And yet, everyone and his little dog calls it X Windows. Which is the important part, as far as trademarks go. Incidentlly, the only trademark on "Windows" as, specifically, a GUI OS, is marked as cancelled. The active one is Microsoft Windows. Theres a current one on just OSes in general, however.
All commercial software also has thie clause. If it's not valid for commercial software, why should it be valid for OSS?
Disclaimer: This is a devils advocate arguement. I believe the answer is that by paying money for a product, you get an implicit warranty of fitness for purpose. Legislation to enforce this will likely be a long time coming.
If you had cause to believe that they actually WOULD jump off the cliff, then yeah, you can be held liable. As for the car - only liable if it can be proved that you should have known the car would blow up, even if you didn't. No idea how hard that is to prove, however.
Hehe. I had someone tell me today that he couldn't use a certain shoppings site (custom system setup at a computer vendor, done with JS) because "my ISP [AOL] doesn't translate Java". Giggle. Made my day:)
That seems kinda wierd - you get a 10Mbit connection, but only 10 Gig a month? (I know, 10 gig is alot, but it goes kinda fast when you're downloading ISOs) - That's only about 3 hours download time, assuming max speeds. Why bother providing 10Mbit if you can only DL 10 gig a month?
I got a little footnote on my cable bill saying they were gonna raise prices on the next billing cycle. No notice of how much, and the little note was the only notice, no email, no special card, nothing.
I agree that the arguments that it's "okay" are generally bull honkey, but lets not get excessive. You aren't depriving anyone of anything that is "rightfully theirs". Nobody has a right to profit. It's piracy, not theft. Heck, it's not even piracy (assualt and robbery on the high seas?), it's copyright violation. It's very good for our industry that it's possible to sell software, but heck, it was very good for the coal industry to keep it's miners in perpetual serfdom. It's important to remember - there is no right to profit!
This seems very much a chicken/egg sort of argument - is it that Apple doesn't care about making the hardware hackable because Mac people don't hack hardware, or is it that all the hardware hackers stick to PCs because it's so hard and unrewarding to hack Mac hardware?
Well, theres a potential problem with swap space. but that aside (and I'm not sure if it's surmountable), the way to encrypt a large file(to big to store in ram) would be to overwrite the plaintext file as it's encrypted. This would make the process very slow (encrypt byte, zero out existing byte, write encrypted byte, repeat), but should work as well as anything does.
Well, if verisign keep it's normal QoS, a large corp with lots of cash and lawyers will be able to, while a private individual or small buissness without legal representation on tap will be pooched.
Seems to me that if an encrypted file is secure, an encrypted file unlinked and then over-written repeatedly with random data and nulls is MORE secure.
Sure, you can argue how there's no fundamental difference. But that just goes to show that you took to many philosophy classes in college. Making perfect copies of software is both easy and cheap. Making even semi-perfect copies of any other medium is inconvenient at best (books) or near-impossible at worst (paintings). It's alot more than "a little bit" easier to do it, too.
I'm as sickened as anyone at the state of IP laws in the US, but lets not be stupid about how we argue against them. Saying that books are as easy to copy as software is obviously false to anyone with half a brain.
MS doesn't control the hardware market. They control the people who put the hardware together and sell it to normal-market consumers, but not the actual low-level hardware. And designing hard crypto into a BIOS would NOT make it easier to support - quite the opposite. Systems that have this sort of security in them exist today, and are very expensive.
The cost of adding a Linux (or any other OS) to an OEM preleod is pretty small - it's a one time development cost to create the image. You don't seriously think windows is individually installed on all those Gateway PCs, do you? They just grab a hard drive out of the imager and slap it in. The reason why no OEM does it is a) MS OEM licenses which prohibit it (look at the BeOS fiasco), and b) the demand for it is so minimal it doesn't even justify the minimal expenditure to create the image.
This would be a perfect application for those big rail-gun launchers we were talking about a couple weeks ago:). Just build a giant mag lev track up Mt. Kilimanjaro or something, rev the stuff up to 5000 G's and let it go.
You don't want to be subject to US laws, but you want to enforce a standard on all web sites? Get your priorities straight:P
My understanding would be: Your ISP is in the US, the servers and your content reside in the US, therefore jurisdiction is in the US. Australia may also claim jurisdiction. The US would have to extradite you if they wanted to prosecute you, this is no different than extraditing organized crime figures who control US activities from abroad. The moral of this story: Host your website in your own country.
Without major changes to the US (and many other countries) legal systems, this is exactly what it means - see the previous link the cphack for an example. Almost any corporation suing an individual is going to win in the vast majority of circumstances, because individuals don't have the legal resources to fight back.
I wonder how it would affect our legal system if ALL lawyers were employed by the government (state or federal), and prosecution in lawsuits was handled by court-appointed attorneys as well. I can't think of any seriously harmfull effects that would come of this, maybe someone else can.
People operating as a group don't make individual decisions - they're made by a kind of informal group consensus. It's my belief that this is one of the causes of amazingly stupid decisions made by coporations that nobody in thier right mind would make. I wish I had some sources for you, but I did all my reading about this several years ago and my books are all back in California.
The implied license is clearly spelled out in US copyright law and in the US consitution and is exclusive, not inclusive - that is, it spells out what you cannot do, not what you can. There's nothing in there about controlling method of access once the transaction is completed. Playing on a linux box is not distribution! Copyright is NOT total control! These are important legal truths that have been largely subverted in the public mind.
Well, not TOO much of a smart cookie to determine that MSNBC is partially owned by MS:P However, doing that is a signifigant lapse in journalistic integrity, and a magazine journalist doing it would probably get raked over the coals.
Slashdot Mirror
Mac versions around that time had nothing that looked or worked even remotely like the Start button and menu. Let's keep our facts straight.
My cell phone consistently crashes (with debug messages and everything, it's kinda cute), and Qualcomm consistently refuses to do anything about it.
Microsoft Linux XP Server: no, unless it's based on the linux kernerl, in which case fine
Not relevent anyway, as MS would never do this.
And yet, everyone and his little dog calls it X Windows. Which is the important part, as far as trademarks go. Incidentlly, the only trademark on "Windows" as, specifically, a GUI OS, is marked as cancelled. The active one is Microsoft Windows. Theres a current one on just OSes in general, however.
Disclaimer: This is a devils advocate arguement. I believe the answer is that by paying money for a product, you get an implicit warranty of fitness for purpose. Legislation to enforce this will likely be a long time coming.
If you had cause to believe that they actually WOULD jump off the cliff, then yeah, you can be held liable. As for the car - only liable if it can be proved that you should have known the car would blow up, even if you didn't. No idea how hard that is to prove, however.
Hehe. I had someone tell me today that he couldn't use a certain shoppings site (custom system setup at a computer vendor, done with JS) because "my ISP [AOL] doesn't translate Java". Giggle. Made my day :)
That seems kinda wierd - you get a 10Mbit connection, but only 10 Gig a month? (I know, 10 gig is alot, but it goes kinda fast when you're downloading ISOs) - That's only about 3 hours download time, assuming max speeds. Why bother providing 10Mbit if you can only DL 10 gig a month?
I got a little footnote on my cable bill saying they were gonna raise prices on the next billing cycle. No notice of how much, and the little note was the only notice, no email, no special card, nothing.
I agree that the arguments that it's "okay" are generally bull honkey, but lets not get excessive. You aren't depriving anyone of anything that is "rightfully theirs". Nobody has a right to profit. It's piracy, not theft. Heck, it's not even piracy (assualt and robbery on the high seas?), it's copyright violation. It's very good for our industry that it's possible to sell software, but heck, it was very good for the coal industry to keep it's miners in perpetual serfdom. It's important to remember - there is no right to profit!
This seems very much a chicken/egg sort of argument - is it that Apple doesn't care about making the hardware hackable because Mac people don't hack hardware, or is it that all the hardware hackers stick to PCs because it's so hard and unrewarding to hack Mac hardware?
You may now finish patting yourself on the back for pointing out a non-existent hypocracy amongst slashdot readership.
I think it says even more about the vendor, that they would include those sites in the default filter....
Well, theres a potential problem with swap space. but that aside (and I'm not sure if it's surmountable), the way to encrypt a large file(to big to store in ram) would be to overwrite the plaintext file as it's encrypted. This would make the process very slow (encrypt byte, zero out existing byte, write encrypted byte, repeat), but should work as well as anything does.
Well, if verisign keep it's normal QoS, a large corp with lots of cash and lawyers will be able to, while a private individual or small buissness without legal representation on tap will be pooched.
Seems to me that if an encrypted file is secure, an encrypted file unlinked and then over-written repeatedly with random data and nulls is MORE secure.
I'm as sickened as anyone at the state of IP laws in the US, but lets not be stupid about how we argue against them. Saying that books are as easy to copy as software is obviously false to anyone with half a brain.
Remember this phrase? "Near perfect digital copies". Those 3 words drive all the additional restrictions on software.
The cost of adding a Linux (or any other OS) to an OEM preleod is pretty small - it's a one time development cost to create the image. You don't seriously think windows is individually installed on all those Gateway PCs, do you? They just grab a hard drive out of the imager and slap it in. The reason why no OEM does it is a) MS OEM licenses which prohibit it (look at the BeOS fiasco), and b) the demand for it is so minimal it doesn't even justify the minimal expenditure to create the image.
This would be a perfect application for those big rail-gun launchers we were talking about a couple weeks ago :). Just build a giant mag lev track up Mt. Kilimanjaro or something, rev the stuff up to 5000 G's and let it go.
My understanding would be: Your ISP is in the US, the servers and your content reside in the US, therefore jurisdiction is in the US. Australia may also claim jurisdiction. The US would have to extradite you if they wanted to prosecute you, this is no different than extraditing organized crime figures who control US activities from abroad. The moral of this story: Host your website in your own country.
I wonder how it would affect our legal system if ALL lawyers were employed by the government (state or federal), and prosecution in lawsuits was handled by court-appointed attorneys as well. I can't think of any seriously harmfull effects that would come of this, maybe someone else can.
People operating as a group don't make individual decisions - they're made by a kind of informal group consensus. It's my belief that this is one of the causes of amazingly stupid decisions made by coporations that nobody in thier right mind would make. I wish I had some sources for you, but I did all my reading about this several years ago and my books are all back in California.
The implied license is clearly spelled out in US copyright law and in the US consitution and is exclusive, not inclusive - that is, it spells out what you cannot do, not what you can. There's nothing in there about controlling method of access once the transaction is completed. Playing on a linux box is not distribution! Copyright is NOT total control! These are important legal truths that have been largely subverted in the public mind.
Well, not TOO much of a smart cookie to determine that MSNBC is partially owned by MS :P However, doing that is a signifigant lapse in journalistic integrity, and a magazine journalist doing it would probably get raked over the coals.