If they're that stupid, why not take the money and use it to fund (voter-friendly) tax cuts?
After all, the 'tax on fools' principle has already been established - in this country, England, anyway - by the National Lottery.
Moreover, once word got out that the Government, rather than some dodgy dealer, was overtly nicking people's money, Internet scams would die out overnight. Being ripped off is one thing, paying more money to the government than you have to is what really pisses people off.
Given their previous disregard for laws and authorities, what processes would you need to see in place to be confident that Microsoft was doing what it told you?
...there was a similar case a few years ago with regard to TV companies having to accept adverts for their rivals on an equal footing to, say, dogfood.
This is because we have a government watchdog system. Firstly, do you have anything similar in the US? Secondly, I wonder what will happen to trans-national services such as web content prooviders. --
It is ridiculous for a principle or head teacher to expel a child for a first offence which does not break any laws.
It would appear from the article that there is no legal recourse, in which case the only options are home schooling (already being done) and publicity.
An appeal to the local community about the idiocy of letting kids play cowboys and indians one day and throwing them out of school for shouting 'BANG' the next might (might!) get the point across to the idiots in charge of the school that it is they are failing to provide a sane response, not the child in question who is insane.
If it can be read out, it can be written to another medium.
It may however, be made to talk only to the right hardware, so the hacking problems are greater, but this is exactly what we had with CDs and it wasn't that long before CDRs arrived.
Why shouldn't the guy protect his own, copyrighted, name? Seems like a perfectly reasonable request to me.
Why should anyone think that they have a right to use a name that someone else has dreampt up and copyrighted? The guy has a business going and wants to make some money. All credit to him for not wanting his publicity money watered down. If we want to make Open Source work, then we should be prepared to accede to requests like this and be seen to be developing on our own. --
If IBM hadn't been seen to be under threat, their hegemony would've lasted longer - although not necessarily for ever.
It may cost millions of dollars and yet never happen, but the case against MS will achieve its aim even if they are never broken up. A million journalists writing "MS is/isn't bad" and "alternatives to MS are..." can only be good (provided that you, like me, Linus and every other geek think that a single badly written OS isn't good enough).
All software/hardware packages require upgrades or at least changes from time to time. Carnivore will be almost certainly not be an exception to this rule.
Is the review process going to be repeated whenever Carnivore is upgraded? If it is capable of remote administration, will we/you even know if Carnivore has been changed?
If either answer above is 'No', then what additional confidence does this exercise give us?
There are two ways to get a trusted system really. 1) You can have a spec and test it exhaustively *yourself* or *trust* that the coder did so. 2) You can have no spec and trust the hundreds of people who are more paranoid than you and actually read the code. 1) = MS type products 2) = OS type products Neither model is perfect. Neither model is infallible. I know which one I *trust* more though...
Slashdot Mirror
If they're that stupid, why not take the money and use it to fund (voter-friendly) tax cuts?
After all, the 'tax on fools' principle has already been established - in this country, England, anyway - by the National Lottery.
Moreover, once word got out that the Government, rather than some dodgy dealer, was overtly nicking people's money, Internet scams would die out overnight. Being ripped off is one thing, paying more money to the government than you have to is what really pisses people off.
They've been granted a copyright on shorthand, so long as it's on a screen?
WTF?
Justin.
Given their previous disregard for laws and authorities, what processes would you need to see in place to be confident that Microsoft was doing what it told you?
This is like asking what part of a car is the engine.
Linux is the kernel. X is X. Utilities are utilities. Why is this seen as so bloody hard?
--
...there was a similar case a few years ago with regard to TV companies having to accept adverts for their rivals on an equal footing to, say, dogfood.
This is because we have a government watchdog system. Firstly, do you have anything similar in the US? Secondly, I wonder what will happen to trans-national services such as web content prooviders.
--
God, I love being a Brit!
;-)
Much as our government is full of idiots, yours, like everything else in America, are bigger ones
--
It is ridiculous for a principle or head teacher to expel a child for a first offence which does not break any laws.
It would appear from the article that there is no legal recourse, in which case the only options are home schooling (already being done) and publicity.
An appeal to the local community about the idiocy of letting kids play cowboys and indians one day and throwing them out of school for shouting 'BANG' the next might (might!) get the point across to the idiots in charge of the school that it is they are failing to provide a sane response, not the child in question who is insane.
Justin
--
If it can be read out, it can be written to another medium.
It may however, be made to talk only to the right hardware, so the hacking problems are greater, but this is exactly what we had with CDs and it wasn't that long before CDRs arrived.
It's just a competition. Ho hum.
--
Why shouldn't the guy protect his own, copyrighted, name? Seems like a perfectly reasonable request to me.
Why should anyone think that they have a right to use a name that someone else has dreampt up and copyrighted? The guy has a business going and wants to make some money. All credit to him for not wanting his publicity money watered down. If we want to make Open Source work, then we should be prepared to accede to requests like this and be seen to be developing on our own.
--
If IBM hadn't been seen to be under threat, their hegemony would've lasted longer - although not necessarily for ever.
It may cost millions of dollars and yet never happen, but the case against MS will achieve its aim even if they are never broken up. A million journalists writing "MS is/isn't bad" and "alternatives to MS are..." can only be good (provided that you, like me, Linus and every other geek think that a single badly written OS isn't good enough).
Hell, if he proves good enough, get him involved in The Hurd - it needs hands, even small ones :)
Mail this page to your non-geek family members to make their Christmas shopping easier - see I *am* thinking of my family!
All software/hardware packages require upgrades or at least changes from time to time. Carnivore will be almost certainly not be an exception to this rule.
Is the review process going to be repeated whenever Carnivore is upgraded? If it is capable of remote administration, will we/you even know if Carnivore has been changed?
If either answer above is 'No', then what additional confidence does this exercise give us?
There are two ways to get a trusted system really. 1) You can have a spec and test it exhaustively *yourself* or *trust* that the coder did so. 2) You can have no spec and trust the hundreds of people who are more paranoid than you and actually read the code. 1) = MS type products 2) = OS type products Neither model is perfect. Neither model is infallible. I know which one I *trust* more though...