" So how do you seperate religion and state if you don't actually get rid of religious clothes, artifacts or references to any religion, in the state run institutions?"
Separation of church and state means that the state doesn't endorse any particular religion. It has nothing to do with personal expression of religion by students, who are not representing the state in any way. How is an argument backed up by current events a straw man? It's a real case exemplifying censorship by the left that was mentioned by the parent, not me.
According to an article on CNN, Mike Rowe first proposed being compensated:"He wrote back asking to be compensated for giving up his name. Microsoft's lawyers offered him $10 in U.S. funds. Then he asked for $10,000."
The register article makes it sound like MS baited Rowe into making the $10,000 offer by offering him $10 without provocation:"Mike told us that when an email from Microsoft's Canadian lawyers Smart & Biggar arrived on 19 November laying out its complaint, he was "amazed and appalled". He replied saying he didn't want to hand over the domain and didn't feel there was any risk it would damage Microsoft's name.
He then got another email. "They responded to this email by offering to give me all of my out-of-pocket expenses in return for the domain name. This came out to be $10; the amount I paid for the domain. This made me feel insulted. I had spent a lot of time building up my site and I had only been offered $10 for my work. I responded by asking for $10,000, which I regret doing now, for my work and domain name."
As he now knows, Mike had unwittingly slipped into the classic trap set by companies in order to get hold of domain names - the creation of a "bad faith" use of the domain. By offering to sell the domain for profit (even if sparked by the offer of payment by the other party), according to the bent logic of domain dispute arbitrators, it shows the owner had no legitimate interest in the domain and so it should be handed over. "
I think the Register is trying to spin the story to make MS look bad, when in fact, Rowe was the one to first bring up selling the domain to MS. I base this on the presumption that CNN is a more trustworthy news source than The Register.
European liberals aren't any better than American conservatives. You mentioned the French fiasco. How does banning someone from personal expression an affirmation of individual rights. This is not a church and state issue. Wearing a scarf to school by a student is not an endorsement of religion by the school or the state. It's simply a denial of religious freedom. France just wants to repress religion because they think it's dangerous. Whether it violates their constitution or not is irrelevant. They are against individual freedoms they don't like, just like American conservatives. At least people like Moore in America find out the US constitution does work, unlike the French constitution, apparently.
Nobody mentioned whether or not there was a correlation between increased numbers of broadband users and increased illegal mp3 downloads. Downloading songs in general is more appealing with more bandwidth.
Libertarians are pacifists. They only believe in convincing other governments and peoples to change their ideas through reason. The objectivists are much more practical. They understand that you cannot use reason against irrational use of force.
"I agree that the actions are understandable, the problem is that irresponsible journalism is not justifiable."
Exactly. Never trust a "journalist" with an agenda./. has a clear agenda to promote linux and OSS in general, and therefore, any news about Linux or OSS, and especially with its competitors, must be taken with a grain of salt.
" Unfortunately, those sharing file by P2P are now considered criminals as bad as virus writers and terrorist. I can't imagine any government (especially in America) coming to any useful conclusion."
How many file traders are in gitmo? How many are even in jail? I think you're exaggerating a bit.
"Unix has never been a serious contender on the desktop"
Why not. Everybody bitches about MS being a monopoly on IBM-PC, but unix was around then. It seems like whomever owned unix at the time missed a huge opportunity by not competing for an IBM contract against MS.
" is it the defendant's job to prosecute himself?"
No, but it is his job to turn over evidence to the prosecution in accordance with court orders. For instance, if you wanted to prosecute someone for a GPL viokation, you'd probably need to demonstrate that your suspicions of GPL violations are credible, at which point a court will for the defendent to hand over source code to you to verify your claim and win your court case.
You are contradicting yourself. First you say taking money away from welfare type programs is bad for numerous ethical and practical reasons. Then you say we're wasting money in Iraq blowing up buildings, and that we should cut miltary spending. Now, removing Saddam from power allows a more humane govt. to be put in place in Iraq, which allows all the ethical and practical benefits for the people of Iraq that you claim we need domestically. So, by ignoring Iraq, we are doing the same thing as cutting the budget on domestic social programs, which you argued against. So either you're arguing the US should remain an isolationist nation that ignores world problems, or your arguements contradict each other to some extent.
"The only proof is that a leaked copy with this guy's name on it is on the internet. We have no proof that he had anything to do with it being there."
It's enough evidence for a search warrant however. There will be evidence on his computer if he did it, unless he took a lot of steps to cover his tracks.
" I want an apology from the MPAA. All this time they have been blaming downloaders and moviegoes for "leaking" these screeners. Now we discover its one of their own. I wonder how many of the other screeners were "released" by other Academy members."
The MPAA has made no secret that they think screener copies are making it onto the internet. They've even banned them for this reason, until their was a backlash. Apparently, they decided that a sting operation was the next best thing.
If by one platform, you mean 4 processor companies, countless motherboard makers, etc. then yes. With Apple you get 1 motherboard maker, Apple, in boxes made by one company, Apple. If you don't see the difference..., well lets just leave it at that. "One Version: whatever they haven't killed updates and support for, today."
The only reason win98 support was threatened was due to Sun lawsuits over Java, and their implications for MS legally selling win98, so blame sun if you don't like MS retiring a 5 year old os. Sure MS is upset they're not seeing a piece of the business, but that doesn't mean their point isn't valid. Apple and Sun both do it. They get you hooked on their OS, and then your stuck buying their hardware.
" And if the artist and friends buy and buy and buy at the beginning, they can create a false landrush that may influence others to jump in early. "Look at this! This thing is selling like crazy! Better get in now!" "
That's not a pyramid scheme. A pyramid scheme is when you buy something worthless, and sell it to a bunch of people for a similar price so that you have a net gain. Sir Mix-a-lot's product is worth...well... er... ok, point taken
Your average person doesn't surf the web in someone else's front yard. People use their laptops at work, at home, at other's businesses if in sales or marketing, at the airport, on the train, in the park etc. Aside from the park possibly, very few of these places are where a private citizen will have a tranceiver that can pick up your laptop. At best this system will allow some people to leech free web service from their neighbors, without giving anything back. I won't get into the issue of who's going to pay for the free WhyFi equipment, since I don't see any revenue source in the pan, just a plea to share your network.
Standard oil offered the best prices to consumers, without predatory pricing. Govts. abuse monopoly regulation all the time because the laws are so vague.
You want to see the letter I received? This MS case has been a tactic by looting companies who can't compete to extract money from MS, and it worked. And now the lawyers are doing their share of looting. People on/. are hypocrites. They whine about how their freedom is being attacked from every angle, yet they have no problem enslaving people they don't like. I can't opt out. If I dont claim my share, 2/3s of it goes to schools.
"Because of their anti-competitive tactics, consumers have paid billions of dollars more than they would have been likely to had Microsoft played fair."
How do you come to this conclusion? Microsoft Windows costs $99, $30 cheaper than MacOS. The so-called law MS broke is so vague, they didn't even know they broke it until they were convicted. There are no strict definitions of what constitutes a monopoly in the Sherman antitrust act. Given the existence of products such as MacOS, Linux, various flavors of unix, OS/2, etc., why should MS be called a monopoly? Anti-trust laws are unfairly written and give the govt. too much power to destroy companies they don't like. Just look at Standard Oil as an example of a so-called harmful monopoly that managed to decrease the price of oil by 70% to consumers. There was no evidence of predatory pricing, which was the standard up until then to prosecute monopolies, but they were attacked anyway, because of other comapnies who couldn't compete, not through any goal to improve things for consumers.
Re:Ouch for card counters...
on
RFID Casino Chips
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
When I was in Reno some time ago, I noticed a lot of casinos advertising 1 deck blackjack. I'm guessing they think they can take money from people who think they can count cards, but especially after a few of the complimentary drinks, can't keep track as well as they thought.
" The market stopped being fair once Microsoft got into it. This is Microsofts *punishment*. They should not be allowed to weasel out of it by claiming they'll only give away the hardware if it is accompanied by $big-X (retail) of their own software that actually costs them small-x cents."
Define fair. MS never pointed guns at anyone, and therefore, followed the rules of free trade. Who are you to limit their freesom? The Weasles are people like Lindows taking advantage of the guns pointed at MS by the US govt. to grab as much of the loot as they can.
I'm insulted that the govt. thinks I'm incapable of making an informed purchase. I bought Windows at a price both MS and I agreed was fair. What the hell is the govt. doing saying that I paid too much. If I don't claim the money, it doesn't stay with Microsoft, but gets donated to schools (minus lawyer fees). I don't think it's right for the govt. to interfere in either my freedom or MS's freedom to trade. So, how do I give my share, including lawyer fees, for lawyers I did not hire, back to MS.
AMD/Intel are eliminating buffer overflow code exe
on
CES 2004 Coverage
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
See here for something likely out of CES about the AMD/Intel efforts to stop buffer overflow code from being executed.
Ummm. IBM makes pcs as well as workstations that now run linux based on their power chips. They're not likely to pay Apple money to buy hardware they already make. Also, since IBM is pushing Linux for customers, it would look strange if they were using MacOS internally.
Slashdot Mirror
" So how do you seperate religion and state if you don't actually get rid of religious clothes, artifacts or references to any religion, in the state run institutions?"
Separation of church and state means that the state doesn't endorse any particular religion. It has nothing to do with personal expression of religion by students, who are not representing the state in any way. How is an argument backed up by current events a straw man? It's a real case exemplifying censorship by the left that was mentioned by the parent, not me.
According to an article on CNN, Mike Rowe first proposed being compensated:"He wrote back asking to be compensated for giving up his name. Microsoft's lawyers offered him $10 in U.S. funds. Then he asked for $10,000."
The register article makes it sound like MS baited Rowe into making the $10,000 offer by offering him $10 without provocation:"Mike told us that when an email from Microsoft's Canadian lawyers Smart & Biggar arrived on 19 November laying out its complaint, he was "amazed and appalled". He replied saying he didn't want to hand over the domain and didn't feel there was any risk it would damage Microsoft's name. He then got another email. "They responded to this email by offering to give me all of my out-of-pocket expenses in return for the domain name. This came out to be $10; the amount I paid for the domain. This made me feel insulted. I had spent a lot of time building up my site and I had only been offered $10 for my work. I responded by asking for $10,000, which I regret doing now, for my work and domain name." As he now knows, Mike had unwittingly slipped into the classic trap set by companies in order to get hold of domain names - the creation of a "bad faith" use of the domain. By offering to sell the domain for profit (even if sparked by the offer of payment by the other party), according to the bent logic of domain dispute arbitrators, it shows the owner had no legitimate interest in the domain and so it should be handed over. "
I think the Register is trying to spin the story to make MS look bad, when in fact, Rowe was the one to first bring up selling the domain to MS. I base this on the presumption that CNN is a more trustworthy news source than The Register.
European liberals aren't any better than American conservatives. You mentioned the French fiasco. How does banning someone from personal expression an affirmation of individual rights. This is not a church and state issue. Wearing a scarf to school by a student is not an endorsement of religion by the school or the state. It's simply a denial of religious freedom. France just wants to repress religion because they think it's dangerous. Whether it violates their constitution or not is irrelevant. They are against individual freedoms they don't like, just like American conservatives. At least people like Moore in America find out the US constitution does work, unlike the French constitution, apparently.
Nobody mentioned whether or not there was a correlation between increased numbers of broadband users and increased illegal mp3 downloads. Downloading songs in general is more appealing with more bandwidth.
Libertarians are pacifists. They only believe in convincing other governments and peoples to change their ideas through reason. The objectivists are much more practical. They understand that you cannot use reason against irrational use of force.
"would have the same libertarian, open-society, atheistic outlook that many geeks here in the US seem to have."
/.ers believe it is right to regulate Microsoft.
/. geeks are not libertarians. No libertarian believes in monopoly regulation, yet the majority of
"I agree that the actions are understandable, the problem is that irresponsible journalism is not justifiable."
/. has a clear agenda to promote linux and OSS in general, and therefore, any news about Linux or OSS, and especially with its competitors, must be taken with a grain of salt.
Exactly. Never trust a "journalist" with an agenda.
" Unfortunately, those sharing file by P2P are now considered criminals as bad as virus writers and terrorist. I can't imagine any government (especially in America) coming to any useful conclusion."
How many file traders are in gitmo? How many are even in jail? I think you're exaggerating a bit.
"Unix has never been a serious contender on the desktop"
Why not. Everybody bitches about MS being a monopoly on IBM-PC, but unix was around then. It seems like whomever owned unix at the time missed a huge opportunity by not competing for an IBM contract against MS.
" is it the defendant's job to prosecute himself?"
No, but it is his job to turn over evidence to the prosecution in accordance with court orders. For instance, if you wanted to prosecute someone for a GPL viokation, you'd probably need to demonstrate that your suspicions of GPL violations are credible, at which point a court will for the defendent to hand over source code to you to verify your claim and win your court case.
You are contradicting yourself. First you say taking money away from welfare type programs is bad for numerous ethical and practical reasons. Then you say we're wasting money in Iraq blowing up buildings, and that we should cut miltary spending. Now, removing Saddam from power allows a more humane govt. to be put in place in Iraq, which allows all the ethical and practical benefits for the people of Iraq that you claim we need domestically. So, by ignoring Iraq, we are doing the same thing as cutting the budget on domestic social programs, which you argued against. So either you're arguing the US should remain an isolationist nation that ignores world problems, or your arguements contradict each other to some extent.
"The only proof is that a leaked copy with this guy's name on it is on the internet. We have no proof that he had anything to do with it being there."
It's enough evidence for a search warrant however. There will be evidence on his computer if he did it, unless he took a lot of steps to cover his tracks.
" I want an apology from the MPAA. All this time they have been blaming downloaders and moviegoes for "leaking" these screeners. Now we discover its one of their own. I wonder how many of the other screeners were "released" by other Academy members."
The MPAA has made no secret that they think screener copies are making it onto the internet. They've even banned them for this reason, until their was a backlash. Apparently, they decided that a sting operation was the next best thing.
" One Platform: x86"
If by one platform, you mean 4 processor companies, countless motherboard makers, etc. then yes. With Apple you get 1 motherboard maker, Apple, in boxes made by one company, Apple. If you don't see the difference..., well lets just leave it at that. "One Version: whatever they haven't killed updates and support for, today."
The only reason win98 support was threatened was due to Sun lawsuits over Java, and their implications for MS legally selling win98, so blame sun if you don't like MS retiring a 5 year old os. Sure MS is upset they're not seeing a piece of the business, but that doesn't mean their point isn't valid. Apple and Sun both do it. They get you hooked on their OS, and then your stuck buying their hardware.
" And if the artist and friends buy and buy and buy at the beginning, they can create a false landrush that may influence others to jump in early. "Look at this! This thing is selling like crazy! Better get in now!" "
That's not a pyramid scheme. A pyramid scheme is when you buy something worthless, and sell it to a bunch of people for a similar price so that you have a net gain. Sir Mix-a-lot's product is worth...well... er... ok, point taken
Your average person doesn't surf the web in someone else's front yard. People use their laptops at work, at home, at other's businesses if in sales or marketing, at the airport, on the train, in the park etc. Aside from the park possibly, very few of these places are where a private citizen will have a tranceiver that can pick up your laptop. At best this system will allow some people to leech free web service from their neighbors, without giving anything back. I won't get into the issue of who's going to pay for the free WhyFi equipment, since I don't see any revenue source in the pan, just a plea to share your network.
You won't get it until they start regulating Linux. Then you'll understand the injustice of what was done to MS.
Standard oil offered the best prices to consumers, without predatory pricing. Govts. abuse monopoly regulation all the time because the laws are so vague.
You want to see the letter I received? This MS case has been a tactic by looting companies who can't compete to extract money from MS, and it worked. And now the lawyers are doing their share of looting. People on /. are hypocrites. They whine about how their freedom is being attacked from every angle, yet they have no problem enslaving people they don't like. I can't opt out. If I dont claim my share, 2/3s of it goes to schools.
"Because of their anti-competitive tactics, consumers have paid billions of dollars more than they would have been likely to had Microsoft played fair."
How do you come to this conclusion? Microsoft Windows costs $99, $30 cheaper than MacOS. The so-called law MS broke is so vague, they didn't even know they broke it until they were convicted. There are no strict definitions of what constitutes a monopoly in the Sherman antitrust act. Given the existence of products such as MacOS, Linux, various flavors of unix, OS/2, etc., why should MS be called a monopoly? Anti-trust laws are unfairly written and give the govt. too much power to destroy companies they don't like. Just look at Standard Oil as an example of a so-called harmful monopoly that managed to decrease the price of oil by 70% to consumers. There was no evidence of predatory pricing, which was the standard up until then to prosecute monopolies, but they were attacked anyway, because of other comapnies who couldn't compete, not through any goal to improve things for consumers.
When I was in Reno some time ago, I noticed a lot of casinos advertising 1 deck blackjack. I'm guessing they think they can take money from people who think they can count cards, but especially after a few of the complimentary drinks, can't keep track as well as they thought.
" The market stopped being fair once Microsoft got into it. This is Microsofts *punishment*. They should not be allowed to weasel out of it by claiming they'll only give away the hardware if it is accompanied by $big-X (retail) of their own software that actually costs them small-x cents."
Define fair. MS never pointed guns at anyone, and therefore, followed the rules of free trade. Who are you to limit their freesom? The Weasles are people like Lindows taking advantage of the guns pointed at MS by the US govt. to grab as much of the loot as they can.
I'm insulted that the govt. thinks I'm incapable of making an informed purchase. I bought Windows at a price both MS and I agreed was fair. What the hell is the govt. doing saying that I paid too much. If I don't claim the money, it doesn't stay with Microsoft, but gets donated to schools (minus lawyer fees). I don't think it's right for the govt. to interfere in either my freedom or MS's freedom to trade. So, how do I give my share, including lawyer fees, for lawyers I did not hire, back to MS.
See here for something likely out of CES about the AMD/Intel efforts to stop buffer overflow code from being executed.
Ummm. IBM makes pcs as well as workstations that now run linux based on their power chips. They're not likely to pay Apple money to buy hardware they already make. Also, since IBM is pushing Linux for customers, it would look strange if they were using MacOS internally.