I think they are grabbing for the brass ring, and feel the potential result is worth the short term PR.
I think you have hit the issue directly and squarely.
These sharks have figured out a new open source business model:
Join a dying company with a grant from the King of Spain.
They are the equivelant of someone finding a grant from the King of Spain for all of Florida, or a deed to Manhattan Island dated BEFORE whatshisname (Minuit) bought it for $24 in glass beeds. I suspect they believe they have found the end of the rainbow and are working toward a multi-billion dollar prize - possibly a multi-TRILLION dollar prize.
Interesting and disturbingly familure story - "Doing his best 17th-century impersonation of Donald Trump, Minuit assembled an impressive buyout of beads, hatchets, metal pots, mirrors, trinkets, and Dutch collectibles, totaling a mere 60 guilders, and bought Manhattan Island. The $24 figure comes from a 19th-century guess. It was a true bargain, even though Minuit had to pay twice: After the Shinnecocks walked away with their $24, the Reckgawawancs appeared, told Minuit he had bought Manhattan from the wrong Indians, and demanded payment on the spot."
SCO is claiming anything developed for (or on) Unix as their IP, based on the AT&T contracts that, through various purchases, SCO now has control over.
AT&T basicly said that anyone could license Unix, but with the agreement that anything developed for or using their IP (Unix) became IP of AT&T, and that the contracts were perpetual.
SCO is now claiming that anything except what IBM developed (they had an exception in THEIR contract with AT&T) would have belonged to AT&T if they had not sold their rights, and that now, because SCO owns those rights, those developements belong to SCO.
Further, because some of what was allowed into Linux by IBM was NOT created by IBM (instead it was IP aquired by purchase - IP that SCO is claiming was theirs based on the AT&T contract and that SCO did not agree to sell), IBM did not have the legal right to allow it to be used in Linux, and that by allowing it to be used, they (IBM) broke the law - to the tune of $3 Billion.
They seem to be claimng the legal theory of "the calf follows the cow (*) ", so all the talk of specific SysV code being in Linux misses the point, which is that even if the code is NOT in SysV, if it was developed USING SysV or developed FOR SysV, then it belongs to SCO (according to SCOs claim), and only SCO can allow it into other OSs - including Linux.
They are claiming that any tools developed on AT&Ts unix belongs to them, and any applications, tools, or code developed with those tools also belongs to them - and so on, and so on.
So if C was developed on AT&T Unix, then SCO claims they own C - AND ANYTHING CREATED WITH C, past, present, and future.
Was CP/M developed on AT&T Unix, or created using any tools created or evolved from tools developed for AT&T Unix? If so, then SCO OWNS Microsoft - at least according to the legal theory they are propounding. DOS took many ideas from CP/M, was bought by BG, was developed into MS-DOS, was the basis of Windows 3.1, which was the basis for windows 95 and 98, etc.
In the same way, if ANY PART of Linux was developed ON a platform that evolved from AT&T Unix, or was developed USING TOOLS developed on or for AT&T Unix, or evolved from tools developed on or for AT&T Unix, then SCO is claimng that IP belongs to SCO.
They are making the largest power grab I have ever heard of, and most are not even seeing it. If they succeed, it will be on the level of patenting sunlight.
I don't think their claims have merit, but I am not a lawyer, and there are many law decisions I don't agree with, either, but are still on the books.
Be afraid. Based on previouse legal decisions, be VERY afraid.
(*) An instructive legend is related in Ludwig Bieler, Ireland: Harbingers of the Middle Ages, London, Oxford, 1963, p. 11. In the 6th century AD, the king of Ireland resolved one of the earliest copyright disputes (between Columba and Finnian of Druim Finn) by ruling "As the calf follows the cow, so the copy follows the original" The Statute of Anne (England, 1710) is frequently described as the first modern national copyright legislation. While codifying protection for the author, it was, in fact, primarily beneficial to booksellers. See Mark Rose, Authors and Owners, Cambridge, Harvard, 1993, for a discussion of the origins of the notion of author as creator.
But SCO is not making it legal for some company to ship Linux, they are selling licenses to USERS to make their copy of the software protected from lawsuit.
In effect, they are saying "Pay us enough money and, though we claim what you have is illegal (and despite it not having been proven to actually BE illegal), we won't exercise our announced intention to sue you."
They are sueing for money from IBM, selling licenses to users, and still claiming the right to separately sue the companies shipping Linux.
We used it in the ER. TAC (a mixture of Tetracaine, Adrenaline, and Cocaine) is applied topically. We used it for suturing children.
Put it on a cotton ball, tape to the cut, then wait until the skin blanched - the wound is now numb and ready for cleaning/suturing. I had one child go to sleep while we were sewing him up. TAC is MUCH less traumatic than injected local anaesthetic!!
... much like LSD and marijuana. (my emphasis)
OK, you lost me there. Marijuana (THC) has medical uses - mainly used for controlling nausea in chemo/cancer patients, and reducing intraocular pressure in specific types of glaucoma. The fact that those usages are not LEGAL (in most places) does not negate the medical utility of the drug.
They wanted her to get new P4 cards, which are unhackable. Her older HU (football player) cards are hackable, so they'd rather not have those reactivated.
And this was her problem (to the tune of $20 each) how? Just because DirecTV wanted it to be her problem instead of theirs?
The question isn't whether it's wrong to sue ANYONE you have a grievance with, the question is if it's right to sue EVERYONE who you only POSSIBLY have a grievance with.
+1,Insightful (sorry, I don't currently have mod points...)
The websites the devices are purchased from are dedicated to piracy.
I think that is the crux of the matter, and where the greatest wrong is being done.
I went to google and searched on "smart card programmer", followed the links to find a low price and placed an order. So now I am a pirate because of the website offering the low price is "dedicated to piracy"? (by the way, I do have a parrot.)
As far as your "anal-ogy", if I needed a specific knife available at cooking supply stores as well as your "death store", and it was cheaper at the "death store - (what the hell is that, anyway?!?), then I would be better off buying it from the "death store", and ignoring the description on the knife.
By the way, an 8" chef knife is "long enough to hit the heart of a 250 lb man." Now that I have used that description for an 8" chef knife, does anyone who owns such a knife need to keep it out of their kitchen? As you said, it is not PROOF of murder, but it is not a kitchen knife either. Oh wait, it IS a kitchen knife.
I also went to the hardware store and bought a pair of pliers. can anyone tell me what I am going to do with them? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
FWIW, they are being used IN THE KITCHEN to crack crab legs.
As I said before, that's still not proof you murder people, but it's not a kitchen knife either.
If you use the knife in the kitchen, then it IS a kitchen knife, no matter what the origin or description. And you are correct, it is not proof of murder - just as where someone buys anything is not proof of how they intend to use it, and definitely not proof that they ever used it in an inappropriate way.
Apple makes their money on hardware sales. Period.
Power Computing, Umax and the others qucikly [sic]developed better and more powerful machines than Apple. (my emphasis)
... while everyone purchased everyone elses hardware.
Do I understand you to be saying Apple can't compete in their own area of expertise in an open market?
... I now see it was the right thing to do.
The right thing for Apple to do FOR APPLE. For consumers, for users, for future innovations, for "better and more powerful machines" the wrong thing to do.
Since when is legislations' primary intend to benefit corporations? I realize it often does, and that congress critters are willing to bend over and squeal like a pig if the money is right, but I doubt that should be a primary consideration when deciding if a certain piece of legislation is 'good' or 'bad'.
How will it benefit consumers?
1) Competition for costumers will lower the price and/or increase the guality. 2) Lower price and/or increased quality should attract more customers from the Wintel faction. 3) More users will make developing for the platform more attractive. 4) More apps, games, productivity software will make the platform more attractive to customers - which will be good for Apple. See your first question.
XS4ALL say at least 50 percent of all e-mail it handles is spam, much of which it blocks before reaching the in-boxes of consumers. The extra traffic forces it to buy more computer servers, and 14 of its 250 employees do nothing but deal with spam.
Then there is the two big guys to keep each of them working - what, you thought they LIKED dealing with spam? - and the 5 people they had to hire to keep sharp or pointy objects and projectile weapons away from the 14. Seems people who are forced to deal with spam for a living develope INTERESTING psychological problems...
Of course one of the 14 DOES have a 13 foot penis, DDD breasts, and is dating a lesbian Russian co-ed and her horse, using the money he got from his low-cost home mortgage and the viagra purchased on-line...
Nope. Microsoft did that. They licensed Mosaic for a percentage of the profits from reselling it, then gave it away to drive Netscape out of business - in the process killing Mosaic (any percent of $0 is still $0...).
So I guess you are right, Netscape DID kill Mosaic - by being in Microsofts way. Damn Netscape for being in the way and forcing Microsoft to kill Mosaic while bulldozing them out of the way!
Bought Hotmail (free email), and gave away browser-based email.
Damn Microsoft, Yahoo can't produce webmail and give it away free now.
Yes, Yahoo can, but I can't. I don't have the resources to compete with Microsoft. Why? because Microsoft has leveraged its market position in operating systems to eliminate competitors in other areas it wants to dominate.
Included Lan management software into the operating system, causing pain to 3com, Novell, and others.
Damn MS for including SNMP, because no other operating system does that
NetBIOS. 'nuf said.
Included primitive Games with windows
That's right, we're limited to playing solitare. Damn those linux gamers, with their fancy Wolfenstein 3D that Windows users don't have. Damn microsoft for limiting us to minesweeper
I must have slept through the class where we told putting non-OS tasks/functions/apps in the OS was appropriate. What's that? It is NOT appropriate, can lead to bugs and security problems? So why is it OK for Microsoft to do it? Oh, I see, it is OK IF YOU DON'T CARE ABOUT BUGS OR SECURITY!
Continuine the above metaphore, Microsoft is a Slash-and-Burn farmer. No consideration or concern for either the original owner or the current residents - or the long-term effects they have on the soil. Microsoft decides where they want to go today, then works out the best way to destroy (or embrase and extend) the current occupant of the niche they covet - and if something has to die for them to get where they want to go, then to bad, so sad, and hey! Look, it is almost lunchtime!
Also, the slash-and-burn farmer DEPENDS on there always being more land for them to take over - their style of farming is not sustainable over time due to the havoc it causes with the local environment.
OSS is more of an organic farmer, with an understanding of the soil, the plants, and the insects they are dealing with, and working IN HARMONY with the forces of nature, leaving the environment is BETTER condition than when they started - teh very definition of sustainable farming.
Congrats of a successful troll. You completely side-stepped the point, obfuscated your goal with sarcasm, provided enough correct information to lull suspicions then responded with incorrect or misleading information, AND were modded to +5. Way to go!
The momentum carried with this matter caused the neutron star to "spin-up" and re-awaken as a millisecond pulsar. Meanwhile, the planet continued on its leisurely orbit at a distance of about 2 billion miles from the pair (approximately the same distance Uranus is from our Sun).
Must be that goats.cx guy, My anus is only about 93,000,000 miles from the sun...
I have ABSOLUTELY NO experience in this area, but thought the fees were based on 1)WHAT was played, and 2)HOW OFTEN it was played (i.e., you don't get unlimited broadcast priv. with one fee payment).
So, assuming you never erased or deleted ANY files, a DIR > mymp3s.txt would show what you COULD listen to, but not if you actually DID listen to any of it, and completely leaves unanswered the question of HOW MANY TIMES you may have listed to it.
If the average MP3 is 3 minutes long, then you should be charged for playing 480 MP3s per day.
What if half of your MP3s are Indie produced? Do you think the RIAA will let you pay for anything less than the full 480 MP3s if you can not PROVE which of the indie recordings were played - and when, and how often - or do you think the RIAA will assume you ONLY played the ones requiring you pay them? Personally, I would bet on the second option...
Your second point is MUCH better. There are already logging options for many computer actions/applications. However, I can also see the RIAA coming in, looking at your logs, then asking if you have Vi or emacs on your computer. When you say 'Yes' having the RIAA say 'OK, then, PROVE these logs haven't been modified - or pay us for all 480 3 minute spots you could have been filling by playing our MP3s!'
For radio broadcasting, I understand low quality, low speed tapes are made of all the broadcast material. These tapes are to be used in the event the RIAA audits, or the FCC has a problem with what was aired. Storing these tapes for long periods of time DOES require at least an "entire room".
Notice that software IS used to log playlists at radio stations, but that is not sufficient - it is backed up by the continuous tape recordings of the audio. What is the equivalent for web broadcasting?
I am not getting the same thing from the statement.
I am getting "...and apparently provide zero security to keep election officials from writing in whatever election totals they want so that election officals ARE able to write in whatever totals they want."
If the statement had some sort of punctuation between "security" and "to keep...", it would be saying "there is no security, and the reason why is to keep election officials from writing..." - which is what you are reading. I think it is actually saying "zero security to prevent election officials..." which is 180 degrees away from your take.
I parses English gooderest, and that is all I have to say about THAT.
I guess you don't believe in attempted murder either?
If I come into your place of business with a gun, shoot at you and only hit you in the arm, I can be arrested for attempted murder.
If no one actually dies, no harm no foul.
If no one dies after I come into your place of business and shoot you in the arm, I CAN'T BE CHARGED WITH YOUR MURDER.
Intent is half the law.
No. Intent can not be proven, it can only be infered from evidence, which comes from actions. Attempted murder is charged when the evidence shows you intended to murder someone, tried, but failed. If you had not tried, then there would be no crime. If you had succeded, then you would be charged with another crime, NOT attempted murder.
THINKING about breaking the law has NEVER been a crime - unless more than one person is involved, in which case conspiracy comes into play.
Look at it this way. If I'm planning to kill youo [sic], do want me arrest [sic] before I do it or after I've broken the law (and you're dead)?
English is not your best language, is it?:-)
I want you stopped.
Before you kill me, you can be arrested for many things, BUT NOT FOR MY MURDER.
This person was CONVICTED and is ordered to pay even though he did not sell a single device, and caused ZERO harm to DTV.
In your scenario he was convicted of MURDER (not conspiracy, or carrying a concealed weapon, or even driving to fast) for THINKING ABOUT killing someone.
Under the US legal system, you are not supposed to be able to be convicted of murder if nobody has died.
I think I see what you are saying, but don't think that is the way it would work.
I don't think the non-unique system can tell you how many widgets you actually have, they can help you keep track of how many you receive and how many you sell, but not if any 'disappear'.
If I walk into your store and pick up a candy bar, slipping it into this foil pouch I have in my coat pocket (high frequency tags work on microwave frequencies (up to 2.4GHz) and can't see well through metal), then without a unique ID, the system just loses a signal, it can't track what it doesn't see. With a unique ID, the system would start screaming "Candy bar #17 just disappeared!"
If you are a jewelry store, I am sure you want to know where EVERY ONE of your diamond rings are, not just that "Yup, the system is still seeing AT LEAST ONE, so everything must be fine..."
A way around that is to have multiple readers connected and used to triangulate on items in the store. Then you CAN alarm when "the item that used to be at calculated coordinates X,Y has disappeared, someone should check it out..." but it would be MUCH more expensive to do it that way. In addition, the processing power required would be daunting - especially when you consider the required resolution needed to distinguish between items either stacked one atop the other or right next to each other. I have seen gold chains displayed 10-14 in a 12" display - resolution of less than an inch would be required to 'watch' each individual chain. If each had a unique ID, that problem 'goes away'.
I am sure there is research on the "foil pouch in my pocket" problem, but the unique ID neatly obliterates the problem
Spammers rely on a tiny hit rate to a huge number of emails. If they sent more emails, they would make more money. I assumed (dangerous, I know) that they would therefore be sending the maximum number of emails they could based on their bandwidth limitations as well as their resourse limitations - or as many as they thought they could get away with without being noticed/blacklisted/shutdown. I.e., they are either running flat out, or trying to stay under somebodys' radar.
If they are sending 250,000,000 emails a day, then that must be all they CAN (or think they can - amounts to the same thing) send or they would be sending more. If they have to send everything twice, then they have just dropped the number of emails to 125,000,000 - and cut their income from their activity in half.
Another possibility is that they double the size of their email farm and the width of their pipeline - but that also takes $$$, time, and resourses - my computer requires electricity or it refuses to work.
I am for anything that hits spammers in the pocketbook.
Slashdot Mirror
I think they are grabbing for the brass ring, and feel the potential result is worth the short term PR.
I think you have hit the issue directly and squarely.
These sharks have figured out a new open source business model:
Join a dying company with a grant from the King of Spain.
They are the equivelant of someone finding a grant from the King of Spain for all of Florida, or a deed to Manhattan Island dated BEFORE whatshisname (Minuit) bought it for $24 in glass beeds. I suspect they believe they have found the end of the rainbow and are working toward a multi-billion dollar prize - possibly a multi-TRILLION dollar prize.
Interesting and disturbingly familure story - "Doing his best 17th-century impersonation of Donald Trump, Minuit assembled an impressive buyout of beads, hatchets, metal pots, mirrors, trinkets, and Dutch collectibles, totaling a mere 60 guilders, and bought Manhattan Island. The $24 figure comes from a 19th-century guess. It was a true bargain, even though Minuit had to pay twice: After the Shinnecocks walked away with their $24, the Reckgawawancs appeared, told Minuit he had bought Manhattan from the wrong Indians, and demanded payment on the spot."
SCO = Reckgawawancs?
Hnn...hng..hnn... Bevis, he said 'shiny cocks!'
Long post, try to follow...
SCO is claiming anything developed for (or on) Unix as their IP, based on the AT&T contracts that, through various purchases, SCO now has control over.
AT&T basicly said that anyone could license Unix, but with the agreement that anything developed for or using their IP (Unix) became IP of AT&T, and that the contracts were perpetual.
SCO is now claiming that anything except what IBM developed (they had an exception in THEIR contract with AT&T) would have belonged to AT&T if they had not sold their rights, and that now, because SCO owns those rights, those developements belong to SCO.
Further, because some of what was allowed into Linux by IBM was NOT created by IBM (instead it was IP aquired by purchase - IP that SCO is claiming was theirs based on the AT&T contract and that SCO did not agree to sell), IBM did not have the legal right to allow it to be used in Linux, and that by allowing it to be used, they (IBM) broke the law - to the tune of $3 Billion.
They seem to be claimng the legal theory of "the calf follows the cow (*) ", so all the talk of specific SysV code being in Linux misses the point, which is that even if the code is NOT in SysV, if it was developed USING SysV or developed FOR SysV, then it belongs to SCO (according to SCOs claim), and only SCO can allow it into other OSs - including Linux.
They are claiming that any tools developed on AT&Ts unix belongs to them, and any applications, tools, or code developed with those tools also belongs to them - and so on, and so on.
So if C was developed on AT&T Unix, then SCO claims they own C - AND ANYTHING CREATED WITH C, past, present, and future.
Was CP/M developed on AT&T Unix, or created using any tools created or evolved from tools developed for AT&T Unix? If so, then SCO OWNS Microsoft - at least according to the legal theory they are propounding. DOS took many ideas from CP/M, was bought by BG, was developed into MS-DOS, was the basis of Windows 3.1, which was the basis for windows 95 and 98, etc.
In the same way, if ANY PART of Linux was developed ON a platform that evolved from AT&T Unix, or was developed USING TOOLS developed on or for AT&T Unix, or evolved from tools developed on or for AT&T Unix, then SCO is claimng that IP belongs to SCO.
They are making the largest power grab I have ever heard of, and most are not even seeing it. If they succeed, it will be on the level of patenting sunlight.
I don't think their claims have merit, but I am not a lawyer, and there are many law decisions I don't agree with, either, but are still on the books.
Be afraid. Based on previouse legal decisions, be VERY afraid.
(*) An instructive legend is related in Ludwig Bieler, Ireland: Harbingers of the Middle Ages, London, Oxford, 1963, p. 11. In the 6th century AD, the king of Ireland resolved one of the earliest copyright disputes (between Columba and Finnian of Druim Finn) by ruling "As the calf follows the cow, so the copy follows the original" The Statute of Anne (England, 1710) is frequently described as the first modern national copyright legislation. While codifying protection for the author, it was, in fact, primarily beneficial to booksellers. See Mark Rose, Authors and Owners, Cambridge, Harvard, 1993, for a discussion of the origins of the notion of author as creator.
But SCO is not making it legal for some company to ship Linux, they are selling licenses to USERS to make their copy of the software protected from lawsuit.
In effect, they are saying "Pay us enough money and, though we claim what you have is illegal (and despite it not having been proven to actually BE illegal), we won't exercise our announced intention to sue you."
They are sueing for money from IBM, selling licenses to users, and still claiming the right to separately sue the companies shipping Linux.
If they distribute anything ...
As I am sure someone else has pointed out by now, they are not distributing ANYTHING, they are licensing the use of the distribution you already have!
They are contending that you have an illegal copy of their IP, but, for a fee - payable to SCO - you can use it legally.
No media costs. No shipping. No marketing droids. Totally skip numbers 1, 2, and 3, go straight to 4 PROFIT!!!
Cocaine has valid medical uses.
... much like LSD and marijuana. (my emphasis)
We used it in the ER. TAC (a mixture of Tetracaine, Adrenaline, and Cocaine) is applied topically. We used it for suturing children.
Put it on a cotton ball, tape to the cut, then wait until the skin blanched - the wound is now numb and ready for cleaning/suturing. I had one child go to sleep while we were sewing him up. TAC is MUCH less traumatic than injected local anaesthetic!!
OK, you lost me there. Marijuana (THC) has medical uses - mainly used for controlling nausea in chemo/cancer patients, and reducing intraocular pressure in specific types of glaucoma. The fact that those usages are not LEGAL (in most places) does not negate the medical utility of the drug.
They wanted her to get new P4 cards, which are unhackable. Her older HU (football player) cards are hackable, so they'd rather not have those reactivated.
And this was her problem (to the tune of $20 each) how? Just because DirecTV wanted it to be her problem instead of theirs?
The question isn't whether it's wrong to sue ANYONE you have a grievance with, the question is if it's right to sue EVERYONE who you only POSSIBLY have a grievance with.
+1,Insightful (sorry, I don't currently have mod points...)
The websites the devices are purchased from are dedicated to piracy.
I think that is the crux of the matter, and where the greatest wrong is being done.
I went to google and searched on "smart card programmer", followed the links to find a low price and placed an order. So now I am a pirate because of the website offering the low price is "dedicated to piracy"? (by the way, I do have a parrot.)
As far as your "anal-ogy", if I needed a specific knife available at cooking supply stores as well as your "death store", and it was cheaper at the "death store - (what the hell is that, anyway?!?), then I would be better off buying it from the "death store", and ignoring the description on the knife.
By the way, an 8" chef knife is "long enough to hit the heart of a 250 lb man." Now that I have used that description for an 8" chef knife, does anyone who owns such a knife need to keep it out of their kitchen? As you said, it is not PROOF of murder, but it is not a kitchen knife either. Oh wait, it IS a kitchen knife.
I also went to the hardware store and bought a pair of pliers. can anyone tell me what I am going to do with them? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
FWIW, they are being used IN THE KITCHEN to crack crab legs.
As I said before, that's still not proof you murder people, but it's not a kitchen knife either.
If you use the knife in the kitchen, then it IS a kitchen knife, no matter what the origin or description. And you are correct, it is not proof of murder - just as where someone buys anything is not proof of how they intend to use it, and definitely not proof that they ever used it in an inappropriate way.
PC = Personal Computer.
"Personal Computer" is a description of how a machine is used, not the platform.
Many (I would guess most) APPLE computers ARE used as a PC.
+2,FUNNY? Don't give that moderator any more points, (S)he doesn't know what funny is!
Apple is a hardware company...
... while everyone purchased everyone elses hardware.
... I now see it was the right thing to do.
Apple makes their money on hardware sales. Period.
Power Computing, Umax and the others qucikly [sic]developed better and more powerful machines than Apple. (my emphasis)
Do I understand you to be saying Apple can't compete in their own area of expertise in an open market?
The right thing for Apple to do FOR APPLE. For consumers, for users, for future innovations, for "better and more powerful machines" the wrong thing to do.
How will this benefit Apple?
Since when is legislations' primary intend to benefit corporations? I realize it often does, and that congress critters are willing to bend over and squeal like a pig if the money is right, but I doubt that should be a primary consideration when deciding if a certain piece of legislation is 'good' or 'bad'.
How will it benefit consumers?
1) Competition for costumers will lower the price and/or increase the guality.
2) Lower price and/or increased quality should attract more customers from the Wintel faction.
3) More users will make developing for the platform more attractive.
4) More apps, games, productivity software will make the platform more attractive to customers - which will be good for Apple. See your first question.
XS4ALL say at least 50 percent of all e-mail it handles is spam, much of which it blocks before reaching the in-boxes of consumers. The extra traffic forces it to buy more computer servers, and 14 of its 250 employees do nothing but deal with spam.
Then there is the two big guys to keep each of them working - what, you thought they LIKED dealing with spam? - and the 5 people they had to hire to keep sharp or pointy objects and projectile weapons away from the 14. Seems people who are forced to deal with spam for a living develope INTERESTING psychological problems...
Of course one of the 14 DOES have a 13 foot penis, DDD breasts, and is dating a lesbian Russian co-ed and her horse, using the money he got from his low-cost home mortgage and the viagra purchased on-line...
Oh, and damn Netscape for killing Mosaic.
Nope. Microsoft did that. They licensed Mosaic for a percentage of the profits from reselling it, then gave it away to drive Netscape out of business - in the process killing Mosaic (any percent of $0 is still $0...).
So I guess you are right, Netscape DID kill Mosaic - by being in Microsofts way. Damn Netscape for being in the way and forcing Microsoft to kill Mosaic while bulldozing them out of the way!
Bought Hotmail (free email), and gave away browser-based email.
Damn Microsoft, Yahoo can't produce webmail and give it away free now.
Yes, Yahoo can, but I can't. I don't have the resources to compete with Microsoft. Why? because Microsoft has leveraged its market position in operating systems to eliminate competitors in other areas it wants to dominate.
Included Lan management software into the operating system, causing pain to 3com, Novell, and others.
Damn MS for including SNMP, because no other operating system does that
NetBIOS. 'nuf said.
Included primitive Games with windows
That's right, we're limited to playing solitare. Damn those linux gamers, with their fancy Wolfenstein 3D that Windows users don't have. Damn microsoft for limiting us to minesweeper
I must have slept through the class where we told putting non-OS tasks/functions/apps in the OS was appropriate. What's that? It is NOT appropriate, can lead to bugs and security problems? So why is it OK for Microsoft to do it? Oh, I see, it is OK IF YOU DON'T CARE ABOUT BUGS OR SECURITY!
Continuine the above metaphore, Microsoft is a Slash-and-Burn farmer. No consideration or concern for either the original owner or the current residents - or the long-term effects they have on the soil. Microsoft decides where they want to go today, then works out the best way to destroy (or embrase and extend) the current occupant of the niche they covet - and if something has to die for them to get where they want to go, then to bad, so sad, and hey! Look, it is almost lunchtime!
Also, the slash-and-burn farmer DEPENDS on there always being more land for them to take over - their style of farming is not sustainable over time due to the havoc it causes with the local environment.
OSS is more of an organic farmer, with an understanding of the soil, the plants, and the insects they are dealing with, and working IN HARMONY with the forces of nature, leaving the environment is BETTER condition than when they started - teh very definition of sustainable farming.
Congrats of a successful troll. You completely side-stepped the point, obfuscated your goal with sarcasm, provided enough correct information to lull suspicions then responded with incorrect or misleading information, AND were modded to +5. Way to go!
The momentum carried with this matter caused the neutron star to "spin-up" and re-awaken as a millisecond pulsar. Meanwhile, the planet continued on its leisurely orbit at a distance of about 2 billion miles from the pair (approximately the same distance Uranus is from our Sun).
Must be that goats.cx guy, My anus is only about 93,000,000 miles from the sun...
ROFLMAO!!!
Funniest post I have seen in a long time!
Wish I had moderator points...
I have ABSOLUTELY NO experience in this area, but thought the fees were based on 1)WHAT was played, and 2)HOW OFTEN it was played (i.e., you don't get unlimited broadcast priv. with one fee payment).
So, assuming you never erased or deleted ANY files, a DIR > mymp3s.txt would show what you COULD listen to, but not if you actually DID listen to any of it, and completely leaves unanswered the question of HOW MANY TIMES you may have listed to it.
If the average MP3 is 3 minutes long, then you should be charged for playing 480 MP3s per day.
What if half of your MP3s are Indie produced? Do you think the RIAA will let you pay for anything less than the full 480 MP3s if you can not PROVE which of the indie recordings were played - and when, and how often - or do you think the RIAA will assume you ONLY played the ones requiring you pay them? Personally, I would bet on the second option...
Your second point is MUCH better. There are already logging options for many computer actions/applications. However, I can also see the RIAA coming in, looking at your logs, then asking if you have Vi or emacs on your computer. When you say 'Yes' having the RIAA say 'OK, then, PROVE these logs haven't been modified - or pay us for all 480 3 minute spots you could have been filling by playing our MP3s!'
For radio broadcasting, I understand low quality, low speed tapes are made of all the broadcast material. These tapes are to be used in the event the RIAA audits, or the FCC has a problem with what was aired. Storing these tapes for long periods of time DOES require at least an "entire room".
Notice that software IS used to log playlists at radio stations, but that is not sufficient - it is backed up by the continuous tape recordings of the audio. What is the equivalent for web broadcasting?
I am not getting the same thing from the statement.
...", it would be saying "there is no security, and the reason why is to keep election officials from writing..." - which is what you are reading. I think it is actually saying "zero security to prevent election officials..." which is 180 degrees away from your take.
I am getting "...and apparently provide zero security to keep election officials from writing in whatever election totals they want so that election officals ARE able to write in whatever totals they want."
If the statement had some sort of punctuation between "security" and "to keep
I parses English gooderest, and that is all I have to say about THAT.
Troll if I ever heard one, and I modded you as such.
:-)
Obviously you don't mod much (or haven't read the moderators guidlines)...
If you post in a thread that you modded, your mod is thrown out. You cannot post and mod in the same thread.
IANAL in a discussion of sodomy laws. Have you no shame!?! :)
I guess you don't believe in attempted murder either?
If I come into your place of business with a gun, shoot at you and only hit you in the arm, I can be arrested for attempted murder.
If no one actually dies, no harm no foul.
If no one dies after I come into your place of business and shoot you in the arm, I CAN'T BE CHARGED WITH YOUR MURDER.
Intent is half the law.
No. Intent can not be proven, it can only be infered from evidence, which comes from actions. Attempted murder is charged when the evidence shows you intended to murder someone, tried, but failed. If you had not tried, then there would be no crime. If you had succeded, then you would be charged with another crime, NOT attempted murder.
No planing to break the law SHOULD be a crime.
:-)
THINKING about breaking the law has NEVER been a crime - unless more than one person is involved, in which case conspiracy comes into play.
Look at it this way. If I'm planning to kill youo [sic], do want me arrest [sic] before I do it or after I've broken the law (and you're dead)?
English is not your best language, is it?
I want you stopped.
Before you kill me, you can be arrested for many things, BUT NOT FOR MY MURDER.
This person was CONVICTED and is ordered to pay even though he did not sell a single device, and caused ZERO harm to DTV.
In your scenario he was convicted of MURDER (not conspiracy, or carrying a concealed weapon, or even driving to fast) for THINKING ABOUT killing someone.
Under the US legal system, you are not supposed to be able to be convicted of murder if nobody has died.
No, the voices told me it is ALUMINUM foil.
I think I see what you are saying, but don't think that is the way it would work.
I don't think the non-unique system can tell you how many widgets you actually have, they can help you keep track of how many you receive and how many you sell, but not if any 'disappear'.
If I walk into your store and pick up a candy bar, slipping it into this foil pouch I have in my coat pocket (high frequency tags work on microwave frequencies (up to 2.4GHz) and can't see well through metal), then without a unique ID, the system just loses a signal, it can't track what it doesn't see. With a unique ID, the system would start screaming "Candy bar #17 just disappeared!"
If you are a jewelry store, I am sure you want to know where EVERY ONE of your diamond rings are, not just that "Yup, the system is still seeing AT LEAST ONE, so everything must be fine..."
A way around that is to have multiple readers connected and used to triangulate on items in the store. Then you CAN alarm when "the item that used to be at calculated coordinates X,Y has disappeared, someone should check it out..." but it would be MUCH more expensive to do it that way. In addition, the processing power required would be daunting - especially when you consider the required resolution needed to distinguish between items either stacked one atop the other or right next to each other. I have seen gold chains displayed 10-14 in a 12" display - resolution of less than an inch would be required to 'watch' each individual chain. If each had a unique ID, that problem 'goes away'.
I am sure there is research on the "foil pouch in my pocket" problem, but the unique ID neatly obliterates the problem
I want one of those cycles!
Spammers rely on a tiny hit rate to a huge number of emails. If they sent more emails, they would make more money. I assumed (dangerous, I know) that they would therefore be sending the maximum number of emails they could based on their bandwidth limitations as well as their resourse limitations - or as many as they thought they could get away with without being noticed/blacklisted/shutdown. I.e., they are either running flat out, or trying to stay under somebodys' radar.
If they are sending 250,000,000 emails a day, then that must be all they CAN (or think they can - amounts to the same thing) send or they would be sending more. If they have to send everything twice, then they have just dropped the number of emails to 125,000,000 - and cut their income from their activity in half.
Another possibility is that they double the size of their email farm and the width of their pipeline - but that also takes $$$, time, and resourses - my computer requires electricity or it refuses to work.
I am for anything that hits spammers in the pocketbook.