importance on an illusion which you feel is easily shattered.
ObSimpsons: Mine ears are only open to the pleas of those who speak ye olde English.
wrt randomness, that seems rather dumb. if i kill all the monsters in a given area, they should stay dead. new monsters can wander in, or be imported, but sooner or later, if there's a concerted effort, they'll be extinct.
;)
i'd say that one answer would be for characters above a particular level (e.g. evil wizards; might be npcs or pcs) to be able to attract or summon hordes of creatures, and for there to be some coming from the borders periodically (who would have guessed that trolls are migratory)
having stuff regularly appear in the same location is a little odd, and doesn't lend itself to the sorts of economic models that we're all used to.
As for treasure of course, there is a good KoDT in which they encounter a dragon who is wealthy, but invested his gold in stocks and bonds. They didn't get any treasure, but did get some good investment tips
You think that a strict control over goods by the powerful is somehow not what's likely to happen in any social group sooner or later? There's a reason there are precious few working communes you know. EQ might want to consider setting up an in-game legal system or something (preferably with players as judges/juries, and not the company)
I've actually never played any RPG (excepting maybe Sierra-type games) that wasn't pencil and paper. I can't believe that a computer can deal with the unforseen tangents that players always come up with. (e.g. "You see an abandoned spaceship" "Okay, I ignore it - let's go to the planet of the Green-Skinned Bikini-Clad Nurses")
At any rate though, why would that destroy an illusion? Obviously this is not the Roman Empire where they only had 20 or so names to go around, and women were frequently named according to the order of their birth. There's not a significant difference between Bob and Baughb, except that one looks kind of dumb. Do you really get upset when you interact with real people named Joe or Mike?
Me, I'd like to have a PC with no name at all - it worked for Clint Eastwood.
Obviously EQ is going mad with power (obStonecutters) what with the earlier attempt to prevent people from firmly bashing on the rules, and now this.
Sure, you're a dope if you pay for potion or castle that doesn't exist, but why not let the dopes do what they like? Put a disclaimer regarding the fact that it's all Unreal Estate and you ought to be set.
What especially galls me though is the names. I've played characters in fantasy settings who had normal names. At the moment in the GURPS campaign I'm in, my character is named Mack. Another PC is Nate. Who came up with this stupid rule that all fantasy names have to sound like exotic chemicals and/or have apostrophes in them?
of course, at a certain point be prepared to say hello to Mr. Bernoulli.
No, just ordinary black flying cars (maybe vans)
I've never understood this fascination with going to Alpha Centauri. There's not likely to be much there (ob Bob the Angry Flower). Just 'cos it's nearby doesn't strike me as a particularly good reason.
;)
I mean, I live in Seattle, but you don't catch me going to Redmond, and that's not far.
If it's bird costumes, then you're likely thinking of Battle of the Planets (or some other Gatchaman-derived series, like G-Force)
Whilst the ship in that series wasn't a gestalt ship, it did tend to grab other vehicles and store them inside, IIRC.
But there were no costumes in TB2086, nor were any of the vehicles (aside from the flying surfboards) small by any means. While TB1-4 were the most commonly seen, just as in the old Thunderbirds series there were others. TB11 (i think it was) was a space station.
They were the same episode. And note of course how that's the same one in which Lisa, model student, rebels....
And of course, what's so great about Escaflowne for (imho a significant portion of) the /. crowd is that your appreciation of what's going on can only be improved by a good grounding in science.
To say more would be to give away major parts of the story - perhaps as vile a sin as spoiling B5 episodes. But me and my fellow sci geeks dropped our jaws on the floor for a pretty large part of the series.
True, true. I was trying just to list stuff that's both accessible and on DVD (the best thing to happen to anime since laserdisks ;) For whatever reason, the sf stuff makes up a large part of the population than the fantasy stuff.
So let's add:
*Fushigi Yuugi
as well as some that aren't on DVD yet:
*El-Hazard: The Mysterious World (the subtitle is actually quite important here)
*Grave of the Fireflies
*Kiki's Delivery Service
*Maison Ikkoku
*My Neighbor Totoro
*Record of Lodoss War: Chronicles of the Heroic Knight (again the subtitle distinguishes different series)
*Wings of Honneamise
Sadly, some of my favorites are a bit too slow, or aren't self-contained, or are just plain weird to suggest to a newbie. The last one there is cutting it close. But once you get the bug you'd be suprised at the lengths an anime otaku will go through to get videos.
Star Blazers is of course very cool. I never actually saw it til I was in college. It was a bit before my time - I'm of the group that grew up with Battle of the Planets and Tranzor Z.
Those were all fun, but the series that got me into anime were Robotech and the rare, but cool, Thunderbirds 2086. God knows only two other people that I know of ever saw the latter. Anyone else ever see it?
Stuff I'd reccomend to anyone looking to get into anime:
*Serial Experiments Lain
*Macross Plus
*Vision of Escaflowne (this is one of my favorites)
*Neon Genesis Evangelion
*Cowboy Bebop
Of course many anime series have tightly scripted plots that run through the series' length. So you have to watch 'em in order. This was always the bane of the american dubbed series on tv.
Well sure. They're considered to be evil because of their illegal and immoral business practices. Their shoddy products are just the result of a lot of that.
Ooh, and I've never won any awards before. ;)
/.ers, particularly those who complain about only some copyright holders (e.g. members of the RIAA) and not others (e.g. authors of GPL'ed software) are acting hypocritically.
/.ers acting hypocritically is revealed to have little foundation. Many (obviously not all - I'm not stupid) of the people he's complaining about are not acting hypocritically, they are acting pretty consistantly but to a different set of criteria than the AC claimed.
You _did_ read the post that I was replying to, did you not? The AC's argument is essentially that many
However, I believe that some of these people are acting in a manner consistant with their morals, even if it sometimes conflicts with the law. Thus the questions is raised, 'may laws transcend morality?' and 'do laws need to be in any way related to the morals of the people who are bound by them?'
So in that light, my argument is that there have been many laws which are utterly repugnant to the average person's morals. Slavery is one instance of this. That it was legal does not, to my mind, legitimize it in any way. The law was clearly *wrong*.
I doubt that you'll argue that point.
So his sweeping generalization about
For example, let us suppose that I am involved in a protest at some nuclear power plant. It may appear as though I am protesting the use of nuclear energy in general. However, it is also entirely possible that I am protesting the particular goings-on at this one plant, and that I believe that under different circumstances nuclear power is not offensive at all.
So is it not possible that there are some people who have been unfairly labeled here, who illegally redistribute music associated with companies which they are opposed to, but who do not do the same to companies who's practices they find acceptable.
Obviously this is not an excuse for breaking the law. But it is a defense against attacks such as the AC made. However when there is widespread disregard for the law, it is time to closely examine why this is so, and if the intent of the law, and the uses of it are worthwhile in the end.
For instance, there have been attacks made on first amendment rights (in fact, copyright laws infringe on the first amendment - you do not have the freedom to reproduce copyrighted material) for a very long time. But the extreme importance of the rights guaranteed by that amendment are frequently deemed more important. Sometimes there are exceptions - copyrights, libel, what can be said in particular venues - but typically the courts lean towards permissiveness because of the importance of those freedoms.
Clearly it does not hurt to closely examine why people wish to break the law, and whether or not the law is still justified in light of that. Sometimes it will be, and sometimes it won't.
But it's important to note that I am broadly trying to discuss the relations between laws and morals, more than I wish to discuss any particular conflict between them. (and that IANAL, but I play one on TV)
Now, getting over to the copyright law issue, I disagree that I'm a moron. There are no actual copyright laws in the Constitution. What _is_ in the constitution is the foundation for copyright law, which I do not have any significant problems with.
What the constitution says (Article I, Section 8, Clause 8) is: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
The gist of current copyright law is that any author has the copyright on their work for their entire lifetime, plus another 70 years after they die. And there has been a trend for large copyright-holding concerns to periodically extend the length of time that a copyright exists retroactively so that in effect copyrights are no longer of limited length. That is unconstitutional, imho. It's as though Congress did not infringe on the freedom of speech, but did require that you get a revokable license in order to be able to exercise that freedom in any reasonable way.
Why do you assume that their interests are identical to Microsofts? It's hardly unusual for someone who opposes a particular company to own a very small amount of stock - just enough to attend shareholder meetings and influence the company.
Any of those people who can vote should. It's 'one person, one vote,' not 'one dollar, one vote.'
As I understand it (I'm a Mac person myself) WinModems shift a lot of the work of the modem off into software that runs on the CPU. This is a hell of a lot more work b/c you're not just sending commands to a black box - you have to rewrite half of the box to begin with.
Additionally, that's a fairly inelegant way of doing that right now (particularly given how many cycles it eats up) and so I don't think anyone really wants to support them.