Isn't even a weak federal law bettern than a strong local law?
No, definately not. Firstly, federal law should only ever trump state law when state boundries are crossed. A spammer that sends spam from Virginia to Virginia should still be held accountable to Virginia law on the subject. Secondly, the only provision in the new law that has any potential is the "do not spam registry". That won't stop the illegal spammers, but it will stop those that pretend to be legit (which for me is about 50% of my spam traffic.)
All this law has done is kill the few useful state anti-spam laws that are on the books. Besides, it's hard to escape state laws by crossing state borders. Recently, North Carolina extradited 2 spammers to VA for fellony spamming charges.
However, one area that can still be prosecuted at the state and local level is obscenity charges. If you can track down a porn spammer, who incorporates explicit images in their message, your local District Attorney can file charges. If the message was sent to a minor, that's usually a fellony. Yet, I'm amazed that no one is really persuing this that I've seen. Probably because it's a real pain to track down the source of messages sent over hacked machines.
There's one thing you left out - how generic the term is. In the case of Windows, the term "window" is pretty generic. And though technically, Microsoft Windows predates X-Windows by about a year, they didn't try to trademark it until much later, leaving them with absolutely no case. Lindows arguably being Linux and X-Windows has about as solid of a case as you could ask for. At least in the USA. But then again, the courts can be somewhat mental at times.
The four patents cited by Microsoft are pretty weak to begin with, and could easily be dodged. They all revolve around having both a short filename and a long filename. Furthermore, as near as I can tell, Microsoft is not trying to get money for the flash media, but the digital cameras the use them. Simply not writing anything other than an 8.3 filename would effectively evade the patent.
You laugh, but if I had any Macromedia stock it would be sold before Microsoft released the beta. Macromedia's only real hope is that the courts agree that bundling this with Windows is a violation of the anti-trust settlement.
PS, if you get your stock tips from Slashdot, you're dumber than I look.
The final two installments of the Matrix remind me of poi. Poi, for those of you not familiar with it, is a pudding like concoction made in Hawaii (I believe from taro root) and served at luaus. While attending my first luau some years ago, I was urged to try the poi, despite it's lutefisk like reputation so that I could "impugn it with authority". And so, like so many other things which are inexplicably popular, I will be making a trip to the local cinema (for a matinee) so I can authoritatively tell everyone just how bad it was.
Yes, you are being cynical. It's much closer to C#:) As the article mentions, it's basicly a.NET frontend to common shell tasks, which could be really damn cool.
However, the article was mostly number whoring. And most of it pretty meaningless at that. Now, an acre of corn can produce about 400 gallons of Ethanol a year. The cost of ethanol is (depending on whose numbers you use) between $1.50 and $2.00/gallon. Point being, ethanol is a viable fuel once consumer prices reach about $2.20 or thereabouts. OPEC could push oil prices higher, but above $35/barrell, biomass starts to become affordable and they become irrelevant. And let's not forget about nuclear, solar, hydro and wind power either. On the whole, I'm not terribly concerned.
I'm sure that somewhere in the EULA, TOS, or AUP is a clause that gives AOL the authority to do this to their subscriber's computers. Or they may argue that "optimal configuration of our product requries the Messenger service be disabled." Either way, I'm sure their lawyers looked at it first.
The first thing to remember here, is that this is a pump and dump scheme. Pure and simple. Hopefully, the SEC will pick up on that eventually.
The second thing, the licensing, is fairly unimportant, but it's fun to watch SCO try to dance around the GPL. Suppose for a brief second, that Linux contains SCO code, and it's not held to the GPL. As the parent poster indicated, Linux becomes undistributable. SCO is offering a license to run their code. This would indemnify you from liability from SCO. Now, you could continue to make personal use of Linux without being in violation of the GPL. You're not required to publish modifications that you don't redistribute. If you were, say, Tivo, there is absolutely no way you could distribute your product without violating either SCO or the GPL. But this all supposes that SCO's claims are valid. Which I strongly doubt, because, this is, after all, a pump and dump scheme.
is that the relative difficulty a newbie has doing things in Linux makes it more secure.
You are correct, sir. The relative difficulty a newbie encounters in Linux encourages the amatures to run as 'root'. Frankly, I shudder to think of the chaos that would ensue if everyone ran Linux. Millions of poorly configured unpatched Linux boxes with blank root passwords; it's a script kiddies dream. And then he goes on to talk about users doing things they aren't supposed to. You think user behavior will change on a different system? Do educated Windows users get worms and viruses? A big nope to both of those, I say. This article is really the worst troll I've read in weeks.
I'll have to disagree with you here. The issue, as many states now seem to see it, is that at some point VoIP no longer travels over IP. A call originating on IP eventually meets up with the Plain Old Telephone System, wherein any number of regulations apply. The government is not trying to "cash in", they're trying to make everyone play by the same rules. That's pretty much what government does or mostly should. As a libertarian, I think it's appropriate that Vonage be held to the same standards (and fees) as everyone else. Of course, as a libertarian, I also think most of those standards and fees shouldn't exist in the first place, but that's a fight for another day.
Now, there is an argument to be made for the fact that Vonage can't actually verify the physical location of a caller. However, they are using California area codes and California billing addresses, so it's pretty realistic to mandate a California telephone operator's license. As for fees, there's also an argument that there maybe ought to be a different schedule since they're not using traditional land lines. However, I suspect this is an issue cellular providers have long since addressed.
First, let me simply say, you're wrong. Now let me explain why:
The reason some such law, when properly drafted, will ultimately pass Constitutional muster is that it is an "opt out" law This law is an "opt out" law. It allows you to opt out of a certain selected type of phone call. It does not opt me in to certain calls. It just doesn't include them in the list.
the law cannot make distinctions between solicitous speech because such distinctions are reserved to the citizen What this law calls for is an explicit declaration from the citizens that they individually do not want to hear this speech. It intrudes on their time, their property and their rights.
The judge's decision stands in of your rights actually, not the rights of the callers.
If you are a Jehovah's Witness, or a Congressman running for reelection, you may find the fact that people have the right to choose not listen to you offensive. You are right in that the law does not go far enough. I should be able to opt out of all solicitous phone calls. The judge's decision, however, directly confilcts my right to publicly tell telemarketers to bugger off.
It is for these reasons that I confidently predict the Apellete and Supreme courts will swiftly overturn this fool's decision.
Well duh. Word and Open Office aren't designed for professional writers. They're intended for office workers. They server their intended purpose very well, but they can not be all things to all people. Likewise, Vi also has an intended purpose: quick textmode editing of text files. If you're a unix programmer or sys-admin, it's an invaluable tool. But I couldn't imagine trying to write anything extensive with it. There are programs designed to be word processors for serious writers. I don't know what they are or what the good ones are, just that they exist. I just shake my head when I see people using a screwdriver to pound a nail.
Well, you're close. First, there's nothing to prevent Microsoft, or any other large software house, from doing internal peer review. In fact, given the number of bugs that have been patched since Microsoft started doing their security reviews, I'd say it might be working. Furthermore, most OSS projects have no organization to their peer review so that's not a very good argument. Proprietary documents are indeed a tricky question. Open document standards would be a good thing, except that open standards tend to evolve at a snails pace. I'd be satisfied with a requirement that all document formats used must be fully documented. Expect that bill to get killed in committee. Lastly, any IT infrastructure should arise from critical thinking and decision making. Ask what are the benifits and liabilities of product X.
But here's where I think the kicker is at: making a law mandating or prohibiting OSS is dumb. That decision should rest with the IT pros who are in charge of a given project. They're the only ones properly qualified to make that decision.
Bah. Production and distribution in both new and traditional media are marginal costs. The money is in controling the distribution chanels and the marketing. Any band could get a half million CDs made. The trick is getting radio stations to play your song and Best Buy to stock the disc (in a prominent location). The bandwidth providers are a commodity. The money will still flow to who has the power to decide what gets heard.
Because it would be, of course. Centralized production is in almost all cases much more efficient. Distributed solar might work, but only because it requires so much surface area. At least, for photo-voltaics. There are other solar generation methods that while still area intensive are suitable for a more centralized production scheme. (They mostly resolve around storing energy in an elevated thermal state.) In any event, Hydrogen just ain't goin' to happen. Wind is also unlikely. Certainly my homeowner's association would see me in court before they'd allow a windmill. So we have the nice overpriced option of solar and we have centralized power plants. And in any event, we still have the same mesh of wires to transfer power.
The field your in and the type of work you expect to be doing are really key. If your goal is computer engineering, then by all means, I think a PhD is a worthy investment. If you're going to be shuffling data in and out of a SQL database, then even an MS is overkill. If you'd like to run a programming department, then a masters in CS along with an MBA is the key to prosperity.
Or, if it's not immediately obvious what level of education is appropriate for your desired field, just try looking for a job.:) While it usually doesn't hurt to be overqualified, if you give the impression that your prospective employer can't afford you, you could price yourself out of a lot of good jobs.
I am a chemist. Firstly, you'd never se FeO2. Iron has oxidation states of +2 and +3, so you'd either see FeO or Fe2O3. Most likely, the organism oxidizes Iron from +2 to +3 as I don't think it's very likely to find much metallic iron disolved in the water, though I am neither a geologist, nor a marine microbiologist.
I thought I remember reading about volcanic vent extremophiles using sulfur for oxidation instead of oxygen Most volcanic vent extremophiles oxidize sulfur, but iron oxidizers are not uncommon.
Re:They should market these towards geeks
on
The Diamond Age
·
· Score: 1
Frankly, if I had a cheap process for producing high quality diamonds, I'd be very quietly selling them to DeBeers for slightly less than what a natural diamond would go for. The value comes from scarcity. If you want to maximize your profit, you limit the supply. That's how a proper cartel works.:)
That would be fine, if there were an actual invention in this case. Having read the article and the associated patent, it's pretty clear to me that this is total BS. This isn't to say that there haven't been good software patents. LZW, at the time, was good science and appropriate for a patent. Amazon's 1-click was and always will be bunk. And yes, if someone had thought to patent VisiCalc they'd be rich right now. However, not doing so allowed 123, Excel, Quattro Pro, AppleWorks, ClarisWorks, MS Works, OO.org, and a slew of other spreadsheets to grow, flourish, and compete against each other.
PS, Stac Electronics won because MS hired away a bunch of their programmers and paid them to recreate the same product.
Slashdot Mirror
Isn't even a weak federal law bettern than a strong local law?
No, definately not. Firstly, federal law should only ever trump state law when state boundries are crossed. A spammer that sends spam from Virginia to Virginia should still be held accountable to Virginia law on the subject. Secondly, the only provision in the new law that has any potential is the "do not spam registry". That won't stop the illegal spammers, but it will stop those that pretend to be legit (which for me is about 50% of my spam traffic.)
All this law has done is kill the few useful state anti-spam laws that are on the books. Besides, it's hard to escape state laws by crossing state borders. Recently, North Carolina extradited 2 spammers to VA for fellony spamming charges.
However, one area that can still be prosecuted at the state and local level is obscenity charges. If you can track down a porn spammer, who incorporates explicit images in their message, your local District Attorney can file charges. If the message was sent to a minor, that's usually a fellony. Yet, I'm amazed that no one is really persuing this that I've seen. Probably because it's a real pain to track down the source of messages sent over hacked machines.
There's one thing you left out - how generic the term is. In the case of Windows, the term "window" is pretty generic. And though technically, Microsoft Windows predates X-Windows by about a year, they didn't try to trademark it until much later, leaving them with absolutely no case. Lindows arguably being Linux and X-Windows has about as solid of a case as you could ask for. At least in the USA. But then again, the courts can be somewhat mental at times.
The four patents cited by Microsoft are pretty weak to begin with, and could easily be dodged. They all revolve around having both a short filename and a long filename. Furthermore, as near as I can tell, Microsoft is not trying to get money for the flash media, but the digital cameras the use them. Simply not writing anything other than an 8.3 filename would effectively evade the patent.
Hey, I can understand Pikachu, and the only thing he ever says is his name.
Damn, I'm selling my Macromedia stock right now!
You laugh, but if I had any Macromedia stock it would be sold before Microsoft released the beta. Macromedia's only real hope is that the courts agree that bundling this with Windows is a violation of the anti-trust settlement.
PS, if you get your stock tips from Slashdot, you're dumber than I look.
The final two installments of the Matrix remind me of poi. Poi, for those of you not familiar with it, is a pudding like concoction made in Hawaii (I believe from taro root) and served at luaus. While attending my first luau some years ago, I was urged to try the poi, despite it's lutefisk like reputation so that I could "impugn it with authority". And so, like so many other things which are inexplicably popular, I will be making a trip to the local cinema (for a matinee) so I can authoritatively tell everyone just how bad it was.
Yes, you are being cynical. It's much closer to C# :) As the article mentions, it's basicly a .NET frontend to common shell tasks, which could be really damn cool.
However, the article was mostly number whoring. And most of it pretty meaningless at that. Now, an acre of corn can produce about 400 gallons of Ethanol a year. The cost of ethanol is (depending on whose numbers you use) between $1.50 and $2.00/gallon. Point being, ethanol is a viable fuel once consumer prices reach about $2.20 or thereabouts. OPEC could push oil prices higher, but above $35/barrell, biomass starts to become affordable and they become irrelevant. And let's not forget about nuclear, solar, hydro and wind power either. On the whole, I'm not terribly concerned.
I'm sure that somewhere in the EULA, TOS, or AUP is a clause that gives AOL the authority to do this to their subscriber's computers. Or they may argue that "optimal configuration of our product requries the Messenger service be disabled." Either way, I'm sure their lawyers looked at it first.
The first thing to remember here, is that this is a pump and dump scheme. Pure and simple. Hopefully, the SEC will pick up on that eventually.
The second thing, the licensing, is fairly unimportant, but it's fun to watch SCO try to dance around the GPL. Suppose for a brief second, that Linux contains SCO code, and it's not held to the GPL. As the parent poster indicated, Linux becomes undistributable. SCO is offering a license to run their code. This would indemnify you from liability from SCO. Now, you could continue to make personal use of Linux without being in violation of the GPL. You're not required to publish modifications that you don't redistribute. If you were, say, Tivo, there is absolutely no way you could distribute your product without violating either SCO or the GPL. But this all supposes that SCO's claims are valid. Which I strongly doubt, because, this is, after all, a pump and dump scheme.
is that the relative difficulty a newbie has doing things in Linux makes it more secure.
You are correct, sir. The relative difficulty a newbie encounters in Linux encourages the amatures to run as 'root'. Frankly, I shudder to think of the chaos that would ensue if everyone ran Linux. Millions of poorly configured unpatched Linux boxes with blank root passwords; it's a script kiddies dream. And then he goes on to talk about users doing things they aren't supposed to. You think user behavior will change on a different system? Do educated Windows users get worms and viruses? A big nope to both of those, I say. This article is really the worst troll I've read in weeks.
I'll have to disagree with you here. The issue, as many states now seem to see it, is that at some point VoIP no longer travels over IP. A call originating on IP eventually meets up with the Plain Old Telephone System, wherein any number of regulations apply. The government is not trying to "cash in", they're trying to make everyone play by the same rules. That's pretty much what government does or mostly should. As a libertarian, I think it's appropriate that Vonage be held to the same standards (and fees) as everyone else. Of course, as a libertarian, I also think most of those standards and fees shouldn't exist in the first place, but that's a fight for another day.
Now, there is an argument to be made for the fact that Vonage can't actually verify the physical location of a caller. However, they are using California area codes and California billing addresses, so it's pretty realistic to mandate a California telephone operator's license. As for fees, there's also an argument that there maybe ought to be a different schedule since they're not using traditional land lines. However, I suspect this is an issue cellular providers have long since addressed.
First, let me simply say, you're wrong. Now let me explain why:
The reason some such law, when properly drafted, will ultimately pass Constitutional muster is that it is an "opt out" law
This law is an "opt out" law. It allows you to opt out of a certain selected type of phone call. It does not opt me in to certain calls. It just doesn't include them in the list.
the law cannot make distinctions between solicitous speech because such distinctions are reserved to the citizen
What this law calls for is an explicit declaration from the citizens that they individually do not want to hear this speech. It intrudes on their time, their property and their rights.
The judge's decision stands in of your rights actually, not the rights of the callers.
If you are a Jehovah's Witness, or a Congressman running for reelection, you may find the fact that people have the right to choose not listen to you offensive.
You are right in that the law does not go far enough. I should be able to opt out of all solicitous phone calls. The judge's decision, however, directly confilcts my right to publicly tell telemarketers to bugger off.
It is for these reasons that I confidently predict the Apellete and Supreme courts will swiftly overturn this fool's decision.
No, when there's an actual crime, there should be a proper investigation. It's the pointless regulation that needs to be avoided.
Well duh. Word and Open Office aren't designed for professional writers. They're intended for office workers. They server their intended purpose very well, but they can not be all things to all people. Likewise, Vi also has an intended purpose: quick textmode editing of text files. If you're a unix programmer or sys-admin, it's an invaluable tool. But I couldn't imagine trying to write anything extensive with it. There are programs designed to be word processors for serious writers. I don't know what they are or what the good ones are, just that they exist. I just shake my head when I see people using a screwdriver to pound a nail.
Well, you're close. First, there's nothing to prevent Microsoft, or any other large software house, from doing internal peer review. In fact, given the number of bugs that have been patched since Microsoft started doing their security reviews, I'd say it might be working. Furthermore, most OSS projects have no organization to their peer review so that's not a very good argument. Proprietary documents are indeed a tricky question. Open document standards would be a good thing, except that open standards tend to evolve at a snails pace. I'd be satisfied with a requirement that all document formats used must be fully documented. Expect that bill to get killed in committee. Lastly, any IT infrastructure should arise from critical thinking and decision making. Ask what are the benifits and liabilities of product X.
But here's where I think the kicker is at: making a law mandating or prohibiting OSS is dumb. That decision should rest with the IT pros who are in charge of a given project. They're the only ones properly qualified to make that decision.
It's because you have a small penis. See, we understand.
</Flame>
Bah. Production and distribution in both new and traditional media are marginal costs. The money is in controling the distribution chanels and the marketing. Any band could get a half million CDs made. The trick is getting radio stations to play your song and Best Buy to stock the disc (in a prominent location). The bandwidth providers are a commodity. The money will still flow to who has the power to decide what gets heard.
Somehow, I suspect the computer science department of a Big-10 university can handle /.
Because it would be, of course. Centralized production is in almost all cases much more efficient. Distributed solar might work, but only because it requires so much surface area. At least, for photo-voltaics. There are other solar generation methods that while still area intensive are suitable for a more centralized production scheme. (They mostly resolve around storing energy in an elevated thermal state.) In any event, Hydrogen just ain't goin' to happen. Wind is also unlikely. Certainly my homeowner's association would see me in court before they'd allow a windmill. So we have the nice overpriced option of solar and we have centralized power plants. And in any event, we still have the same mesh of wires to transfer power.
The field your in and the type of work you expect to be doing are really key. If your goal is computer engineering, then by all means, I think a PhD is a worthy investment. If you're going to be shuffling data in and out of a SQL database, then even an MS is overkill. If you'd like to run a programming department, then a masters in CS along with an MBA is the key to prosperity.
:) While it usually doesn't hurt to be overqualified, if you give the impression that your prospective employer can't afford you, you could price yourself out of a lot of good jobs.
Or, if it's not immediately obvious what level of education is appropriate for your desired field, just try looking for a job.
I am a chemist. Firstly, you'd never se FeO2. Iron has oxidation states of +2 and +3, so you'd either see FeO or Fe2O3. Most likely, the organism oxidizes Iron from +2 to +3 as I don't think it's very likely to find much metallic iron disolved in the water, though I am neither a geologist, nor a marine microbiologist.
I thought I remember reading about volcanic vent extremophiles using sulfur for oxidation instead of oxygen
Most volcanic vent extremophiles oxidize sulfur, but iron oxidizers are not uncommon.
Frankly, if I had a cheap process for producing high quality diamonds, I'd be very quietly selling them to DeBeers for slightly less than what a natural diamond would go for. The value comes from scarcity. If you want to maximize your profit, you limit the supply. That's how a proper cartel works. :)
That would be fine, if there were an actual invention in this case. Having read the article and the associated patent, it's pretty clear to me that this is total BS. This isn't to say that there haven't been good software patents. LZW, at the time, was good science and appropriate for a patent. Amazon's 1-click was and always will be bunk. And yes, if someone had thought to patent VisiCalc they'd be rich right now. However, not doing so allowed 123, Excel, Quattro Pro, AppleWorks, ClarisWorks, MS Works, OO.org, and a slew of other spreadsheets to grow, flourish, and compete against each other.
PS, Stac Electronics won because MS hired away a bunch of their programmers and paid them to recreate the same product.
Anyone dumb enough to try and sue IBM deserves to go bankrupt.