You had an enterprise level backup system, and you didn't pay for a support contract without the disclaimer of liability? And didn't get insurance? Of course, your company would still be hosed, but the settlement would probably get everyone nice fat severance checks.
Because most people like having murder laws. There's lots of people who don't like the DMCA. If you think about this for a while, you might realize something about the word "democracy".
You wouldn't rake in bucks like they want and they'd use it's "failure" to push for more legislation, just like always. However, I for one would love a service where I can get a) well-labeled, properly named, high bitrate MP3s from fast, reliable servers. In fact, I've used just such a service, and although it was flat fee, I would be more than willing to pay per download, assuming that they actually had the music I wanted. I imagine alot of other people would too, and that it WOULD in fact be a viable model. It's just that simply being viable isn't enough.
You know, I can't honestly see how there's any real problem with MI - at least not from a technical standpoint. I can think of at least a couple ways to specify which base class method to use right off the top of my head, including having it specified by the order you declare the inherits, or requiring it to be explicitly declared if there's a conflict (in fact, no reason you can't use both these methods, based on your compiler settings). MI is a handy way of addressing some problems, and inheritence, in my experience, is nothing more than a formal declaration of reimplementation.
There are only 2 ways of leveling the playing field. You can either a) give everyone else in the industry some special privledges or b) you can apply special restrictions to the guilt party. Both of these are functionally equivelent to "changing the rules to give one side or another an advantage."
So they know what shows to add more and more product placement to? I suppose there's some sort of chance that this information will somehow get networks and advertisers to see the light and work toward changing the current economic model into something that works better with PVRs and other such things. Maybe by accepting lower profits, and a less dynamic industry, where it's not as easy to get rich quick (or die penniless), but a nice, stable industry. Like making gravel. Or whatever.
*huge slap* It's not an issue of superior, and it's not an issue of "free". The BSD license is not "better". It's a matter of your goals and intentions, and different uses of the word "free". And the GPL certainly isn't viral in any reasonable sense of the word.
If you want everyone possible to use your code, even at your own expense, then the BSD license is better (that's one agenda and ideology). If you want to promote the sharing of source, the the GPL is better, and thats a different agenda and ideology.
I installed the free, binary only version of Qt on my windows box literally moments ago and didn't have to click a license, although the terms were clearly spelled out on the download page.
what an amazingly moronic statement. At least 1 person was, in fact, confused, the story poster. Now, you can rant about how it'll only confuse stupid people, who deserve it, but the fact is that it CAN confuse people and in fact HAS confused people. As a previous poster said, it's alot easier to read an article about a scam and then post about how obvious the letter is, than to realize it's a scam when it never once explicitly states that it's a new service, and it's coming at just the same time as your existing provider is changing names.
Untrue. Lots of other posts in this thread, but, essentially, Sony (or anyone else) has no power to tell you what you can or cannot do with something you buy. Frankly, I find the widespread belief that they do, even on Slashdot where it's a common topic of discussion, really diheartening. Unless theres a contractual agreement, they can't tell you jack diddle about what you can or cannot do with your hardware. And, since Sony actually wants to make money off of PS2's, they don't offer then only via exclusive licensing deals - they sell them in retail outlets. There is no "purchase agreement".
I think you're missing the ENTIRE DAMN POINT, which is not that some people may or may not have lost votes, but that there's NO WAY to tell if they do or not, because the company won't allow you to audit them. Essentially, this means that the entire electoral process is governed by a single corporate entity. They could be the most perfect machines in existence, with a 0% failure rate and 100% easy to use and it would STILL be wrong. This has nothing to do with whiny politicians or stupid voters (I enjoy how you assume that any voter who complains must be stupid, by the way, I'm sure that makes you feel better abour yourself), although it may have taken a "whiny politician" to bring the case into the public eye. You certainly like to throw around alot of armchair patriotism - I wonder how serious it actually is and how much you TRULY uphold the ideals that the country was founded on. Hint - it's not bullshit about "damn immigrants need to learn english".
You actually have a decent (albeit obvious) point about changes in political reality, although I don't think it's as extreme as you claim, considering the ENOURMOUS backlash Gore got for it. However, in such a climate, having a voting machine that you can actually verify and audit would seem essential, eh?
Exactly the opposite, and thats why the parent brought it up. If a cop is doing a legit search or entry, even if it's for something else, anything he finds is admissible.
Yeah, and if the darkies don't like the way we treat them they can just go back to Africa.
This isn't some random website or company we're talking about - it's the PHONE COMPANY. It's extremely difficult to do ANYTHING in modern society without a phone - you can, of course, but it locks you out from a huge portion of society. Lack of running water or electricity is less of an inconvenience. And it's not like you have a whole lot of options to take your money elsewhere - you have no choice of local carrier, and the LD carriers will all have the same policy.
One of the criteria for a patent is that it wouldn't be obvious to an expert in the field. And even in 1998, string manipulation algorithms were well known, and it doesn't look like they were creating any NEW algorithms - just applying existing ones. Now, what's considered "obvious" can be pretty subjective, but I know jack-all about networking, but I know if I was told that we needed to filter on the presence of a key byte in a variable length field, I could whip something up using long-known standard techniques in roughly no time at all. The innovation obviously could be making this fast enough to be done in real time on the network hardware of the day, but since they're claiming patent protection over software as well as hard/firmware solutions, it seems to be they're claiming the basic technique, not just an innovative implementation.
Well, commercial "speech" is not as protected as private speech, which is at it should be. Otherwise, there'd be no such thing as "truth in advertising" laws, for example. A law that required (commercial) porn sites to identify themselves as such, for example, wouldn't see any complaints from me. This falls under consumer awareness - people have a right to know what they're "buying", or patronizing. Now, I'm not totally sure that we need a law about this - you won't keep using a search engine that doesn't give you the results you want - but I see no problem with a "reccomendation".
I suppose I should read the whole patent before I comment, but just reading your quotes here, I can't imagine how this ever got approved. Add less/greater than logical opertors is somehow new and unique, and not a logical extension that would be obvious to anyone with experience in the field? Non-sequential rules, and rules beyond forward/drop? Fitering on a variable length field when there's already prior art for filtering on an arbitrary offset? None of this solves any new problems - it's just logical extensions to the feature set of a router. Anyone writing filtering software would implement exactly the same features, if they decided they wanted them.
Slashdot Mirror
You had an enterprise level backup system, and you didn't pay for a support contract without the disclaimer of liability? And didn't get insurance? Of course, your company would still be hosed, but the settlement would probably get everyone nice fat severance checks.
Pointing out flaws in sufficent detail often DOES fall under the DMCA - although not in this case, granted.
Because most people like having murder laws. There's lots of people who don't like the DMCA. If you think about this for a while, you might realize something about the word "democracy".
Pay Per view!! I'd buy that for a dollar!!p. No, no, no. You would "aquire a license to view that", for $19.95, plus tax, per viewing, per viewer.
You're a Dr. Who fan and yet you have the balls to point fingers at "no-budget special effects"?
You wouldn't rake in bucks like they want and they'd use it's "failure" to push for more legislation, just like always. However, I for one would love a service where I can get a) well-labeled, properly named, high bitrate MP3s from fast, reliable servers. In fact, I've used just such a service, and although it was flat fee, I would be more than willing to pay per download, assuming that they actually had the music I wanted. I imagine alot of other people would too, and that it WOULD in fact be a viable model. It's just that simply being viable isn't enough.
Probably a fancy name for a MHD turbine.
You know, I can't honestly see how there's any real problem with MI - at least not from a technical standpoint. I can think of at least a couple ways to specify which base class method to use right off the top of my head, including having it specified by the order you declare the inherits, or requiring it to be explicitly declared if there's a conflict (in fact, no reason you can't use both these methods, based on your compiler settings). MI is a handy way of addressing some problems, and inheritence, in my experience, is nothing more than a formal declaration of reimplementation.
There are only 2 ways of leveling the playing field. You can either a) give everyone else in the industry some special privledges or b) you can apply special restrictions to the guilt party. Both of these are functionally equivelent to "changing the rules to give one side or another an advantage."
So they know what shows to add more and more product placement to? I suppose there's some sort of chance that this information will somehow get networks and advertisers to see the light and work toward changing the current economic model into something that works better with PVRs and other such things. Maybe by accepting lower profits, and a less dynamic industry, where it's not as easy to get rich quick (or die penniless), but a nice, stable industry. Like making gravel. Or whatever.
Shush until you have the slightest clue about how the music industry works.
If you want everyone possible to use your code, even at your own expense, then the BSD license is better (that's one agenda and ideology). If you want to promote the sharing of source, the the GPL is better, and thats a different agenda and ideology.
Stop being a nitwit.
I installed the free, binary only version of Qt on my windows box literally moments ago and didn't have to click a license, although the terms were clearly spelled out on the download page.
Cause linux users are all godless commies who would block them anyway.
It's not "locking people to your look & feel client" It's "locking people to your look & feel client WITH ADVERTISING". Gotta make the money somehow.
what an amazingly moronic statement. At least 1 person was, in fact, confused, the story poster. Now, you can rant about how it'll only confuse stupid people, who deserve it, but the fact is that it CAN confuse people and in fact HAS confused people. As a previous poster said, it's alot easier to read an article about a scam and then post about how obvious the letter is, than to realize it's a scam when it never once explicitly states that it's a new service, and it's coming at just the same time as your existing provider is changing names.
Untrue. Lots of other posts in this thread, but, essentially, Sony (or anyone else) has no power to tell you what you can or cannot do with something you buy. Frankly, I find the widespread belief that they do, even on Slashdot where it's a common topic of discussion, really diheartening. Unless theres a contractual agreement, they can't tell you jack diddle about what you can or cannot do with your hardware. And, since Sony actually wants to make money off of PS2's, they don't offer then only via exclusive licensing deals - they sell them in retail outlets. There is no "purchase agreement".
You actually have a decent (albeit obvious) point about changes in political reality, although I don't think it's as extreme as you claim, considering the ENOURMOUS backlash Gore got for it. However, in such a climate, having a voting machine that you can actually verify and audit would seem essential, eh?
Exactly the opposite, and thats why the parent brought it up. If a cop is doing a legit search or entry, even if it's for something else, anything he finds is admissible.
And, on a side note, if you ever want to live in the REAL world, and not the one you made up in polisci classes, you're welcome to come and hang out.
This isn't some random website or company we're talking about - it's the PHONE COMPANY. It's extremely difficult to do ANYTHING in modern society without a phone - you can, of course, but it locks you out from a huge portion of society. Lack of running water or electricity is less of an inconvenience. And it's not like you have a whole lot of options to take your money elsewhere - you have no choice of local carrier, and the LD carriers will all have the same policy.
One of the criteria for a patent is that it wouldn't be obvious to an expert in the field. And even in 1998, string manipulation algorithms were well known, and it doesn't look like they were creating any NEW algorithms - just applying existing ones. Now, what's considered "obvious" can be pretty subjective, but I know jack-all about networking, but I know if I was told that we needed to filter on the presence of a key byte in a variable length field, I could whip something up using long-known standard techniques in roughly no time at all. The innovation obviously could be making this fast enough to be done in real time on the network hardware of the day, but since they're claiming patent protection over software as well as hard/firmware solutions, it seems to be they're claiming the basic technique, not just an innovative implementation.
Yes, there should. Also, money is not speech. Next question?
Well, commercial "speech" is not as protected as private speech, which is at it should be. Otherwise, there'd be no such thing as "truth in advertising" laws, for example. A law that required (commercial) porn sites to identify themselves as such, for example, wouldn't see any complaints from me. This falls under consumer awareness - people have a right to know what they're "buying", or patronizing. Now, I'm not totally sure that we need a law about this - you won't keep using a search engine that doesn't give you the results you want - but I see no problem with a "reccomendation".
I suppose I should read the whole patent before I comment, but just reading your quotes here, I can't imagine how this ever got approved. Add less/greater than logical opertors is somehow new and unique, and not a logical extension that would be obvious to anyone with experience in the field? Non-sequential rules, and rules beyond forward/drop? Fitering on a variable length field when there's already prior art for filtering on an arbitrary offset? None of this solves any new problems - it's just logical extensions to the feature set of a router. Anyone writing filtering software would implement exactly the same features, if they decided they wanted them.