I don't see a whole lot on the "right to profit" in our constitution...
No, I believe that was in the Declaration of Independence: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. The unalienable right to pursue hapiness should not be challenged by your perspective on what hapiness is or by your belief in the welfare state.
Isn't this the same industry that is complaining that piracy is putting them out of business?
They aren't claiming that piracy is putting them out of business, they are claiming that it has the potential to cause them more and more loss of profits with the emergence of broadband technology. Something that they have the right to be annoyed about because this happens to be America a country known for its success with the Free Enterprise system.
I'm so sick of hearing people bitch and complain because somebody charges a few bucks for a movie they spent millions to make. This isn't communism, Hollywood and everyone else that watches their movies doesn't have to support your movie habit. Just pay for the show if you want to watch it, would ya? And quit complaining that somebody is making money for his innovation. Those are all principles that this country is built on, if you don't like them, GET OUT!
...but a cable show on at 11 pm can't show cartoonish nudity.
No, if they aim to hold the trust of somewhat conservative parents in this country, they can't show nudity, alcohol, etc. If they don't have a problem with losing that market share, then they should have no problem showing the scenes.
With this device and what we already know about the Tivo network, how long will it be until somebody figures out how get in and find out what their boss/mayor/Senator/etc. is really watching when he's up at 1am.
Sadly, a failure like this is a high-visibility public relations disaster. Companies should refrain from including the name of an operating system in their company name.
In a way, I would say that it is appropriate to attach the two. This company, like most in its industry, is failing because they failed to make their product marketable and profitable. I know that profit is a four-letter word in the open source community, but the fact is that companies need to make money to stay in business. And, we have to be honest with ourselves, Linux has benefited greatly from the support it has gained in the corporate world.
Companies that have chosen to participate in the Open Source/Linux gold rush are going to have to keep a close eye on the small successes in their industry. It's a tuff nut to crack, but I think in the end the few that survive will find a way to remain profitable in an Open Source community and what we will end up with is a better business model for companies that aim to compete in the operating system market.
Encryption is one of those things that goes really well with open source. PGP started out as Philip Zimmermann's free and open project which he released with a written warning against software that locked away its source code and algorithms. This makes it a little difficult to go back to closed source and proprietary encryption methods. The internet community's love affair with PGP was broken when Phil quit working with Network Associates. The trust wasn't with PGP alone, it was with Phil heading up PGP's development that drew the trust of us all. So, its not too surprising that Network Associates is having a little trouble trying to pawn off a product that has no market.
I find it interesting how the major cell phone manufacturers don't seem to be shy about creating their own proprietary PIM software on each different model phone they produce. I prefer the Treo for its use of PalmOS, which has the market share today - I like the idea of being able to have some of my favorite apps on the device as well. Whereas, something like this, you better like what they put on 'cause you ain't gettin' no different.
Heh, user puts on speedpass watch and forgets he/she's wearing it and at a visit to a speedpass supported gas station, walks a wee bit too close to the pumps...
Actually I've been using the Speedpass technology for some time now and, as far as I can see there are many more advantages than disadvantages. First of all, most of the reasons not to use the speedpass are some what mythical. Take, for example, the one cited above. You can only pump gas while in the general vicinity of the pump. In other words, if you walk a wee bit too close to the pumps they will be active for the 2 seconds you are directly in front of them and no longer active when you walk away.
The other great thing that has been mentioned in some of the posts as a disadvantage is that it is attached to your credit card and it doesn't require a pin/signature. Remember you have ZERO liability for any fraudulent activity that ends up on your credit card. (I know that in actuality there is some minimal legal liability, but here are links from Visa and Mastercard guaranteeing cardholders will have no liability.)
All things considered, I think its pretty cool technology. Like anything there are some risks, but, as far as I can tell, all of these are taken by the big credit card companies leaving you with all the benefits and none of the liability.
This does not surprise me at all. India has been making a lot of positive headway with their economy. There is opportunity in India right now like there never was before. Plus, they have already been taking advantage of the.COM boom as many E-Commerce companies have been using India-based oporations as the backside of their 24 hour support. I believe I saw this on a NBC news special some time ago.
Sorry, the problem *is* the guns. Take away the guns, and nobody would be dead.
This seems so logical, and yet I encourage you to present any real world example proving what you claim. The truth is that only law abiding citizens obey laws in the first place. If someone is willing to commit murder, they are certainly going to be willing to break any gun law.
Some things to consider:
New Jersey adopted what sponsors described as "the most stringent gun law" in the nation in 1966; two years later, the murder rate was up 46 percent and the reported robbery rate had nearly doubled.
In 1968, Hawaii imposed a series of increasingly harsh measures and its murder rate, then a low 2.4 per 100,000 per year, tripled to 7.2 by 1977.
In 1976, Washington, D.C., enacted one of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation. Since then, the city's murder rate has risen 134 percent while the national murder rate has dropped 2 percent.
Now these will surprise you:
In Kennesaw, Ga., the city passed a law requiring all households to possess a gun. Within seven months, the burglary rate dropped by 89 percent.
In Orlando, Fla., the police department set up a program teaching 600,000 women how to handle firearms. Subsequently, the rape rate dropped by 88 percent.
Among the six million Swiss, there are an estimated two million guns -- including 600,000 fully automatic assault rifles, and their murder rate is 15 percent of ours.
I challenge you, go ahead and give us an example of what you claim. You won't find too many. It would seem to make sense that if you take away the guns you stop the killing, but take a look sometime at a country like England that has stringent gun laws and look at the rate of murder and rape, in almost every case it increase with gun control. When you outlaw guns all you do is remove the right of law abiding citizens to protect themselves and the criminals have free reign. If, however, a person was going to break into a house in a neighborhood notorious for its gun advocacy, they might think twice as there is a higher risk of them losing their life.
I played around with SGL for a while a couple weeks ago and it really is a neat setup, but by nature is a huge headache when it comes to maintaining the distribution. Of course, that is what they claim to do is take the headache out of building a Linux distro up from source.
This is true and actually is one of the advantages of running a business as a corporation rather than a sole proprietor or a partnership is the limitation of liability.
Freedom isnt free, and sometimes the price of freedom is loss of life.
One of my favorite quotes... I think you are taking my comments a little out of context. I understand war is often a necessary means to an end and I also know my freedom was won at a price that, more than likely, I will never have to pay. I am talking about, in domestic law, the freedom of one individual to do what he choses is said to end when he crosses the line and infringes on the rights of another human being.
That is a much more difficult topic. (especially on Slashdot) I didn't go into detail on my thoughts for risk of being flamed, but seems you begged the question...
I think that whether you are religious or not - whether you are Christian or not it is tuff to argue the Bible as one of the best sources for a moral base. That is what the founders chose even though some of them were arguably less religious than others and I think they hit right on, in that regard. Not much is as clearly defined as or well known as the ten commandments. Actually, I've noticed a lot of communities post-9/11 have posted the ten commandments in their court houses and public buildings. In this country we do have freedom of religion, but the Christian Bible is without doubt the age-old moral code.
You have a point, I think that desensitization is a definite problem. More and more people care less and less about anyone else. I heard something somewhere from somebody that might be relative: first there was a magazine called People, then there was a magazine called Us, then Self. - you get the point, though I'm sure I didn't remember that right...
Actually, I don't think the people that were killed were their "buddies".
Thank-you, Captain Obvious, for the correction. For those of you who need to hear this: a more accurate translation of my thoughts into the written english language could be achieved by changing the reference to "their buddies" above to read "their peers"
I know it isn't popular but games and movies do influence people (including youth).
This is all too true. I think it is obvious how evening TV shows and popular movies have influenced our culture. Here's a statistic that would be interesting to take a look at: Take the point in time when Hollywood and evening TV shows quit portraying couples as the traditional married with children family and started portraying them as singles living together out of wedlock. Take the statistic of married couples to non-married couples at that point in time and compare it to now.
I don't think its an exaggeration to say that the image that Hollywood and the major TV networks push out to the masses don't influence what we think of as "normal" behavior.
I guess its sort of a sad thing that the judge should probably be applauded for this. It seems all too popular these days to blame the symptom rather than the disease. When are we going to wake up and realize that guns don't kill people and video games don't corrupt youth. The problem with Columbine isn't the guns. Its the fact that two teenage boys thought that it was OK to kill all of their buddies.
The root of the problem lies in the continual de-moralization of our society. I think it would help to remember our priorities: when we say - Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, life comes before liberty. And in order to preserve life morals are essential. It becomes a delicate balance between an individual's freedom to believe and carry on as they choose and if some of these activities and beliefs are downright bad for society as a whole.
Why does everything corporate have to be this big conspiracy? If a company wasn't paying its bills is it really all that surrising that they were shut down?
Slashdot Mirror
I don't see a whole lot on the "right to profit" in our constitution...
No, I believe that was in the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
The unalienable right to pursue hapiness should not be challenged by your perspective on what hapiness is or by your belief in the welfare state.
Sure, but the problem Rick Boucher has is that it's not yet there with Rick Boucher's name on it!
The outcome of the settlement is most certainly very important.
Not as important as you would think. It doesn't really set a precedent that can be used in court because it was settled out of court.
Isn't this the same industry that is complaining that piracy is putting them out of business?
They aren't claiming that piracy is putting them out of business, they are claiming that it has the potential to cause them more and more loss of profits with the emergence of broadband technology. Something that they have the right to be annoyed about because this happens to be America a country known for its success with the Free Enterprise system.
I'm so sick of hearing people bitch and complain because somebody charges a few bucks for a movie they spent millions to make. This isn't communism, Hollywood and everyone else that watches their movies doesn't have to support your movie habit. Just pay for the show if you want to watch it, would ya? And quit complaining that somebody is making money for his innovation. Those are all principles that this country is built on, if you don't like them, GET OUT!
...but a cable show on at 11 pm can't show cartoonish nudity.
No, if they aim to hold the trust of somewhat conservative parents in this country, they can't show nudity, alcohol, etc.
If they don't have a problem with losing that market share, then they should have no problem showing the scenes.
With this device and what we already know about the Tivo network, how long will it be until somebody figures out how get in and find out what their boss/mayor/Senator/etc. is really watching when he's up at 1am.
Sadly, a failure like this is a high-visibility public relations disaster. Companies should refrain from including the name of an operating system in their company name.
In a way, I would say that it is appropriate to attach the two. This company, like most in its industry, is failing because they failed to make their product marketable and profitable. I know that profit is a four-letter word in the open source community, but the fact is that companies need to make money to stay in business. And, we have to be honest with ourselves, Linux has benefited greatly from the support it has gained in the corporate world.
Companies that have chosen to participate in the Open Source/Linux gold rush are going to have to keep a close eye on the small successes in their industry. It's a tuff nut to crack, but I think in the end the few that survive will find a way to remain profitable in an Open Source community and what we will end up with is a better business model for companies that aim to compete in the operating system market.
Encryption is one of those things that goes really well with open source. PGP started out as Philip Zimmermann's free and open project which he released with a written warning against software that locked away its source code and algorithms. This makes it a little difficult to go back to closed source and proprietary encryption methods. The internet community's love affair with PGP was broken when Phil quit working with Network Associates. The trust wasn't with PGP alone, it was with Phil heading up PGP's development that drew the trust of us all.
So, its not too surprising that Network Associates is having a little trouble trying to pawn off a product that has no market.
Exit PGP, enter GnuPG.
...after the Bush administration hijacked the government...
{biting my lip}
Clearly flamebait...
The article states the the DOJ was explaining why they settled, not defending MSFT.
Why can't scientists ever just admit when they don't know a figure, rather than give some ridiculous range.
I find it interesting how the major cell phone manufacturers don't seem to be shy about creating their own proprietary PIM software on each different model phone they produce. I prefer the Treo for its use of PalmOS, which has the market share today - I like the idea of being able to have some of my favorite apps on the device as well. Whereas, something like this, you better like what they put on 'cause you ain't gettin' no different.
Heh, user puts on speedpass watch and forgets he/she's wearing it and at a visit to a speedpass supported gas station, walks a wee bit too close to the pumps...
Actually I've been using the Speedpass technology for some time now and, as far as I can see there are many more advantages than disadvantages.
First of all, most of the reasons not to use the speedpass are some what mythical. Take, for example, the one cited above. You can only pump gas while in the general vicinity of the pump. In other words, if you walk a wee bit too close to the pumps they will be active for the 2 seconds you are directly in front of them and no longer active when you walk away.
The other great thing that has been mentioned in some of the posts as a disadvantage is that it is attached to your credit card and it doesn't require a pin/signature. Remember you have ZERO liability for any fraudulent activity that ends up on your credit card. (I know that in actuality there is some minimal legal liability, but here are links from Visa and Mastercard guaranteeing cardholders will have no liability.)
All things considered, I think its pretty cool technology. Like anything there are some risks, but, as far as I can tell, all of these are taken by the big credit card companies leaving you with all the benefits and none of the liability.
This does not surprise me at all. India has been making a lot of positive headway with their economy. There is opportunity in India right now like there never was before. Plus, they have already been taking advantage of the .COM boom as many E-Commerce companies have been using India-based oporations as the backside of their 24 hour support. I believe I saw this on a NBC news special some time ago.
Sorry, the problem *is* the guns. Take away the guns, and nobody would be dead.
This seems so logical, and yet I encourage you to present any real world example proving what you claim. The truth is that only law abiding citizens obey laws in the first place. If someone is willing to commit murder, they are certainly going to be willing to break any gun law.
Some things to consider:
New Jersey adopted what sponsors described as "the most stringent gun law" in the nation in 1966; two years later, the murder rate was up 46 percent and the reported robbery rate had nearly doubled.
In 1968, Hawaii imposed a series of increasingly harsh measures and its murder rate, then a low 2.4 per 100,000 per year, tripled to 7.2 by 1977.
In 1976, Washington, D.C., enacted one of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation. Since then, the city's murder rate has risen 134 percent while the national murder rate has dropped 2 percent.
Now these will surprise you:
In Kennesaw, Ga., the city passed a law requiring all households to possess a gun. Within seven months, the burglary rate dropped by 89 percent.
In Orlando, Fla., the police department set up a program teaching 600,000 women how to handle firearms. Subsequently, the rape rate dropped by 88 percent.
Among the six million Swiss, there are an estimated two million guns -- including 600,000 fully automatic assault rifles, and their murder rate is 15 percent of ours.
I challenge you, go ahead and give us an example of what you claim. You won't find too many. It would seem to make sense that if you take away the guns you stop the killing, but take a look sometime at a country like England that has stringent gun laws and look at the rate of murder and rape, in almost every case it increase with gun control. When you outlaw guns all you do is remove the right of law abiding citizens to protect themselves and the criminals have free reign. If, however, a person was going to break into a house in a neighborhood notorious for its gun advocacy, they might think twice as there is a higher risk of them losing their life.
Some sources and good references:
Article by the National Center for Policy Analysis
Article at the Independence Institute
Capitolism Magazine Article
Article on Heartland.org
An Article on Australia's Gun Control mistake, cut with some humor.
Now I wouldn't post a problem without a solution, so here is an article detailing an alternative to making all guns illegal.
I played around with SGL for a while a couple weeks ago and it really is a neat setup, but by nature is a huge headache when it comes to maintaining the distribution. Of course, that is what they claim to do is take the headache out of building a Linux distro up from source.
Microsoft didn't commit perjury.
This is true and actually is one of the advantages of running a business as a corporation rather than a sole proprietor or a partnership is the limitation of liability.
Freedom isnt free, and sometimes the price of freedom is loss of life.
One of my favorite quotes...
I think you are taking my comments a little out of context. I understand war is often a necessary means to an end and I also know my freedom was won at a price that, more than likely, I will never have to pay. I am talking about, in domestic law, the freedom of one individual to do what he choses is said to end when he crosses the line and infringes on the rights of another human being.
There is no justification for saying that murder is wrong, in a moral sense.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. Moral degradation to a point where morals don't even protect life, much less a healthy society.
That is a much more difficult topic. (especially on Slashdot) I didn't go into detail on my thoughts for risk of being flamed, but seems you begged the question...
I think that whether you are religious or not - whether you are Christian or not it is tuff to argue the Bible as one of the best sources for a moral base. That is what the founders chose even though some of them were arguably less religious than others and I think they hit right on, in that regard. Not much is as clearly defined as or well known as the ten commandments. Actually, I've noticed a lot of communities post-9/11 have posted the ten commandments in their court houses and public buildings. In this country we do have freedom of religion, but the Christian Bible is without doubt the age-old moral code.
I think it's more a society desensitized...
You have a point, I think that desensitization is a definite problem. More and more people care less and less about anyone else. I heard something somewhere from somebody that might be relative: first there was a magazine called People, then there was a magazine called Us, then Self. - you get the point, though I'm sure I didn't remember that right...
Actually, I don't think the people that were killed were their "buddies".
Thank-you, Captain Obvious, for the correction. For those of you who need to hear this: a more accurate translation of my thoughts into the written english language could be achieved by changing the reference to "their buddies" above to read "their peers"
I know it isn't popular but games and movies do influence people (including youth).
This is all too true. I think it is obvious how evening TV shows and popular movies have influenced our culture.
Here's a statistic that would be interesting to take a look at: Take the point in time when Hollywood and evening TV shows quit portraying couples as the traditional married with children family and started portraying them as singles living together out of wedlock. Take the statistic of married couples to non-married couples at that point in time and compare it to now.
I don't think its an exaggeration to say that the image that Hollywood and the major TV networks push out to the masses don't influence what we think of as "normal" behavior.
I guess its sort of a sad thing that the judge should probably be applauded for this.
It seems all too popular these days to blame the symptom rather than the disease. When are we going to wake up and realize that guns don't kill people and video games don't corrupt youth. The problem with Columbine isn't the guns. Its the fact that two teenage boys thought that it was OK to kill all of their buddies.
The root of the problem lies in the continual de-moralization of our society. I think it would help to remember our priorities: when we say - Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, life comes before liberty. And in order to preserve life morals are essential. It becomes a delicate balance between an individual's freedom to believe and carry on as they choose and if some of these activities and beliefs are downright bad for society as a whole.
Why does everything corporate have to be this big conspiracy? If a company wasn't paying its bills is it really all that surrising that they were shut down?