Besides, what venture capitalist will fund a startup going up against Microsoft?
Every linux start up has in one way or another has gone up against Microsoft. Whether or not they are successful or not is not really at issue, but most of those companies got some of their start up cash from VCs.
WRT to VCs, if you go and tell them that your new start up will be the new microsoft, then you will be laughed out of their office. The key is that you want to be able to show that you can take some reasonable portion of on of the many markets that MS operates in. If you can show your solution is better then microsoft, then you have a good chance at getting a hunk of cash. A good example is the number of Embedded Linux companies out there. The goal is not to take MS on head on, just to take on their embedded CE market.
Libritarians ally themselves with Republicans on in the sence that there are still many Paleo-cons out there. Bush is anything but a Paleocon, he is a neocon. Lets look.
Libritarians hate anything that has to do with making the government bigger. Well lets look, the largest deficit(number not % of GDP, but still huge) in history.
Libritarians are generally about liberty and human(negitive) rights. Bush and his new appointment to Attorny General think human rights are up for discussion(ala Gitmo, Abu Grab). The Patiot Act certianly doesn't make us libritarians happy campers.
Lets see, faith based inititives, i.e funding churches do create social programs, which is no better then when the government does it.
Heck in his 2003 budget, he proposed and increase in NEA funding, which is a hot button issue for palocons and libritarians.
Libritarians see the purpose of the Military for defence, not nation building or premtive/preventive war. Even Bush said in 2000 that he didn't believe in nation building.
Ultimately the only thing that Bush has done right by libritarians is cutting taxes, but all the other stuff he has done soooo out weighs that.
I have been a libritarian for as long as I have been interested in politics. I supported and worked for campains in 1994 to put the conservatives in control of the house and senate. Heck I even voted for Bush the first time around. The fact of the matter for me is, Bush's performance has been anything but remotely close to "libritarian" ideals. This year I voted for Kerry, because at least with Kerry we would have dead lock, and if 1994-2000 is any measure, it was the only chance to stall the growth of government.
Why then is the patent office so moronic when it comes to patenting ideas that are general knowledge?
Actually I don't even think it is an issue of things that are general knowlage. The issue is this is how the system was designed. More and more patents are coming out, patenting use of a facility as it was designed. Its kind of like if I created a car, heck even pantented it, then some one comes along a patents the process of putting fuel in the car. Other classic examples are patents on hypertext, use of static frames, etc.
Pretty much who ever thought it was a good idea to patent business processes, (which is what creating subdomains really is) should be shot for treason.
So who is the plaintif? Is it the RIAA or the record company? If it is the RIAA, they cannot claim damages since as you and I noted they have no intelectual property to misappropiate. Or is the RIAA effectively acting as a law firm in these cases?
...a court to rule that they have to file a separate lawsuit for each and every infringing song...
I know its a pipe dream, but you might be able to make the legal case that the RIAA has no right to sue due to the fact that they own no copyrights and only the indivigual companies do. That would at least break it down to songs per record company. It would also make it so that the RC would have to come out from hiding behind the RIAA.
In general -- and this is not directed expressly at you -- there's a lot of sentiment amongst Slashdotters of the form "Down with greedy artists! I want to be able to download everything for free!".
To qoute you, "Dangerous generalization". The issue isn't that most slashdotters have problems with greedy artists. I'll make an exception for Metallica, they have no excuse, since they became popular through bootleg recordings. My issue in perticular is with the companies that back the RIAA. The fact that a given "new" artist, can sell 4-5 million copies of their album and they own money to the record company should be a clear signal that they are greedy. The fact that they have been sued and found guilty twice of price fixing wrt CDs, signals that they are greedy.
My largest issue with the record companies is their swarminess to try to avoid bad press by hiding behind the RIAA. Basically saying hey its not us that are suing you its that rabid dog RIAA.
It seems like it's only greed when it's the other guy who wants something.
Or when its price gouging. Tell me seriously why again is a CD more costly then a cassette, even on disks with no additional features. Lets be honest, the Record industry has been duping customers for years. There is nothing like purchasing a CD to find one or two decent songs on it. Napster/Kaaza/etc. showed clearly that there was a market for distributing single songs at a reasonable price, even if that reasonable price was free. iTunes clearly showed that the price point was higher then zero.
Making a living as an artist by selling one's recordings is regarded as a sign of greed and/or a lack of talent, while using a P2P network to avoid paying for music is somehow not greed, and instead some sort of social protest.
I have no problem feeding artists...Its the hundreds of middle men around them that I have a problem with. Note I don't mean the folks that actually contribute to the actual music.
Neither are a crime, so nope, I don't see a reason to have that post deleted. (No offense to the poor schmuck.)
Actually the case of the poor schmuck, its called libel. It is not criminal, but it is absolutly actionable. One could make the argument that because the post could possiblely put the poor schmuck in danger, the medium could be considered at fault if they fail to remove a post when requested. I don't think that this has been tested in court, but with the right judge/jury the case could be made.
With that said I don't think that Viacom would be in a actionable situation, since the statement has some small kernel of truth, since Dish won't bend to Viacom's will they are choosing to remove the stations rather then pay.
Give me a brake. You obviously have not been to Malaysia, specially the capital, Kuala Lumpur, or the coastal towns.
So what you are saying is that you should judge how affuent a contries population is by looking at a single city? Should we judge the US, by looking at say New York? Or Los Angeles?
And China has been growing faster than India and has a higer GDP.
What is your point? GDP is a measure of the value of all the goods produced. Realistically, services are not included in GDP, which is what India is mostly producing. Additionally the fact that both contries employ different economic structures, one is capitolistic vs psudo-socialistic, can easily account for differences in GDP.
Working for a company who is currently outsourcing new jobs(but not cutting local jobs), the fact is programmers in china are cheaper then india. Thats just raw cost though. That doesn't take in to account, that nearly every indian programmer speaks english. In the outsourcing firms we have looked at, that is not the norm in chinese firms.
It's power is also what makes it the most dangerous, in my opinion.
I would disagree with the most dangerous. Generally they cannot take action on something that has not been submitted to them. The executive branch can issue executive orders without the vetting of either the Judiary or the Legislature.
It's been used for a lot of good, but its wide open to rampant abuse.
It definately could be abused, but on the whole, the job of Supreme Court Justice is one of the most vetted in all of public service. As for lower circuit courts, they are overseen and overturned when well out of line. The 9th circuit, while most controveral is the most overturned. IMHO this shows that the system of internal checks and balances of just the judiary works.
It's actually abused far more frequently and severely at the state level, I'd say.
At the state level, there is a process of challenging those rulings. The only place where judial fiat is truely dangerous is at the level of the supreme court, as the only remedy is altering the constitution or waiting until one retires to change the make up.
I'm thinking specifically in cases where courts are handing down rulings on things that aren't even court cases. That's just abusing authority.
Can you site an example? Generally unless it is a court case any judiary cannot go anywhere near it.
While not exactly referring to judicial fiat, things like mandatory sentencing legislation are in direct response to courts just doing whatever they want. people complain about mandatory sentencing taking away discretion from judges without pausing to think why people are so interested in this legislation to begin with.
Mandatory sentancing is a result of public frustration at the system in general, not at just judial activism or incorrect judment by judiaries. Basically if you look at the time a person is arested to the time they hit the street after being sentanced, the time for most is much more influenced by plea bargining and parole hearings then activist judges.
To be truthful, madatory sentancing is much more dangerous to society then any activist judge. Mandatory sentancing is ripe for abuse by district attornies to coerse plea bargins from people who would otherwise take their chances with a trial, since certain levels of sentancing will be garenteed.
Our criminal justice system is a complete failure when it is used as a political tool which is what mandatory sentancing is.
Juducial fiat is either a strong defense against the tyranny of the majority, or its a flagrant abuse of possibly the most powerful branch of government.
The issue is when its claimed to be flagrant abuse, typically it is not at the cost of oppressing the majority, which is how that statement positions itself. More often then not it is the other way around. Ultimately if the supreme judiary were truely to be come a rogue court, then amending the constitution could be used to rein them in.
While I do agree with most of what you wrote, there is one place where I deviate.
judicial fiat, which is probably the biggest threat our constitution has.
If you look at our past, rarely has the legislature, lead strongly on the case of civil rights for all. Judicial fiat, gained us many things that our mostly self serving representives were too afaid to stand up for. The addoption of the idea of "Separation of church and state", while originally put forth by Thomas Jefferson, was addopted early on. During the 60's "separate but not equal" doctrine was adopted through judial fiat. More currently, the outlawing of Texas's anti-sodomy laws was done by judial fiat.
IMHO as long as our legislature is beholden to fear of reprisal, real positive change on behalf of minority groups will just not happen if it were not for the judial branch.
I think that had more to do with the attack on pearl harbour than the europeans.
Actually Roosevelt was secretly aiding Britain prior to Pearl Harbor.
And how many Japanese had to die for you to try out your new toy?
Its a tough one, but you could make a strong argument that more lives were saved by dropping said toy twice, then would have come about by a full scale land assault on main land Japan. Even after the first bomb was dropped the Japanese Govt. was not convinced that the US had the capability to produce more.
Even if it was a real war on terror, it still be as doomed as the war on drugs.
Nothing can be that doomed...:-)
Terrorism isn't really something both parties willingly recieve or want; where as in most cases drugs are.
It's kinda like trying to cure the syndromes, and not going for the underlying decease.
Or in the case of drugs, going after something that is not in some cases a desease. Marajana has been proven to have viable and in some cases superior medicinal value then some pharma drugs. The real war on drugs is all about pharma companies making sure their profit margins aren't affected at the cost of sick people. Also its pretty sickening that in the US, more then 50% of imates in our prisons are there on drug convictions, most for mere possesion.
Fsck your holy constitution, we used to have freedom in Europa.
Hmmm odd. That was what the comment was refering to...At a point in the not to distant past our "holy constitution" was the stick that was used to maintain some level of freedom, here in the states.
Strange thing... No really! "Suffering" artists forced to live lifes of "only semi-luxery" *pun intended* seem to take away more freedom and legal protection from people worldwide these days, than anything else. "War on terror" included.
I am no fan of any of the RIAA(subsitute local version). My personal take is the if they cannot adapt to the changing world, let them die. The fact that this type of legislation goes well and above what we in the states currently are dealing with, I feel for you. If you are really opposed, put your money were your text is...Contribute to action groups in your locality that are opposed to such power grabs. I can say my self here, I contribute to the ACLU, EFF, along with various other defence funds as they pop up.
I am completely dismayed at our current presidential canidates, on one hand we have the menace to the free world, Bush, and the human weather vane, Kerry. Its obvious that Bush is a criminal and most of his administration should be thrown in jail. Kerry on the other hand has taken more special interest money then any senator in congress...Gee what a great selection. I have no doubt in the next four years things are not going to get better unless the little folks become a power block.
"War on terror" included.
The "War on terror" is nothing more then a political football, used to keep people afraid and in line. Its currently being used as a smoke screen for the internationally illegal action in the middle east. The fact that Bush and his cronies have held the folks in Guentanemo for nearly two years with zero due process is sickening...You are correct, the "War on Terror" is nothing but a war on feedom...
I'm afraid of a corporative appocalyptic future these days...............
Afraid of corperations!?! They have nothing on governments.
They'd only be sued by the FSF if they had put GPL'd code into Windows.
While the FSF would definately come to the aid of anyone filing a lawsuit over GPL claims, there is no reason to think that any one who released said code couldn't themselves file a lawsuit. Just be cause you place something under the GPL doesn't mean that FSF has any rights to it. The only time that they could even be a primary party in the lawsuit is if the copyrights for the code in question was assigned to them or they wrote it themselves. I would wager that there is significantly more GPL code that the copyrights have _NOT_ been reassigned then have been.
Capitalism works on the premise of competition. Because they are the sole athoritative root for all.com/.biz domains, they have been given a monopoly. No other company can do this since they don't control the athoritative root for those domains.
Beyond that it fundementally changes the way the internet works to the benifit of a single company. This is very anticompetitive.
If I were a shareholder, I would tell them to drop all of its plans for site finder since eventually it will lead to a loss of all of its domain registration revenues.
You're suggesting that simply because we haven't heard of them makes it dubious ?
Actually I think the real reason why this looks really dubious, is the fact that it is five suits against supply side consumers. From the article it is pretty sure they are claiming that the Intel chips contain the technology in question. The idea that you can sue consumers, for a patent infringment on the part of their supplier is certianly dubious.
Beyond that their mere submission of : "Our main focus is the IP [intellectual property] business now," he said. is a fairly good indication that they are in death throws and looking/scraping for anything to keep them a float.
I did enjoy the movie and thought Johnny Depp was good. My only nit pick, is his charater reminded me too much of a pirate version of Dudly Moore playing Arthur..
Its not an incremental release. Going from say 2.4.20->2.4.21 is an incremental release and would be more equivilent to what you are asking. Going from 2.4.20-> 2.6.0 would be like grabbing the windows kernel from WinMe and dropping it on Win98 and wondering why it doesn't work.
Preview panes should not be removed from e-mail clients, they should be there and off by default and that setting should be saved on a folder by folder basis.
I recieve at a minimum of 500 messages a day. Preview panes make working through them very easy. I do how ever have hundreds of mail filter rules that place all of my mail in to proper folders. On folders I know will only have valid mail I use a preview pane and have it on. On anything that could contain junk, I don't.
No reason to nuter e-mail clients, just make sure the default settings are reasonable.
Interesting, the article had nothing to do with spam. I myself just recently joined the ACLU this past year and was amazed at the amount of non-profits asking for money. The article is refering to snail mail not e-mail.
Slashdot Mirror
Besides, what venture capitalist will fund a startup going up against Microsoft? Every linux start up has in one way or another has gone up against Microsoft. Whether or not they are successful or not is not really at issue, but most of those companies got some of their start up cash from VCs. WRT to VCs, if you go and tell them that your new start up will be the new microsoft, then you will be laughed out of their office. The key is that you want to be able to show that you can take some reasonable portion of on of the many markets that MS operates in. If you can show your solution is better then microsoft, then you have a good chance at getting a hunk of cash. A good example is the number of Embedded Linux companies out there. The goal is not to take MS on head on, just to take on their embedded CE market.
Libritarians ally themselves with Republicans on in the sence that there are still many Paleo-cons out there. Bush is anything but a Paleocon, he is a neocon. Lets look.
Libritarians hate anything that has to do with making the government bigger. Well lets look, the largest deficit(number not % of GDP, but still huge) in history.
Libritarians are generally about liberty and human(negitive) rights. Bush and his new appointment to Attorny General think human rights are up for discussion(ala Gitmo, Abu Grab). The Patiot Act certianly doesn't make us libritarians happy campers.
Lets see, faith based inititives, i.e funding churches do create social programs, which is no better then when the government does it.
Heck in his 2003 budget, he proposed and increase in NEA funding, which is a hot button issue for palocons and libritarians.
Libritarians see the purpose of the Military for defence, not nation building or premtive/preventive war. Even Bush said in 2000 that he didn't believe in nation building.
Ultimately the only thing that Bush has done right by libritarians is cutting taxes, but all the other stuff he has done soooo out weighs that.
I have been a libritarian for as long as I have been interested in politics. I supported and worked for campains in 1994 to put the conservatives in control of the house and senate. Heck I even voted for Bush the first time around. The fact of the matter for me is, Bush's performance has been anything but remotely close to "libritarian" ideals. This year I voted for Kerry, because at least with Kerry we would have dead lock, and if 1994-2000 is any measure, it was the only chance to stall the growth of government.
Why then is the patent office so moronic when it comes to patenting ideas that are general knowledge?
Actually I don't even think it is an issue of things that are general knowlage. The issue is this is how the system was designed. More and more patents are coming out, patenting use of a facility as it was designed. Its kind of like if I created a car, heck even pantented it, then some one comes along a patents the process of putting fuel in the car. Other classic examples are patents on hypertext, use of static frames, etc.
Pretty much who ever thought it was a good idea to patent business processes, (which is what creating subdomains really is) should be shot for treason.
Like I said it was a pipe dream...:-)
So who is the plaintif? Is it the RIAA or the record company? If it is the RIAA, they cannot claim damages since as you and I noted they have no intelectual property to misappropiate. Or is the RIAA effectively acting as a law firm in these cases?
...a court to rule that they have to file a separate lawsuit for each and every infringing song...
I know its a pipe dream, but you might be able to make the legal case that the RIAA has no right to sue due to the fact that they own no copyrights and only the indivigual companies do. That would at least break it down to songs per record company. It would also make it so that the RC would have to come out from hiding behind the RIAA.
In general -- and this is not directed expressly at you -- there's a lot of sentiment amongst Slashdotters of the form "Down with greedy artists! I want to be able to download everything for free!".
To qoute you, "Dangerous generalization". The issue isn't that most slashdotters have problems with greedy artists. I'll make an exception for Metallica, they have no excuse, since they became popular through bootleg recordings. My issue in perticular is with the companies that back the RIAA. The fact that a given "new" artist, can sell 4-5 million copies of their album and they own money to the record company should be a clear signal that they are greedy. The fact that they have been sued and found guilty twice of price fixing wrt CDs, signals that they are greedy.
My largest issue with the record companies is their swarminess to try to avoid bad press by hiding behind the RIAA. Basically saying hey its not us that are suing you its that rabid dog RIAA.
It seems like it's only greed when it's the other guy who wants something.
Or when its price gouging. Tell me seriously why again is a CD more costly then a cassette, even on disks with no additional features. Lets be honest, the Record industry has been duping customers for years. There is nothing like purchasing a CD to find one or two decent songs on it. Napster/Kaaza/etc. showed clearly that there was a market for distributing single songs at a reasonable price, even if that reasonable price was free. iTunes clearly showed that the price point was higher then zero.
Making a living as an artist by selling one's recordings is regarded as a sign of greed and/or a lack of talent, while using a P2P network to avoid paying for music is somehow not greed, and instead some sort of social protest.
I have no problem feeding artists...Its the hundreds of middle men around them that I have a problem with. Note I don't mean the folks that actually contribute to the actual music.
Neither are a crime, so nope, I don't see a reason to have that post deleted. (No offense to the poor schmuck.)
Actually the case of the poor schmuck, its called libel. It is not criminal, but it is absolutly actionable. One could make the argument that because the post could possiblely put the poor schmuck in danger, the medium could be considered at fault if they fail to remove a post when requested. I don't think that this has been tested in court, but with the right judge/jury the case could be made.
With that said I don't think that Viacom would be in a actionable situation, since the statement has some small kernel of truth, since Dish won't bend to Viacom's will they are choosing to remove the stations rather then pay.
I do think Viacom is being investigated for having a monopoly in the Music (MTV, VH1, and CMT) arena.
How is that possible? None of those stations play music....
The "good-ole-U-S-of-A" doesn't own the internet, and hence can't regulate it...
Very true, but it sure doesn't stop governments from trying. Heck just take a look at the Great Firewall of China...
Give me a brake. You obviously have not been to Malaysia, specially the capital, Kuala Lumpur, or the coastal towns.
So what you are saying is that you should judge how affuent a contries population is by looking at a single city? Should we judge the US, by looking at say New York? Or Los Angeles?
And China has been growing faster than India and has a higer GDP. What is your point? GDP is a measure of the value of all the goods produced. Realistically, services are not included in GDP, which is what India is mostly producing. Additionally the fact that both contries employ different economic structures, one is capitolistic vs psudo-socialistic, can easily account for differences in GDP.
Working for a company who is currently outsourcing new jobs(but not cutting local jobs), the fact is programmers in china are cheaper then india. Thats just raw cost though. That doesn't take in to account, that nearly every indian programmer speaks english. In the outsourcing firms we have looked at, that is not the norm in chinese firms.
Amen. If I had mod points you would have them...Solaris tools to this day are the largest heaping pile wrapped in a bow.
It's power is also what makes it the most dangerous, in my opinion.
I would disagree with the most dangerous. Generally they cannot take action on something that has not been submitted to them. The executive branch can issue executive orders without the vetting of either the Judiary or the Legislature.
It's been used for a lot of good, but its wide open to rampant abuse.
It definately could be abused, but on the whole, the job of Supreme Court Justice is one of the most vetted in all of public service. As for lower circuit courts, they are overseen and overturned when well out of line. The 9th circuit, while most controveral is the most overturned. IMHO this shows that the system of internal checks and balances of just the judiary works.
It's actually abused far more frequently and severely at the state level, I'd say.
At the state level, there is a process of challenging those rulings. The only place where judial fiat is truely dangerous is at the level of the supreme court, as the only remedy is altering the constitution or waiting until one retires to change the make up.
I'm thinking specifically in cases where courts are handing down rulings on things that aren't even court cases. That's just abusing authority.
Can you site an example? Generally unless it is a court case any judiary cannot go anywhere near it.
While not exactly referring to judicial fiat, things like mandatory sentencing legislation are in direct response to courts just doing whatever they want. people complain about mandatory sentencing taking away discretion from judges without pausing to think why people are so interested in this legislation to begin with.
Mandatory sentancing is a result of public frustration at the system in general, not at just judial activism or incorrect judment by judiaries. Basically if you look at the time a person is arested to the time they hit the street after being sentanced, the time for most is much more influenced by plea bargining and parole hearings then activist judges.
To be truthful, madatory sentancing is much more dangerous to society then any activist judge. Mandatory sentancing is ripe for abuse by district attornies to coerse plea bargins from people who would otherwise take their chances with a trial, since certain levels of sentancing will be garenteed.
Our criminal justice system is a complete failure when it is used as a political tool which is what mandatory sentancing is.
Juducial fiat is either a strong defense against the tyranny of the majority, or its a flagrant abuse of possibly the most powerful branch of government.
The issue is when its claimed to be flagrant abuse, typically it is not at the cost of oppressing the majority, which is how that statement positions itself. More often then not it is the other way around. Ultimately if the supreme judiary were truely to be come a rogue court, then amending the constitution could be used to rein them in.
While I do agree with most of what you wrote, there is one place where I deviate.
judicial fiat, which is probably the biggest threat our constitution has.
If you look at our past, rarely has the legislature, lead strongly on the case of civil rights for all. Judicial fiat, gained us many things that our mostly self serving representives were too afaid to stand up for. The addoption of the idea of "Separation of church and state", while originally put forth by Thomas Jefferson, was addopted early on. During the 60's "separate but not equal" doctrine was adopted through judial fiat. More currently, the outlawing of Texas's anti-sodomy laws was done by judial fiat.
IMHO as long as our legislature is beholden to fear of reprisal, real positive change on behalf of minority groups will just not happen if it were not for the judial branch.
I think that had more to do with the attack on pearl harbour than the europeans.
Actually Roosevelt was secretly aiding Britain prior to Pearl Harbor.
And how many Japanese had to die for you to try out your new toy?
Its a tough one, but you could make a strong argument that more lives were saved by dropping said toy twice, then would have come about by a full scale land assault on main land Japan. Even after the first bomb was dropped the Japanese Govt. was not convinced that the US had the capability to produce more.
Even if it was a real war on terror, it still be as doomed as the war on drugs.
Nothing can be that doomed...:-)
Terrorism isn't really something both parties willingly recieve or want; where as in most cases drugs are.
It's kinda like trying to cure the syndromes, and not going for the underlying decease.
Or in the case of drugs, going after something that is not in some cases a desease. Marajana has been proven to have viable and in some cases superior medicinal value then some pharma drugs. The real war on drugs is all about pharma companies making sure their profit margins aren't affected at the cost of sick people. Also its pretty sickening that in the US, more then 50% of imates in our prisons are there on drug convictions, most for mere possesion.
Fsck your holy constitution, we used to have freedom in Europa.
Hmmm odd. That was what the comment was refering to...At a point in the not to distant past our "holy constitution" was the stick that was used to maintain some level of freedom, here in the states.
Strange thing... No really! "Suffering" artists forced to live lifes of "only semi-luxery" *pun intended* seem to take away more freedom and legal protection from people worldwide these days, than anything else. "War on terror" included.
I am no fan of any of the RIAA(subsitute local version). My personal take is the if they cannot adapt to the changing world, let them die. The fact that this type of legislation goes well and above what we in the states currently are dealing with, I feel for you. If you are really opposed, put your money were your text is...Contribute to action groups in your locality that are opposed to such power grabs. I can say my self here, I contribute to the ACLU, EFF, along with various other defence funds as they pop up.
I am completely dismayed at our current presidential canidates, on one hand we have the menace to the free world, Bush, and the human weather vane, Kerry. Its obvious that Bush is a criminal and most of his administration should be thrown in jail. Kerry on the other hand has taken more special interest money then any senator in congress...Gee what a great selection. I have no doubt in the next four years things are not going to get better unless the little folks become a power block.
"War on terror" included.
The "War on terror" is nothing more then a political football, used to keep people afraid and in line. Its currently being used as a smoke screen for the internationally illegal action in the middle east. The fact that Bush and his cronies have held the folks in Guentanemo for nearly two years with zero due process is sickening...You are correct, the "War on Terror" is nothing but a war on feedom...
I'm afraid of a corporative appocalyptic future these days...............
Afraid of corperations!?! They have nothing on governments.
Does it mean that I have to shred my gtk-gnutella and dcgui before my country becomes part of EU?
Naw just don't use it after your country becomes EUified...Switch to FreeNet, well until using encryption becomes illegal...
(No seriously, we did have a constitution, I saw it once.)
Its still around, though you have to go hunting through sewage after John and George used it to wipe their collective asses.
They'd only be sued by the FSF if they had put GPL'd code into Windows.
While the FSF would definately come to the aid of anyone filing a lawsuit over GPL claims, there is no reason to think that any one who released said code couldn't themselves file a lawsuit. Just be cause you place something under the GPL doesn't mean that FSF has any rights to it. The only time that they could even be a primary party in the lawsuit is if the copyrights for the code in question was assigned to them or they wrote it themselves. I would wager that there is significantly more GPL code that the copyrights have _NOT_ been reassigned then have been.
I know this is troll bait, but I will bite.
.com/.biz domains, they have been given a monopoly. No other company can do this since they don't control the athoritative root for those domains.
Capitalism works on the premise of competition. Because they are the sole athoritative root for all
Beyond that it fundementally changes the way the internet works to the benifit of a single company. This is very anticompetitive.
If I were a shareholder, I would tell them to drop all of its plans for site finder since eventually it will lead to a loss of all of its domain registration revenues.
You're suggesting that simply because we haven't heard of them makes it dubious ?
Actually I think the real reason why this looks really dubious, is the fact that it is five suits against supply side consumers. From the article it is pretty sure they are claiming that the Intel chips contain the technology in question. The idea that you can sue consumers, for a patent infringment on the part of their supplier is certianly dubious.
Beyond that their mere submission of : "Our main focus is the IP [intellectual property] business now," he said. is a fairly good indication that they are in death throws and looking/scraping for anything to keep them a float.
I did enjoy the movie and thought Johnny Depp was good. My only nit pick, is his charater reminded me too much of a pirate version of Dudly Moore playing Arthur..
Its not an incremental release. Going from say 2.4.20->2.4.21 is an incremental release and would be more equivilent to what you are asking. Going from 2.4.20-> 2.6.0 would be like grabbing the windows kernel from WinMe and dropping it on Win98 and wondering why it doesn't work.
Preview panes should not be removed from e-mail clients, they should be there and off by default and that setting should be saved on a folder by folder basis.
I recieve at a minimum of 500 messages a day. Preview panes make working through them very easy. I do how ever have hundreds of mail filter rules that place all of my mail in to proper folders. On folders I know will only have valid mail I use a preview pane and have it on. On anything that could contain junk, I don't.
No reason to nuter e-mail clients, just make sure the default settings are reasonable.
Interesting, the article had nothing to do with spam. I myself just recently joined the ACLU this past year and was amazed at the amount of non-profits asking for money. The article is refering to snail mail not e-mail.