If someone pays someone else to send spam, then both the subcontractor and the person hiring the subcontractor have to abide by the opt-out. However, there is nothing stopping a company from offering reseller programs to people who then spam, as they are not paying anyone to spam, merely to resell their product. Plus, the law treats every division of a single company as a separate entity, so every division of your company can send a separate spam. Also, of course, if you set up a company, send 3,000,000 spams, then close the company and set up a new one, this also will protect you. And while this may be slighly costly in the United States, I'm sure there are other countries where companies can be set up much more cheaply.
It's right in the law, section 8b: "This Act supersedes any stat-ute, regulation, or rule of a State or political subdivision of a State that expressly regulates the use of electronic mail to send commercial messages, except to the extent that any such statute, regulation, or rule prohibits falsity or deception in any portion of a commercial electronic mail message or information attached thereto."
Here's a list of the email addresses of all your Congressman. Maybe someone can whip together a script to send them an email asking them to repeal this law, every day until they opt out or repeal the law. Extra karma points for randomizing the title among non-misleading possibilities. Then we just gotta get every single slashdotter to run the program.
So if you choose to sell Apple products below the price they wish, then they will stop selling you their iPod's. How is that not allowing them to sell the products below a certain price?
Because you're allowed to sell the products below a certain price.
Yes, you could sell them below the set price if you don't advertise it. However, if Apple finds out, they can stop selling you their product for resale if they so choose.
That's absolutely ridiculous, but apparently you're right. Those things you learned in Economics class, about free markets and competition, it was all just a farce.
No, that's horizontal price-fixing. Verical price-fixing is also illegal. See here, where it says "Vertical price-fixing -- an agreement between a supplier and a dealer that fixes the minimum resale price of a product -- is a clear-cut antitrust violation."
Vertical price-fixing -- an agreement between a supplier and a dealer that fixes the minimum resale price of a product -- is a clear-cut antitrust violation. It also is illegal for a manufacturer and retailer to agree on a minimum resale price.
This conversation seems to be going nowhere. I'm of the opinion that biometrics can and will play a useful role in security. They're certainly don't solve everything, and the vast majority of applications are going to be required to use them along with other methods of security.
If you dispute that, I'm not sure we can get any further. Because if you dispute what I've said, you believe that every single biometric system either now in existence or ever to be created is completely useless. I think that's clearly false. In fact, the existence and usefulness of photo IDs proves it.
But one gray area in particular is something like a driver that was originally written for another operating system (ie clearly not a derived work of Linux in origin).
That's simply nonsense. Just because something is written for an operating system does not make it a derived work "in origin." If that were true, then all Windows software would be a derived work of Windows. All Nintendo games would be a derived work of Nintendo. Game Genie would be a derived work of Nintendo.
Linus is wrong. Just because something is written with the other thing in mind does not make it a derived work. See for example Galoob v Nintendo. Game Genie was created with copyrighted Nintendo games in mind, yet it was declared to not be a derivative work by the 9th circuit court of appeals.
Binary only drivers have tended to be crude ports of Windows drivers, and frequently crash the users kernel. This results in bug reports that the regular kernel hackers can't solve, and a misconception amongst users that Linux is unstable.
There's a simple way to stop this, though. Stop supporting binary-only drivers. You don't have to make binary-only drivers illegal. You just stop supporting them.
It would be like Microsoft banning the original Mozilla builds from being run on its Operating System. Because hey, Mozilla crashes Windows and therefore causes them extra bug reports.
Of course, that leads to another possible solution. Maybe we shouldn't allow kernel modules to crash the operating system in the first place. But hey, that kind of microkernel design would be too hard, right?
Far better would be if companies jumped wholeheartedly into the Linux way of doing things, and published their drivers under the GPL.
Companies are there to make money, not to help Linux. If the Linux community wants open hardware, we need to make it ourselves, or make some sort of deal with those that do. It's kind of a catch 22 at this point, though. In order to convince hardware manufacturers to make hardware for your OS, you have to have lots of users. And in order to get lots of users you have to have lots of different types of hardware supported. Slowly, we're getting there. But in places like video drivers we're farther away, because the Linux software for the desktop isn't up to par yet either.
Because most Linux drivers began their life as "sub-par reverse engineered drivers". It was only because they were open source that they got better.
And it was only because of binary-only drivers that Linus was able to see his screen and therefore code Linux. Sure, reverse-engineered drivers used to be necessary, but that's no longer the case. Companies which don't provide the details necessary to make driver development easy shouldn't be supported at all, by open-source or by binary drivers. Sure, it might make Linux less attractive to the hard-core gamer, but the cost in terms of supporting a reverse-engineered driver is far too great.
If NVIDIA wants to make a binary only driver, fine. For those that that's good enough, let them use it. But for those of us who want freedom, we won't buy their hardware in the first place.
If NVIDIA gets away with providing half-hearted binary-only support for Linux, why can't every other hardware manufacturer?
Because those who provide full-hearted open-source support for Linux have a competitive advantage over NVIDIA. If you don't like the Linux support for NVIDIA, don't buy their hardware in the first place. No one is forcing you to do so. If you feel you have been tricked by the advertisement of "Linux support," return your video card and demand a refund.
It shames me that so many of the current generation of Linux users don't understand what the world before Linux was like. It was hell. Closed source binary-only drivers everywhere. Buggy code that you couldn't fix. Linux changed all that.
And it did so without mandating that all drivers be open source. You see, your argument is that Nvidia provides binary-only drivers, therefore people use the binary drivers instead of the open-source drivers, therefore the open-source drivers are less tested, therefore Nvidia support on linux is worse off. But you missed the next logical step. Nvidia support on linux is worse off, therefore people are less apt to buy Nvidia hardware in the first place. So yes, Nvidia support on linux may suffer, but this helps people who are making open hardware, hardware for which the drivers are easy to make in the first place.
If we disallowed binary drivers, we might have a better Nvidia driver, but ultimately, we'd be worse off, because we'd be encouraging companys to make hardware which the open source community will then happily hack up drivers for without getting any support from the company themselves.
Slashdot Mirror
If someone pays someone else to send spam, then both the subcontractor and the person hiring the subcontractor have to abide by the opt-out. However, there is nothing stopping a company from offering reseller programs to people who then spam, as they are not paying anyone to spam, merely to resell their product. Plus, the law treats every division of a single company as a separate entity, so every division of your company can send a separate spam. Also, of course, if you set up a company, send 3,000,000 spams, then close the company and set up a new one, this also will protect you. And while this may be slighly costly in the United States, I'm sure there are other countries where companies can be set up much more cheaply.
It's right in the law, section 8b: "This Act supersedes any stat-ute, regulation, or rule of a State or political subdivision of a State that expressly regulates the use of electronic mail to send commercial messages, except to the extent that any such statute, regulation, or rule prohibits falsity or deception in any portion of a commercial electronic mail message or information attached thereto."
I don't see any reason not to start now. But if you're going to get people to participate, there's going to need to be software to automate it all.
After we're done having fun with the congresscritters, we can turn our guns on the sales departments of those companies sending "legitimate" spam.
1) Take someone else's idea
2) Add "on the internet" to the end of it
3) Get a patent????
4) Profit!
You honestly think that they would have voted for this bill if they actually used their e-mail?
Oh, I'm sure they use e-mail. We just gotta find the right addresses, and incorporate that into version 2.0.
Getting e-mails that their staffers will just toss won't bother them a bit.
Oh well, at least it will bother their staffers.
Remember, this is an election year. Make spam an issue, and they'll HAVE to defend (or reverse) their position.
No they won't, because chances are their opponent will probably have the exact same position.
Actually, I think the real problem is that there is no competition for the iPod.
Of course, the state enforced monopoly they were given doesn't help that any.
Oops, the list is here.
Here's a list of the email addresses of all your Congressman. Maybe someone can whip together a script to send them an email asking them to repeal this law, every day until they opt out or repeal the law. Extra karma points for randomizing the title among non-misleading possibilities. Then we just gotta get every single slashdotter to run the program.
So if you choose to sell Apple products below the price they wish, then they will stop selling you their iPod's. How is that not allowing them to sell the products below a certain price?
Because you're allowed to sell the products below a certain price.
The effect is the absolute same.
Which makes it a pretty stupid law.
Yes, you could sell them below the set price if you don't advertise it. However, if Apple finds out, they can stop selling you their product for resale if they so choose.
That's absolutely ridiculous, but apparently you're right. Those things you learned in Economics class, about free markets and competition, it was all just a farce.
No, the original poster said that "Apple does not allow you to sell Apple products below the pricing offered by Apple themselves."
No, that's horizontal price-fixing. Verical price-fixing is also illegal. See here, where it says "Vertical price-fixing -- an agreement between a supplier and a dealer that fixes the minimum resale price of a product -- is a clear-cut antitrust violation."
Because Apple does not allow you to sell Apple products below the pricing offered by Apple themselves.
Umm, that's illegal.
What if you don't advertise the price? "Apple iPods! So low we can't even tell you the price!"
I used to work for Apple, and I know first hand that Apple forces resellers to their pricing structure.
Umm, isn't that unlawful collusion in restraint of free trade?
No, I'm suggesting that Linus didn't use Linux to build Linux 0.1.
This conversation seems to be going nowhere. I'm of the opinion that biometrics can and will play a useful role in security. They're certainly don't solve everything, and the vast majority of applications are going to be required to use them along with other methods of security.
If you dispute that, I'm not sure we can get any further. Because if you dispute what I've said, you believe that every single biometric system either now in existence or ever to be created is completely useless. I think that's clearly false. In fact, the existence and usefulness of photo IDs proves it.
The GPL defines what is considered derivative and what is not.
Wrong. The law, and the courts, define what is considered derivative and what is not.
But one gray area in particular is something like a driver that was originally written for another operating system (ie clearly not a derived work of Linux in origin).
That's simply nonsense. Just because something is written for an operating system does not make it a derived work "in origin." If that were true, then all Windows software would be a derived work of Windows. All Nintendo games would be a derived work of Nintendo. Game Genie would be a derived work of Nintendo.
Linus is wrong. Just because something is written with the other thing in mind does not make it a derived work. See for example Galoob v Nintendo. Game Genie was created with copyrighted Nintendo games in mind, yet it was declared to not be a derivative work by the 9th circuit court of appeals.
If you charge any nontrivial amount of money for a GPL'd product, people will just P2P it (legally) and you'll get nothing.
You'll get whatever you charged for a single product. So just make sure you set the price for the single product high (like $100,000 or something). :)
Binary only drivers have tended to be crude ports of Windows drivers, and frequently crash the users kernel. This results in bug reports that the regular kernel hackers can't solve, and a misconception amongst users that Linux is unstable.
There's a simple way to stop this, though. Stop supporting binary-only drivers. You don't have to make binary-only drivers illegal. You just stop supporting them.
It would be like Microsoft banning the original Mozilla builds from being run on its Operating System. Because hey, Mozilla crashes Windows and therefore causes them extra bug reports.
Of course, that leads to another possible solution. Maybe we shouldn't allow kernel modules to crash the operating system in the first place. But hey, that kind of microkernel design would be too hard, right?
Far better would be if companies jumped wholeheartedly into the Linux way of doing things, and published their drivers under the GPL.
Companies are there to make money, not to help Linux. If the Linux community wants open hardware, we need to make it ourselves, or make some sort of deal with those that do. It's kind of a catch 22 at this point, though. In order to convince hardware manufacturers to make hardware for your OS, you have to have lots of users. And in order to get lots of users you have to have lots of different types of hardware supported. Slowly, we're getting there. But in places like video drivers we're farther away, because the Linux software for the desktop isn't up to par yet either.
Because most Linux drivers began their life as "sub-par reverse engineered drivers". It was only because they were open source that they got better.
And it was only because of binary-only drivers that Linus was able to see his screen and therefore code Linux. Sure, reverse-engineered drivers used to be necessary, but that's no longer the case. Companies which don't provide the details necessary to make driver development easy shouldn't be supported at all, by open-source or by binary drivers. Sure, it might make Linux less attractive to the hard-core gamer, but the cost in terms of supporting a reverse-engineered driver is far too great.
If NVIDIA wants to make a binary only driver, fine. For those that that's good enough, let them use it. But for those of us who want freedom, we won't buy their hardware in the first place.
If NVIDIA gets away with providing half-hearted binary-only support for Linux, why can't every other hardware manufacturer?
Because those who provide full-hearted open-source support for Linux have a competitive advantage over NVIDIA. If you don't like the Linux support for NVIDIA, don't buy their hardware in the first place. No one is forcing you to do so. If you feel you have been tricked by the advertisement of "Linux support," return your video card and demand a refund.
It shames me that so many of the current generation of Linux users don't understand what the world before Linux was like. It was hell. Closed source binary-only drivers everywhere. Buggy code that you couldn't fix. Linux changed all that.
And it did so without mandating that all drivers be open source. You see, your argument is that Nvidia provides binary-only drivers, therefore people use the binary drivers instead of the open-source drivers, therefore the open-source drivers are less tested, therefore Nvidia support on linux is worse off. But you missed the next logical step. Nvidia support on linux is worse off, therefore people are less apt to buy Nvidia hardware in the first place. So yes, Nvidia support on linux may suffer, but this helps people who are making open hardware, hardware for which the drivers are easy to make in the first place.
If we disallowed binary drivers, we might have a better Nvidia driver, but ultimately, we'd be worse off, because we'd be encouraging companys to make hardware which the open source community will then happily hack up drivers for without getting any support from the company themselves.