If there was a conspiracy to find about 9/11, what do you think it would turn out to be?
A. A concerted effort by the Government and Department of Defence, and related military bodies conspiring together to launch an attack on the US people in order to further the aims of the Government and selected private corporations and individuals.
Or...
B. A concerted effort by members of the Government and Department of Defence, and related military bodies to cover up their own inadequecies in being able to deal with an attack by a small number of persons against several targets using simplistic weapons, causing a massive over reaction over the next few years, and resulting in the inability of the largest military might in the world to subdue a country that has barely hit the 19th Century.
Yes, there probably was a lie surrounding 9/11, but its almost certainly not the juicy one people are fantasising about...
If we were talking about a traditional book, then I would agree with you. However, we are not - we are talking about the end user directly requesting the publication from you and presenting a wealth of data at the same time as the request.
If you don't like that data collected, then don't present it. Its that simple.
To prove dumping, you would have to prove that Microsoft are selling it for less than the cost to manufacture it, including original investment. On an 8 year, two generations old very successful software product I have a feeling that proving dumping would be hard. Very hard.
If I wanted to buy a copy of XP, I should be able to get it for $6?
Sign an OEM agreement, buy in (very big) numbers and yes, you can get it for $6. I find it interesting that the combined intellect of Slashdot cannot come to the realisation that different purchasers get different rates.
Nope, because you're trying to imply that Microsoft would be unaware of the GPL. And we're not even talking about the GPL in detail, we're talking about the fundamental point of the GPL. That which most teenagers even know.
Uhm, no Im not, not at all.
That's very easy to say. Not that we would ever be able to prove this, but I'm willing to bet you that if you ask any Microsoft developer about the fundamental meaning of the GPL they would give it to you without hesitating for one second. The GPL isn't some "underground" phenomena.
Again you totally misunderstand my post - it isn't a question of whether or not the GPL is understood, but it is a question as to whether the distributing entity (the corporation) knew the code was taken from a GPLed project.
Ahh, I'm naive am I, just because I disagree with you?
Or rather I understand that the actions of a lower level employee or related third party does not necessarily equate to corporate policy, and the former can be considered unwilfull distribution, while the latter can be considered wilfull.
Microsoft removed the tool, thats all they have to do by law.
Firstly I suggest you read up on legal cases - wilfull infringement is where it can be proven that the infringer knew at the time of infringement of said infringement, and did nothing to rectify their position.
In this case, Microsoft removed the tool in question from distribution pending an investigation, and there is no evidence to suggest that Microsoft as an entity knew of the infringement at the time of distribution.
Secondly there was no copy of the GPL involved here - the persons who received the potentially infringing code did not receive it under the GPL, they received it under a potential violation of copyright law. Thus there is no entitlement to the end users to demand code under the terms of the GPL.
Yes you are obligated to do such a thing, and if you don't comply you can be dragged to court where you could be sentenced to pay for copyright infringement.
You are wrong, in the case of unwilfull infringement, positive action to cease infringement is enough - you are not obligated to release the code, and you are not bound by the licence. The copyright holder can still persue damages for prior infringement, but thats it.
First Sale has no bearing here - you have the right to do what you wish with the purchase, be it a book, recording or software. You can burn it, sell it on, use it as a coaster if you so wish.
What you do not have is the right to demand that the seller continue to support you in your efforts - and that is what is happening here. Apple sells the product for an intended use, and is now effecting changes which discontinues ongoing unintended uses - whether those changes are deliberate or simply a consequence of another change is academic, you have no legal or moral ground to force Apple to support you in your unintended use of the product.
I think it is pretty much the only thing that matters - until you can say when the photons left in relation to each other, there is no way you can say the delay validates or invalidates any of the theories in question.
I am serious, as I think your original statement is ludicrous - Chernobyl had no lasting economic or political effect on Russia, and the US economy is currently swirling around the pan.
Or, in other words, your original post was pointless.
Read some books/watch some documentaries about their nuclear powered bomber project which actually flown until even red bureaucrats figured it is way risky.
The US made some, too, while managing NOT to have a Chernobyl and an economic/political collapse.
Three Mile Island, and what precisely is the US undergoing at the moment? Trillion dollar debts, printing new money at a fair rate....
Dont buy important technology from foreign countries, do it yourself. Especially if you ever under any way, shape or form could cross paths with said foreign country.
I think this should be a really big wakeup call to european countries that relies 100% on american tech, both on hardware and software.
Which European countries rely 100% on American technology? I offer the Tornado, Jaguar, Eurofighter, Rafale, Mirage and others as proof to the contrary.
You entirely miss the point that the Azure offering is fully redundant and highly available (each database has two redundant hot copies, and you don't care about managing that or handling the load balancing), while the Amazon offering is.... not, so you triple the costs for the same redundancy.
No, the point of running it in the cloud is to remove the question of the infrastructure. Amazons offering isn't really 'cloud' imho, its more hosted infrastructure but you still care about the infrastructure. Note how you still need to build in redundancy and availability yourself with the Amazon offering, which means multiple instances and other systems to handle the load balancing/clustering/whatever - a true cloud option will 'just be' fully redundant and highly available.
While not directly comparable, the Azure platform being launched next month by Microsoft includes two relational database options:
1. Small database (1GB)- $9.99/month
2. Large database (10GB) - $99.99/month
Each SQL Azure database is triple redundant automatically, and you do not pay for storage or load balancing. The Amazon model has you paying for the instance ($81 per 31 days for the small instance) plus storage charges and other costs.
Because you can build lighter structures if you assume that certain loadings can be rejected - if you assemble it horizontally, then the joins and internal support structures must be strengthened to support the dyanmic weight in the raising of the entire structure, rather than just supporting the weight of the structures above it in a static way.
Why on EARTH should a WASHINGTON judge settle a dispute between two out of state corporations? It doesn't involve Washington State at all, except that the Nevada based corporation has a branch office in Washington.
Why didn't the Washington State court find that then, and reject the case?
Surely its "don't run any scripts we don't fully understand" - there are enough local exploits around these days that it would be trivial to try a dozen of them and still get a fairly decent install base for any malicious code - plus the fact that it doesn't take root privileges to turn your system into a spam bot, or an ftp drop box for child porn, or...
Where the hell do you think the money comes from to pay the corporate taxes? The tooth fairy? Of course it comes from the consumer, and of course prices will rise to accomodate them.
The indirect benefits of a large employer within the state was precisely the basis behind Washington States pandering to Boeing to bring the original 787 production line into the state:
Business and Occupation tax - reduced from 0.484% to 0.2904% of gross revenues
Exempted tooling and machinery from taxation
Increased the lower rate of tax for Boeings suppliers
All of which will cost Washington State in the order of $3.4billion over 20 years, and has cost them $278million between 2003 and 2008.
So maybe the state should stfu about one company acting within the law, albeit a law that was considered perfectly acceptable up until the state spent its way into a hole, while simultaneously dilberately reducing taxation on another company specifically in order to increase employment.
Oh, and Washington State doesn't get to tax Boeing on sales either - their headquarters are in Chicago....
Slashdot Mirror
A. A concerted effort by the Government and Department of Defence, and related military bodies conspiring together to launch an attack on the US people in order to further the aims of the Government and selected private corporations and individuals.
Or...
B. A concerted effort by members of the Government and Department of Defence, and related military bodies to cover up their own inadequecies in being able to deal with an attack by a small number of persons against several targets using simplistic weapons, causing a massive over reaction over the next few years, and resulting in the inability of the largest military might in the world to subdue a country that has barely hit the 19th Century.
Yes, there probably was a lie surrounding 9/11, but its almost certainly not the juicy one people are fantasising about...
If we were talking about a traditional book, then I would agree with you. However, we are not - we are talking about the end user directly requesting the publication from you and presenting a wealth of data at the same time as the request.
If you don't like that data collected, then don't present it. Its that simple.
To prove dumping, you would have to prove that Microsoft are selling it for less than the cost to manufacture it, including original investment. On an 8 year, two generations old very successful software product I have a feeling that proving dumping would be hard. Very hard.
If I wanted to buy a copy of XP, I should be able to get it for $6?
Sign an OEM agreement, buy in (very big) numbers and yes, you can get it for $6. I find it interesting that the combined intellect of Slashdot cannot come to the realisation that different purchasers get different rates.
Nope, because you're trying to imply that Microsoft would be unaware of the GPL. And we're not even talking about the GPL in detail, we're talking about the fundamental point of the GPL. That which most teenagers even know.
Uhm, no Im not, not at all.
That's very easy to say. Not that we would ever be able to prove this, but I'm willing to bet you that if you ask any Microsoft developer about the fundamental meaning of the GPL they would give it to you without hesitating for one second. The GPL isn't some "underground" phenomena.
Again you totally misunderstand my post - it isn't a question of whether or not the GPL is understood, but it is a question as to whether the distributing entity (the corporation) knew the code was taken from a GPLed project.
Ahh, I'm naive am I, just because I disagree with you?
Or rather I understand that the actions of a lower level employee or related third party does not necessarily equate to corporate policy, and the former can be considered unwilfull distribution, while the latter can be considered wilfull.
Microsoft removed the tool, thats all they have to do by law.
Firstly I suggest you read up on legal cases - wilfull infringement is where it can be proven that the infringer knew at the time of infringement of said infringement, and did nothing to rectify their position.
In this case, Microsoft removed the tool in question from distribution pending an investigation, and there is no evidence to suggest that Microsoft as an entity knew of the infringement at the time of distribution.
Secondly there was no copy of the GPL involved here - the persons who received the potentially infringing code did not receive it under the GPL, they received it under a potential violation of copyright law. Thus there is no entitlement to the end users to demand code under the terms of the GPL.
Yes you are obligated to do such a thing, and if you don't comply you can be dragged to court where you could be sentenced to pay for copyright infringement.
You are wrong, in the case of unwilfull infringement, positive action to cease infringement is enough - you are not obligated to release the code, and you are not bound by the licence. The copyright holder can still persue damages for prior infringement, but thats it.
First Sale has no bearing here - you have the right to do what you wish with the purchase, be it a book, recording or software. You can burn it, sell it on, use it as a coaster if you so wish.
What you do not have is the right to demand that the seller continue to support you in your efforts - and that is what is happening here. Apple sells the product for an intended use, and is now effecting changes which discontinues ongoing unintended uses - whether those changes are deliberate or simply a consequence of another change is academic, you have no legal or moral ground to force Apple to support you in your unintended use of the product.
I think it is pretty much the only thing that matters - until you can say when the photons left in relation to each other, there is no way you can say the delay validates or invalidates any of the theories in question.
Its also plausable that they left at the same time, and arrived 0.9 seconds apart. How do we tell though?
I am serious, as I think your original statement is ludicrous - Chernobyl had no lasting economic or political effect on Russia, and the US economy is currently swirling around the pan.
Or, in other words, your original post was pointless.
Read some books/watch some documentaries about their nuclear powered bomber project which actually flown until even red bureaucrats figured it is way risky.
The US made some, too, while managing NOT to have a Chernobyl and an economic/political collapse.
Three Mile Island, and what precisely is the US undergoing at the moment? Trillion dollar debts, printing new money at a fair rate....
Dont buy important technology from foreign countries, do it yourself. Especially if you ever under any way, shape or form could cross paths with said foreign country.
I think this should be a really big wakeup call to european countries that relies 100% on american tech, both on hardware and software.
Which European countries rely 100% on American technology? I offer the Tornado, Jaguar, Eurofighter, Rafale, Mirage and others as proof to the contrary.
You entirely miss the point that the Azure offering is fully redundant and highly available (each database has two redundant hot copies, and you don't care about managing that or handling the load balancing), while the Amazon offering is .... not, so you triple the costs for the same redundancy.
No, the point of running it in the cloud is to remove the question of the infrastructure. Amazons offering isn't really 'cloud' imho, its more hosted infrastructure but you still care about the infrastructure. Note how you still need to build in redundancy and availability yourself with the Amazon offering, which means multiple instances and other systems to handle the load balancing/clustering/whatever - a true cloud option will 'just be' fully redundant and highly available.
Nope, thats the instance cost - the instance is up all the time. The storage and transfer costs depend on traffic.
While not directly comparable, the Azure platform being launched next month by Microsoft includes two relational database options:
1. Small database (1GB)- $9.99/month
2. Large database (10GB) - $99.99/month
Each SQL Azure database is triple redundant automatically, and you do not pay for storage or load balancing. The Amazon model has you paying for the instance ($81 per 31 days for the small instance) plus storage charges and other costs.
Not too impressed at the moment.
Because you can build lighter structures if you assume that certain loadings can be rejected - if you assemble it horizontally, then the joins and internal support structures must be strengthened to support the dyanmic weight in the raising of the entire structure, rather than just supporting the weight of the structures above it in a static way.
No it doesn't, it says 'Apple-branded'.
http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/macosx106.pdf
Why on EARTH should a WASHINGTON judge settle a dispute between two out of state corporations? It doesn't involve Washington State at all, except that the Nevada based corporation has a branch office in Washington.
Why didn't the Washington State court find that then, and reject the case?
Surely its "don't run any scripts we don't fully understand" - there are enough local exploits around these days that it would be trivial to try a dozen of them and still get a fairly decent install base for any malicious code - plus the fact that it doesn't take root privileges to turn your system into a spam bot, or an ftp drop box for child porn, or...
Where the hell do you think the money comes from to pay the corporate taxes? The tooth fairy? Of course it comes from the consumer, and of course prices will rise to accomodate them.
All of which will cost Washington State in the order of $3.4billion over 20 years, and has cost them $278million between 2003 and 2008.
So maybe the state should stfu about one company acting within the law, albeit a law that was considered perfectly acceptable up until the state spent its way into a hole, while simultaneously dilberately reducing taxation on another company specifically in order to increase employment.
Oh, and Washington State doesn't get to tax Boeing on sales either - their headquarters are in Chicago....
Authority comes from the entities mandate in law, not its title. Does the FCCs mandate extend to the internet?