Even if one random guy considered the possibility for a couple minutes, this statement is true.
Interestingly, I just saw that Wikipedia had a term for this sort of action last night: They call them weasel terms.
So while you may be true about it not being libel (I'm really unsure if somebody could ACTUALLY get away with disguising it that way if it truly went to court), it should have been removed from Wikipedia for this reason alone.
and rather than wasting precious time figuring out what new things it can do
More precisely, figuring out what new things it can do that will be successful and hoping to god they're right about that successful part. There's a good deal of risk there.
Thing is, it's easy to follow somebody else once they have already established for you that a market exists. There's not a lot of risk since you already know it will be received fairly well, and in many cases, you even know what people perceive as being wrong with the initial offerings from what will soon be your competitors.
Microsoft is adept at doing so and coming to dominate those markets. While I certainly like (and prefer) innovation, where possible, I recognize that Microsoft is a business -- so I don't really fault them for it.
So people can complain that others have not read it, mostly. Just think of the horrific "existence" we would be subject to if we were reduced to only bitching about dupes and the editors! *shivers*
I recall seeing a story on the local news in Chicago a month or two back. It was in regards to teenagers taking more and bigger risks than adults, specifically why they're worse drivers, and they actually had scientists presenting new evidence making the case that it's really true. If I recall correctly, it's a brain development issue and the part of the brain that regulates risky behavior is simply not fully developed.
The worst part is that Quicktime is now used to sneak in iTunes as well.
Somebody asked me to find them a Quicktime download link a while ago. Hopped to Apple's site, clicked around for a minute, found it and pointed them to it. I was annoyed to find that it was bundled with iTunes. Oh, sure, they have a little checkbox you can toggle so iTunes is not installed with QuickTime, but you still had to download the extra trash you didn't ask for. Worst part is that the kid is still on a 56k modem, and I think he even has a download cap (Australian ISPs are bitches, it seems,) so those extra useless megabytes hurt twice as much.
Linux (FOSS) *does not* compete with Microsoft (or anyone else). We do software, sure, and that's about it.
One of the major problems with Linux/OSS in general is that there is not a single figure. We don't have a boss, we don't have a spokesman. What I mean by this is, when some executive from Microsoft says something, it can be properly taken to be policy. Who are you to speak for OSS? Who am I? (Not even to mention that terms like "Open Source" are sweeping.)
That lack at the top means there is no consistent vision. Even on issues as seemingly simple as this. For example: Does Linux want to lure Windows users away or not? Some people believe it should, and suggest many changes that will likely be necessary to make that transition. Others give lip-service support to the idea, saying they should but never agreeing with any changes that would make such things easier. And of course some people don't think it should.
This is another example. Does OSS compete with other companies? I have to disagree with you and say that it does. Not only does a success by an OSS project lure people away from other companies, thus competing whether they are trying to compete or not, but when we see things like "Linux usage up to XX%" we get up and cheer. If we're not competing, then we shouldn't give a shit.
Now, as I say, the fact that it's a community essentially without a leader means that... you may not get up and cheer. Others do, and that makes it hard to say what "Open Source Software" does or doesn't do.
Microsoft's final product is money (shareholder value). FOSS final product is software. These are not the same.
Microsoft's GOAL is money and FOSS's GOAL is (quality) software. Not their products. Their products are the same: programs, hardware, whatever it is they're doing.
I actually just read something good about the topic of case selection. I think they sum it up well:
The core of the difficulty is that the Supreme Court's rules governing case selection are designed to enable it to function as a body whose job is to resolve legal questions of national importance, not to correct individual injustices. The Court is not, as lawyers like to say, "a court of error." If a lower court commits a factual or legal error, the Supreme Court will not grant a writ of certiorari simply to review that error. More must be at stake.
In the case of Microsoft, the Supreme Court does not care whether the fine they were saddled with was wrongly decided. In the grand scheme of things, it just does not matter. My understanding is that Microsoft still has a legal avenue in District Court to prove that Eolas did not invent the patented technology and knowingly withheld such information from the USPTO.
To answer your question, no: The USSC probably doesn't care to deal with bad patents. The reason is likely because... there are just too many of them. The SC likes to deal in wide strokes. They like to say, "this is unconstitutional; fix it." To accept a patent case only resolves that patent case and can hardly ever be considered of national interest(*). And even if they loathe the patent system itself, really the only thing they could do (and I don't think it would ever happen) is toss the entire system and force Congress to re-write it. That would be a collossal mess even if it was ultimately for the best.
* - Even in a situation like this where it really can affect peoples' browsing experience, I doubt most in the non-geek circles would consider being able to use Flash (or Java or...) in a browser of national importance. I'm not saying I agree.
Ethics is tricky business, and neither "the ends justify the means" nor "all's well that ends well" are sufficient ethical justifications.
If you know ethics is tricky business perhaps you should not have made the latter half of that statement.
There are many ethical theories which essentially say exactly that. Utilitarianism, for example, talks about the greatest ratio of good to bad for an outcome; it essentially amounts to "the greatest good for the greatest number." And while it offers no advice as to how to weigh good and bad, I think it's safe to say that the long-term potential of this research far outweighs the short-term problems. In other words, the ends would justify the means.
Utilitarianism is not exactly a crackpot ethical theory either. It is highly popular. It is something we use all the time in our daily lives without even knowing it, even if we don't necessarily agree with it in all cases. If I have $100 I'm going to donate to a charity and I can either donate it to help provide vaccinations for childhood diseases for 10 children or provide free Viagra for three nursing home patients, I'm going to give it for the research. It's exactly what utilitarianism would tell me to do whether I know that or not.
The problem with ethics is that just about any theory, when presented with extreme situations, has a tendency to fail. Or if not fail, to feel incomplete or unsatisfying. They also tend to beg the question by qualifying the validity of an ethical theory by holding it up against our pre-conceived notions of what an ethical outcome to a situation is.
Ethics is a tricky subject. Let's keep that in mind before we attempt to degrade anybody's interpretation of what it means to be ethical and force upon them our own.
It's a useless number, but that's also not what it said. 51% said that "they are still getting calls they believe the list should block." That could mean any number of things:
1. They don't know what the list is actually meant to block.
2. They have ideological objections to the exceptions the list provides in #1 and used the survey to bitch about it.
3. They know the exceptions but don't understand (or disagree with) what exactly constitutes an established business relationship.
4. Or maybe they actually DID receive calls in violation -- but how many? If I receive one call in violation, I suppose I would report "yes" to that survey question even though one call in violation ever is a shitload less than the several per week that came through before.
5. And naturally, there is the off chance that they really are receiving a number of calls legitimately in violation of the law. I think this the most unlikely of the options.
Unless we know what precisely the statistic means, it's not worth the time it took to read it. Or... write this reply. *sighs*
Replying to myself... great. One step closer to insanity.
The situation reminded me of a Simpsons episode that I had to share. Krusty got elected to Congress and the Simpsons wanted him to pass a bill re-routing airplanes around their house.
Speaker: "We will now be voting on the flags for orphans... and airplane re-routing bill?! Oh well, it's paperclipped!" (Apologies if the quote is wrong.)
I'm no lawyer, congressman, what-have-you; can anyone out there shed some light on how this is OK?
Morally or legally?
Legally speaking, Congress sets its own rules for itself. There's nothing in the Constitution that says "a bill must address one and only one subject." Congressmen allow it because it benefits all involved (that is, all the congressmen involved!). The ones likely to vote for it had it come up separately get to walk back to their MPAA overlords, shake hands and accept a hefty check to help their re-election campaign. Those who wouldn't (couldn't) do so hope nobody notices. If somebody does notice, and creates a huff about it, they just put on their righteous indignation face and swear up and down that those dirty [name-of-the-other-party-here] snuck in another provision under the radar, the damn sneaks! Meanwhile they know that regardless of what happens, it will be their turn to do the same thing on another bill shortly enough.
The answer to your question is a resounding YES: It has been done before many, many times. In fact the so-called "Patriot Act II" provisions snuck in attached to a "must-pass" omnibus bill a couple years ago. It's sad, but perfectly alright within the rules that Congress has set up for itself.
If one wants to give them the benefit of the doubt (the schmucks!), one could argue that it would be too difficult and time consuming to attempt to enforce a "bill must be one topic" provision and would seem to create an entire bureaucracy for determining what "one topic" means for every bill. Personally I think that's a load of bunk, but hey.
So when the US gathers nuclear, virulent and other weapons of mass destruction its just A ok?
No, it's not "okay." Nobody likes it. But here's the reality: We already have this shit. And what's more, we already have enough nuclear weapons (with the potential to be far more destructive) to put a serious dent in the world. You don't have to like that, but that's the reality.
It's a much bigger deal for a country to acquire things like this than it is for somebody who already has this destructive potential to arm another missile.
If you want to talk about hypocrisy on this issue, you need to extend that to all nuclear nations. It is not for the US alone.
We want to share in those revenue streams
I'm sorry but how is that not greedy?
Merely wanting (more) money is not greedy. Is it greedy for me to want to be paid for doing a job? Is it greedy for me to want to be paid well for a job?
It only becomes greed when it is excessive. Defining "excessive" left as an exercise to the reader.
No, it's because our knowledge builds on top of the last generation's knowledge, and along with writing those ideas down, humanity's knowledge base becomes exponentially larger.
Fair enough, but it seems to me that there is a difference between knowledge and intelligence. Knowledge is stuff we know, whereas intelligence is an aptitude to be able to apply it. Sure, the human race as a collective can now build devices that fly to space or build atomic bombs, but I can't. Not smart enough. Even if you laid all that knowledge out in front of me I'm not sure I could make it happen.
If say Madonna (more realistically, her manager or whomever representing her) walks into a record-company and say she'd like to publish her new record with them, but one of the conditions is that it be released in standard CD-format, that the company would refuse to negotiate a contract.
If you're already a superstar at the contract negotiation phase, sure. If you're a new artist looking for exposure and you sign a four album deal and hit it huge after album #1, you're in trouble for three more.
If more people on slashdot read this there would be less people complaining about spelling and grammar here, it really doesn't matter in an informal forum, and even in some more formal settings.
I'm sure to be called a grammar Nazi for this, although I'm really not. I really don't go out of my way to correct people's grammar unless they ask.
However, I do think it matters even in an informal situation such as the Internet. I'll give you a few reasons:
1. Understanding. Some people have grammar that is so hard to read that it can not be understood. Or worse, is downright painful. There is one person who posts on a site that I visit who tends, to post, like this, with, a comma, every, word or, so. Since I try to write with at least managable grammar even informally, I make the mistake of pausing briefly at a comma as it is intended. It has happened that I literally develop a headache trying to wade through this person's posts, particularly if they are long. Not to mention the fact that he tends to ramble a lot, which makes it that much harder.
2. Respect. Like it or not, even in informal forums, there are a sizable portion of people who will judge you to some extent or another on your writing. If your writing is strong and well-constructed, you instantly gain credibility. Conversely, if it is weak or muddled you lose it. I have found that to be true even in places like school--if I write forcefully enough, I've found that I tend to be able to do well even with only a couple of facts on the subject at my disposal.
Similarly, the fact that somebody does not take the time to simply glance over something they write before they submit it makes me disinclined to read it or take it seriously. If one has something important to contribute, if one wants to be taken seriously, a few minutes proof-reading is not much to ask. If one can't be bothered when writing one's post, how seriously am I to take it when reading?
3. Let's throw in an odd one -- practice. I think whether you ultimately agree with my thoughts here or not, we can both agree that there are situations where good, clear, strong writing is an absolute must. Whenever I have asked somebody why they type the way they do online, the inevitable answer is some variation of "it's just the Internet!" Well, that's true. But you know, if people wrote well online they have at their hands potentially hours per day to practice their spelling and writing. I still don't consider myself particularly good at spelling, but I used to be absolutely abysmal. Anything above that point that I am now is because I cared enough to look things up when I wasn't sure.
Why should power companies get to puke RF into unlicensed bands?
This should be good for a troll mod, but here goes: How about because they're unlicensed bands?
It seems to me that if you're listing who can and can't use a band and for what purpose and to what degree, you're pretty well licensing it--even if the license costs nothing.
In that sense, assuming there is no technical (not moral, technical!) flaw in the reasoning... it IS the problem of the people who use bands that are going to get squashed.
ARE those words actually trademarked? I'm sure their FULL names (Microsoft Windows, Microsoft Word, etc) are, but I thought they specifically avoided--or were forced to avoid--trademarking "Windows" alone because it might dilute their mark. Am I wrong?
Why the police are involved with a civil issue (trademark infringement)...is beyond me.
Because in the case of actual, physical goods such as this, counterfeiting and fraud are criminal actions. The consumer is as big a victim as the company that (ostensibly) lost out on a sale.
Cops going after people downloading a movie or something is different and would be completely wrong, in my opinion. I don't know if they have done so yet, but if I recall correctly they're trying to pass a bill to let the US DoJ handle that sort of stuff. Ridiculous to me.
Not true. I am sure that the companies do not mind lining their pockets a bit with the money made from administering the exams, but I do not believe that is their main purpose.
Their main purpose, in most respects, is to lock you in. I took CCNA courses in high school; passed the CCNA my senior year. Now, if I went to work for somebody, or started my own company, or just needed some equipment for my own use--do you not think that Cisco is going to be the first recommendation? A $125 certification test is a nice, small profit for them--but it pales in comparison to the power of an IT guy/network administrator/whatever telling their boss that that $11,000 Cisco router is perfect for the job.
It may be perfect for the job. It may not. But with the recommendation behind it, you know it already has a leg up on the competition. Plus, the boss can go "he has that CCNA -- he should know how to work the equipment" rather than wondering how much of that knowledge applies across companies--whether that is all or none.
Slashdot Mirror
Even if one random guy considered the possibility for a couple minutes, this statement is true.
Interestingly, I just saw that Wikipedia had a term for this sort of action last night: They call them weasel terms.
So while you may be true about it not being libel (I'm really unsure if somebody could ACTUALLY get away with disguising it that way if it truly went to court), it should have been removed from Wikipedia for this reason alone.
and rather than wasting precious time figuring out what new things it can do
More precisely, figuring out what new things it can do that will be successful and hoping to god they're right about that successful part. There's a good deal of risk there.
Thing is, it's easy to follow somebody else once they have already established for you that a market exists. There's not a lot of risk since you already know it will be received fairly well, and in many cases, you even know what people perceive as being wrong with the initial offerings from what will soon be your competitors.
Microsoft is adept at doing so and coming to dominate those markets. While I certainly like (and prefer) innovation, where possible, I recognize that Microsoft is a business -- so I don't really fault them for it.
I think we're severely stretching the term "human right" if we're now to beleive that people have a right not to be called names, racist or otherwise.
hey're there for a reason, y'know?
So people can complain that others have not read it, mostly. Just think of the horrific "existence" we would be subject to if we were reduced to only bitching about dupes and the editors! *shivers*
I recall seeing a story on the local news in Chicago a month or two back. It was in regards to teenagers taking more and bigger risks than adults, specifically why they're worse drivers, and they actually had scientists presenting new evidence making the case that it's really true. If I recall correctly, it's a brain development issue and the part of the brain that regulates risky behavior is simply not fully developed.
Ahh, here we go, a link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A526 87-2005Jan31.html?sub=AR
As far as relating that to the article itself... no, that still doesn't make suing game companies for stupid kids the right thing to do.
iTunes is used to sneak in QuickTime.
The worst part is that Quicktime is now used to sneak in iTunes as well.
Somebody asked me to find them a Quicktime download link a while ago. Hopped to Apple's site, clicked around for a minute, found it and pointed them to it. I was annoyed to find that it was bundled with iTunes. Oh, sure, they have a little checkbox you can toggle so iTunes is not installed with QuickTime, but you still had to download the extra trash you didn't ask for. Worst part is that the kid is still on a 56k modem, and I think he even has a download cap (Australian ISPs are bitches, it seems,) so those extra useless megabytes hurt twice as much.
Linux (FOSS) *does not* compete with Microsoft (or anyone else). We do software, sure, and that's about it.
One of the major problems with Linux/OSS in general is that there is not a single figure. We don't have a boss, we don't have a spokesman. What I mean by this is, when some executive from Microsoft says something, it can be properly taken to be policy. Who are you to speak for OSS? Who am I? (Not even to mention that terms like "Open Source" are sweeping.)
That lack at the top means there is no consistent vision. Even on issues as seemingly simple as this. For example: Does Linux want to lure Windows users away or not? Some people believe it should, and suggest many changes that will likely be necessary to make that transition. Others give lip-service support to the idea, saying they should but never agreeing with any changes that would make such things easier. And of course some people don't think it should.
This is another example. Does OSS compete with other companies? I have to disagree with you and say that it does. Not only does a success by an OSS project lure people away from other companies, thus competing whether they are trying to compete or not, but when we see things like "Linux usage up to XX%" we get up and cheer. If we're not competing, then we shouldn't give a shit.
Now, as I say, the fact that it's a community essentially without a leader means that... you may not get up and cheer. Others do, and that makes it hard to say what "Open Source Software" does or doesn't do.
Microsoft's final product is money (shareholder value). FOSS final product is software. These are not the same.
Microsoft's GOAL is money and FOSS's GOAL is (quality) software. Not their products. Their products are the same: programs, hardware, whatever it is they're doing.
I actually just read something good about the topic of case selection. I think they sum it up well:
In the case of Microsoft, the Supreme Court does not care whether the fine they were saddled with was wrongly decided. In the grand scheme of things, it just does not matter. My understanding is that Microsoft still has a legal avenue in District Court to prove that Eolas did not invent the patented technology and knowingly withheld such information from the USPTO.
To answer your question, no: The USSC probably doesn't care to deal with bad patents. The reason is likely because... there are just too many of them. The SC likes to deal in wide strokes. They like to say, "this is unconstitutional; fix it." To accept a patent case only resolves that patent case and can hardly ever be considered of national interest(*). And even if they loathe the patent system itself, really the only thing they could do (and I don't think it would ever happen) is toss the entire system and force Congress to re-write it. That would be a collossal mess even if it was ultimately for the best.
* - Even in a situation like this where it really can affect peoples' browsing experience, I doubt most in the non-geek circles would consider being able to use Flash (or Java or...) in a browser of national importance. I'm not saying I agree.
I'm looking for the -"1, Dixie Chicks fan" moderation as we speak.
Ethics is tricky business, and neither "the ends justify the means" nor "all's well that ends well" are sufficient ethical justifications.
If you know ethics is tricky business perhaps you should not have made the latter half of that statement.
There are many ethical theories which essentially say exactly that. Utilitarianism, for example, talks about the greatest ratio of good to bad for an outcome; it essentially amounts to "the greatest good for the greatest number." And while it offers no advice as to how to weigh good and bad, I think it's safe to say that the long-term potential of this research far outweighs the short-term problems. In other words, the ends would justify the means.
Utilitarianism is not exactly a crackpot ethical theory either. It is highly popular. It is something we use all the time in our daily lives without even knowing it, even if we don't necessarily agree with it in all cases. If I have $100 I'm going to donate to a charity and I can either donate it to help provide vaccinations for childhood diseases for 10 children or provide free Viagra for three nursing home patients, I'm going to give it for the research. It's exactly what utilitarianism would tell me to do whether I know that or not.
The problem with ethics is that just about any theory, when presented with extreme situations, has a tendency to fail. Or if not fail, to feel incomplete or unsatisfying. They also tend to beg the question by qualifying the validity of an ethical theory by holding it up against our pre-conceived notions of what an ethical outcome to a situation is.
Ethics is a tricky subject. Let's keep that in mind before we attempt to degrade anybody's interpretation of what it means to be ethical and force upon them our own.
Over half say it doesn't work?
It's a useless number, but that's also not what it said. 51% said that "they are still getting calls they believe the list should block." That could mean any number of things:
1. They don't know what the list is actually meant to block.
2. They have ideological objections to the exceptions the list provides in #1 and used the survey to bitch about it.
3. They know the exceptions but don't understand (or disagree with) what exactly constitutes an established business relationship.
4. Or maybe they actually DID receive calls in violation -- but how many? If I receive one call in violation, I suppose I would report "yes" to that survey question even though one call in violation ever is a shitload less than the several per week that came through before.
5. And naturally, there is the off chance that they really are receiving a number of calls legitimately in violation of the law. I think this the most unlikely of the options.
Unless we know what precisely the statistic means, it's not worth the time it took to read it. Or... write this reply. *sighs*
Replying to myself... great. One step closer to insanity.
The situation reminded me of a Simpsons episode that I had to share. Krusty got elected to Congress and the Simpsons wanted him to pass a bill re-routing airplanes around their house.
Speaker: "We will now be voting on the flags for orphans... and airplane re-routing bill?! Oh well, it's paperclipped!" (Apologies if the quote is wrong.)
I'm no lawyer, congressman, what-have-you; can anyone out there shed some light on how this is OK?
Morally or legally?
Legally speaking, Congress sets its own rules for itself. There's nothing in the Constitution that says "a bill must address one and only one subject." Congressmen allow it because it benefits all involved (that is, all the congressmen involved!). The ones likely to vote for it had it come up separately get to walk back to their MPAA overlords, shake hands and accept a hefty check to help their re-election campaign. Those who wouldn't (couldn't) do so hope nobody notices. If somebody does notice, and creates a huff about it, they just put on their righteous indignation face and swear up and down that those dirty [name-of-the-other-party-here] snuck in another provision under the radar, the damn sneaks! Meanwhile they know that regardless of what happens, it will be their turn to do the same thing on another bill shortly enough.
The answer to your question is a resounding YES: It has been done before many, many times. In fact the so-called "Patriot Act II" provisions snuck in attached to a "must-pass" omnibus bill a couple years ago. It's sad, but perfectly alright within the rules that Congress has set up for itself.
If one wants to give them the benefit of the doubt (the schmucks!), one could argue that it would be too difficult and time consuming to attempt to enforce a "bill must be one topic" provision and would seem to create an entire bureaucracy for determining what "one topic" means for every bill. Personally I think that's a load of bunk, but hey.
That sounds like witch talk to me, buddy.
So when the US gathers nuclear, virulent and other weapons of mass destruction its just A ok?
No, it's not "okay." Nobody likes it. But here's the reality: We already have this shit. And what's more, we already have enough nuclear weapons (with the potential to be far more destructive) to put a serious dent in the world. You don't have to like that, but that's the reality.
It's a much bigger deal for a country to acquire things like this than it is for somebody who already has this destructive potential to arm another missile.
If you want to talk about hypocrisy on this issue, you need to extend that to all nuclear nations. It is not for the US alone.
We want to share in those revenue streams
I'm sorry but how is that not greedy?
Merely wanting (more) money is not greedy. Is it greedy for me to want to be paid for doing a job? Is it greedy for me to want to be paid well for a job?
It only becomes greed when it is excessive. Defining "excessive" left as an exercise to the reader.
No, it's because our knowledge builds on top of the last generation's knowledge, and along with writing those ideas down, humanity's knowledge base becomes exponentially larger.
Fair enough, but it seems to me that there is a difference between knowledge and intelligence. Knowledge is stuff we know, whereas intelligence is an aptitude to be able to apply it. Sure, the human race as a collective can now build devices that fly to space or build atomic bombs, but I can't. Not smart enough. Even if you laid all that knowledge out in front of me I'm not sure I could make it happen.
If say Madonna (more realistically, her manager or whomever representing her) walks into a record-company and say she'd like to publish her new record with them, but one of the conditions is that it be released in standard CD-format, that the company would refuse to negotiate a contract.
If you're already a superstar at the contract negotiation phase, sure. If you're a new artist looking for exposure and you sign a four album deal and hit it huge after album #1, you're in trouble for three more.
If more people on slashdot read this there would be less people complaining about spelling and grammar here, it really doesn't matter in an informal forum, and even in some more formal settings.
I'm sure to be called a grammar Nazi for this, although I'm really not. I really don't go out of my way to correct people's grammar unless they ask.
However, I do think it matters even in an informal situation such as the Internet. I'll give you a few reasons:
1. Understanding. Some people have grammar that is so hard to read that it can not be understood. Or worse, is downright painful. There is one person who posts on a site that I visit who tends, to post, like this, with, a comma, every, word or, so. Since I try to write with at least managable grammar even informally, I make the mistake of pausing briefly at a comma as it is intended. It has happened that I literally develop a headache trying to wade through this person's posts, particularly if they are long. Not to mention the fact that he tends to ramble a lot, which makes it that much harder.
2. Respect. Like it or not, even in informal forums, there are a sizable portion of people who will judge you to some extent or another on your writing. If your writing is strong and well-constructed, you instantly gain credibility. Conversely, if it is weak or muddled you lose it. I have found that to be true even in places like school--if I write forcefully enough, I've found that I tend to be able to do well even with only a couple of facts on the subject at my disposal.
Similarly, the fact that somebody does not take the time to simply glance over something they write before they submit it makes me disinclined to read it or take it seriously. If one has something important to contribute, if one wants to be taken seriously, a few minutes proof-reading is not much to ask. If one can't be bothered when writing one's post, how seriously am I to take it when reading?
3. Let's throw in an odd one -- practice. I think whether you ultimately agree with my thoughts here or not, we can both agree that there are situations where good, clear, strong writing is an absolute must. Whenever I have asked somebody why they type the way they do online, the inevitable answer is some variation of "it's just the Internet!" Well, that's true. But you know, if people wrote well online they have at their hands potentially hours per day to practice their spelling and writing. I still don't consider myself particularly good at spelling, but I used to be absolutely abysmal. Anything above that point that I am now is because I cared enough to look things up when I wasn't sure.
Why should power companies get to puke RF into unlicensed bands?
This should be good for a troll mod, but here goes: How about because they're unlicensed bands?
It seems to me that if you're listing who can and can't use a band and for what purpose and to what degree, you're pretty well licensing it--even if the license costs nothing.
In that sense, assuming there is no technical (not moral, technical!) flaw in the reasoning... it IS the problem of the people who use bands that are going to get squashed.
ARE those words actually trademarked? I'm sure their FULL names (Microsoft Windows, Microsoft Word, etc) are, but I thought they specifically avoided--or were forced to avoid--trademarking "Windows" alone because it might dilute their mark. Am I wrong?
(or a dozen other irrelevant employee-control functions that cost money and time without producing product...)
Like an email fight? These people have jobs to do and they clearly were not doing them while they were trying to be clever with one another.
Why the police are involved with a civil issue (trademark infringement)...is beyond me.
Because in the case of actual, physical goods such as this, counterfeiting and fraud are criminal actions. The consumer is as big a victim as the company that (ostensibly) lost out on a sale.
Cops going after people downloading a movie or something is different and would be completely wrong, in my opinion. I don't know if they have done so yet, but if I recall correctly they're trying to pass a bill to let the US DoJ handle that sort of stuff. Ridiculous to me.
or computer only lanes/sections ala car-pooling?
No good until they place the lazers that shear non-conforming cars into itty bitty pieces. Wouldn't make THAT mistake twice, wouldya?
Not true. I am sure that the companies do not mind lining their pockets a bit with the money made from administering the exams, but I do not believe that is their main purpose.
Their main purpose, in most respects, is to lock you in. I took CCNA courses in high school; passed the CCNA my senior year. Now, if I went to work for somebody, or started my own company, or just needed some equipment for my own use--do you not think that Cisco is going to be the first recommendation? A $125 certification test is a nice, small profit for them--but it pales in comparison to the power of an IT guy/network administrator/whatever telling their boss that that $11,000 Cisco router is perfect for the job.
It may be perfect for the job. It may not. But with the recommendation behind it, you know it already has a leg up on the competition. Plus, the boss can go "he has that CCNA -- he should know how to work the equipment" rather than wondering how much of that knowledge applies across companies--whether that is all or none.