> Ever wonder about all those groups claiming Google had a 'search monopoly' (as if there > are no other search engines)...
Google has a search monopoly in the same way that Microsoft has an operating systems monopoly: they have most of the business. Note, however, that having a monopoly (even a total one) is not in and of itself illegal.
> If an exact copy of you were made (absolutely exact, right down to the quantum state of > every particle); do you believe that given the exact same environment (a twinned > universe?) your doppleganger would ever do anything different than yourself?
If every particle in the "twinned" universe has exactly the same state as the original then it is the original. Don't you see that you cannot distinguish one from the other unless there is at least one bit of difference?
Not necessarily the regulators. There are folks out in California (where else!) trying
to get biofuel off the ground. They collect old frying oil and refine it and burn it in diesel engines. Unfortunately, the local businesses that collect said oil (for a fee) from those restaurants are petitioning the CA legislature to make it crime...
Looks like regulators to me. They will of course, use the excuse that "The industry requested it". The real reason is taxes. Eventually all biofuels (including old frying oil) will be subject to fuel taxes and they want to be sure that it all flows through "legitimate businesses" that they can compell to collect the taxes for them.
Which, in many circumstances, is an entirely reasonable thing to do. In others that might not be safe but it would be ok to write the passwords down and put them in your wallet. It depends on the threat model.
The US does not have a parliamentary form of government. The adminstration (the "government" in European parlance) is distinct from the Congress, which is what is holding these hearings and is controlled by the opposition.
...Says it all, I think. Perhaps you should reconsider the ramifications of making your business critically dependent on software that contains code specifically design to make it stop working.
Consider this: to a proprietary vendor the only safe failure mode for "license management code" is one where everything stops.
> I betcha Canon and Nikon and Olympus will all have different and incompatible fuel > canisters... and probably Canon will have different fuel canisters for different camera > models.
> That was exactly my line of thought when reading the summary. However, if Federal law > were to follow California law (which it may or may not do), then that would supposedly > render moot (mootify?) any non-compete clauses anywhere else in the US.
I think you misunderstand me. If a contract dispute comes before a Federal judge because of, for example, diversity of residence but the contract contains a clause like "California law shall apply" he will, in reading the contract, apply California law, which is whatever the California Supreme Court says it is. Thus if the contract contains a non-compete clause (and is an employment contract) he will throw it out. This has no bearing on Federal law. Federal law will "follow" only if Congress makes it do so. There is no good reason for a Federal law on this subject (or most others).
Slashdot Mirror
...it is probably a camel's nose for a compulsory scheme wherein all Internet users would pay a "tax" to the RIAA.
> Taking advantage of your monopoly is illegal though.
Taking illegal advantage of your monopoly is illegal.
> Ever wonder about all those groups claiming Google had a 'search monopoly' (as if there
> are no other search engines)...
Google has a search monopoly in the same way that Microsoft has an operating systems monopoly: they have most of the business. Note, however, that having a monopoly (even a total one) is not in and of itself illegal.
> If an exact copy of you were made (absolutely exact, right down to the quantum state of
> every particle); do you believe that given the exact same environment (a twinned
> universe?) your doppleganger would ever do anything different than yourself?
If every particle in the "twinned" universe has exactly the same state as the original then it is the original. Don't you see that you cannot distinguish one from the other unless there is at least one bit of difference?
Then we here in the universe can never get at the prediction machine's output. Sounds like a hidden variable theory.
Alternatively, one may define the universe as everything including any non-interacting prediction manchines.
And besides, it's elephants, not turtles.
100,000 packages in Debian.
Looks like regulators to me. They will of course, use the excuse that "The industry requested it". The real reason is taxes. Eventually all biofuels (including old frying oil) will be subject to fuel taxes and they want to be sure that it all flows through "legitimate businesses" that they can compell to collect the taxes for them.
> Americans are taking energy policy in their own grease-stained hands.
Don't worry. The regulators will put a stop to it. Can't have people going around doing things without permission.
Hey! That's just down the road from here!
Which, in many circumstances, is an entirely reasonable thing to do. In others that might not be safe but it would be ok to write the passwords down and put them in your wallet. It depends on the threat model.
> ...this can bite people who can't remember what they used though...
There is a simple solution to that" Write it down (I know: heresy!)
> The city you grew up in and your mother's maiden name can be derived from public records.
I grew up in Wei9Iequ. My mother's maiden name was ga4EeliY.
Or, if you insist on something easier to remember, make it Tanelorn and Gloriana.
Why would you need to use a different search engine? Theirs works fine without any cookies or scripts.
The US does not have a parliamentary form of government. The adminstration (the "government" in European parlance) is distinct from the Congress, which is what is holding these hearings and is controlled by the opposition.
Or just not accepting any cookies at all from Google or Doubleclick.
n/t
> What if you can't even trust your compiler?
You are referring to "Reflections on Trusting Trust" I assume. That is not really a practical attack in the real world.
> At some point, even with fully open, GPL-compliant software, there is some point you
> just have to trust someone else to not jack you.
A supplier of Free Software can never be sure that someone he doesn't even know about let alone control will decide to review his source code.
> Software piracy is no different.
Yes it is. The returns are miniscule.
...Says it all, I think. Perhaps you should reconsider the ramifications of making your business critically dependent on software that contains code specifically design to make it stop working.
Consider this: to a proprietary vendor the only safe failure mode for "license management code" is one where everything stops.
> I betcha Canon and Nikon and Olympus will all have different and incompatible fuel
> canisters... and probably Canon will have different fuel canisters for different camera
> models.
Hey, it worked for printers.
Your batteries contain much nastier chemicals than the methanol in the fuel cell.
Couple a model aircraft engine to the generator out of one of those hand-crank radios.
I don't think you'd be allowed to use it on a plane, though, and it might be a little hard to get through airport security.
...where they have decent employment and privacy laws this would never be allowed.
Oh. Wait...
> That was exactly my line of thought when reading the summary. However, if Federal law
> were to follow California law (which it may or may not do), then that would supposedly
> render moot (mootify?) any non-compete clauses anywhere else in the US.
I think you misunderstand me. If a contract dispute comes before a Federal judge because of, for example, diversity of residence but the contract contains a clause like "California law shall apply" he will, in reading the contract, apply California law, which is whatever the California Supreme Court says it is. Thus if the contract contains a non-compete clause (and is an employment contract) he will throw it out. This has no bearing on Federal law. Federal law will "follow" only if Congress makes it do so. There is no good reason for a Federal law on this subject (or most others).