...will probably be as easy to spend as the refunds for unwanted copies of Windows bundled with PC's.
Vendor: Here's your copy of Photoshop, how would you like to pay for it sir, cash or credit card.
Me: Well I've got these vouchers from Microsoft.
Vendor: Like I said sir cash or credit card.
Well, would you accept a promisory note from Microsoft? So, if the vouchers aint worth much, what does the new deal amount to. It's just give stuff to schools. New deal, same as the old deal, just dressed up in the hope that they can sneak it past the court.
This smart guy has everybody figured out - they are slaves of their childhood training, not liberated minds like ol' Boomer here.
If this were true, only stupid or unreflective people would believe in and all smart people would believe the same things about stuff like UFOs and a lot of other "debatable" issues.
False, if people's always followed the beliefs of their parents then variation in belief would remain constant across generations, regardless of how insightful and reflective individuals are.
And the problem is that is just patently not true. The list of people far more intelligent than me and (I'll intuit from your ill-considered response) you, BoomerBuddy, who also believe in some aspect of spirituality, goes on and on. Great writers, politicians, mathematicians, logicians, and scientists can be found among the ranks of believers of various creeds.
The fact that great minds can be found among those of all faiths and none, might perhaps indicate that intelligence has a low corelation with faith. Also the fact that people tend to have belief systems similar to their parents might indicate that upbringing has a high corelation with faith.
But I'm sick of people that treat science like the end-all be-all of human reason with a dogmatism that would do the least reflective religious zealot they despise proud and seem incapable of grasping that there are wider philosophical issues (like consciousness, free will and morality) that science has little or no grasp on - and which metaphysical and spiritual disciplines provide sophisticated and elegant treatments of.
Consciousness and free will might yet prove to be subject to empirical investigation, though I don't see it happening any time soon. As for morality I'm sick of people that think that their brand of metaphysical and spiritual 'discipline' provides the answer to all moral questions and that I as an atheist can not be a moral being. Morality and uncertainty go hand in hand.
I don't need your sympathy for my beliefs, which I maintain and practice with my eyes wide open, and with my intellect, doubt, skepticism, spirit of inquiry and open mind intact. It's an attitude you would do well to work on, because if the history of science is any indication, a whole bunch of the stuff you believe in is wrong.
I've news for you people are irrational you and me included. I've no doubt that much of what I believe in is wrong, I doubt that in general I am "sceptical, inquiring or open minded" though I am capable of being so. You see I have learned that I am only human and hence subject to all the vices and failings that I see in others.
Hi, I hope that I didn't say anything in my original post that sounded in any way judgemental of you. I was actually concerned that others (eg social services) might judge you, political correctness sometimes over rides taking account of the practical realities of any given situation. This can often happen when people are dealing with autism on an occasional basis. The way that people with autism view the world is so alien to most of us that people often make the mistake of projecting their concerns on to the autistic individual. For instance in the organisation my wife works for great emphasis is placed on respecting a persons privacy and including them in the community. These concerns may be correct for some individual but for some the desire to ensure that these rights are respected can lead to practices which do more harm than good.
My point is that in order to make decisions on how to manage an individual with autism one needs not only knowledge of the condition, but a lot of detailed knowledge of the individual and their environment. There is no way on earth that I would broadcast that level of detail about myself and my family on Slashdot, and I expect you feel the same way. Given that all slashdotters can do is throw ideas into the ring and hope that one of them can be of use.
In that spirit can I make another suggestion? You originally posed the problem as one of having locked doors that open for certain individuals but not for another. How about turning the problem around, could you lock all doors apart from one which your five and nine year old could use. If the eight year old would take to wearing a bracelet it could be used to trigger a lock on the door so that only he couldn't use it. You would then be able to take him out other doors in the normal manner. It might even be possible to construct a bracelet that looks like a piece of jewelery, or a watch.
They were proven guilty of using their monopoly illegally, not of violating Sendo's intellectual property. Until they are, they are innocent.
No, until proven found in a court one is innocent in the eyes of the law. Actual guilt or innocence is a matter of fact and entirely independent of a courts findings. Any individual, not involved in the legal process, is entitled to their opinions on the matter of actual guilt or innocence. A finding of not guilty in the court does not prevent an individual from expressing an opinion that a person was actually guilty. Think of the OJ trial and the subsequent civil trial.
You have my sympathy, my wife is a professional in the field of autism and I realise how wearing it can be for the parents of children with autism. However I'm not sure that locks are the answer. While I can see the attraction, and probably the need for such a system, I worry that the authorities and social services might not. A possible alternative might be the type of sensor system that they use for store security. If you could get your son to wear a tag then you would be alerted when he leaves the house, and be able to take action accordingly.
If John Smith releases product Foo under the GPL. It becomes successful over a few years and Fred, Bob, Jay and Jake all submit changes.
Does John Smith still have the right to sell a license to the Bar company for $X? Somehow I don't think he does.
John Smith has the absolute right to sell the Bar company a GPL license for Foo, in order to sell it under any other license he needs the permission of the other contributors to the code. There is nothing to stop him from only accepting contibutions to his branch of Foo under the condition that contributors give him a right (license) to sell the code under another license in addition to the GPL. Of course he might have to negotiate a percentage of potential royalties for such an agreement, and many potential contrbutors might not want to be part of a such a deal, but that's business.
If John Smith wants to sell on the code for without agreement well tough. He should of been open about his intentions in the first place. He still has the right to sell on his own parts of the code under any license he chooses, and he could sell his services to a company that wishes to implement a similar product. It's the code that's copyrighted not the design.
What they don't want is for that research to have been released under the GPL such that the work is now potentially tainted by other people's contributions such that they cannot legally buy rights to it from the research group without putting themselves at risk to turn over the work that they created.
It's code that's GPL'd not research, they would still be able to study the technology. Surely you're not saying that Microsoft lack the capabilty to write their own code, though evidence from their attempts to write their own TCP/IP stack might suggest that you're right.
You don't seem to understand that this debate has nothing at all whatsoever to do with money. Money is a symptom, not the disease.
No money is the disease, and closed source is the disease. The purpose of closed source is to increase the customer's reliance on a particular vendor so that the vendor can increase their revenue stream. The GPL protects customers, including Microsoft, from being so reliant.
They're simply concerned that technologies will be chosen as standards which are not available to everybody on reasonable terms.
Standards and code are not the same thing, just because there is a GPL implementation of a standard it does not mean that someone else can not produce another implementation of that standard and license it how they choose.
People on/. complain endlessly about patents being inserted into open standards. The reasoning is the same, the licensing terms conflict with your chosen business model.
You confound the effect of patented technology with the effect of copyrighted code. Copyrighted code does not prevent another implementation of the same technology, patents do precisely that.
Well the GPL conflicts with Microsoft's business model, and there is no denying that... the GPL was designed specifically to conflict.
No GPL'd code competes with Microsoft code in the market place, and that is what Microsoft can't stand.
You want the same things, just two different sides of the coin. If you'd quit whining about how evil Microsoft is you'd probably realize this and could work together to establish it.
Microsoft want open source freely redistributable code and open standards? Have you been smoking crack?
But as long as you keep fighting Microsoft, they are going to fight back. You try to force source code to be released under the GPL, then Microsoft is going to patent things to prevent you from using them.
Microsoft want total domination and they will use patents, lobbying, forced buyouts, lies, and whatever else it takes to achieve that end. They want all competing product to go away, that is why they despise the GPL, because successful GPL'd products tend not to go away.
If the system files are lost, I can easily restore them, eg. make installworld
Spoken like a true geek, my hat's of to you sir.
If all my personal files are lost, I've got a big problem if they've changed since my last backup.
That's the trouble with geeks, they forget about the real world. You and I may have several machines each, but in more typical workplaces and homes it is several users per machine. It may be of little comfort to the person that just lost their files by running a malicious script, that they have not brought down the entire system. However those that share the system with them will be glad of the separation between accounts.
Re:Logitech leaving out us Lefties!
on
Hardware Bytes
·
· Score: 1
I always hated mice, then I got one of these for a laptop. What a revelation, I find small mice much more comfortable than the more usual rat sized things. You can rest the heel of your hand on the desk, and manipulate the mouse between your thumb and pinkie. No more stiff shoulders after gaming sessions. These rodents are solidly built and reasonably priced. I now have one on every machine I use.
WYSIWIG HTML editor is an oxymoron. Since it is the browser and not the editor that determines how html is presented, and browsers vary no editor can preview how a document will look.
If that were true, then I would have been hit by one in the last 5 years that I've used it.
Not necessarily, it depends on how clued in you and those that send you email are. I'm guessing that you and your coworkers are reasonably savvy and that you run virus scanners. If you check the link I gave in my last post you'll find a link to advice on securing Outlook.
Accuse me of spreading fud if you like,
I'm not accusing you of being an astroturfer. What I am saying is that Outlook is at least as dangerous as its cut down brother, and that anyone who thinks they get better security by using the more expensive product is mistaken. What they buy is more functionality and not better engineering. You used the terms b.s. and FUD, I repeated them to indicate that I thought you were presenting misinformation, albeit unwittingly. We all repeat falsehoods sometimes.
I have nothing to gain here but the affection of AC trolls by saying anything even remotely positive about a Microsoft product.
I have absolutely no doubt that you are sincere, just that you are mistaken on one point.
I use Outlook 2000 (no, not express, so spare me the virus bs.)
I'm afraid it is you that is spreading FUD and b.s. - Outlook is at least as prone to viruses as is Outlook Express. Here is a list of viruses that you thought you were immune from.
By this philosophy, it would be impossible for companies to develop any new products.
Balderdash! It might change the way companies operate, but to say "it would be impossible for companies to develop any new products," is pure hyperbole. Besides, what are we talking about in this case, we're talking about a box shifters latest offering. Any time I buy a PC I know that not only will it be superseded by better produccts within a month, I also have a pretty clear idea of what will be available in three months time, that hasn't stopped me buying three new PC's this year. Of course PC's are a competitive market with different manufacturers competing, this keeps the price low. If I was in the market for a mac I wouldn't be able to shop around for the best deal, Apple have patents and copyrights that lock out all competition, the information in question would be of little or any use to other computer manufacturers.
In this case Apple wished to keep secret the details of a machine that was already developed. Why, so they could sell of old stock at full price, they could do this bacause there is no competition for macs. Consider what would happen if the products in question were shares rather than computers. Selling shares when you are privy to information that the value of these shares is about to be dramatically decreased, and that information is not available to potential purchasers of these shares is a crime it's called insider dealing. Think about it, why should market manipulation by stock traders be a crime, but market manipulation by retailers and manufacturers not be?
I agree - in fact it is your duty to report any illegal activities. But that should be reported to the authorities, not splattered all over half a dozen web sites before you get around to actually providing that pesky thing called proof.
If I have the proof I tell the press to protect the public. If I don't have the proof then I open myself to being sued for libel or slander and get what I deserve.
Ah, but was it illegal?
False advertising and misrepresentation of goods are illegal in most places.
But no matter the situation, taking confidental information that you promised to cover up and posting it on the web is wrong. I don't give a damn about your opinion, or your morals, or even the complete lack of ethics that 80% of these companies have. Its illegal for now. If you don't like it, then lobby to have the law changed. Until then, I say sign on the dotted line and live up to your oaths.
I agree that any specific information that I agree to keep secret I ought to keep secret, but as I said the problem with the NDA's that companies impose on employees is that they are too broad and open ended and it is the company that gets to define what information is secret. Such one sided contracts are uneforceable in some jurisdictions, and rightly so in my opinion. However, there is a further problem with NDA's that is that the can be used to hide information from the public that the public ought to be aware of. My argument was, (and perhaps I should have made it clearer), that NDA's ought to be enforceable for legitimate trade secrets but that the scope of NDA's and what they may cover should be restricted by law. I am arguing for a change in the law, I am arguing that the law should follow the ethical position I layed out.
I don't care what sort of Stallmanistic view of society you have, you cannot possibly believe that somebody should be allowed to sign an agreement, and then break it because they feel that "information should be free".
There are times when an employee ought to be able to break a NDA with impunity. When a company is behaving in a manner that is illegal or unethical a whistle-blower should have the protection of the law. Further when a company behaves in a manner that is illegal it could be argued that the employee has a legal duty to break any NDA that would involve them in a conspiracy "to pervert the course of justice," (at least that's the legal term that would be used in the UK).
Take an extreme and fictitous example, a food company uses a secret ingredient and has all its employees sign a NDA to preserve the secrecy of that ingredient. An employee discovers that the secret ingredient is rat poison, what should they do? I would say the should report it to the authorities and the press, and the company should not have recourse to law through the NDA.
The point I am trying to make here is that NDA's should be valid when they are used to protect trade secrets, and that the term trade secret should be strictly defined such that it covers knowledge that gives a company a competitive advantage over rival companies but not knowledge that a customer needs to make an informed choice about the value of that companies product.
One problem with the NDA's that employees are asked to sign is that they are over broad and it is the company that gets to define which pieces of information are secret. NDA's are open ended and one sided contracts.
Consider an old practice of IBM. They used to sell printers with a switch that changed the speed of the printer hidden inside the printer. They sold upgrades to these printers that involved an engineer visiting the customer's premises snd flicking the switch when the customer wasn't looking. Pure and simple IBM used secrecy to rip off customers. Trade secret or sharp practice?
Now consider the case in question? The information apple wanted to cover up was the fact that now wasn't the time to buy one of their machines. They didn't want their customers to be able to make an informed choice about when to buy. The information wasn't of a nature that would allow a rival to improve their product or make their product more efficiently. I don't see this as a legitimate area for NDA's to cover.
Cool photo under the glass doesn't work and if the photo is glossy the chances are it won't be too useful on top of the glass either. I settled for just using a bit paper which doubles as a scratch pad. I still like optical mice though, I always hated having to degunge the old ball and roller mice.
Re:How closely are the casino's being watched?
on
Net Vegas
·
· Score: 2, Informative
This does not mean that if you have $100, you will walk away with $98, especially if you insist on betting all $100 on one throw. What it means is that over a statistically significant period of time, your wins and losses combined will relieve you (and everyone else participating in that game) of about 2% of your cash.
I think you've explained that badly, it sounds like your saying that if you have $100 and play blackjack you can expect, on average, to walk away with $98. The 2% take refers to the total amount betted not the your initial bankroll. So, if you always bet $2 you can expect to be $2 down after 50 games, and to have lost all your $100 after 2500 games.
That's an oversimplification on my part but basically the lower the house take the longer it takes for you to lose all your money. You still lose it all in the end. As you say though, with the right perspective you can lose your money and have fun. You're paying for taking part in the game and using the facilities provided by the house.
Guns are not a useful means of self defense in planes with pressurised cabins. The truth is that the passengers on the ill fated flights of 9/11 were not denied their right to self defense. They had the numbers to overpower the hijackers, and could have done so with less risk than would have been the case had both sides had guns. That they didn't do so probably reflects that at the time they couldn't know that the risks of not tackling the aggressors were greater than the risks of tackling them.
Given the same situation today it is likely that the passengers would overpower the terrorists, even if the terrorists had guns and passengers did not. Prior to 9/11 it was unimaginable that the plane would have been used as a flying bomb, now people are aware of the danger and will act accordingly. Knowledge is the essential weapon needed to preserve liberty, guns are an irrelevance.
Let me see now, Hollywood produces a product say a film on DVD and charges a price I am unwilling to pay, so I don't. However I would like to see the film, so I borrow the a copy from a friend called Sam. After watching the film I realise my other friend Joe would probably enjoy the film so I make a copy, return the original to Sam, and give the copy to joe. Note, Hollywood has been nowhere involved since they sold the original to Sam. So, this is alright then?
Well no it isn't, because of the copyright system. Copyright is a system which prevents some transactions in order to enforce others. In this case if Joe wants to see the film he must either borrow a legal copy or buy a copy from Hollywood.
Now consider technologies like DRM. Suppose Sam had not bought a DVD but downloaded it from the internet. He does this legally by paying Hollywood a sum of money to gain the right to obtain a copy of the film. He gets a copy of the film but it can only be played back on his computer so he can't lend me a copy. Now if I or Joe want to see the Film we are forced to buy a copy.
The purpose of copyright is to 'unilaterally force a transaction'. Copyright creates artificial scarcity by creating a monopoly supply of a given work. The artificial scarcity that copyright creates enables institutions like Hollywood to demand prices that are much higher than those the could obtain in a free market. That's fine by me, after all in a free market the price of a product that can be copied approaches zero, and artists are unable to make a living from their work.
I support the idea that artists should me able to make a living, art (including films) is important. What I do not support is the notion that the people that the people who control the artificial monopolies crated by copyright laws should be able to abuse the legal privelege they are given in order to gather excessive wealth. When they do abuse this privelege it is our right to withdraw it.
of course many people'll pull that "Oh what does Hollywood need more money for" shit. Well, it's not really your place to decide that Hollywood shouldn't get money for something it paid to make
That's your opinion and in a democracy you ought to have the freedom to express it. However, in a democracy it is the right of the people to decide what ever they feel like deciding, and if they decide that Hollywood shouldn't get so much money for something they paid to make that's the way it should be. After all Hollywood's ability to make money depends on the extrodinary legal privilege of copyright, and in a democracy the way to hang on to such priveleges is not to abuse them, because whether you like it or not it is precisely the people's place to make such decisions.
She's referring to Microsoft's monopoly of target platforms for developers. That is the reason Microsoft sought to undermine Java and Netscape was to prevent developers being able to target API's other than the Windows API. Both she and the government have chosen to adopt an unreasonably narrow interpretation of the findings of fact.
They were able to do this because though Judge Jackson, in the original findings of fact, described in great detail how Microsoft extended their monopoly from the operting system market to the browser market he failed to say explicitly that they had used one monopoly to obtain another.
Basically it's the sort of schoolboy sophistry that lawyers are duty bound to indulge in when presenting a case, and that politicians use to justify their lies. It's the sort of thing that honest and courageous judges shun, but that craven and corrupt judges will indulge in to avoid their decisions being overturned.
Consider this finding of Judge Jackson:
384. Although the suspicion lingers, the evidence is insufficient to find that Microsoft's ambition is a future in which most or all of the content available on the Web would be accessible only through its own browsing software. The evidence does, however, reveal an intent to ensure that if and when full-featured, server-based applications begin appearing in large numbers on the Web, the number of them relying solely on middleware APIs (such as those exposed by Navigator) will be too few to attenuate the applications barrier to entry.
Now consider Kollar-Kotelly's stipulation that any API's relating to DRM can be kept hidden. In other words developers will be hindered in the development of applications that can read files intended to be rendered by Windows Media Player or Microsoft Reader. Kollar-Kotelly has given them carte-blanche to further extend their monopoly into the playback of copy protected media. Thus not only does the settlement fail to tackle the originally abusive API monopoly, nor to remedy the extension of that monopoly to web browsers, but it specifically invites Microsoft to further extend their monopoly.
Slashdot Mirror
...will probably be as easy to spend as the refunds for unwanted copies of Windows bundled with PC's.
Vendor: Here's your copy of Photoshop, how would you like to pay for it sir, cash or credit card.
Me: Well I've got these vouchers from Microsoft.
Vendor: Like I said sir cash or credit card.
Well, would you accept a promisory note from Microsoft? So, if the vouchers aint worth much, what does the new deal amount to. It's just give stuff to schools. New deal, same as the old deal, just dressed up in the hope that they can sneak it past the court.
The plural of "bacteria" is actually not "bacterium," but rather "bacterii" (analogous to "virii").
Bullshitii
Bacteria is the plural of bacterium.
This smart guy has everybody figured out - they are slaves of their childhood training, not liberated minds like ol' Boomer here.
If this were true, only stupid or unreflective people would believe in and all smart people would believe the same things about stuff like UFOs and a lot of other "debatable" issues.
False, if people's always followed the beliefs of their parents then variation in belief would remain constant across generations, regardless of how insightful and reflective individuals are.
And the problem is that is just patently not true. The list of people far more intelligent than me and (I'll intuit from your ill-considered response) you, BoomerBuddy, who also believe in some aspect of spirituality, goes on and on. Great writers, politicians, mathematicians, logicians, and scientists can be found among the ranks of believers of various creeds.
The fact that great minds can be found among those of all faiths and none, might perhaps indicate that intelligence has a low corelation with faith. Also the fact that people tend to have belief systems similar to their parents might indicate that upbringing has a high corelation with faith.
But I'm sick of people that treat science like the end-all be-all of human reason with a dogmatism that would do the least reflective religious zealot they despise proud and seem incapable of grasping that there are wider philosophical issues (like consciousness, free will and morality) that science has little or no grasp on - and which metaphysical and spiritual disciplines provide sophisticated and elegant treatments of.
Consciousness and free will might yet prove to be subject to empirical investigation, though I don't see it happening any time soon. As for morality I'm sick of people that think that their brand of metaphysical and spiritual 'discipline' provides the answer to all moral questions and that I as an atheist can not be a moral being. Morality and uncertainty go hand in hand.
I don't need your sympathy for my beliefs, which I maintain and practice with my eyes wide open, and with my intellect, doubt, skepticism, spirit of inquiry and open mind intact. It's an attitude you would do well to work on, because if the history of science is any indication, a whole bunch of the stuff you believe in is wrong.
I've news for you people are irrational you and me included. I've no doubt that much of what I believe in is wrong, I doubt that in general I am "sceptical, inquiring or open minded" though I am capable of being so. You see I have learned that I am only human and hence subject to all the vices and failings that I see in others.
Hi, I hope that I didn't say anything in my original post that sounded in any way judgemental of you. I was actually concerned that others (eg social services) might judge you, political correctness sometimes over rides taking account of the practical realities of any given situation. This can often happen when people are dealing with autism on an occasional basis. The way that people with autism view the world is so alien to most of us that people often make the mistake of projecting their concerns on to the autistic individual. For instance in the organisation my wife works for great emphasis is placed on respecting a persons privacy and including them in the community. These concerns may be correct for some individual but for some the desire to ensure that these rights are respected can lead to practices which do more harm than good.
My point is that in order to make decisions on how to manage an individual with autism one needs not only knowledge of the condition, but a lot of detailed knowledge of the individual and their environment. There is no way on earth that I would broadcast that level of detail about myself and my family on Slashdot, and I expect you feel the same way. Given that all slashdotters can do is throw ideas into the ring and hope that one of them can be of use.
In that spirit can I make another suggestion? You originally posed the problem as one of having locked doors that open for certain individuals but not for another. How about turning the problem around, could you lock all doors apart from one which your five and nine year old could use. If the eight year old would take to wearing a bracelet it could be used to trigger a lock on the door so that only he couldn't use it. You would then be able to take him out other doors in the normal manner. It might even be possible to construct a bracelet that looks like a piece of jewelery, or a watch.
Good luck.
They were proven guilty of using their monopoly illegally, not of violating Sendo's intellectual property. Until they are, they are innocent. No, until proven found in a court one is innocent in the eyes of the law. Actual guilt or innocence is a matter of fact and entirely independent of a courts findings. Any individual, not involved in the legal process, is entitled to their opinions on the matter of actual guilt or innocence. A finding of not guilty in the court does not prevent an individual from expressing an opinion that a person was actually guilty. Think of the OJ trial and the subsequent civil trial.
You have my sympathy, my wife is a professional in the field of autism and I realise how wearing it can be for the parents of children with autism. However I'm not sure that locks are the answer. While I can see the attraction, and probably the need for such a system, I worry that the authorities and social services might not. A possible alternative might be the type of sensor system that they use for store security. If you could get your son to wear a tag then you would be alerted when he leaves the house, and be able to take action accordingly.
If John Smith releases product Foo under the GPL. It becomes successful over a few years and Fred, Bob, Jay and Jake all submit changes.
Does John Smith still have the right to sell a license to the Bar company for $X? Somehow I don't think he does.
John Smith has the absolute right to sell the Bar company a GPL license for Foo, in order to sell it under any other license he needs the permission of the other contributors to the code. There is nothing to stop him from only accepting contibutions to his branch of Foo under the condition that contributors give him a right (license) to sell the code under another license in addition to the GPL. Of course he might have to negotiate a percentage of potential royalties for such an agreement, and many potential contrbutors might not want to be part of a such a deal, but that's business.
If John Smith wants to sell on the code for without agreement well tough. He should of been open about his intentions in the first place. He still has the right to sell on his own parts of the code under any license he chooses, and he could sell his services to a company that wishes to implement a similar product. It's the code that's copyrighted not the design.
What they don't want is for that research to have been released under the GPL such that the work is now potentially tainted by other people's contributions such that they cannot legally buy rights to it from the research group without putting themselves at risk to turn over the work that they created.
It's code that's GPL'd not research, they would still be able to study the technology. Surely you're not saying that Microsoft lack the capabilty to write their own code, though evidence from their attempts to write their own TCP/IP stack might suggest that you're right.
You don't seem to understand that this debate has nothing at all whatsoever to do with money. Money is a symptom, not the disease.
No money is the disease, and closed source is the disease. The purpose of closed source is to increase the customer's reliance on a particular vendor so that the vendor can increase their revenue stream. The GPL protects customers, including Microsoft, from being so reliant.
They're simply concerned that technologies will be chosen as standards which are not available to everybody on reasonable terms.
Standards and code are not the same thing, just because there is a GPL implementation of a standard it does not mean that someone else can not produce another implementation of that standard and license it how they choose.
People on /. complain endlessly about patents being inserted into open standards. The reasoning is the same, the licensing terms conflict with your chosen business model.
You confound the effect of patented technology with the effect of copyrighted code. Copyrighted code does not prevent another implementation of the same technology, patents do precisely that.
Well the GPL conflicts with Microsoft's business model, and there is no denying that... the GPL was designed specifically to conflict.
No GPL'd code competes with Microsoft code in the market place, and that is what Microsoft can't stand.
You want the same things, just two different sides of the coin. If you'd quit whining about how evil Microsoft is you'd probably realize this and could work together to establish it.
Microsoft want open source freely redistributable code and open standards? Have you been smoking crack?
But as long as you keep fighting Microsoft, they are going to fight back. You try to force source code to be released under the GPL, then Microsoft is going to patent things to prevent you from using them.
Microsoft want total domination and they will use patents, lobbying, forced buyouts, lies, and whatever else it takes to achieve that end. They want all competing product to go away, that is why they despise the GPL, because successful GPL'd products tend not to go away.
NineNine wrote: Where did you get 80.61%? It's closer to 96% on my site.
So, what's your point pron boy? Wankers prefer IE, that's not news, we already know your preferences.
If the system files are lost, I can easily restore them, eg. make installworld
Spoken like a true geek, my hat's of to you sir.
If all my personal files are lost, I've got a big problem if they've changed since my last backup.
That's the trouble with geeks, they forget about the real world. You and I may have several machines each, but in more typical workplaces and homes it is several users per machine. It may be of little comfort to the person that just lost their files by running a malicious script, that they have not brought down the entire system. However those that share the system with them will be glad of the separation between accounts.
I always hated mice, then I got one of these for a laptop. What a revelation, I find small mice much more comfortable than the more usual rat sized things. You can rest the heel of your hand on the desk, and manipulate the mouse between your thumb and pinkie. No more stiff shoulders after gaming sessions. These rodents are solidly built and reasonably priced. I now have one on every machine I use.
WYSIWIG HTML editor is an oxymoron. Since it is the browser and not the editor that determines how html is presented, and browsers vary no editor can preview how a document will look.
If that were true, then I would have been hit by one in the last 5 years that I've used it.
Not necessarily, it depends on how clued in you and those that send you email are. I'm guessing that you and your coworkers are reasonably savvy and that you run virus scanners. If you check the link I gave in my last post you'll find a link to advice on securing Outlook.
Accuse me of spreading fud if you like,
I'm not accusing you of being an astroturfer. What I am saying is that Outlook is at least as dangerous as its cut down brother, and that anyone who thinks they get better security by using the more expensive product is mistaken. What they buy is more functionality and not better engineering. You used the terms b.s. and FUD, I repeated them to indicate that I thought you were presenting misinformation, albeit unwittingly. We all repeat falsehoods sometimes.
I have nothing to gain here but the affection of AC trolls by saying anything even remotely positive about a Microsoft product.
I have absolutely no doubt that you are sincere, just that you are mistaken on one point.
I use Outlook 2000 (no, not express, so spare me the virus bs.)
I'm afraid it is you that is spreading FUD and b.s. - Outlook is at least as prone to viruses as is Outlook Express. Here is a list of viruses that you thought you were immune from.
USAF bombs South Africa in the mistaken belief that they are flying over Iraq.
By this philosophy, it would be impossible for companies to develop any new products. Balderdash! It might change the way companies operate, but to say "it would be impossible for companies to develop any new products," is pure hyperbole. Besides, what are we talking about in this case, we're talking about a box shifters latest offering. Any time I buy a PC I know that not only will it be superseded by better produccts within a month, I also have a pretty clear idea of what will be available in three months time, that hasn't stopped me buying three new PC's this year. Of course PC's are a competitive market with different manufacturers competing, this keeps the price low. If I was in the market for a mac I wouldn't be able to shop around for the best deal, Apple have patents and copyrights that lock out all competition, the information in question would be of little or any use to other computer manufacturers.
In this case Apple wished to keep secret the details of a machine that was already developed. Why, so they could sell of old stock at full price, they could do this bacause there is no competition for macs. Consider what would happen if the products in question were shares rather than computers. Selling shares when you are privy to information that the value of these shares is about to be dramatically decreased, and that information is not available to potential purchasers of these shares is a crime it's called insider dealing. Think about it, why should market manipulation by stock traders be a crime, but market manipulation by retailers and manufacturers not be?
I agree - in fact it is your duty to report any illegal activities. But that should be reported to the authorities, not splattered all over half a dozen web sites before you get around to actually providing that pesky thing called proof.
If I have the proof I tell the press to protect the public. If I don't have the proof then I open myself to being sued for libel or slander and get what I deserve.
Ah, but was it illegal?
False advertising and misrepresentation of goods are illegal in most places.
But no matter the situation, taking confidental information that you promised to cover up and posting it on the web is wrong. I don't give a damn about your opinion, or your morals, or even the complete lack of ethics that 80% of these companies have. Its illegal for now. If you don't like it, then lobby to have the law changed. Until then, I say sign on the dotted line and live up to your oaths.
I agree that any specific information that I agree to keep secret I ought to keep secret, but as I said the problem with the NDA's that companies impose on employees is that they are too broad and open ended and it is the company that gets to define what information is secret. Such one sided contracts are uneforceable in some jurisdictions, and rightly so in my opinion. However, there is a further problem with NDA's that is that the can be used to hide information from the public that the public ought to be aware of. My argument was, (and perhaps I should have made it clearer), that NDA's ought to be enforceable for legitimate trade secrets but that the scope of NDA's and what they may cover should be restricted by law. I am arguing for a change in the law, I am arguing that the law should follow the ethical position I layed out.
I don't care what sort of Stallmanistic view of society you have, you cannot possibly believe that somebody should be allowed to sign an agreement, and then break it because they feel that "information should be free".
There are times when an employee ought to be able to break a NDA with impunity. When a company is behaving in a manner that is illegal or unethical a whistle-blower should have the protection of the law. Further when a company behaves in a manner that is illegal it could be argued that the employee has a legal duty to break any NDA that would involve them in a conspiracy "to pervert the course of justice," (at least that's the legal term that would be used in the UK).
Take an extreme and fictitous example, a food company uses a secret ingredient and has all its employees sign a NDA to preserve the secrecy of that ingredient. An employee discovers that the secret ingredient is rat poison, what should they do? I would say the should report it to the authorities and the press, and the company should not have recourse to law through the NDA.
The point I am trying to make here is that NDA's should be valid when they are used to protect trade secrets, and that the term trade secret should be strictly defined such that it covers knowledge that gives a company a competitive advantage over rival companies but not knowledge that a customer needs to make an informed choice about the value of that companies product.
One problem with the NDA's that employees are asked to sign is that they are over broad and it is the company that gets to define which pieces of information are secret. NDA's are open ended and one sided contracts.
Consider an old practice of IBM. They used to sell printers with a switch that changed the speed of the printer hidden inside the printer. They sold upgrades to these printers that involved an engineer visiting the customer's premises snd flicking the switch when the customer wasn't looking. Pure and simple IBM used secrecy to rip off customers. Trade secret or sharp practice?
Now consider the case in question? The information apple wanted to cover up was the fact that now wasn't the time to buy one of their machines. They didn't want their customers to be able to make an informed choice about when to buy. The information wasn't of a nature that would allow a rival to improve their product or make their product more efficiently. I don't see this as a legitimate area for NDA's to cover.
Cool photo under the glass doesn't work and if the photo is glossy the chances are it won't be too useful on top of the glass either. I settled for just using a bit paper which doubles as a scratch pad. I still like optical mice though, I always hated having to degunge the old ball and roller mice.
This does not mean that if you have $100, you will walk away with $98, especially if you insist on betting all $100 on one throw. What it means is that over a statistically significant period of time, your wins and losses combined will relieve you (and everyone else participating in that game) of about 2% of your cash.
I think you've explained that badly, it sounds like your saying that if you have $100 and play blackjack you can expect, on average, to walk away with $98. The 2% take refers to the total amount betted not the your initial bankroll. So, if you always bet $2 you can expect to be $2 down after 50 games, and to have lost all your $100 after 2500 games.
That's an oversimplification on my part but basically the lower the house take the longer it takes for you to lose all your money. You still lose it all in the end. As you say though, with the right perspective you can lose your money and have fun. You're paying for taking part in the game and using the facilities provided by the house.
Guns are not a useful means of self defense in planes with pressurised cabins. The truth is that the passengers on the ill fated flights of 9/11 were not denied their right to self defense. They had the numbers to overpower the hijackers, and could have done so with less risk than would have been the case had both sides had guns. That they didn't do so probably reflects that at the time they couldn't know that the risks of not tackling the aggressors were greater than the risks of tackling them.
Given the same situation today it is likely that the passengers would overpower the terrorists, even if the terrorists had guns and passengers did not. Prior to 9/11 it was unimaginable that the plane would have been used as a flying bomb, now people are aware of the danger and will act accordingly. Knowledge is the essential weapon needed to preserve liberty, guns are an irrelevance.
Let me see now, Hollywood produces a product say a film on DVD and charges a price I am unwilling to pay, so I don't. However I would like to see the film, so I borrow the a copy from a friend called Sam. After watching the film I realise my other friend Joe would probably enjoy the film so I make a copy, return the original to Sam, and give the copy to joe. Note, Hollywood has been nowhere involved since they sold the original to Sam. So, this is alright then?
Well no it isn't, because of the copyright system. Copyright is a system which prevents some transactions in order to enforce others. In this case if Joe wants to see the film he must either borrow a legal copy or buy a copy from Hollywood.
Now consider technologies like DRM. Suppose Sam had not bought a DVD but downloaded it from the internet. He does this legally by paying Hollywood a sum of money to gain the right to obtain a copy of the film. He gets a copy of the film but it can only be played back on his computer so he can't lend me a copy. Now if I or Joe want to see the Film we are forced to buy a copy.
The purpose of copyright is to 'unilaterally force a transaction'. Copyright creates artificial scarcity by creating a monopoly supply of a given work. The artificial scarcity that copyright creates enables institutions like Hollywood to demand prices that are much higher than those the could obtain in a free market. That's fine by me, after all in a free market the price of a product that can be copied approaches zero, and artists are unable to make a living from their work.
I support the idea that artists should me able to make a living, art (including films) is important. What I do not support is the notion that the people that the people who control the artificial monopolies crated by copyright laws should be able to abuse the legal privelege they are given in order to gather excessive wealth. When they do abuse this privelege it is our right to withdraw it.
of course many people'll pull that "Oh what does Hollywood need more money for" shit. Well, it's not really your place to decide that Hollywood shouldn't get money for something it paid to make
That's your opinion and in a democracy you ought to have the freedom to express it. However, in a democracy it is the right of the people to decide what ever they feel like deciding, and if they decide that Hollywood shouldn't get so much money for something they paid to make that's the way it should be. After all Hollywood's ability to make money depends on the extrodinary legal privilege of copyright, and in a democracy the way to hang on to such priveleges is not to abuse them, because whether you like it or not it is precisely the people's place to make such decisions.
How on earth did she come to that conclusion?!
She's referring to Microsoft's monopoly of target platforms for developers. That is the reason Microsoft sought to undermine Java and Netscape was to prevent developers being able to target API's other than the Windows API. Both she and the government have chosen to adopt an unreasonably narrow interpretation of the findings of fact.
They were able to do this because though Judge Jackson, in the original findings of fact, described in great detail how Microsoft extended their monopoly from the operting system market to the browser market he failed to say explicitly that they had used one monopoly to obtain another.
Basically it's the sort of schoolboy sophistry that lawyers are duty bound to indulge in when presenting a case, and that politicians use to justify their lies. It's the sort of thing that honest and courageous judges shun, but that craven and corrupt judges will indulge in to avoid their decisions being overturned.
Consider this finding of Judge Jackson:
384. Although the suspicion lingers, the evidence is insufficient to find that Microsoft's ambition is a future in which most or all of the content available on the Web would be accessible only through its own browsing software. The evidence does, however, reveal an intent to ensure that if and when full-featured, server-based applications begin appearing in large numbers on the Web, the number of them relying solely on middleware APIs (such as those exposed by Navigator) will be too few to attenuate the applications barrier to entry.
Now consider Kollar-Kotelly's stipulation that any API's relating to DRM can be kept hidden. In other words developers will be hindered in the development of applications that can read files intended to be rendered by Windows Media Player or Microsoft Reader. Kollar-Kotelly has given them carte-blanche to further extend their monopoly into the playback of copy protected media. Thus not only does the settlement fail to tackle the originally abusive API monopoly, nor to remedy the extension of that monopoly to web browsers, but it specifically invites Microsoft to further extend their monopoly.
Damn that woman!
It's only a few deadbeats that give America a bad name.
Politicians, lawyers, and CEO's?
Thats even a more retarded statement! Man, you guys are in the running for the most ignorand and uneducated pro linux argument ever!
There are some times when you really don't want to make a typo.