Try switching an (existing, personel) ATT cell phone to your corporate account (because the only way you'll get reimbursed is to be on the account). No problem, as the account holder, they'll gladly do it, making your corporation liable, not you, in the eyes of ATT for the bill.
Then, quit your job and call to get billing switched back to you. (After all, you want to keep your number - it isn't used as a corporate standard number, such as some sales reps have and they don't want the # walking becuase clients will use it and they assign it to a new rep)No problem - have your offical corporate rep call and authorize the switch. Point out you work for a hugh firm with offices everywhere - you have no "offical cell phone rep."; and their records show I opened the account and did the first switch. Yes, all that is OK, says ATT, but...No rep, no switch.
My solution - get my old admin assistant to call and be the offical rep (heck, she is probably mor epowerful than our lead partner anyway)- instant switch. All is well, until ATT discovers they overbilled you and credited money to the old account. Call ATT, go through 3 supervisors until one finally realizes the credit can be applied to the existing account and the old account closed out. Can't refund it to credit card, even though they have all the details.
I still get a monthly bill for $0.00 on the corporate account.
Re:"Single" user license.
on
StarOffice 6.0
·
· Score: 2
....they can't open and have it look just like what I have on my machine Then please do yourself a favour and send a PDF. It will never look the same on your clients machine when sent as.doc, because they have most probably different templates, different printers etc. PDF is the only way to preserve layout 100%.
Unfortunately, even PDF isn't always 100% portable - I've had problems where the conversion inserts a blank page or strangly splits pages when generating pdf files. For some bizarre reason, this seem to happen with orignals created on Macs.
The problem with pdfs is that they are not editable - so if a client wants to make a change, they're out of luck - unless I send teh source.
I generally don't have problems with them viewing/editing - but I agree printing can be a problem.
Re:"Single" user license.
on
StarOffice 6.0
·
· Score: 2
The Office EULA allows you to install it on two computers... your desktop and your laptop.
That used to be the case, but I don't think it is anymore. I seem to remember my dad bitching that he couldn't take his work copy of office home, and this back around Office 97ish.
It still is, at least for Office 2k. I have it on my laptop and desktop, and had no problems geeting MS to activate both. I called, explained I wanted to install a second copy on my laptop, and they gave me the activation codes. Not that I'm a big fan of their activation scheme (or Office, for that matter), but at least they realize people want to run Office on two machines. I'm not sure about XP - I haven't found a compelling reason to fork over a few hundred bucks for whatever new features it has, given 2k does all I need (as, in fact does 98 or 95, except for some file conversion issues)
I work for a small company (less than 100 people), and StarOffice seems to be a good fit, in terms of price. What is key is the ability to seamlessly send files from MSO to/from SO; my clients use MSO almost exclusively, and I can't send them a file that they can't open and have it look just like what I have on my machine. It wouldn't look professional, and I'm not willing to risk a large consulting contract by saving a few hundred bucks on software.
I have heard rumors about AT&T planning to do naughty things to people who are using phones that weren't purchased from them. One is not allowing any phone with an IMEI(sp) number that is not one they sold to access their network. I do not think this can possibly be legal. I think there is a requirement for all carriers to allow access to their networks for 911 service. They can't block a phone without being in violation of that.
Sure they can - they can let you come up on the network, but refuse to complete any calls but a 911 call.
e-bay purchases I use a credit card and so this seems to be aimed mostly at micro-retailers. In NYC those are the ones that won't accept credit cards for purchases under $20 cuz they are charged $1 or $2 per transaction from CCBill type services,
End-snip
Actually, as I recall the merchant agreement between the credit card and the vendor, they are required to accept the card for any purchase - they are in violation if they have a minimum amount for a credit purchase. The best thing to do is to complain to the credit card issuer in such case - until someone takes action, merchants will get away with limiting the usefulness of credit cards.
And yes, I understand they may lose money on small sale s- but they have to weigh that against the big ticket sales they get from taking the cards. No one forced them to sign the merchant agreement, and I don't find it unreasonable to excpect them to honor it.
If you can't release your source code, don't use the GPL.
Why? Because a lot of us GPL fans are Buddhist, Pacifist, Hippie types!:)
Seriously... I don't want you using my software to help kill people.
But you can't under the GPL, stop anyone from using the software to do things you don't like, as long as they comply with the GPL. Open Source is about making software freely available - if you do that, you have to be willing to let people use it for things you may not like.
I have also talked to Stallman about putting a clause in the GPL about not using the GPL in military systems because of these concerns
Now your advocating clsoing the source to people whose world view conflicts with yours. Beyond teh difficulty in sorting out what would be limited and what wouldn't, since you can change the terms of another writer's license, why limit this to the military? Either the source is open and free to all, under the same terms, or it isn't. This gets real close to MS' FUD about viral code - all of a sudden you can't reffly use and distribute code you've created beacuse it incorporates someone else's more restrictive license.
If you want to limit your code's uses, write seperate modules that don't incorporate others code. Unfortunately, you cna't have things both ways Open Source and Restrictions on End Users.
Even if the quartz watch is not accurate if its drift is known and charted then over a year the watch will win with the corrections reliably applied
That is the crux of using time for navigation - time piece accuracy is not important, consistancy is. You need a timepeice that has a known correction factor, so you can determine the correct local time. That is why we had the same quartermaster wind the chronometer the same number of times at teh same time every day - to avoid changing the mechanical response of the device - keeping the correction factor the same. We never told time with it, but it was vital when shooting the stars.
Re:But Einstein was a swiss patent clerk
on
Patent Nonsense
·
· Score: 1, Offtopic
According to the article, Switzerland didn't have patent laws until 1907. According to A.E.s biography [st-and.ac.uk] he worked at the patent office from 1902 to 1909.. Any swiss IP historians around who can elucidate?
It doesn't matter, according to Ae. All time is relative.
Am I missing something?
on
Patent Nonsense
·
· Score: 1, Flamebait
What the story really says is people in countries without IP protection "borrow" ideas created elsewhere and build companies on them. Then they lobby for protection (even years later - once they have IP they find valuable) when fear losing control over their inventions. It's no different than what developing countries are trying to do today.
If Switzerland really felt that patents were unnecessary, why not pass a law saying any Swiss company *must* give *anyone* a free license to make anything they have patented - no matter where the patent is registered. Then we would see if a lack of IP protection fosters or hinders a countries long-term economic growth.
Software creation requires mainly man-hours, and since employees already pay state income taxes I'd think the state already recieves their share and doesn't have the right to double-tax for intellectual work.
Washington has no state income tax. - but even if it did, slaries are generally and expense, and would not be taxed at the corporate level (since they are a deduction to revenue).
1 million miles - 5 years at Delta's minimum Platnum Qualifying level - 100K/year, plus double miles as a bonus for being Platinum. Slightly more than 5 depending on how and when you qualify, less if you charge tickets on a credit card that gives miles, convert hotel points to miles,etc.
100k is about 40 coast to coast roundtrips - not all that much flying. I've seen 2 and three million milers on Delta - and I'm well on my way to my second million.
Other than the space flight, the other awards aren't that unreasonable - @250K for a "zero-g" flight, that's in the realm of a FF's single year total (assuming 125k of actual miles and the 100% bonus miles for being chairman's perferred). Delta has had similar premium offers - tyopically high end vacations or a chance to fly a 757 simulator. Since FF programs are intended to attract and retain the most profitable segement of the flying public, most airlines offer their top tier fliers special opportunities.
Another thought - do they keep copie sof other (non-students) original work for comparision? If so, would that violate copyright protections (and evn possibly, could be - the DMCA?) After all, I can't copy music from the net and keep it on my server - why should someone be able to copy written works for their own benefit?
IANAL, but as I understand copyright law, unless you sell the rights, or do a work for hire, you own the copyright - wether or not you mark the paper with the appropriate symbols. Failing to copyright may limit your damages to recover, but doesn't result in loss of ownership.
So, unless you specifically transfered the rights to the school, you still own th epaper - as an orginal work. It would be interesting to send a cease and desist letter to turnitin.com - demanding they remove all copies of your work from their database. Of course, it would take someoen with some moeny to enforce this and get a case to court, but wouldn't be interetsing if everystudent spent the 34cents to send them a "cease and desist" request. Some lawyer could even create a GPL'd one for them to cut and paste.
The fundemental problem is Apple and Disney have fundementally different revenue models:
Disney has a huge backlist of contenet taht they can control, repackage and sell - on ethey add to every day. Anything that threatens the value of taht backlist by making it easy to acquire outside of Disney lower's Disney's expected return, and hence overall valuation.
Apple views itself as a hardware company - it makes money selling Apples, and teh software is an integral part of the product, and not one that forms a growing and valuable backlist (how many people are looking forward to the 25th aniversary edition of Finder?). Hence, they are driven by consumer desires, and consumers want to be able to burn CDs (and increasingly, DVDs). If they don't include features consumers want, people will either: 1. Buy add-ons elsewhere; or 2. Buy something else.
In either case, Apple loses potentially profitable revenue streams.
Apple, whoever, is also a software company and values IP (although for quite some time they gave away updates to their OS - until they realized it was a good source of revenue), so they really don't want people to steal music or videos, but must try to walk a fine line between providing what people want and not giving people ways to steal other's property. In the end, however, revenue trumps a desire to take the high road - they are after all, in business to make money, and for Apple, the money is in the hardware/software combination; not in softwrae alone - so they will do what it takes to push iron out the door, no matter what Mickey wnats or thinks.
Now, what would be interesting if Apple secretly tagged al copies of CDs/DVDs burned with their software - so copies could ultimately be traced to the original source.
ATT is taking info for recall backs - it sounds like they got surprised by the release.
Currently, it only works in some of ATT's markets - GPS/GPRS ATT coverage or where they have roaming agreements - which means you won't get service everywhere - unlike their current phones - at least not at a no-roaming fee plan, assuming the phone works. Since no mention is made of it being a multi-band phone, I'm guessing it won't be a replacement for existing phones.
Now, can I get attachments on emails and then beem word/excel documents to my Palm or 568 for editing, and then back to retransmit?
So if I accuse you of fraud you think privacy laws should be suspended allowing me to post your picture all over the place further accusing you?
No, and no one is suggesting allowing individuals to act as vigilantes in the case. I do think a legitimate law enforcement agency ought to be able to obtain information, with a warrant (or other appropriate legal document), that may help solve a crime. Now, the case may not yet have reached the stage of issuing a warrant, but when that happens, I have a problem with a state agency not complying with a warrant due to state laws. A doubt a criminal suspect has a reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to government records containing information about him or her.
No one is saying state agencies ought to routinely provide information to the police so they can monitor citizens.
Now, if NJ doesn't have a picture (as some have opioned), then that's a different story as to why they won't provide it - but doesn't change my opinion on the need to provide such data when available.
I guess it depends on what you mena by launching...
Pong was the first video game that got widespread distrobution in arcades, bars, malls, etc - which exposed people to a new gaming experience. Bushnell's earlier game, Computer Space (?), with its weird fiberglass case, while earlier, didn't get as much distribution. (Although one of teh arcades at Ohio State had one, and sucked many of my quarters).
Spacewar, otoh, required access to a crt and a copy of teh deck to run it. We had a version that ran on an IBM mainfranme (370?) that you could use to run teh ganme - as long as you didn't get caught by the system operator - after all, computers were SERIOUS tools, far too IMPORTANT to waste precious CPU time on games. Star Trek was another popular game - that could be played on teletypes or screens. It used an 8x8 matrix and ASCII graphics, but was fun none the less. Again, you had to avoid be caught by the "games police" who would even go to remote terminals to catch students playing games (although the advent of dial up access, even pre-PC days helped, for those lucky enough to have a modem and display terminal). Once we discovered that even a penny in an account would let you log in and play until you disconnected, we started marathon trek sessions with rotating players. It was also kind of net to log on afterward and see your account balance was $-10,514.34.
I'd say Spacewar and Star Trek were very influential in creating interest in video games, while Pong brought them to the masses.
Also the licensing deal with BlockBuster is coming up for renewal....and it looks like BlockBuster isnt going to renew. The deal let blockbuster get advanced distribution of movies for rental before they were available for commercial sale...and the studies got a percentage of the rental take.
AIR, the licensing deal only covered tapes - and BB gave up a good chunk of revenue for teh early distribution rights. I think BB has discovered:
a) They can make more money off of DVDs because they have to share less and used DVDs are worth more than used tape - which allows them to recoup more (if not all) of the purchase cost.
b) There is very little competition to worry about, so first access to new movies doesn't provide enough return to warrant the profit sharing arrangement.
c) As studios drop DVD prices, BB cost of goods gos down as well - and there are probably enough people who will pay $2 to rent a DVD rather than buy one for $5 - especially when they know BB will dump used ones for $3 after a few months. That really has to scare studios, because it mean sthey have a very small window to sell DVDs before the off-rental units start to cut into new sales. So the studios are caught in a double whammy - lower prices mean less revenue up front, and a shorter period where new DVDs have no competition from used ones.
Cell phone spam has one big advantage over regular spam - it will piss off people who can do something about it (in the US at least). Every Congressman/women/senator I've seen at the airport has a cell phone - and therefore is a potential target for the latest Viagra/MAKE*MONEY*FAST/Surefire stock tip spam. While they probably don't even see the spam in their email, phone spam will be hard to ignore, especially if it starts to interfere with normal business. While I am generally not a big fan of government soultions to commercial problems, this one may call for one.
A sender pays format might also drive phone servcie providers to develop verification of sender technologies so they can be assured of getting their pennies per message,as well as install spam detection technology and phone filtering capabilities similar to those used for email today.
I agree with you (see my point 2) _ I just wonder why they would bring up all the FUD about AOL/MS et. al.; unless they feel they're case isn't all that strong.
I doubt their arguement will succeed. Thery're essentially saying because someonel else did something that could be illegal, and you didn't go after them, then you shouldn't be able to go after them.
To use the gun anaolgy here, it's like someone who is caught running guns from Va to NYC: "We'll, the store in Va sold them to us, and Colt made them, but you didn't arrest them. We should be set free as well."
Why do I think there arguement is absurd?
1. You don't have to go after everyone who may have done soemthing illegal, especially in civil cases - the person suing gets to pick and chose. The "he did it too" defense didn't work in kindergarden, and probably won't work here as well.
2. Just as a newstand generally isn't resposnible for some copyright violation in a magazine it carries, and the phone company and phone manufacturer isn't liable for your call giving an illegal stock tip, companies that make software that has legitimate uses aren't going to be liable for illegal activities. Peer2Peer has a lot of legitimate uses, which should be enough to protect the developers. That makes me wonder if there isn't soemthing where the developers said "Let's build something to get around the MPAA/RIAA and what they did to Napster" and tehy're worried. I think they may feel there case is weak and decided to spread some FUD in hopes of avoiding a negative judgement.
I think they are grasping at whatever straws are available to try to salvage their case. The judge's ruling should be interetsing to read.
While I like the idea of requiring manufacturers to take back their products (and packing materials as well) (thereby removing the external costs of disposal and putting them on the consumer and manufacturer), there are a few things to consider:
1. It will favor large companies that can afford the RD costs to design recycle friendly products. Since they can lower tehir reccyling cosst, they can charge less (or make more profit) than smaller competitors that can't match their Rd or have to pay to haul stuff away. Ultimately, this will prevent companies from entering the market.
2. Given that some x percent will never be recycled, the "recycle cost" will become a profit center for manufactures. (Much as bottlers in NY get to keep the non-refunded deposits, which, even at 5cents a pop, are not small amounts - so much they fight efforts for the state to take over the refund program). That also means that bigger companies will push for recycle law expansion, once they see the dollars in it.
3. Who will be responsible for taking stuff back when a company fails? Since there is no deposit, there are no funds clearly definded as recycle money.
4. Patents on recycling processes will limit companies ability to recycle - unless they license the process, which makes them less competitive.
While I like the idea of moving the life cycle costs to the purchaser as a way of reducing waste, it will have some interesting effects on the economy.
I wonder how this stuff interacts with spyware that logs keystrokes, viewed screens, email, etc.
Of course, talk about being hoisted by one's own petard:
Company X installs spyware on its machines - "to protect itself"; and the results wind up as evidence in a court trial, including "shredded" emails. Concievably, Company Y could send the email, and have it recovered from X.
Slashdot Mirror
Try switching an (existing, personel) ATT cell phone to your corporate account (because the only way you'll get reimbursed is to be on the account). No problem, as the account holder, they'll gladly do it, making your corporation liable, not you, in the eyes of ATT for the bill.
...No rep, no switch.
Then, quit your job and call to get billing switched back to you. (After all, you want to keep your number - it isn't used as a corporate standard number, such as some sales reps have and they don't want the # walking becuase clients will use it and they assign it to a new rep)No problem - have your offical corporate rep call and authorize the switch. Point out you work for a hugh firm with offices everywhere - you have no "offical cell phone rep."; and their records show I opened the account and did the first switch. Yes, all that is OK, says ATT, but
My solution - get my old admin assistant to call and be the offical rep (heck, she is probably mor epowerful than our lead partner anyway)- instant switch. All is well, until ATT discovers they overbilled you and credited money to the old account. Call ATT, go through 3 supervisors until one finally realizes the credit can be applied to the existing account and the old account closed out. Can't refund it to credit card, even though they have all the details.
I still get a monthly bill for $0.00 on the corporate account.
....they can't open and have it look just like what I have on my machine .doc, because they have most probably different templates, different printers etc.
Then please do yourself a favour and send a PDF.
It will never look the same on your clients machine when sent as
PDF is the only way to preserve layout 100%.
Unfortunately, even PDF isn't always 100% portable - I've had problems where the conversion inserts a blank page or strangly splits pages when generating pdf files. For some bizarre reason, this seem to happen with orignals created on Macs.
The problem with pdfs is that they are not editable - so if a client wants to make a change, they're out of luck - unless I send teh source.
I generally don't have problems with them viewing/editing - but I agree printing can be a problem.
That used to be the case, but I don't think it is anymore. I seem to remember my dad bitching that he couldn't take his work copy of office home, and this back around Office 97ish.
It still is, at least for Office 2k. I have it on my laptop and desktop, and had no problems geeting MS to activate both. I called, explained I wanted to install a second copy on my laptop, and they gave me the activation codes. Not that I'm a big fan of their activation scheme (or Office, for that matter), but at least they realize people want to run Office on two machines. I'm not sure about XP - I haven't found a compelling reason to fork over a few hundred bucks for whatever new features it has, given 2k does all I need (as, in fact does 98 or 95, except for some file conversion issues)
I work for a small company (less than 100 people), and StarOffice seems to be a good fit, in terms of price. What is key is the ability to seamlessly send files from MSO to/from SO; my clients use MSO almost exclusively, and I can't send them a file that they can't open and have it look just like what I have on my machine. It wouldn't look professional, and I'm not willing to risk a large consulting contract by saving a few hundred bucks on software.
I have heard rumors about AT&T planning to do naughty things to people who are using phones that weren't purchased from them. One is not allowing any phone with an IMEI(sp) number that is not one they sold to access their network. I do not think this can possibly be legal. I think there is a requirement for all carriers to allow access to their networks for 911 service. They can't block a phone without being in violation of that.
Sure they can - they can let you come up on the network, but refuse to complete any calls but a 911 call.
e-bay purchases I use a credit card and so this seems to be aimed mostly at micro-retailers. In NYC those are the ones that won't accept credit cards for purchases under $20 cuz they are charged $1 or $2 per transaction from CCBill type services,
End-snip
Actually, as I recall the merchant agreement between the credit card and the vendor, they are required to accept the card for any purchase - they are in violation if they have a minimum amount for a credit purchase. The best thing to do is to complain to the credit card issuer in such case - until someone takes action, merchants will get away with limiting the usefulness of credit cards.
And yes, I understand they may lose money on small sale s- but they have to weigh that against the big ticket sales they get from taking the cards. No one forced them to sign the merchant agreement, and I don't find it unreasonable to excpect them to honor it.
If you can't release your source code, don't use the GPL.
:)
Why? Because a lot of us GPL fans are Buddhist, Pacifist, Hippie types!
Seriously... I don't want you using my software to help kill people.
But you can't under the GPL, stop anyone from using the software to do things you don't like, as long as they comply with the GPL. Open Source is about making software freely available - if you do that, you have to be willing to let people use it for things you may not like.
I have also talked to Stallman about putting a clause in the GPL about not using the GPL in military systems because of these concerns
Now your advocating clsoing the source to people whose world view conflicts with yours. Beyond teh difficulty in sorting out what would be limited and what wouldn't, since you can change the terms of another writer's license, why limit this to the military? Either the source is open and free to all, under the same terms, or it isn't. This gets real close to MS' FUD about viral code - all of a sudden you can't reffly use and distribute code you've created beacuse it incorporates someone else's more restrictive license.
If you want to limit your code's uses, write seperate modules that don't incorporate others code. Unfortunately, you cna't have things both ways Open Source and Restrictions on End Users.
give my right leg to have one of these things to ride around the Jersey shore in :)
You don't haveto - just enlist.
Even if the quartz watch is not accurate if its drift is known and charted then over a year the watch will win with the corrections reliably applied
That is the crux of using time for navigation - time piece accuracy is not important, consistancy is. You need a timepeice that has a known correction factor, so you can determine the correct local time. That is why we had the same quartermaster wind the chronometer the same number of times at teh same time every day - to avoid changing the mechanical response of the device - keeping the correction factor the same. We never told time with it, but it was vital when shooting the stars.
According to the article, Switzerland didn't have patent laws until 1907.
According to A.E.s biography [st-and.ac.uk] he worked at the patent office from 1902 to 1909..
Any swiss IP historians around who can elucidate?
It doesn't matter, according to Ae. All time is relative.
What the story really says is people in countries without IP protection "borrow" ideas created elsewhere and build companies on them. Then they lobby for protection (even years later - once they have IP they find valuable) when fear losing control over their inventions. It's no different than what developing countries are trying to do today.
If Switzerland really felt that patents were unnecessary, why not pass a law saying any Swiss company *must* give *anyone* a free license to make anything they have patented - no matter where the patent is registered. Then we would see if a lack of IP protection fosters or hinders a countries long-term economic growth.
Software creation requires mainly man-hours, and since employees already pay state income taxes I'd think the state already recieves their share and doesn't have the right to double-tax for intellectual work.
Washington has no state income tax. - but even if it did, slaries are generally and expense, and would not be taxed at the corporate level (since they are a deduction to revenue).
1 million miles - 5 years at Delta's minimum Platnum Qualifying level - 100K/year, plus double miles as a bonus for being Platinum. Slightly more than 5 depending on how and when you qualify, less if you charge tickets on a credit card that gives miles, convert hotel points to miles,etc.
100k is about 40 coast to coast roundtrips - not all that much flying. I've seen 2 and three million milers on Delta - and I'm well on my way to my second million.
Other than the space flight, the other awards aren't that unreasonable - @250K for a "zero-g" flight, that's in the realm of a FF's single year total (assuming 125k of actual miles and the 100% bonus miles for being chairman's perferred). Delta has had similar premium offers - tyopically high end vacations or a chance to fly a 757 simulator. Since FF programs are intended to attract and retain the most profitable segement of the flying public, most airlines offer their top tier fliers special opportunities.
Another thought - do they keep copie sof other (non-students) original work for comparision? If so, would that violate copyright protections (and evn possibly, could be - the DMCA?) After all, I can't copy music from the net and keep it on my server - why should someone be able to copy written works for their own benefit?
IANAL, but as I understand copyright law, unless you sell the rights, or do a work for hire, you own the copyright - wether or not you mark the paper with the appropriate symbols. Failing to copyright may limit your damages to recover, but doesn't result in loss of ownership.
So, unless you specifically transfered the rights to the school, you still own th epaper - as an orginal work. It would be interesting to send a cease and desist letter to turnitin.com - demanding they remove all copies of your work from their database. Of course, it would take someoen with some moeny to enforce this and get a case to court, but wouldn't be interetsing if everystudent spent the 34cents to send them a "cease and desist" request. Some lawyer could even create a GPL'd one for them to cut and paste.
The fundemental problem is Apple and Disney have fundementally different revenue models:
Disney has a huge backlist of contenet taht they can control, repackage and sell - on ethey add to every day. Anything that threatens the value of taht backlist by making it easy to acquire outside of Disney lower's Disney's expected return, and hence overall valuation.
Apple views itself as a hardware company - it makes money selling Apples, and teh software is an integral part of the product, and not one that forms a growing and valuable backlist (how many people are looking forward to the 25th aniversary edition of Finder?). Hence, they are driven by consumer desires, and consumers want to be able to burn CDs (and increasingly, DVDs). If they don't include features consumers want, people will either:
1. Buy add-ons elsewhere; or
2. Buy something else.
In either case, Apple loses potentially profitable revenue streams.
Apple, whoever, is also a software company and values IP (although for quite some time they gave away updates to their OS - until they realized it was a good source of revenue), so they really don't want people to steal music or videos, but must try to walk a fine line between providing what people want and not giving people ways to steal other's property. In the end, however, revenue trumps a desire to take the high road - they are after all, in business to make money, and for Apple, the money is in the hardware/software combination; not in softwrae alone - so they will do what it takes to push iron out the door, no matter what Mickey wnats or thinks.
Now, what would be interesting if Apple secretly tagged al copies of CDs/DVDs burned with their software - so copies could ultimately be traced to the original source.
ATT is taking info for recall backs - it sounds like they got surprised by the release.
Currently, it only works in some of ATT's markets - GPS/GPRS ATT coverage or where they have roaming agreements - which means you won't get service everywhere - unlike their current phones - at least not at a no-roaming fee plan, assuming the phone works. Since no mention is made of it being a multi-band phone, I'm guessing it won't be a replacement for existing phones.
Now, can I get attachments on emails and then beem word/excel documents to my Palm or 568 for editing, and then back to retransmit?
No, and no one is suggesting allowing individuals to act as vigilantes in the case. I do think a legitimate law enforcement agency ought to be able to obtain information, with a warrant (or other appropriate legal document), that may help solve a crime. Now, the case may not yet have reached the stage of issuing a warrant, but when that happens, I have a problem with a state agency not complying with a warrant due to state laws. A doubt a criminal suspect has a reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to government records containing information about him or her.
No one is saying state agencies ought to routinely provide information to the police so they can monitor citizens.
Now, if NJ doesn't have a picture (as some have opioned), then that's a different story as to why they won't provide it - but doesn't change my opinion on the need to provide such data when available.
I guess it depends on what you mena by launching...
Pong was the first video game that got widespread distrobution in arcades, bars, malls, etc - which exposed people to a new gaming experience. Bushnell's earlier game, Computer Space (?), with its weird fiberglass case, while earlier, didn't get as much distribution. (Although one of teh arcades at Ohio State had one, and sucked many of my quarters).
Spacewar, otoh, required access to a crt and a copy of teh deck to run it. We had a version that ran on an IBM mainfranme (370?) that you could use to run teh ganme - as long as you didn't get caught by the system operator - after all, computers were SERIOUS tools, far too IMPORTANT to waste precious CPU time on games. Star Trek was another popular game - that could be played on teletypes or screens. It used an 8x8 matrix and ASCII graphics, but was fun none the less. Again, you had to avoid be caught by the "games police" who would even go to remote terminals to catch students playing games (although the advent of dial up access, even pre-PC days helped, for those lucky enough to have a modem and display terminal). Once we discovered that even a penny in an account would let you log in and play until you disconnected, we started marathon trek sessions with rotating players. It was also kind of net to log on afterward and see your account balance was $-10,514.34.
I'd say Spacewar and Star Trek were very influential in creating interest in video games, while Pong brought them to the masses.
AIR, the licensing deal only covered tapes - and BB gave up a good chunk of revenue for teh early distribution rights. I think BB has discovered:
a) They can make more money off of DVDs because they have to share less and used DVDs are worth more than used tape - which allows them to recoup more (if not all) of the purchase cost.
b) There is very little competition to worry about, so first access to new movies doesn't provide enough return to warrant the profit sharing arrangement.
c) As studios drop DVD prices, BB cost of goods gos down as well - and there are probably enough people who will pay $2 to rent a DVD rather than buy one for $5 - especially when they know BB will dump used ones for $3 after a few months. That really has to scare studios, because it mean sthey have a very small window to sell DVDs before the off-rental units start to cut into new sales. So the studios are caught in a double whammy - lower prices mean less revenue up front, and a shorter period where new DVDs have no competition from used ones.
Cell phone spam has one big advantage over regular spam - it will piss off people who can do something about it (in the US at least). Every Congressman/women/senator I've seen at the airport has a cell phone - and therefore is a potential target for the latest Viagra/MAKE*MONEY*FAST/Surefire stock tip spam. While they probably don't even see the spam in their email, phone spam will be hard to ignore, especially if it starts to interfere with normal business. While I am generally not a big fan of government soultions to commercial problems, this one may call for one.
A sender pays format might also drive phone servcie providers to develop verification of sender technologies so they can be assured of getting their pennies per message,as well as install spam detection technology and phone filtering capabilities similar to those used for email today.
I agree with you (see my point 2) _ I just wonder why they would bring up all the FUD about AOL/MS et. al.; unless they feel they're case isn't all that strong.
I doubt their arguement will succeed. Thery're essentially saying because someonel else did something that could be illegal, and you didn't go after them, then you shouldn't be able to go after them.
To use the gun anaolgy here, it's like someone who is caught running guns from Va to NYC: "We'll, the store in Va sold them to us, and Colt made them, but you didn't arrest them. We should be set free as well."
Why do I think there arguement is absurd?
1. You don't have to go after everyone who may have done soemthing illegal, especially in civil cases - the person suing gets to pick and chose. The "he did it too" defense didn't work in kindergarden, and probably won't work here as well.
2. Just as a newstand generally isn't resposnible for some copyright violation in a magazine it carries, and the phone company and phone manufacturer isn't liable for your call giving an illegal stock tip, companies that make software that has legitimate uses aren't going to be liable for illegal activities. Peer2Peer has a lot of legitimate uses, which should be enough to protect the developers. That makes me wonder if there isn't soemthing where the developers said "Let's build something to get around the MPAA/RIAA and what they did to Napster" and tehy're worried. I think they may feel there case is weak and decided to spread some FUD in hopes of avoiding a negative judgement.
I think they are grasping at whatever straws are available to try to salvage their case. The judge's ruling should be interetsing to read.
IANAL
While I like the idea of requiring manufacturers to take back their products (and packing materials as well) (thereby removing the external costs of disposal and putting them on the consumer and manufacturer), there are a few things to consider:
1. It will favor large companies that can afford the RD costs to design recycle friendly products. Since they can lower tehir reccyling cosst, they can charge less (or make more profit) than smaller competitors that can't match their Rd or have to pay to haul stuff away. Ultimately, this will prevent companies from entering the market.
2. Given that some x percent will never be recycled, the "recycle cost" will become a profit center for manufactures. (Much as bottlers in NY get to keep the non-refunded deposits, which, even at 5cents a pop, are not small amounts - so much they fight efforts for the state to take over the refund program). That also means that bigger companies will push for recycle law expansion, once they see the dollars in it.
3. Who will be responsible for taking stuff back when a company fails? Since there is no deposit, there are no funds clearly definded as recycle money.
4. Patents on recycling processes will limit companies ability to recycle - unless they license the process, which makes them less competitive.
While I like the idea of moving the life cycle costs to the purchaser as a way of reducing waste, it will have some interesting effects on the economy.
I wonder how this stuff interacts with spyware that logs keystrokes, viewed screens, email, etc.
Of course, talk about being hoisted by one's own petard:
Company X installs spyware on its machines - "to protect itself"; and the results wind up as evidence in a court trial, including "shredded" emails. Concievably, Company Y could send the email, and have it recovered from X.