Not a good thing, but it's not law yet. You still have time to write your congresscritters.
And I see it's tagged "democrats." I find the party's support of the copyright lobby to be rather dismaying, but let's not ignore the fact that more than half of the Republicans on the committee also voted in favor. They're all willing to suck off the media companies, cause most people don't really know enough to care, and most of those that do just bitch about on slashdot.
The exchange insists the problem was connectivity, not the trading platform.
Not to sound overly cynical, but I'd hardly expect them to acknowledge the problem if it were the trading platform that was the issue. That'd kind of be business suicide.
Part of the advantage MS gets from this is that they can now sell their software to organizations that require open document format specs. So even if you don't want to use OOXML, you local government might (and likely will - it's not like they'll stop buying office licenses, particularly if they can get around the open format law in this way).
Of course, I've you've ever seen an ISO-9001:2000 certified process, you probably already know how completely meaningless the specs and certifications are in practical terms.
You're correct. Barring a completely unrealistic scenario, it'll take money and sophistication, and that's not something geeks are likely to do alone.
Why not start a PAC or 527 or whatever and hire some lobbying guns? I'll throw a couple hundred bucks at someone who'll fight the stupid copyright and patent laws in an effective way.
You do realize that a big part of refactoring is discarding things, right? And that there were multiple steps along the way to Vista?
It made a lot of sense to keep DOS when moving to Windows initially because there was a huge base of existing software. Should MS have completely given up that market just to have a pure design that would satisfy someone like yourself?
Just because they did the refactoring wrong, or didn't do it all the way when it needed it, doesn't mean that refactoring wasn't the right thing.
Provided they tell you that up front. Not telling you and still capping your service is most charitably considered sleazy and is hopefully something they could get sued/prosecuted for.
And what about the screwing around with P2P traffic? Are they still going to do that and pretend that they aren't?
Really, people say this, but don't appear to understand what that means, with respect to the legal ramifications.
Apple doesn't have a dominant position in its market. In terms of computer sales in Q2 08, they're 3-4 times smaller than HP or Dell. In terms of OS sales they're way behind Microsoft. In terms of monopolistic behavior, there's no evidence of predatory pricing, limiting supply, or price gouging. They are tying their OS to the hardware, but that's not illegal nor can it be called monopolistic unless the company actually has a monopoly.
Apple licenses OS X for use on Apple hardware. That's the condition you accept in using it, and they're well within their rights to enforce that. You might not like that, but given how the law is written now, it's perfectly legal.
Yeah, I know; I wasn't so much citing the clear and present danger test as put forward by Holmes, as citing a familiar example of a clear place where the individual's right to free speech is necessarily subsumed to the greater concern for public safety. The two somehow get combined into a single thought in people's minds, however; there's another response to my original post that cites the Schenck case as the origin of the (misquoted) phrase, and manages to miss the point that the example embodied in that choice of phrase and it's use in the justification of a bad court ruling are separate issues.
Note, too, that the practical example of (falsely) shouting fire in a crowded theater would still not be considered protected speech by the Imminent Lawless Action test.
Remember kids: every time someone uses this line to define the limits on free speech, they are hearkening back to rulings that undercut the very purpose of the 1st amendment.
Every time someone picks a single item from among several used to make a point and rests their entire argument on it, you should be skeptical.
I noticed that you didn't mention the more applicable end of things, i.e., courts enjoining speech pursuant to a lawsuit, of the larger issue that free speech rights aren't absolute in the US, and never have been.
Also, Schenck vs. US was a bad decision, and fairly un-American in my view. But what Holmes said "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic," is fundamentally reasonable, even if that justification wasn't appropriate to the case.
Grow up - your free speech rights aren't absolute.
There's the classic example of shouting fire in a crowded theater, for example. There's various laws against disclosing all kinds of information - medical records (go to a hospital, and you'll find signs in the elevators reminding staff to be careful when discussing patients), state secrets, etc.
And that's not getting into the realm of lawsuits. I mean, I could go on for hours about how you molest your children while smoking crack, but you can sue me for libel and I'll lose if I can't back up my claims. If you sign an NDA and then announce a press conference to disclose stuff covered under that NDA, I can get an injunction against you to prevent your holding that press conference.
In this case, the folks running the subway got an injunction to prevent the disclosure of the hack. And a judge looked at the evidence and decided that they didn't deserve a permanent injunction.
It's a rumor about Nvidia producing a commercial product they're not able to produce and sell without getting a much larger and more wealthy companies lawyers descending on them like a plague of locusts.
Is there really nothing else to post stories about?
Slashdot Mirror
Not a good thing, but it's not law yet. You still have time to write your congresscritters.
And I see it's tagged "democrats." I find the party's support of the copyright lobby to be rather dismaying, but let's not ignore the fact that more than half of the Republicans on the committee also voted in favor. They're all willing to suck off the media companies, cause most people don't really know enough to care, and most of those that do just bitch about on slashdot.
Yes, exactly. The fact is, denial doesn't mean anything one way or another.
Possibly. Of course, you could also just say "initial analysis indicated capacity, but it turned out to be software upon further examination."
The exchange insists the problem was connectivity, not the trading platform.
Not to sound overly cynical, but I'd hardly expect them to acknowledge the problem if it were the trading platform that was the issue. That'd kind of be business suicide.
Yeah, and at least you get a reliably shitty process each time, so that's something.
Part of the advantage MS gets from this is that they can now sell their software to organizations that require open document format specs. So even if you don't want to use OOXML, you local government might (and likely will - it's not like they'll stop buying office licenses, particularly if they can get around the open format law in this way).
Of course, I've you've ever seen an ISO-9001:2000 certified process, you probably already know how completely meaningless the specs and certifications are in practical terms.
Yes, it feels wonderful to be a grown up, thanks.
I don't take much pleasure in my victory over you, though: it was the intellectual equivalent of beating down a quadriplegic.
An excellent point. It does kill time while my batch processing jobs run, though.
Maybe, but I'm not completely convinced. I have my locale to en_US.UTF8 on my Gentoo machines and they're still markedly faster.
Stimmt.
I swear everything runs slower with Redhat compiled binaries, even basic shell utils like grep, sed, and awk.
You're correct. Barring a completely unrealistic scenario, it'll take money and sophistication, and that's not something geeks are likely to do alone.
Why not start a PAC or 527 or whatever and hire some lobbying guns? I'll throw a couple hundred bucks at someone who'll fight the stupid copyright and patent laws in an effective way.
You're not in software, are you?
And you're not smart enough to come up with a decent comeback. So I guess I still win.
You do realize that a big part of refactoring is discarding things, right? And that there were multiple steps along the way to Vista?
It made a lot of sense to keep DOS when moving to Windows initially because there was a huge base of existing software. Should MS have completely given up that market just to have a pure design that would satisfy someone like yourself?
Just because they did the refactoring wrong, or didn't do it all the way when it needed it, doesn't mean that refactoring wasn't the right thing.
Nope. I'm just a smarter programmer than you are.
Be smart enough to realize that, as is usually the case in software, starting from scratch is a waste of time.
Refactoring the existing structures to better suit current needs and eliminate bugs saves a lot of set up time and costs.
Dekujeme mockrat.
Provided they tell you that up front. Not telling you and still capping your service is most charitably considered sleazy and is hopefully something they could get sued/prosecuted for.
And what about the screwing around with P2P traffic? Are they still going to do that and pretend that they aren't?
Really, people say this, but don't appear to understand what that means, with respect to the legal ramifications.
Apple doesn't have a dominant position in its market. In terms of computer sales in Q2 08, they're 3-4 times smaller than HP or Dell. In terms of OS sales they're way behind Microsoft. In terms of monopolistic behavior, there's no evidence of predatory pricing, limiting supply, or price gouging. They are tying their OS to the hardware, but that's not illegal nor can it be called monopolistic unless the company actually has a monopoly.
Apple licenses OS X for use on Apple hardware. That's the condition you accept in using it, and they're well within their rights to enforce that. You might not like that, but given how the law is written now, it's perfectly legal.
Don't they know that giving an angry paraplegic a super powered robot exoskeleton is just a recipe for a murderous cyborg rampage?
Fucking idiots!
Yeah, I know; I wasn't so much citing the clear and present danger test as put forward by Holmes, as citing a familiar example of a clear place where the individual's right to free speech is necessarily subsumed to the greater concern for public safety. The two somehow get combined into a single thought in people's minds, however; there's another response to my original post that cites the Schenck case as the origin of the (misquoted) phrase, and manages to miss the point that the example embodied in that choice of phrase and it's use in the justification of a bad court ruling are separate issues.
Note, too, that the practical example of (falsely) shouting fire in a crowded theater would still not be considered protected speech by the Imminent Lawless Action test.
Every time someone picks a single item from among several used to make a point and rests their entire argument on it, you should be skeptical.
I noticed that you didn't mention the more applicable end of things, i.e., courts enjoining speech pursuant to a lawsuit, of the larger issue that free speech rights aren't absolute in the US, and never have been.
Also, Schenck vs. US was a bad decision, and fairly un-American in my view. But what Holmes said "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic," is fundamentally reasonable, even if that justification wasn't appropriate to the case.
Grow up - your free speech rights aren't absolute.
There's the classic example of shouting fire in a crowded theater, for example. There's various laws against disclosing all kinds of information - medical records (go to a hospital, and you'll find signs in the elevators reminding staff to be careful when discussing patients), state secrets, etc.
And that's not getting into the realm of lawsuits. I mean, I could go on for hours about how you molest your children while smoking crack, but you can sue me for libel and I'll lose if I can't back up my claims. If you sign an NDA and then announce a press conference to disclose stuff covered under that NDA, I can get an injunction against you to prevent your holding that press conference.
In this case, the folks running the subway got an injunction to prevent the disclosure of the hack. And a judge looked at the evidence and decided that they didn't deserve a permanent injunction.
It's a rumor about Nvidia producing a commercial product they're not able to produce and sell without getting a much larger and more wealthy companies lawyers descending on them like a plague of locusts.
Is there really nothing else to post stories about?