Let's say I became a fake priest in a fake religion based on my fake doctorate from a fake Harvard and I was given a fake Rolex for my "graduation". Lets say I used my fake position to perform fake 24-hour weddings for real prostitutes and their Johns.
Would I have the right to bitch if the real Harvard started performing 24-hour weddings too, but they did them legitimately? I could certainly whine all I wanted to, but that doesn't mean anyone has to listen.
TW
Re:Sheesh!
on
TiVo Will Die
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I think that in this context "dead" means "not the market leader". These are the same folks who pitty IBM because "they died in the PC market". I'm sure IBM hates being dead since [start extreme sarcasm filter} they don't make any money on processors, hard drives, laptops or servers.
Of course you're right that she was not conviced to actual insider trading. But the justice that she was convicted of obstructing was a securities fraud investigation and the fraud type that was being investigated was insider trading. She was also convicted of lying about her role in the fraud that was being investigated.
Calling it an insider trading conviction may be technically inaccurate, but I don't think its stretching the truth either.
People buying an ipod aren't going to pay a lot more for a device that is alot heavier, bigger, and plays movies in microsoft's proprietary format...
This is actually a great opportunity for Apple. Now they can come up with something smaller and lighter that uses their own proprietary format (plus a few others) and they can clean up.
TW
Think about it: the iPod wasn't new, it was just smaller and better. Now Bill is giving Apple the exact playing field they need in order to show up the competition. Bravo.
The problem is that MS has been acting like an axe murderer and killing off the competition by unfair means...
A lot of people have been doing a lot of comparing of what antitrust means because the concept is kind of difficult for many people to grasp.
You refer to Killing of Competition, which has some accuracy, but I prefer the comparison to what Marth Stewart was convicted of, Insider Trading.
I prefer this comparison because most people instantly understand insider trading; a person has special knowledge others don't have and can't have and they use it as an unfair advantage.
MS has used its "insider" position to do things that others can't to give it an unfair advantage. They've advertised where others can't (on the desktop for MSN) made their instalations easier than others can(Can't be easier than the media player being built-in) and they've steadfastly refused to let others share their advantages (licenses forbid others from preinstalling their software in the same way).
In fact MS is worse than Martha because the insider knowledge that gave Martha an advantage was made public the very next day; MS has fought long hard battles to keep their advantages from ever being made public. Martha has a felony conviction and will likely face prison time for her crime even though it was only a one-day advantage, but MS argues that they should be able to keep their advantage forever with no repercussions.
Martha is an individual and MS is a corporation so the remedies for this kind of broken law are, and should be different. But the intensity should be, the same. MS should get the equivilant of being behind bars for their crime and a Billion Euros doesn't even come close.
TW
Re:It's Open Mic Night at the Astrophysics Lounge!
on
Melting Europa
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Thank you.
People have so little sense of perspective.
The sort of people worried about contaminating a planet-sized body with a meters-long probe are the same sort of people who argue evolution can't possibly take place (in our universe of trillions of stars) because it's statistacally "one in a million".
So, if I run a RAM disk on my SD card then what category do I get?
If I manage to make a spinning media HD of the same physical size but it holds more data does it get marked down as "smallest" or "largest" or "largest smallest"?
If I'm driving the speed of light and turn on my headlights do I get "fastest car", "slowest light" or most "expensive ticket"?
You're right, people don't view fairness the same way.
But when a massive corporation that only exists for profit decides that it's not fair for me to make personal use of the property I already bought, then I'll take a chance with my version being the better one.
Hint from the Parks case: Bullies only win in the short run.
Or we could just forget what's legal and simply do what's fair.
It was fair, though not legal, for Rosa Parks to sit in the front of the bus.
It was fair, though not legal in many states, for gay people ot have intimate relationships.
It's fair, though possibly not legal, for me to play my legaly purchased games from any media I choose on any platform I choose.
When we start doing what is legal instead of what is fair then we lose our most basic right and one that's not even in the constitution; our right to do no more or less than we would have done to ourselves. When we do what's fair then we might lose in the short term, but everyone wins in the long run.
Nothing like good old ASCII art porn. In color no less with ANSI art. Yes, there's noting like a geek in heat to push the envelope of eye-squinting hottness.
See the reply above referring to the Do Not Call list. The Do Not Spam was moments behind it because reps saw which side their bread was really buttered on.
It's like this:
-Businesses get money into re-election funds which indirectly leads to votes. -The populous actually does the voting. -If you were currying favor for re-election, which would you rather have on your side?
I think the DNC and DNS acts are models for future law. They're simple, direct, and they protect people from over-zealous business practices that make our lives hell.
But it's time for more. Why not have constitutional amendments that puts ownership in clear focus?
Why not something like: "Any product sold to an end consumer (including any business that is the end-consumer of a product) will not be burdened by stipulation on use that are more restrictive than current intellectual property law and no licenses shall be enforceable on the consumer level if they have limitations that are more restrictive than current intellectual property law." The GPL is protected (it gives you rights above copyright and is not more restrictive) but most EULAs are void. Great!
And how about this one: "Any end consumer of a product (including any business that is the end-consumer of a product) that is purchased or licensed shall have the right to modify the product in any way that does not contradict current intellectual property law, including, but not limited to, removing any physical or logical restrictions on legal use." Bingo, DMCA no longer applies to "fair use".
I could go on. Basically it's time to remove this rat's nest of restrictions by stipulating that businesses _can't_ restrict your use of something they sell or license to you. Of course we don't want to burden regular business contracts in the process, but business need to stop thinking of us consumers as having business contracts and start realizing, once again, that we _purchase_ products that we _own_.
I especially love watching a DVD that's a couple of years old and it has ads for some product that isn't even available anymore. Like a limited release Disney title or a theater release of a long-gone flick. Now you're stuck watching the ad AND YOU CAN'T EVEN BUY THE PRODUCT.
I think they should stop worrying about gay marriage and start ammending the constitution with some basic consumer protections. Now that's something you'll get a 75% vote for.
By some amazing coincedence I downloaded it earlier in the week. I got everything working alright, but I considered the quality of the video to be quite low.
Then I started playing with the settings...
Bottom line: Mikey likes it. I haven't played with everything yet, but on a very high setting grabbing a recent movie on HBO from my digital cable box the video quality is nearly as good as a DVD. Certainly much better than sending the S-Video directly into my monitor (I have a high-end Mitsubishi).
It's definately worth fiddling with if you want a high-quality feed. It was not and is not pain free, but if you're willing to endure then I believe it will pay off for you.
You are probably right. Of note is the fact that the domain name was registered to the developer and the site included notification that it belonged to his company.
However...
A reasonable person could consider the act of "building a web site for someone else" to be a gift of the site rather than just a gift of the developer's server space. For example, lets say he wrote software for use in the police department rather than building a website. He said, "I'm writing this software for you as a public service and I don't want monitary compensation." Is it clear in this case that the developer owns the software?
Basically you need to consider whether this is "work for hire" or "original authorship with a limited use license". In the first case, the sherif's department owns the site. In the second case it's owned by the developer. Neither story really makes this clear. It's definately not clear to the parties involved. All they really agree on is that something was donated, but until the figure out exactly what that was then we wont be able to determine the proper outcome of the case.
They do appear to contradict about the money, but it doesn't really matter.
All that matters is who you believe owns the site.
If you believe the designer/operator owned the site then there is no extortion, regardless of what amount he asked for and when he asked for it. It was his to do with as he pleased.
If you believe the sheriff's department owned the site and the designer/operator threatened to keep the contents and the domain name unless he got money (regardless of how much or when he asked for it) then the extortion charges are approriate.
It doesn't matter if the guy is a jerk or not. It doesn't matter if he asked for a reasonable amount or not. All that matters is whether the site was his or theirs.
I was in dismay as I read this. Basically you can change anything cosmetic but you can't change anything substanttive. I wracked my brain to think up any other product that's gone this route and finally found one: Windows.
You can chage the wallpaper, but you can't change the web browser. You can change the system font, but you can't upgrade the kernel.
I tried to think of what this all means and then it suddenly struck me. Of course, it's right in the aritcle! Windows was designed by women for women.
Now that I understand the Windows niche I can take real action in my life. The girlfriend will get my old Windows machine ("honey, what did you do with my Mac?") and I'm getting the real OS designed by men for men. It may look like crap, but I know I can change any file with complete confidence. Thank god for MS-DOS, the real-mans operating system.
BTW, I've had one of these for more than a year now. My company had it's predecessor for more than 2 years before that. The fact that it works with Linux should not be much of a surprise for anyone who realizes that Linux does, and pretty much always has, supported mice on the PS/2 port.
"I tought this is an old product. Friend of mine has it. Fry's electronics carries it."
Did your friend use Linux? Did he write about it in a Linux publication? How on Earth can you expect Slashdot to notice it if it wasn't used for Linux?
*** brand new device that lets you move from one place to another IN THE AIR!!***
Yes folks, this new device called an "airplane" was actually used by a member of the Linux Today staff. "You can buy a ticket online using your Linux operating system and your Mozilla web browser," said Dave Insight. "I've been using these for a few weeks now and I really think it will revolutionize travel."
Dave believes that the ability to use Linux to "book" a "reservation" to fly on one of these wonder machines puts it head and shoulders above other operating systems. "We know Microsoft will try to copy this but the offering of cool services like Expedia on Linux just cant be matched by those guys in Redmond."
Yeah, people do this all the time. They weigh the cost of a lawsuit with the cost of buckeling under.
We'd all prefer it if eveyone were to fight the good fight, but most of us buckle at some point or another because we can't all fight every fight that comes our way. We'd be too bloody to go on.
This guy is a business man. He wants to keep his customers in business too. He's paid his protection money so his store and his customers' stores don't get firebombed. We should pitty him instead of vilifying him.
It's this kind of attitude that lets our police get away with so much crap. I'm tired at giving the police the benefit of the doubt while they stomp on our rights.
I _am_ having a LAN party this weekend at my apartment and a) I didn't know which game to play b) I didn't think I'd be able to make use of my Linux box or my GFs Powerbook.
Now I got both the game and two more computers to use.
My understanding was that there was a big push to put them on individual items. I seem to recall razors and clothing being mentioned as potential items with individual RFIDs either in the packaging or actually woven into the fabric. My understanding was that Wal-mart would use this not only for recieving goods, but also for inventory of goods on the shelf, possibly even with smart shelves.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, we do.
TW
I love the comparison to a fake Harvard degree.
Let's say I became a fake priest in a fake religion based on my fake doctorate from a fake Harvard and I was given a fake Rolex for my "graduation". Lets say I used my fake position to perform fake 24-hour weddings for real prostitutes and their Johns.
Would I have the right to bitch if the real Harvard started performing 24-hour weddings too, but they did them legitimately? I could certainly whine all I wanted to, but that doesn't mean anyone has to listen.
TW
I think that in this context "dead" means "not the market leader". These are the same folks who pitty IBM because "they died in the PC market". I'm sure IBM hates being dead since [start extreme sarcasm filter} they don't make any money on processors, hard drives, laptops or servers.
TW
Of course you're right that she was not conviced to actual insider trading. But the justice that she was convicted of obstructing was a securities fraud investigation and the fraud type that was being investigated was insider trading. She was also convicted of lying about her role in the fraud that was being investigated.
Calling it an insider trading conviction may be technically inaccurate, but I don't think its stretching the truth either.
TW
A lot of people have been doing a lot of comparing of what antitrust means because the concept is kind of difficult for many people to grasp.
You refer to Killing of Competition, which has some accuracy, but I prefer the comparison to what Marth Stewart was convicted of, Insider Trading.
I prefer this comparison because most people instantly understand insider trading; a person has special knowledge others don't have and can't have and they use it as an unfair advantage.
MS has used its "insider" position to do things that others can't to give it an unfair advantage. They've advertised where others can't (on the desktop for MSN) made their instalations easier than others can(Can't be easier than the media player being built-in) and they've steadfastly refused to let others share their advantages (licenses forbid others from preinstalling their software in the same way).
In fact MS is worse than Martha because the insider knowledge that gave Martha an advantage was made public the very next day; MS has fought long hard battles to keep their advantages from ever being made public. Martha has a felony conviction and will likely face prison time for her crime even though it was only a one-day advantage, but MS argues that they should be able to keep their advantage forever with no repercussions.
Martha is an individual and MS is a corporation so the remedies for this kind of broken law are, and should be different. But the intensity should be, the same. MS should get the equivilant of being behind bars for their crime and a Billion Euros doesn't even come close.
TW
Thank you.
People have so little sense of perspective.
The sort of people worried about contaminating a planet-sized body with a meters-long probe are the same sort of people who argue evolution can't possibly take place (in our universe of trillions of stars) because it's statistacally "one in a million".
TW
So, if I run a RAM disk on my SD card then what category do I get?
If I manage to make a spinning media HD of the same physical size but it holds more data does it get marked down as "smallest" or "largest" or "largest smallest"?
If I'm driving the speed of light and turn on my headlights do I get "fastest car", "slowest light" or most "expensive ticket"?
TW
You're right, people don't view fairness the same way.
But when a massive corporation that only exists for profit decides that it's not fair for me to make personal use of the property I already bought, then I'll take a chance with my version being the better one.
Hint from the Parks case: Bullies only win in the short run.
TW
Or we could just forget what's legal and simply do what's fair.
It was fair, though not legal, for Rosa Parks to sit in the front of the bus.
It was fair, though not legal in many states, for gay people ot have intimate relationships.
It's fair, though possibly not legal, for me to play my legaly purchased games from any media I choose on any platform I choose.
When we start doing what is legal instead of what is fair then we lose our most basic right and one that's not even in the constitution; our right to do no more or less than we would have done to ourselves. When we do what's fair then we might lose in the short term, but everyone wins in the long run.
TW
Nothing like good old ASCII art porn. In color no less with ANSI art. Yes, there's noting like a geek in heat to push the envelope of eye-squinting hottness.
TW
See the reply above referring to the Do Not Call list. The Do Not Spam was moments behind it because reps saw which side their bread was really buttered on.
It's like this:
-Businesses get money into re-election funds which indirectly leads to votes.
-The populous actually does the voting.
-If you were currying favor for re-election, which would you rather have on your side?
I think the DNC and DNS acts are models for future law. They're simple, direct, and they protect people from over-zealous business practices that make our lives hell.
But it's time for more. Why not have constitutional amendments that puts ownership in clear focus?
Why not something like: "Any product sold to an end consumer (including any business that is the end-consumer of a product) will not be burdened by stipulation on use that are more restrictive than current intellectual property law and no licenses shall be enforceable on the consumer level if they have limitations that are more restrictive than current intellectual property law." The GPL is protected (it gives you rights above copyright and is not more restrictive) but most EULAs are void. Great!
And how about this one: "Any end consumer of a product (including any business that is the end-consumer of a product) that is purchased or licensed shall have the right to modify the product in any way that does not contradict current intellectual property law, including, but not limited to, removing any physical or logical restrictions on legal use." Bingo, DMCA no longer applies to "fair use".
I could go on. Basically it's time to remove this rat's nest of restrictions by stipulating that businesses _can't_ restrict your use of something they sell or license to you. Of course we don't want to burden regular business contracts in the process, but business need to stop thinking of us consumers as having business contracts and start realizing, once again, that we _purchase_ products that we _own_.
TW
I especially love watching a DVD that's a couple of years old and it has ads for some product that isn't even available anymore. Like a limited release Disney title or a theater release of a long-gone flick. Now you're stuck watching the ad AND YOU CAN'T EVEN BUY THE PRODUCT.
I think they should stop worrying about gay marriage and start ammending the constitution with some basic consumer protections. Now that's something you'll get a 75% vote for.
TW
By some amazing coincedence I downloaded it earlier in the week. I got everything working alright, but I considered the quality of the video to be quite low.
Then I started playing with the settings...
Bottom line: Mikey likes it. I haven't played with everything yet, but on a very high setting grabbing a recent movie on HBO from my digital cable box the video quality is nearly as good as a DVD. Certainly much better than sending the S-Video directly into my monitor (I have a high-end Mitsubishi).
It's definately worth fiddling with if you want a high-quality feed. It was not and is not pain free, but if you're willing to endure then I believe it will pay off for you.
TW
You are probably right. Of note is the fact that the domain name was registered to the developer and the site included notification that it belonged to his company.
However...
A reasonable person could consider the act of "building a web site for someone else" to be a gift of the site rather than just a gift of the developer's server space. For example, lets say he wrote software for use in the police department rather than building a website. He said, "I'm writing this software for you as a public service and I don't want monitary compensation." Is it clear in this case that the developer owns the software?
Basically you need to consider whether this is "work for hire" or "original authorship with a limited use license". In the first case, the sherif's department owns the site. In the second case it's owned by the developer. Neither story really makes this clear. It's definately not clear to the parties involved. All they really agree on is that something was donated, but until the figure out exactly what that was then we wont be able to determine the proper outcome of the case.
TW
They do appear to contradict about the money, but it doesn't really matter.
All that matters is who you believe owns the site.
If you believe the designer/operator owned the site then there is no extortion, regardless of what amount he asked for and when he asked for it. It was his to do with as he pleased.
If you believe the sheriff's department owned the site and the designer/operator threatened to keep the contents and the domain name unless he got money (regardless of how much or when he asked for it) then the extortion charges are approriate.
It doesn't matter if the guy is a jerk or not. It doesn't matter if he asked for a reasonable amount or not. All that matters is whether the site was his or theirs.
TW
C3PO's great, great, great grandfather.
"sounds like a sexist joke"
I was in dismay as I read this. Basically you can change anything cosmetic but you can't change anything substanttive. I wracked my brain to think up any other product that's gone this route and finally found one: Windows.
You can chage the wallpaper, but you can't change the web browser. You can change the system font, but you can't upgrade the kernel.
I tried to think of what this all means and then it suddenly struck me. Of course, it's right in the aritcle! Windows was designed by women for women.
Now that I understand the Windows niche I can take real action in my life. The girlfriend will get my old Windows machine ("honey, what did you do with my Mac?") and I'm getting the real OS designed by men for men. It may look like crap, but I know I can change any file with complete confidence. Thank god for MS-DOS, the real-mans operating system.
TW
BTW, I've had one of these for more than a year now. My company had it's predecessor for more than 2 years before that. The fact that it works with Linux should not be much of a surprise for anyone who realizes that Linux does, and pretty much always has, supported mice on the PS/2 port.
TW
"I tought this is an old product. Friend of mine has it. Fry's electronics carries it."
Did your friend use Linux? Did he write about it in a Linux publication? How on Earth can you expect Slashdot to notice it if it wasn't used for Linux?
*** brand new device that lets you move from one place to another IN THE AIR!!***
Yes folks, this new device called an "airplane" was actually used by a member of the Linux Today staff. "You can buy a ticket online using your Linux operating system and your Mozilla web browser," said Dave Insight. "I've been using these for a few weeks now and I really think it will revolutionize travel."
Dave believes that the ability to use Linux to "book" a "reservation" to fly on one of these wonder machines puts it head and shoulders above other operating systems. "We know Microsoft will try to copy this but the offering of cool services like Expedia on Linux just cant be matched by those guys in Redmond."
In next weeks Linux today:
Fire
The Wheel
All on Linux!!!
_Finally_ someone who understands statistics!
TW
Yeah, people do this all the time. They weigh the cost of a lawsuit with the cost of buckeling under.
We'd all prefer it if eveyone were to fight the good fight, but most of us buckle at some point or another because we can't all fight every fight that comes our way. We'd be too bloody to go on.
This guy is a business man. He wants to keep his customers in business too. He's paid his protection money so his store and his customers' stores don't get firebombed. We should pitty him instead of vilifying him.
TW
It's this kind of attitude that lets our police get away with so much crap. I'm tired at giving the police the benefit of the doubt while they stomp on our rights.
TW
This is a funny.
I _am_ having a LAN party this weekend at my apartment and a) I didn't know which game to play b) I didn't think I'd be able to make use of my Linux box or my GFs Powerbook.
Now I got both the game and two more computers to use.
THANK YOU GOD!
My understanding was that there was a big push to put them on individual items. I seem to recall razors and clothing being mentioned as potential items with individual RFIDs either in the packaging or actually woven into the fabric. My understanding was that Wal-mart would use this not only for recieving goods, but also for inventory of goods on the shelf, possibly even with smart shelves.
TW