I prefer the First Come First Serve approach of domain name registration to this concept of trademarks carrying over to new markets. Too many companies got away with pissing on the internet for too many years and then were allowed to come in several years later and lay claim to a major stake in it. This only fostered a crappy presence on their part.
Competition will be spurred if we tell companies they have to look out for themselves in new arenas. Consumers suffer when corporations are allowed to cling to outdated paradigms too easily.
The reason ActiveX sucks is not the implementation. It works fine, but is OS dependant.
The main reason I hate ActiveX is that it introduces so many non-standard paradigms to something that is wonderfully simple and powerful. The web, HTML (web pages), and HTTP/HTTPS, are all very useful when you don't start doing stupid shit. Why create a standard to support "stupid shit" that then creates lots of proprietary systems with steep learning curves for new developers/team members?
I have yet to run into a Marketing Requirement that required the use of ActiveX unless some Marketing retard specifically put the term ActiveX in their request without consulting developers.
This may discredit JBoss to a lot of untrained people, but it doesn't discredit results of testing and experience of many people I know that say that JBoss is a quality product.
Somebody get on the call and ask them "If you have such a strong company and case, why do you feel the need to couple lawsuit announcements with your financial call?"
Tresspassing and Theft for unlawful use of other people's property. Especially for the use of hacked PCs.
This is why we need honeypots to be legal tools to end users. I can understand them not making sense for ISPs if they're capturing and logging everyone's legit traffic, but I should be able to monitor anything that passes through my machine that I didn't invite.
Someone should setup 1,000,000,000 Yahoo accounts that use 1,000,000,000 different Hotmail accounts as their email on record. And then do the same in the reverse.
And then to be nice, set them all to not send all this junk. It won't become a problem until Yahoo or Microsoft make it a problem.
Why can't current law apply. If a database contains original authored work and isn't just a big grab of available data from many sources, why shouldn't existing copyright law apply?
And why should big grabs of pre-existing data be protected?
Just because it's on a computer is no reason to get stupid about how law applies.
Interesting because while MS could always argue TCO, there's no way they can argue ROI with the price of keeping their software up to date.
Whereas Microsoft expects you to pay to upgrade every couple of years, Linux can be updated for free with a very little fear that proprietary apps won't work. Or at least companies can expect that their apps won't require much tweaking to get them to work.
If a beginning of an end does appear in sight (now or in the future), should the Linux community provide SCO an easy way out and a stern warning, or should we obliterate them?
Both approaches have significant pros and cons, and should be considered now if not already.
This only PROVES their ignorance. If one person fails in one week, that's far from showing that the system is secure.
Open Sourcing it won't make it secure either, but it would probably be the fastest way to fix a ton of the most obvious holes.
Better yet, if they want good PR, they should hire Mitnick to have a go at it. Lord knows he's probably rusty, but his name alone would end the debate one way or the other.
There were creativity slumps before there was piracy, and consumers just started buying the more creative artists eventually, forcing the record labels to adapt.
Slashdot Mirror
I prefer the First Come First Serve approach of domain name registration to this concept of trademarks carrying over to new markets. Too many companies got away with pissing on the internet for too many years and then were allowed to come in several years later and lay claim to a major stake in it. This only fostered a crappy presence on their part.
Competition will be spurred if we tell companies they have to look out for themselves in new arenas. Consumers suffer when corporations are allowed to cling to outdated paradigms too easily.
He just wants to wrap all packets with a DNA sample from the person who was sitting at the keyboard that typed the command that initiated the packets.
It's not a case of this country lacking talented people in need of jobs.
It's a case of shitty bumfuck towns needing people and not being willing to pay enough to attract those people.
If someone gets your laptop, odds are they'll have no trouble reproducing your fingerprints.
Somebody please tell me how this isn't just a waste of time.
The reason ActiveX sucks is not the implementation. It works fine, but is OS dependant.
The main reason I hate ActiveX is that it introduces so many non-standard paradigms to something that is wonderfully simple and powerful. The web, HTML (web pages), and HTTP/HTTPS, are all very useful when you don't start doing stupid shit. Why create a standard to support "stupid shit" that then creates lots of proprietary systems with steep learning curves for new developers/team members?
I have yet to run into a Marketing Requirement that required the use of ActiveX unless some Marketing retard specifically put the term ActiveX in their request without consulting developers.
Stallman is going to have to find a serious financial hook to lure companies with.
Hardware vs. Software is starting to be viewed as the last outpost of the fight to save capitalism in the Software industry.
If he's really serious, he'll find an investor who can't quite break in yet and try to nail down that niche.
There's not really one single point of blame for things like this.
There's the coder, the QA team, the code-reviewers, and I'm sure management failed in many many ways.
This may discredit JBoss to a lot of untrained people, but it doesn't discredit results of testing and experience of many people I know that say that JBoss is a quality product.
My mom has fake TiVo, and I have severed all tech support ties because it's simply not up to par.
And I warned the bitch.
Somebody get on the call and ask them "If you have such a strong company and case, why do you feel the need to couple lawsuit announcements with your financial call?"
The only Legos I buy anymore are the Star Wars sets, and I even have a couple of the > $100 sets.
Unfortunately I don't see any mention of those specifically. Can anyone clarify this for me?
Tresspassing and Theft for unlawful use of other people's property. Especially for the use of hacked PCs.
This is why we need honeypots to be legal tools to end users. I can understand them not making sense for ISPs if they're capturing and logging everyone's legit traffic, but I should be able to monitor anything that passes through my machine that I didn't invite.
That model hasn't worked. They're hardly making anything off iTunes.
It's all of the iPods Apple is selling as a result that is what's making it work for them.
All of these newcomers to the market are really jumping in without a dependable profit model once again.
Someone should setup 1,000,000,000 Yahoo accounts that use 1,000,000,000 different Hotmail accounts as their email on record. And then do the same in the reverse.
And then to be nice, set them all to not send all this junk. It won't become a problem until Yahoo or Microsoft make it a problem.
Would he step in if Amazon sued, say Microsoft?
BSD is so dead, I got wood at this announcement.
Why can't current law apply. If a database contains original authored work and isn't just a big grab of available data from many sources, why shouldn't existing copyright law apply?
And why should big grabs of pre-existing data be protected?
Just because it's on a computer is no reason to get stupid about how law applies.
By leaving the USA, couldn't he eventually be branded a terrorist (for attacking US economic interests) and jailed without due process?
Interesting because while MS could always argue TCO, there's no way they can argue ROI with the price of keeping their software up to date.
Whereas Microsoft expects you to pay to upgrade every couple of years, Linux can be updated for free with a very little fear that proprietary apps won't work. Or at least companies can expect that their apps won't require much tweaking to get them to work.
If a beginning of an end does appear in sight (now or in the future), should the Linux community provide SCO an easy way out and a stern warning, or should we obliterate them?
Both approaches have significant pros and cons, and should be considered now if not already.
This only PROVES their ignorance. If one person fails in one week, that's far from showing that the system is secure.
Open Sourcing it won't make it secure either, but it would probably be the fastest way to fix a ton of the most obvious holes.
Better yet, if they want good PR, they should hire Mitnick to have a go at it. Lord knows he's probably rusty, but his name alone would end the debate one way or the other.
What if they decide to ignore the GPL and start stealing code without offering sources?
Can anyone think of any free (to me) ways to pay them and then yank the payment so it costs them money to process and deal with it?
Added bonus if they try to take me to court over it.
Can anyone think of any historical examples of a firm turning into a pure litigation house and actually succeeding on behalf of their shareholders?
There were creativity slumps before there was piracy, and consumers just started buying the more creative artists eventually, forcing the record labels to adapt.
See Rock N Roll, New Wave, Grunge, etc.