The judge decides to install Kazaa on his laptop to see how it works, then the judge cannot get rid of the damned monkey.
Then he sentences the monkey to life in prison.
.... Microsoft paid any taxes.
Now, as another poster noted, free software actually allows bussinesses to have more profits and thus more taxable revenue.
It is going to be cruical who comes out on top of this. It is very clear that Disney will never be able to control software, that is just impossible.
But if they can trough congress get control of hardware we will be in for some bad times.
So it is very important that the hardware manufacturers win that one.
Although it is obvious i would like to say again that Disnay does not want to merely protect its copyrights, they want to control your devices to ensure marketplace dominance, and maximum profits.
eisner says the battle is about copyrights but it is also about the major "culture" producers desire to entrench themselves so deep that they will have a monopoly on all culture created in the world.
I think the fundamental problem lies with the fact that the software is not really made for the customers, it is made for the corporation.
If the software was really made for the customers, it would be hard to order something by mistake, because any competent developer would have made some kind of confirmation pop up.
But since the software is made for the benefit of AOL, it is made in such a way that people may order things by mistake very easily.
This is one of the good things about open source software. It is made by and for the user, and nobody would tolerate such BS with open source software.
Just so the candidate is not seen in bad light an underling has to answer the questions.
That underling further blames the company he hired.
Mr NG is certainly right that spam email is less obtrusive than bulk mail and tv ads, BUT mr Jones would have to pay for TV ads and Bulk mail, while by sending spam he can defer the cost to others.
SMART computer users do not like to change their habits based on what new OS they are using they want, the OS to change to their habits.
Smart computer users understand that the machine is a slave for the human and not the other way around.
So why should your firend or the writer of that diary have to learn a new way to do everything, when they have had enough experience to find a way that they like.
Why should someone bow to steve's or bill's decisions to what is the best easiest and funnest way for us to do things, when they have had enough experience to know for themselves what is the best way?
I thought you made money by selling bulk mod points to microsoft and the communication companies, who would use those points to make a bunch of 5 rated comments how slashdot is onesided, and about how microsoft is just tryingr to help the customers, and about how monopolies from the communication companies are good things since they will allow "economies of scale".
Capitalism 2, for example is an amasingly intricate bussiness simulation.
I cannot say whether it is accurate or not, since i have never been the CEO of a multimillion corporation but some bussiness schools say it is quite useful.
That was a good reply gilroy. I just wanted to add that settlements only remove the claims of individual plaintiffs.
Thus even if the federal government settles with microsoft the states would still be able to pursue their suit, and ask for a different settlement, or even decision from the judge.
He was blamed because that was the most convinient way for the appeals court to get rid of his ruling, without having to go trough the difficult process of overturning it.
A judge is free to make any conclusions about the beliavability of a litigant if it based on what they do in litigation, and the evidence that is properly in front of him.
Most of judge Jackson's frustration with Microsoft came from their conduct in trial, like submitting obviously fake evidence, causing delay, Bill Gates acting stupid etc.
This is not the case of states being able to make rules for toher states.
Basicly states have the right to sue, and they did.
Now just because the federal government is settling the case that does not mean that all Microsoft liability is gone. The federal government settlement only removes the conflict between the fed government and microsoft.
But anybody else that has the right to sue under the law can still do it.
If a state sues microsoft that state does not try to impose different rules, any more than if i sue microsoft i will be trying to impose different rules.
Eventually a judge will decide the remedy and if needed that judge will combine the cases so the remedy is consistent.
Drivers are expensive.
Keep in mind that if this thing is well built it will probably be able to run about 90% of the time day and night. for that you have to hire 2-3 drivers.
I think much of the $65 million will go to building the track and stations. This thing will move on its own designated track, so you will probably not be able to use the existing roads.
It will probably be more convinient than a bus because you wont have to wait for it (80% of the time) and it wont stop when you dont need it to stop.
If they expect the trip to cost as much as a bus then probably running it is as expensive as running a bus line.
which would be great because with this thing you get individualized transport.
"Just because clever bookkeeping makes most of your movies "losers" doesn't mean that you aren't swimming in cash from the few successful ones."
I think they are swiming in cash from the unsuccesful ones as well. It is amazing how the movie industry keeps complaining they are losing money and they keep getting richer at the same time.
For some reason Icann thought of themselves as some kind of a Napoleon giving out valuable land to lucky and soon to be rich vassals.
They should just run their servers and charge what it cost to run them.
But i thing the net can help here as well.
Hopefully if people get more of their information from the net, and if they stop watching network news it will be very hard to control public opinion.
Lying to the public will be almost impossible if their information comes from a multitude of sources many of which cannot be controlled.
The scale benefits of providing DSL are not that great. It is nothing like making cars, for example.
Even a small DSL provider can get the software they need to minimize administrative costs, and if bandwidth is a comodity, as it should be, that is more or less all they need.
There are some benefits of scale in the equipment but that is not a big deal.
Smaller ISPs may have benefits of finding a niche market or serving customers better.
In fact before DSL thousands of smaller providers thrived selling basic dialup, and made profit, despite AOl's economy of scale.
This is the kind of argument that is being used by corporate america to monopolize all our communication media. It was used for radio and now it is used for small ISPs.
This argument is utter bullshit.
But suppose it is true. Then why not let those DSL providers die naturaly? Why allow the telecom companies to lock them out? If someone is lobbying for a lock out that means they are affraid of the competition.
because of the ocnsolidation that has been happening in the industry you cannot expect that there will be much competition between cable and dsl, for a long time.
And relying on several large conglomerates to compete is always risky.
They will always prefer to put a price fix agreement in.
All the bandwidth providers borrowed alot of money to build their networks, which are now mostly dark. Now they have to make the interest payments and they are ready to start robbing the consumer.
This will kill many hard working small and medium ISPs, that provide good service to their customers.
After they are dead your DSL prices will rise again.
I am pretty sure that Doubleclick will help advertisers segment customers using their own (doubleclick's) data.
I really doubt they are simply selling a software tool here. In fact i am sure advertisers will know better how to use their own data than double click does.
And since when was doubleclick known for software development anyways?
Nope they are selling data.
First of all I suspect that this technology is simply too expensive for consumer chips.
Even if it could be done cheap, I think they would need completely new fabrication facilities to make those chips, because the technology is based on a different compound.
Fabrication facilities are not cheap and companies like to use the current ones enough to make them profitable before jumping ionto new ones.
I also suspect that these chips might need a lot of power. That may make them unusable for home computers.
When in engineering school (a couple of years ago) my professor declared that we are moving towards the end of the speed and size improvements of microchips, because soon the assumptions aboout newtonian physics, on which circuit design is based on, will stop being reliable.
Usually you dont have to worry about quantumn effects (electrons tunneling and such things), because there are enough electrons to statisticaly average out the quantumn effects into the classical model.
But when you increase frequency you usually have to decrease the size of the components (so transistors switch faster). But if you decrease size too much you will not have enough electrons passing trough your circuit, to ensure the signal follows classical laws.
Well I guess the quantumn barrier was a lot further than i thought it was.
Or maybe IBM are not decreasing the size of their transistors but increasing voltages to make circuits switch faster.
Slashdot Mirror
The judge decides to install Kazaa on his laptop to see how it works, then the judge cannot get rid of the damned monkey. Then he sentences the monkey to life in prison.
.... Microsoft paid any taxes. Now, as another poster noted, free software actually allows bussinesses to have more profits and thus more taxable revenue.
It is going to be cruical who comes out on top of this. It is very clear that Disney will never be able to control software, that is just impossible. But if they can trough congress get control of hardware we will be in for some bad times. So it is very important that the hardware manufacturers win that one. Although it is obvious i would like to say again that Disnay does not want to merely protect its copyrights, they want to control your devices to ensure marketplace dominance, and maximum profits. eisner says the battle is about copyrights but it is also about the major "culture" producers desire to entrench themselves so deep that they will have a monopoly on all culture created in the world.
I think the fundamental problem lies with the fact that the software is not really made for the customers, it is made for the corporation.
If the software was really made for the customers, it would be hard to order something by mistake, because any competent developer would have made some kind of confirmation pop up.
But since the software is made for the benefit of AOL, it is made in such a way that people may order things by mistake very easily.
This is one of the good things about open source software. It is made by and for the user, and nobody would tolerate such BS with open source software.
I guess Boise could have pursued it, but he did not want to use the resources and slow down the whole process.
Boise knew that the judge knew the evidence was not to be believed and that was enough for him.
Just so the candidate is not seen in bad light an underling has to answer the questions.
That underling further blames the company he hired.
Mr NG is certainly right that spam email is less obtrusive than bulk mail and tv ads, BUT mr Jones would have to pay for TV ads and Bulk mail, while by sending spam he can defer the cost to others.
SMART computer users do not like to change their habits based on what new OS they are using they want, the OS to change to their habits.
Smart computer users understand that the machine is a slave for the human and not the other way around.
So why should your firend or the writer of that diary have to learn a new way to do everything, when they have had enough experience to find a way that they like.
Why should someone bow to steve's or bill's decisions to what is the best easiest and funnest way for us to do things, when they have had enough experience to know for themselves what is the best way?
I thought you made money by selling bulk mod points to microsoft and the communication companies, who would use those points to make a bunch of 5 rated comments how slashdot is onesided, and about how microsoft is just tryingr to help the customers, and about how monopolies from the communication companies are good things since they will allow "economies of scale".
Capitalism 2, for example is an amasingly intricate bussiness simulation.
I cannot say whether it is accurate or not, since i have never been the CEO of a multimillion corporation but some bussiness schools say it is quite useful.
That was a good reply gilroy. I just wanted to add that settlements only remove the claims of individual plaintiffs. Thus even if the federal government settles with microsoft the states would still be able to pursue their suit, and ask for a different settlement, or even decision from the judge.
He was blamed because that was the most convinient way for the appeals court to get rid of his ruling, without having to go trough the difficult process of overturning it.
A judge is free to make any conclusions about the beliavability of a litigant if it based on what they do in litigation, and the evidence that is properly in front of him.
Most of judge Jackson's frustration with Microsoft came from their conduct in trial, like submitting obviously fake evidence, causing delay, Bill Gates acting stupid etc.
This is not the case of states being able to make rules for toher states. Basicly states have the right to sue, and they did. Now just because the federal government is settling the case that does not mean that all Microsoft liability is gone. The federal government settlement only removes the conflict between the fed government and microsoft. But anybody else that has the right to sue under the law can still do it. If a state sues microsoft that state does not try to impose different rules, any more than if i sue microsoft i will be trying to impose different rules. Eventually a judge will decide the remedy and if needed that judge will combine the cases so the remedy is consistent.
Drivers are expensive. Keep in mind that if this thing is well built it will probably be able to run about 90% of the time day and night. for that you have to hire 2-3 drivers.
I think much of the $65 million will go to building the track and stations. This thing will move on its own designated track, so you will probably not be able to use the existing roads.
It will probably be more convinient than a bus because you wont have to wait for it (80% of the time) and it wont stop when you dont need it to stop.
If they expect the trip to cost as much as a bus then probably running it is as expensive as running a bus line.
which would be great because with this thing you get individualized transport.
Commutes are usually so laden with traffic and random assholes that even the best driving enthusiasts hate them.
"Just because clever bookkeeping makes most of your movies "losers" doesn't mean that you aren't swimming in cash from the few successful ones." I think they are swiming in cash from the unsuccesful ones as well. It is amazing how the movie industry keeps complaining they are losing money and they keep getting richer at the same time.
For some reason Icann thought of themselves as some kind of a Napoleon giving out valuable land to lucky and soon to be rich vassals. They should just run their servers and charge what it cost to run them.
But i thing the net can help here as well. Hopefully if people get more of their information from the net, and if they stop watching network news it will be very hard to control public opinion. Lying to the public will be almost impossible if their information comes from a multitude of sources many of which cannot be controlled.
The scale benefits of providing DSL are not that great. It is nothing like making cars, for example.
Even a small DSL provider can get the software they need to minimize administrative costs, and if bandwidth is a comodity, as it should be, that is more or less all they need.
There are some benefits of scale in the equipment but that is not a big deal.
Smaller ISPs may have benefits of finding a niche market or serving customers better.
In fact before DSL thousands of smaller providers thrived selling basic dialup, and made profit, despite AOl's economy of scale.
This is the kind of argument that is being used by corporate america to monopolize all our communication media. It was used for radio and now it is used for small ISPs.
This argument is utter bullshit.
But suppose it is true. Then why not let those DSL providers die naturaly? Why allow the telecom companies to lock them out? If someone is lobbying for a lock out that means they are affraid of the competition.
because of the ocnsolidation that has been happening in the industry you cannot expect that there will be much competition between cable and dsl, for a long time. And relying on several large conglomerates to compete is always risky. They will always prefer to put a price fix agreement in. All the bandwidth providers borrowed alot of money to build their networks, which are now mostly dark. Now they have to make the interest payments and they are ready to start robbing the consumer.
This will kill many hard working small and medium ISPs, that provide good service to their customers. After they are dead your DSL prices will rise again.
I am pretty sure that Doubleclick will help advertisers segment customers using their own (doubleclick's) data. I really doubt they are simply selling a software tool here. In fact i am sure advertisers will know better how to use their own data than double click does. And since when was doubleclick known for software development anyways? Nope they are selling data.
It is typical marketing speak. "Segment customers" means "combine email addresses with even more personal information".
And what do you think would happen after those customers are "egmented"? The spam will soon start flowing.
First of all I suspect that this technology is simply too expensive for consumer chips. Even if it could be done cheap, I think they would need completely new fabrication facilities to make those chips, because the technology is based on a different compound. Fabrication facilities are not cheap and companies like to use the current ones enough to make them profitable before jumping ionto new ones. I also suspect that these chips might need a lot of power. That may make them unusable for home computers.
When in engineering school (a couple of years ago) my professor declared that we are moving towards the end of the speed and size improvements of microchips, because soon the assumptions aboout newtonian physics, on which circuit design is based on, will stop being reliable.
Usually you dont have to worry about quantumn effects (electrons tunneling and such things), because there are enough electrons to statisticaly average out the quantumn effects into the classical model.
But when you increase frequency you usually have to decrease the size of the components (so transistors switch faster). But if you decrease size too much you will not have enough electrons passing trough your circuit, to ensure the signal follows classical laws.
Well I guess the quantumn barrier was a lot further than i thought it was.
Or maybe IBM are not decreasing the size of their transistors but increasing voltages to make circuits switch faster.