I'm not a chemist, so I don't know the technical details. But designed nanites might be able to cross evolutionary barriers that evolved microorganisms would be extremely unlikely to do. Indeed, that's the whole point of nanotech.
Sigh. A copyright is not a claim to have thought up an idea. It is merely a claim on a set of words (or images) in a certain order. You can't photocopy an entire book and sell it, but if you rewrite it in your own words and sell it, no-one can sue you.
I hate to say it, but Microsoft are absolutely correct that it is illegal to republish their entire spec. Those posts which do so should be taken down.
Um, a EULA puports to be a contract, "freely agreed to" - which of course is "libertarian" nonsense. UCITA and DMCA allow such contracts to be even stricter and more strongly upheld than they could be before. To some extent, there are capitalistic and interventionist aspects to both. But make no mistake, outrageous things like disclaimer of all implied warranties for commercial software, "self-help", supression of critical reviews of software etc. are all very capitalistic, and do not involve greater government restrictions - they involve deregulation.
Wake up to the harsh realities of capitalism, and stop being fooled by right-wing propagandists like Ayn Rand! Allowing corporations to run rampant without restriction is insane!
Um, forgive my naivety, but - if a criminal sneaks up behind you and robs you at gunpoint - how is your concealed weapon going to help you then? If you try and get it out you risk being shot yourself.
Come on, get real. Business is all about financial success. "Ethics" only counts when it happens to coincide with making money, as with Red Hat at the present time. If a CEO, or any employee, gets a crazy idea in his head that he or she is going to be all sweet and nice, to the detriment of the bottom line, he or she will not last long (except in cases of e.g. nepotism).
And I say this as an anti-capitalist. That's just the reality.
I don't use the Hotmail spam protection because I am paranoid about losing interesting/important email (I am on a ton of low-volume mailing lists). Instead I use the subject-line filters (primitive but it works). The chances of a legitimate email having HOT XXX ACTION in the subject line are virtually nil.:-)
What they are really suggesting is that Microsoft should bundle anti-virus software with Windows and Outlook.
That would be a good idea, yes. If it worked properly and had quick, regular, free updates, an excellent idea.
But that's completely missing the point. Microsoft should never have released a product with such hideous security bugs still in it.
You can't have it both ways folks. If you are going to split Microsoft in two for bundling software
Personally I don't try to. The "bundling" issue is a load of hot air to me. What on earth is wrong with giving stuff away, as long as you don't exclude other people's stuff illegally? But remember the anti-trust trial does not stand or fall on bundling alone.
Since when was it polite to tell people how and when they should do something?
You are doing that yourself in that very paragraph. So shut up, you impolite person!
Seriously, we do have a right to complain. Let me use this (little bit stretched) analogy. If I give you some free source code, then call you a moron every time you try and contribute back, would you still say you had no right to complain? How about if I physically punch you in the face? Would you still say you had no right to complain? Where do you draw the line?
Some people are clearly getting frustrated and they have every right to complain.
The point is, if a person (like me) cannot afford to run their own SourceForge server (I mean, literally, run the code on a public webserver, as in, execute - not just have it sit there on some disk) then the argument that "you can just fork it", is bogus. You can, but it's of no use at the present time. Thus, the implied argument, that forking is better than complaining, is also not necessarily true.
It's just like the bogus libertarian argument that "you can get another job if you don't like this low-paid, unsafe, hellish job" to someone who hates their job. Yeah, right. Dream on. Um... if they hate their job, and they still continue with it... do I even have to complete the question? It's like, mundo obviouso.
Actually, in some versions of Outlook without a security patch, ILOVEYOU already ran from the Preview Pane. You didn't even need to open the attachment.
Yeah, but think about it - that's the only way megacorps will be able to survive in the nanotech era - licensing. If you thought the MPAA were heavy handed, you ain't seen nothing yet.
This will be about the very existence of megacorps like the major oil and agro/pharmaceutical companies - and the sustaining of vast wealth differentials. We can go two ways in the nanotech future - even more blatant criminal exploitation, through "free" contracting (yeah right!) and government-backed monopolies, or participatory democratic socialism (not totalitarian socialism which is completely different). It'll depend on whether there is enough resistance from the population at large - but the WTO and IMF demonstrations are somewhat positive signs for the future.
That's legal and moral nonsense. If a corporation kills people, accidentally or deliberately, criminal actions can be brought. For example, key German company chiefs were tried at Nuremberg for their companies' complicity in the Holocaust.
Aha, but any proofs about provability are contingent on a standard of what counts as a valid proof, which may be subject to change in future. See David Deutsch, "The Fabric of Reality".
Re:DMOZ changed completely when AOL took over
on
Who Owns Dmoz?
·
· Score: 1
Ownership is a transitive relation. See www.m-w.com
Slashdot Mirror
Correct. Furthermore, QBasic was bundled with:
MS-DOS 5.x
MS-DOS 6.x
and Win NT 4.0 - although it was still a DOS-mode only thing
(not sure about other versions)
and it rocks! Possibly the most bug-free software Microsoft has ever released! (okay, okay, if you discount the annoying 64k memory limitation).
Brilliant idea!!! Thanks, I'll probably use that. :)
Interesting point, but the difference is, Microsoft is bad and open source is good. ;)
I hate to say it, but Microsoft are absolutely correct that it is illegal to republish their entire spec. Those posts which do so should be taken down.
Wake up to the harsh realities of capitalism, and stop being fooled by right-wing propagandists like Ayn Rand! Allowing corporations to run rampant without restriction is insane!
Fourth Generation Language indeed! More like -1th generation language - Postmodernist Obscurantism to make code as unreadable as possible!
Come on, get real. Business is all about financial success. "Ethics" only counts when it happens to coincide with making money, as with Red Hat at the present time. If a CEO, or any employee, gets a crazy idea in his head that he or she is going to be all sweet and nice, to the detriment of the bottom line, he or she will not last long (except in cases of e.g. nepotism).
And I say this as an anti-capitalist. That's just the reality.
Um....? Why log in at all?
That would be a good idea, yes. If it worked properly and had quick, regular, free updates, an excellent idea.
But that's completely missing the point. Microsoft should never have released a product with such hideous security bugs still in it.
You can't have it both ways folks. If you are going to split Microsoft in two for bundling software
Personally I don't try to. The "bundling" issue is a load of hot air to me. What on earth is wrong with giving stuff away, as long as you don't exclude other people's stuff illegally? But remember the anti-trust trial does not stand or fall on bundling alone.
You are doing that yourself in that very paragraph. So shut up, you impolite person!
Seriously, we do have a right to complain. Let me use this (little bit stretched) analogy. If I give you some free source code, then call you a moron every time you try and contribute back, would you still say you had no right to complain? How about if I physically punch you in the face? Would you still say you had no right to complain? Where do you draw the line?
Some people are clearly getting frustrated and they have every right to complain.
It's just like the bogus libertarian argument that "you can get another job if you don't like this low-paid, unsafe, hellish job" to someone who hates their job. Yeah, right. Dream on. Um... if they hate their job, and they still continue with it... do I even have to complete the question? It's like, mundo obviouso.
That's Microsofts' real crime here.
That was really really funny. Thanks for cheering me up.
This will be about the very existence of megacorps like the major oil and agro/pharmaceutical companies - and the sustaining of vast wealth differentials. We can go two ways in the nanotech future - even more blatant criminal exploitation, through "free" contracting (yeah right!) and government-backed monopolies, or participatory democratic socialism (not totalitarian socialism which is completely different). It'll depend on whether there is enough resistance from the population at large - but the WTO and IMF demonstrations are somewhat positive signs for the future.
It's known as "taking the initiative". It's risky, but that's life.
Ownership is a transitive relation. See www.m-w.com
It was an answer to the question posed by Katz at the top of the page.