They almost certainly will. The US is reluctant to come down hard on a US company, because we like to protect our interests.
However, other countries like to protect their interests and their budding industries as well, and may not look too kindly on a Monopolistic corporation from America destroying local competition.
The feasibility of retasking a hijacked satelitte onto a collision course with a target is small, but in the right circumstances possible. Keep in mind that the satellites have a very limited maeneverability and retasking in itself is very rare. Fuel is also very limited (which is why retasking is such a loathed task in the satellite industry, it costs hundreds of thousands of dollars.) It might be possible to create a new orbit where the sat 'runs into' another. But considering GPS and mil sats, there are tons of redundancy in these systems.
The availability of the large R/F transmitters would also be a large hurdle (it would not be possible to make an FM/AM radio station into the ranges). However, I'm just kinda startled that various security methods (encryption, basically) wasn't designed into the satellites. Satellites are HUGE investments. It boggles the mind how much they cost to produce and send into space. Kind quirky to leave it to closed protocols alone to protect such an investment.
Why was this made in the first place? Consoles are notorious for being sold and just cost or being sold at a loss in order to recoup on proceeds from liscensing of games?
I'm pretty certain that Panasonic is not gaining any funds from liscensing GameCube games because Nintendo would probably have something to say about that. Then this is either a product that will 1. fail horribly or 2. costs quite a bit more than average (see #1).
Perhaps it is just me, but the first thing that I thought after reading this article was:
This would be the perfect chance for THEM to come abduct a few people, probably rednecks, and then when people say: 'I SAW A FLYING SAUCER LAST NIGHT' the Men in Black would pat them on the shoulder and say, 'That was just the leonid meteor shower.'
I don't know about you, but I'm going to watch the skies--WITH A GUN.
Retinitis pigmentosa is an inherited condition of the retina in which specific photoreceptor cells degenerate, thusly it becomes increasingly more difficult to see in dim light.
It is not caused by "eye strain", but by a specific mutation in the rhodopsin gene.
This just reeks of fraud, for a number of reasons. 1) First, being, that www.inside-aol.com is obviously not an official or trust-worthy source of information. 2) I may be thinking of a different website but I believe that www.inside-aol.com has done hoaxes before. 3) The.jpg tells us nothing of the validity. So they took a screen shot? Whos to say they didn't compose that website, loaded it and then typed "http://manda.office.aol.com" in the Location bar and just didn't press return? 4) Theres something of an informal nature about this website that reeks of hoax, its written in such a manner to imply something informal (read: "The Long awaited.. etc.. blah blah") yet it contains a dubious confidentiality clause at the begining ("Do not distribute or show..."). I dont think that "Do not show..." is common legalese.
But these are just my opinions. I think its a fraud. What do you think?
Its not C-Sharp, C-Pound, or ever C-Number. Everyone knows the only thing associated with # is a rootprompt.
But of course considering this is a Microsoft language I dont expect much but alot of hype, however I would like to see a cross-platform version of C-Rootprompt but it will likely not happen, and will likely be a proprietary language designed to keep a stranglehold on the OS biz.
No, it is not as long as you are including all things you acquired with First Sale of the product in question. A previous poster mentioned precedent as to why this is completely legal, so I will reiterate.
BOBBS-MERRILL CO. v. STRAUS, 210 U.S. 339(1908).
So, even though you may see the 'This CD may not be resold, for distribution with a New PC only.' notice, it would not stand up in court for very long. More on the lines of your question, you neither have to notify nor pay royalties on software, or anything for that matter you sell after the manufactorer has recieved profit from First Sale, this is pretty straight forward. Its yours to do with as you wish.
Alright, I'm going to be the devil's advocate here when I say I do not see such a terrible issue as long as spammers spam legally. If they use an ISP who is notorious for ignoring spammers and letting them do whatever they wish--soon this ISP's name would be rediculed, and not many people in thier right mind would deal with them. Just look at UU.net.
As for the proposed solutions to stop spamming, such as making so as to block every SMTP server but yours. That is a very MindSpring thing to do, and although that would cut down on your users spamming people I as a non-spamming person would find an ISP that does not restrict me. Why do you ask? I don't really like restrictions, because I'm paying -you- money, I should be able to access anything I wish on the 'net. (pron included, hate those proxy-ISPs but thats a different thread all together)
As for the dorks who take advantage of a system's administrators mistakes--crucify them. And I bet that administrator won't make that mistake again when his InBox is filled with what the spammer sent out, which is what I do, send it back to the source machine.
Intellectual property is still property. Period. Would you like the government just say... refuse to enforce the law? Which they would have been doing. Or refuse to enforce your intellectual rights on say... a novel? And it would be a terribly socialist thing to do to release Microsoft's code, and our government tends to like capitalism so don't look for it to happen.
I am probably not up to date in this issue, have no idea about the specifics but from what I can ascertain from here I'd say 3dfx is in the right and Creative Labs is swappin' some source. May they be stabbed many times with pointy sticks.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, I agree! We should boycott them immediately!!
If you'll excuse me, I have to go see the screening for Lord of the Rings: Two Towers.
Boycott now!
Thats alright, the ink required to make a counterfeit $5 bill costs $7.95.
However, other countries like to protect their interests and their budding industries as well, and may not look too kindly on a Monopolistic corporation from America destroying local competition.
The availability of the large R/F transmitters would also be a large hurdle (it would not be possible to make an FM/AM radio station into the ranges). However, I'm just kinda startled that various security methods (encryption, basically) wasn't designed into the satellites. Satellites are HUGE investments. It boggles the mind how much they cost to produce and send into space. Kind quirky to leave it to closed protocols alone to protect such an investment.
Conclusion: highly unlikely, but possible.
I'm pretty certain that Panasonic is not gaining any funds from liscensing GameCube games because Nintendo would probably have something to say about that. Then this is either a product that will 1. fail horribly or 2. costs quite a bit more than average (see #1).
This would be the perfect chance for THEM to come abduct a few people, probably rednecks, and then when people say: 'I SAW A FLYING SAUCER LAST NIGHT' the Men in Black would pat them on the shoulder and say, 'That was just the leonid meteor shower.'
I don't know about you, but I'm going to watch the skies--WITH A GUN.
Retinitis pigmentosa is an inherited condition of the retina in which specific photoreceptor cells degenerate, thusly it becomes increasingly more difficult to see in dim light.
It is not caused by "eye strain", but by a specific mutation in the rhodopsin gene.
My cat hates you.
1) First, being, that www.inside-aol.com is obviously not an official or trust-worthy source of information.
2) I may be thinking of a different website but I believe that www.inside-aol.com has done hoaxes before.
3) The
4) Theres something of an informal nature about this website that reeks of hoax, its written in such a manner to imply something informal (read: "The Long awaited.. etc.. blah blah") yet it contains a dubious confidentiality clause at the begining ("Do not distribute or show..."). I dont think that "Do not show..." is common legalese.
But these are just my opinions. I think its a fraud. What do you think?
Michael Munson
Its not C-Sharp, C-Pound, or ever C-Number. Everyone knows the only thing associated with # is a rootprompt.
But of course considering this is a Microsoft language I dont expect much but alot of hype, however I would like to see a cross-platform version of C-Rootprompt but it will likely not happen, and will likely be a proprietary language designed to keep a stranglehold on the OS biz.
Even in the days of ISA this wasn't a big deal unless you were an idiot, and thats all I have to say on the matter!
No, it is not as long as you are including all things you acquired with First Sale of the product in question. A previous poster mentioned precedent as to why this is completely legal, so I will reiterate.
BOBBS-MERRILL CO. v. STRAUS, 210 U.S. 339(1908).
So, even though you may see the 'This CD may not be resold, for distribution with a New PC only.' notice, it would not stand up in court for very long.
More on the lines of your question, you neither have to notify nor pay royalties on software, or anything for that matter you sell after the manufactorer has recieved profit from First Sale, this is pretty straight forward. Its yours to do with as you wish.
Alright, I'm going to be the devil's advocate here when I say I do not see such a terrible issue as long as spammers spam legally. If they use an ISP who is notorious for ignoring spammers and letting them do whatever they wish--soon this ISP's name would be rediculed, and not many people in thier right mind would deal with them. Just look at UU.net.
As for the proposed solutions to stop spamming, such as making so as to block every SMTP server but yours. That is a very MindSpring thing to do, and although that would cut down on your users spamming people I as a non-spamming person would find an ISP that does not restrict me. Why do you ask? I don't really like restrictions, because I'm paying -you- money, I should be able to access anything I wish on the 'net. (pron included, hate those proxy-ISPs but thats a different thread all together)
As for the dorks who take advantage of a system's administrators mistakes--crucify them. And I bet that administrator won't make that mistake again when his InBox is filled with what the spammer sent out, which is what I do, send it back to the source machine.
My philosophy? Just delete it.
Intellectual property is still property. Period.
Would you like the government just say... refuse to enforce the law? Which they would have been doing. Or refuse to enforce your intellectual rights on say... a novel?
And it would be a terribly socialist thing to do to release Microsoft's code, and our government tends to like capitalism so don't look for it to happen.
I am probably not up to date in this issue, have no idea about the specifics but from what I can ascertain from here I'd say 3dfx is in the right and Creative Labs is swappin' some source. May they be stabbed many times with pointy sticks.