In the UK, its the LAW that the ages on films are just that, hard floors for customers. You cant take a kid into an 18 rated film, the kid isnt old enough and the cinema wont sell you the ticket.
Tgz isnt the best of solutions when you have large resulting files, as ftpds, httpds etc tend to skip over files above a certain size. I recently hit this limit (the tgz was over 2gb in size, hence I think I hit the fs limit and was looking at 'undefined behaviour') and decided to shift everything over to rsync over ssh, which works a treat!
in fact, I'd like them to create an account for me, and let me download them at any time - and possibly again in the future if for some reason I lose them.
Now, on the face of it I would agree with you, as I still havent found a way to redownload my iTMS purchased goods (anyone know if you can?). But then I got to thinking. They allow you to download it once, from then on its your responsability to look after your purchased goods. If you had to download it a second time, then thats more bandwidth costs they have to eat. If they can put a time limit on the downloads, then they can estimate how much bandwidth they are going to use, and alter other things appropriately.
Which is exactly the problem. If you don't do as Microsoft tells you, you will be unable to compete.
Rather, if you dont do as the terms of the contract said, you dont get the benefit.
No, but anti-trust law says that if you're a monopolist, you're not allowed to use your power to lock upcoming competitors out of your markets. If you can't compete on the merit (and cost) of your products alone, then you don't deserve your monopoly any longer.
Now this point is interesting. Which is the uncompetative behavior here, offering specific OEMs cheaper prices, or locking other OEMs out of those prices? Most people would say 'both' and most people on here would say they shouldnt be able to do it at all, which brings us to the question: just how much is software worth? You cant do it on the standard basis of how much it costs to manufacture the item you purchase as once you have one its easy to make a million more.
It's the other way round. Everyone (vendor of a certain minimum size that is) gets OEM contracts, except those who give MS competitors a chance. It's a tool of punishment, not a reward. But as the die-hard astroturfer you seem to be, you probably don't care.
What I was trying to say in the origional post was that OEMs who were dual booting Windows with Linux were using the selling point of Windows to shift Linux, which I beleive is a unfair to MS. No business is going to allow its product to be the selling point of its competitor.
Im not a 'die-hard astroturfer' like you say, and I do care. Im just pissed off with the long standing rhetoric on this site that its OK to punish MS to the ends of the earth while overlooking the fact that most of that view comes from jelousy, and most of the recent lawsuits against MS seem to be cash grabs and little else.
Redhat, Mandrake et al bundle lots of applications that do productive things. MS is complaining they cant. Theres a difference, let me explain it.
Linux distributions are "compendiums" of opensource/free software, and bring together many competing applications.
Windows releases are sourced from a single company, Microsoft, and contain only applications owned or licensed by Microsoft.
Linux distributions do the bundling of competing applications, not the owners of those applications, and to the bundler they arent 'competing' at all since redhat doesnt give a monkeys toss whether you use kvideo to play a movie or mplayer. You would never see apache.org distributing thttpd for example, yet that is exactly what you would expect MS to do.
Take the recent EU case for example, it basically boilded down to Real saying "They bundle Media Player with windows to make a modern multimedia OS, that puts us at a competitive disadvantage." and when questioned why Linux could get away with it, the answer usually was that "Linux gives you choice", well actually no. Distributers give you choice, Linux will just run whatever you install, and the exact same is with MS.
Noone should reasonably expect MS to distribute a competitors product with windows, and yet everyone expects MS to produce an OS that can play music, video, browse the web, use IM, and many other things OUT OF THE BOX. If you have a better application, go ahead and install it since theres nothing stopping you. Of course, this doesnt help Real because noone really wants to install their software voluntarily.
They are, this whole "MS forbidding bundling" thing went out a long long time ago. Indeed, whenever I used to pick up an OEM PC (any time before 2000), it had a LOT of software on there, including netscape navigator in quite a few cases. And Im talking major manufacturers like Hewlett Packard, Packard Bell, Tiny, Evesham, Dan, Gateway etc.
Give me a reason why MS shouldnt be able to charge an OEM full price for the operating system? Its the OEMS choice, same as if they want to use supplier X, they may not get preferential treatment from supplier Y or indeed supplier Z may seek another buyer. Why should MS continue giving preferential treatment to someone which is supplying a direct competitor to its product. Its the terms that the OEM signed up for in order to stay in competition with other manufacturers. The OEM can forgo windows altogether and go with linux, but you know what? That doesnt sell systems. Dont like the price, dont buy the product.
One thing I think a lot of people forget is that OEM prices are a reward, not a god given right. And dont give me any bullshit about MS having to treat everyone correct 'because they are a monopoly', they are still a business first and formost, and no law in this country says you have to support the sale of a competitors product, which they are doing by offering low prices to OEMs who use the lure of an MS system and a Linux system dual booting to sell a computer.
As opposed to the US government and related bodies who shot dead 4 students at Kent State University for exercising their constitutional right to protest, who joined the 100 students dead by National Guard hands by 1972 for anti vietnam protests.
As opposed to the US government and related bodies who arrested nearly 4,000 students for exercising their constitutional right to protest against the vietnam war?
As opposed to the US government who routinely have 'free speech' areas well away from President Bush when he speaks in a PUBLIC place. And if you dont toe the party line while outside those 'free speech' areas? Well, then you get arrested!
As opposed to the US government who carried out genocide on an entire race of people, and got away with it?
As opposed to the US government who routinely point a finger at a financially poor country halfway round the world and say 'they present a threat to our national security', and then take punative measures against said country?
As opposed to the US government who have in the past removed democratically elected governments in other countries when said government didnt toe the line with the US?
It would seem to me that the western world have a selective memory when it comes to human rights abuses. Yes, China may not be top of the list for honours, but I wouldnt put the US up there either.
Im not assuming guilt, Im just assuming that Seagates lawyers and management know their jobs and have enough evidence of an infringement to make this a legitimate lawsuit. The parent to my post claims that Cornice arent infact infringing at all, and the lawsuits are just a form of bullying. I was stating that there are laws against just that sort of lawsuit, and if that were the case then Seagates lawyers would be in a world of trouble.
And the best part of it, it actually says that in the blurb at the top of this page!!! Sheesh, have we stopped reading the slashdot writeup now? Is it really true that we have become a civilisation where our attention spans are measured in microseconds? Does the title have to have 'sex' or something in it to gain more scrutiny?
If Cornice is not infringing then wouldnt Seagate bringing lawsuits against them for "Infringing on our patents" constitute a malicious lawsuit? And arent those frowned upon in the US and a fair number of other countries? And wouldnt Seagates lawyers and management know that? Im very doubtful that Seagate (and Western Digital it looks like also has a patent lawsuit against Cornice) is that stupid, there isnt enough stupidity to go around as SCO has it all.
What the FUCK? I tried this when it was in "The Mysterious Future" and for the search term 'linux' it gave me multiple (valid) pages worth of returns with stuff like "The Linux Journal" in there.
The movie companies supplying night vision goggles to cinemas is in exactly the same vein as businesses supplying CCTV equipment for their premises. And I bet you dont have a problem with businesses throwing money at CCTV equipment now do you? Both actions are protecting their own property.
If ISPs are not breaking any laws reading users stored email without consent, then why was
there a huge fuss about Google using a parsing engine to do the same?! I would have
thought that a parsing engine was more in line with privacy than someone reading
your mail!!
I feel a tremendous schizm forming within the ranks of the American Legislature over this,
with one side determined to force restrictions upon 'publicised' companies in an effort to
make names for themselves, while the other side making rulings like this that will bearly
make the main press. Something tells me not everyone is singing off the same hymnsheet.
Something died a little today. That something was common sense.
My view is that its a private transaction between the purchaser and the company. If the purchaser fails to collect in a timely manner, then sucks to be them, and the company should be under no further obligation to the purchaser or the state. If I lend a friend $20 and I fail to collect it in a timely manner, I see no reason why the state should be able to benifit from it.
This applies to personal checks also. In theory, if you send your ex-wife a check and she doesn't cash it after 6 months, you are supposed to notify the state and give them the money. Not that that has ever happened to me that I am aware of or have any remaining records.
Do checks (cheques) work differently in the US to pretty much everywhere else then? In the UK, and most other countries ive had the (mis)fortune to cash cheques from, the money is YOURS and NOONE ELSES until such time that they present a cheque you have written out to them to the bank. Up until that time, its yours, yours, yours, in your bank account, and the cheque only symbolises an agreement that you will give this third party a certain amount of money if they present this bit of paper to a bank.
What possible reason can a governmental body come up with to legitimise taking money off you that was never intended for them? I mean, you had an agreement with whoever you wrote the cheque out to, noone else! The moneys still yours until the other bank requests it, do the state governments just think "well, you arent entitled to it either, give it to us"?!
In the UK, all finances and transactions, excepting taxes, are deemed personal to you, and if someone doesnt cash a cheque you give them, then tough on them. They get a year to cash it in, and then they are referred back to you. Entirely a matter between you and them, the government does not get involved.
Im really confused as to how the US state governments get away with this. This is like way too much interference in something they shouldnt be touching.
For those of us who like to use the BSDL for our code, the GPL is as bad as any closed source license, as it allows people to incorporate our code into it without allowing code to be contributed back to us.
THe BSDL relies on peoples ethics for contributions to the code base, the GPL demands contributions if distributed. Theres the difference as i see it.
Doesnt the Unix timestamp run out of space sometime in the next 30 years? I think it would be stupid to put up a system that dies a death in just 30 years, I mean the GPS system has been going for 20 years now, 30 years would be nothing.
It is, the US gets the ability to degrade Galileos signal whenever they want, and Galileos owners dont get any such access to the US GPS system. Whey to fucking go, Europe!
None, but why should it? MS isnt in the altruistic market, and I dont blame them. If, after SP2 is released and most people have patched, a virus is released that attacks a vulnerability closed by SP2, then the headlines will be about "stolen copies of windows devestating the net" rather than "MS vulnerabilities devastating the net" as it currently is.
Slashdot Mirror
In the UK, its the LAW that the ages on films are just that, hard floors for customers. You cant take a kid into an 18 rated film, the kid isnt old enough and the cinema wont sell you the ticket.
Nope that was SunOS 2.7 as Solaris 7, basically a rebranding along the lines of Windows2000.
Tgz isnt the best of solutions when you have large resulting files, as ftpds, httpds etc tend to skip over files above a certain size. I recently hit this limit (the tgz was over 2gb in size, hence I think I hit the fs limit and was looking at 'undefined behaviour') and decided to shift everything over to rsync over ssh, which works a treat!
in fact, I'd like them to create an account for me, and let me download them at any time - and possibly again in the future if for some reason I lose them.
Now, on the face of it I would agree with you, as I still havent found a way to redownload my iTMS purchased goods (anyone know if you can?). But then I got to thinking. They allow you to download it once, from then on its your responsability to look after your purchased goods. If you had to download it a second time, then thats more bandwidth costs they have to eat. If they can put a time limit on the downloads, then they can estimate how much bandwidth they are going to use, and alter other things appropriately.
Which is exactly the problem. If you don't do as Microsoft tells you, you will be unable to compete.
Rather, if you dont do as the terms of the contract said, you dont get the benefit.
No, but anti-trust law says that if you're a monopolist, you're not allowed to use your power to lock upcoming competitors out of your markets. If you can't compete on the merit (and cost) of your products alone, then you don't deserve your monopoly any longer.
Now this point is interesting. Which is the uncompetative behavior here, offering specific OEMs cheaper prices, or locking other OEMs out of those prices? Most people would say 'both' and most people on here would say they shouldnt be able to do it at all, which brings us to the question: just how much is software worth? You cant do it on the standard basis of how much it costs to manufacture the item you purchase as once you have one its easy to make a million more.
It's the other way round. Everyone (vendor of a certain minimum size that is) gets OEM contracts, except those who give MS competitors a chance. It's a tool of punishment, not a reward. But as the die-hard astroturfer you seem to be, you probably don't care.
What I was trying to say in the origional post was that OEMs who were dual booting Windows with Linux were using the selling point of Windows to shift Linux, which I beleive is a unfair to MS. No business is going to allow its product to be the selling point of its competitor.
Im not a 'die-hard astroturfer' like you say, and I do care. Im just pissed off with the long standing rhetoric on this site that its OK to punish MS to the ends of the earth while overlooking the fact that most of that view comes from jelousy, and most of the recent lawsuits against MS seem to be cash grabs and little else.
Redhat, Mandrake et al bundle lots of applications that do productive things. MS is complaining they cant. Theres a difference, let me explain it.
Linux distributions are "compendiums" of opensource/free software, and bring together many competing applications.
Windows releases are sourced from a single company, Microsoft, and contain only applications owned or licensed by Microsoft.
Linux distributions do the bundling of competing applications, not the owners of those applications, and to the bundler they arent 'competing' at all since redhat doesnt give a monkeys toss whether you use kvideo to play a movie or mplayer. You would never see apache.org distributing thttpd for example, yet that is exactly what you would expect MS to do.
Take the recent EU case for example, it basically boilded down to Real saying "They bundle Media Player with windows to make a modern multimedia OS, that puts us at a competitive disadvantage." and when questioned why Linux could get away with it, the answer usually was that "Linux gives you choice", well actually no. Distributers give you choice, Linux will just run whatever you install, and the exact same is with MS.
Noone should reasonably expect MS to distribute a competitors product with windows, and yet everyone expects MS to produce an OS that can play music, video, browse the web, use IM, and many other things OUT OF THE BOX. If you have a better application, go ahead and install it since theres nothing stopping you. Of course, this doesnt help Real because noone really wants to install their software voluntarily.
They are, this whole "MS forbidding bundling" thing went out a long long time ago. Indeed, whenever I used to pick up an OEM PC (any time before 2000), it had a LOT of software on there, including netscape navigator in quite a few cases. And Im talking major manufacturers like Hewlett Packard, Packard Bell, Tiny, Evesham, Dan, Gateway etc.
Give me a reason why MS shouldnt be able to charge an OEM full price for the operating system? Its the OEMS choice, same as if they want to use supplier X, they may not get preferential treatment from supplier Y or indeed supplier Z may seek another buyer. Why should MS continue giving preferential treatment to someone which is supplying a direct competitor to its product. Its the terms that the OEM signed up for in order to stay in competition with other manufacturers. The OEM can forgo windows altogether and go with linux, but you know what? That doesnt sell systems. Dont like the price, dont buy the product.
One thing I think a lot of people forget is that OEM prices are a reward, not a god given right. And dont give me any bullshit about MS having to treat everyone correct 'because they are a monopoly', they are still a business first and formost, and no law in this country says you have to support the sale of a competitors product, which they are doing by offering low prices to OEMs who use the lure of an MS system and a Linux system dual booting to sell a computer.
The Chinese government is notorious for watching its 'citizens' and what they're doing on the Internet
And the US government isnt known for doing exactly the same? Watch where the US is going, its not a pretty sight!
Version 5 existed, and was rejected as impractical. IT was a minor improvement over IPv4 for great cost.
As opposed to the US government and related bodies who shot dead 4 students at Kent State University for exercising their constitutional right to protest, who joined the 100 students dead by National Guard hands by 1972 for anti vietnam protests.
As opposed to the US government and related bodies who arrested nearly 4,000 students for exercising their constitutional right to protest against the vietnam war?
As opposed to the US government who routinely have 'free speech' areas well away from President Bush when he speaks in a PUBLIC place. And if you dont toe the party line while outside those 'free speech' areas? Well, then you get arrested!
As opposed to the US government who carried out genocide on an entire race of people, and got away with it?
As opposed to the US government who routinely point a finger at a financially poor country halfway round the world and say 'they present a threat to our national security', and then take punative measures against said country?
As opposed to the US government who have in the past removed democratically elected governments in other countries when said government didnt toe the line with the US?
It would seem to me that the western world have a selective memory when it comes to human rights abuses. Yes, China may not be top of the list for honours, but I wouldnt put the US up there either.
Im not assuming guilt, Im just assuming that Seagates lawyers and management know their jobs and have enough evidence of an infringement to make this a legitimate lawsuit. The parent to my post claims that Cornice arent infact infringing at all, and the lawsuits are just a form of bullying. I was stating that there are laws against just that sort of lawsuit, and if that were the case then Seagates lawyers would be in a world of trouble.
And the best part of it, it actually says that in the blurb at the top of this page!!! Sheesh, have we stopped reading the slashdot writeup now? Is it really true that we have become a civilisation where our attention spans are measured in microseconds? Does the title have to have 'sex' or something in it to gain more scrutiny?
If Cornice is not infringing then wouldnt Seagate bringing lawsuits against them for "Infringing on our patents" constitute a malicious lawsuit? And arent those frowned upon in the US and a fair number of other countries? And wouldnt Seagates lawyers and management know that? Im very doubtful that Seagate (and Western Digital it looks like also has a patent lawsuit against Cornice) is that stupid, there isnt enough stupidity to go around as SCO has it all.
What the FUCK? I tried this when it was in "The Mysterious Future" and for the search term 'linux' it gave me multiple (valid) pages worth of returns with stuff like "The Linux Journal" in there.
The movie companies supplying night vision goggles to cinemas is in exactly the same vein as businesses supplying CCTV equipment for their premises. And I bet you dont have a problem with businesses throwing money at CCTV equipment now do you? Both actions are protecting their own property.
If ISPs are not breaking any laws reading users stored email without consent, then why was there a huge fuss about Google using a parsing engine to do the same?! I would have thought that a parsing engine was more in line with privacy than someone reading your mail!!
I feel a tremendous schizm forming within the ranks of the American Legislature over this, with one side determined to force restrictions upon 'publicised' companies in an effort to make names for themselves, while the other side making rulings like this that will bearly make the main press. Something tells me not everyone is singing off the same hymnsheet.
Something died a little today. That something was common sense.
My view is that its a private transaction between the purchaser and the company. If the purchaser fails to collect in a timely manner, then sucks to be them, and the company should be under no further obligation to the purchaser or the state. If I lend a friend $20 and I fail to collect it in a timely manner, I see no reason why the state should be able to benifit from it.
This applies to personal checks also. In theory, if you send your ex-wife a check and she doesn't cash it after 6 months, you are supposed to notify the state and give them the money. Not that that has ever happened to me that I am aware of or have any remaining records.
Do checks (cheques) work differently in the US to pretty much everywhere else then? In the UK, and most other countries ive had the (mis)fortune to cash cheques from, the money is YOURS and NOONE ELSES until such time that they present a cheque you have written out to them to the bank. Up until that time, its yours, yours, yours, in your bank account, and the cheque only symbolises an agreement that you will give this third party a certain amount of money if they present this bit of paper to a bank.
What possible reason can a governmental body come up with to legitimise taking money off you that was never intended for them? I mean, you had an agreement with whoever you wrote the cheque out to, noone else! The moneys still yours until the other bank requests it, do the state governments just think "well, you arent entitled to it either, give it to us"?!
In the UK, all finances and transactions, excepting taxes, are deemed personal to you, and if someone doesnt cash a cheque you give them, then tough on them. They get a year to cash it in, and then they are referred back to you. Entirely a matter between you and them, the government does not get involved.
Im really confused as to how the US state governments get away with this. This is like way too much interference in something they shouldnt be touching.
For those of us who like to use the BSDL for our code, the GPL is as bad as any closed source license, as it allows people to incorporate our code into it without allowing code to be contributed back to us.
THe BSDL relies on peoples ethics for contributions to the code base, the GPL demands contributions if distributed. Theres the difference as i see it.
Yes, 10mbyte for the entire message.
Wasnt that the mindset with y2k? ;)
Doesnt the Unix timestamp run out of space sometime in the next 30 years? I think it would be stupid to put up a system that dies a death in just 30 years, I mean the GPS system has been going for 20 years now, 30 years would be nothing.
It is, the US gets the ability to degrade Galileos signal whenever they want, and Galileos owners dont get any such access to the US GPS system. Whey to fucking go, Europe!
None, but why should it? MS isnt in the altruistic market, and I dont blame them. If, after SP2 is released and most people have patched, a virus is released that attacks a vulnerability closed by SP2, then the headlines will be about "stolen copies of windows devestating the net" rather than "MS vulnerabilities devastating the net" as it currently is.