Gee, thanks. As to the CAFA, the issues with it are well known, particularly about how CAs across multiple states are forced into federal court, who gets to pick and choose what issues they want to hear. Historically, they don't hear multi-state CAs, as each state tends to have it's own rules and regulations on a given issue. End result. Fewer CAs with fewer judgements costing big biz big bucks.
Assuming, of course, you haven't already signed away your right to sue under an arbitration clause.
Yeah, I've thought about it a little bit... to the tune of doing a book on the subject.
As I mentioned in another post, in civil suits that doesn't apply, and the court would be well within its bounds to subpeona information and/or evidence that might further the suit.
The parent indicated that the government and major companies WANTED class action lawsuits so they could be used disrupt the minor players. Quite to the contrary, big biz doesn't want any class actions at all, hence the Class Action Fairness [sic] Act.
In a RIAA civil suit that would not apply, and the court would be well within its bounds to subpeona information and/or evidence that might further the suit.
allows the liability lawsuits to decimate any company
Once again? Bush signed the Class Action Fairness [sic] Act, which reduces the ways in which class action lawsuits against major corporations can be instigated. Corporations that could still be sued were very pleased.
BTW: Did you know that, in all likelyhood, you've signed away your right to sue your bank, mortgage, or credit card company?
Belief in God and evolution need not be mutually exclusive. That being said, evolution is as much a theory as creationism, and some may say it evolution relies on faith just as much (if not more) than creationism.
Some say... right. How many times are you going to post and repost the same drivel?
Please provide your proof to show there is no intelligent design.
As stated, that's not how it works. You don't prove a negative, you present evidence for a positive (hypothesis) and then let the dogs loose on it (testing).
If it's still standing at the end it's a potential theory, unless something else comes along that explains it better, and ties the orginal observations into other provable theories.
...and if you didn't like the answers they gave you'd be burned at the stake. Some religious people out there (not all) prefer the old religous answers...
And would also prefer to go back to burning non-believers at the stake. Much easier to simply eliminate them...
They're leasing you something they couldn't get to work.
And just where is this apparent in the article? Even Microsoft doesn't have the resources to bring the results of every research project to market. And I'm sure not every project fits into their plans and corporate direction. So it could either get trashed, sit on a shelf, or... actually get used by someone else.
You're thinking of ethics in terms of what you want granted to you...
Right back at you, as you're thinking that you're entitled to something... when you're not.
the right to copy things
That is not an "inherent right" and that is not a right granted by the constitution and that is not a right granted by law. Three strikes.
It's nothing more than your rationalization as to why you're not really stealing and why you're not really a parasite living off the results of other people's hard work.
This is exactly the sort of thing the US government should be promoting. The US needs to maintain its high technology edge somewhere, and we've already invested trillions on space and missle technologies.
I'd much rather be the world's leader in space technology than, as it looks now, simply becoming the world's wheat farmers...
No answer as to why you deserve special treatment. As I figured.
BTW, based on previous messages, I'm sure that if you use uppercase, bold, and enough exclamation points you're sure to convince the judge it's not theft...
Hypocite, you're stealing by getting free services from me! and hiding behind the government as an excuse.
Perhaps you can explain, using small words so you can understand them, how your stealing... (excuse me) copying a program it took me a year to write is doing ME a service. Because by your logic NO ONE would ever pay me for the value I created.
Why would I waste my time providing you with free entertainment or software when I still have to put food on the table?
As far as that goes, why do you think YOU deserve something for nothing? What makes you so special that you think you can live simply as a parasite on other people's work?
Why are you entitled to the benefits of MY work, and I, apparently, am not.
Answer the question.
Seriously. Perhaps you can explain so I can convince my landlord he needs to give my my housing for free.
By your "logic" professional developers, musicians, film makers, writers, authors, and so on, those good enough to do it for a living, don't deserve to make a living simply because technology has advanced to the point where you can steal their work from your parent's basement.
You still have the original copy, and I didn't trick or force you to give me any services either, maybe you feel I did, but that is your problem and not mine, and it is certainly NOT THEFT!!!!
Sorry, but in effect you stole the results of my efforts, my time, and my money without offering me due compensation.
That which you would steal has VALUE, no matter what the medium or mode of delivery. The value of music or a program is in the music and the program, not in a twenty-cent piece of plastic.
Pehaps in some future Star Trekian utopia everything, including food, clothing, housing, and so on, will be free. Until that time, however, all creative people have to offer are their creations, for which they would like fair compensation so they can eat and send their kids to school.
If you don't want to compensate them, or don't think the requested compensation is fair, THEN DON'T STEAL THEIR MUSIC, SOFTWARE, BOOKS, or GAMES anyway. You're not entitled to them, no matter how you rationalize it.
Or if you must steal, then at least try swiping it off the shelf at Best Buy, and stop being a coward about it...
I offered value for value. You obtained, used, and enjoyed the use of that value without consent and without providing the requested compensation.
Main Entry: theft
Function: noun
Etymology: Old English thiefth
: LARCENY; broadly : a criminal taking of the property or services of another without consent.
You know it's theft. If it didn't have value you wouldn't take it, and you wouldn't spend your time and money copying it, and you for damn well know you're doing so without consent.
Trying to treat things that can be coppied freely like property that can't is simply bullshit morality, and I think by now everybody knows it...
So the argument is that now because it's easy to steal someone's work one should be allowed to do so?
If I spend MY time, MY money, and MY talent creating something of value and then I offer it for sale you are NOT entitled to it just because you want it and it's easy to steal.
If I CHOOSE to give it away you're welcome to it.
If not, you're free to decide it's too expensive and NOT buy it. But you're NOT free to steal it and benefit from my work without compensation.
My contention, though, is this perpetual "Apple Invented Everything" mantra that every Apple fan seems to buy into unquestioned. Apple has shown a brilliant ability to deliver, but delivering isn't the same as innovation.
I don't believe I said Apple invented it, I simply said that Microsoft's "new" features are shipping today in a competitor's product, and as such Microsoft again seems to be announcing something that isn't really new, nor innovative, nor available.
I'm sure, however, when they do get around to delivering something usable in 2007 that it will be wonderful...;)
Slashdot Mirror
Gee, thanks. As to the CAFA, the issues with it are well known, particularly about how CAs across multiple states are forced into federal court, who gets to pick and choose what issues they want to hear. Historically, they don't hear multi-state CAs, as each state tends to have it's own rules and regulations on a given issue. End result. Fewer CAs with fewer judgements costing big biz big bucks.
Assuming, of course, you haven't already signed away your right to sue under an arbitration clause.
Yeah, I've thought about it a little bit... to the tune of doing a book on the subject.
As I mentioned in another post, in civil suits that doesn't apply, and the court would be well within its bounds to subpeona information and/or evidence that might further the suit.
The parent indicated that the government and major companies WANTED class action lawsuits so they could be used disrupt the minor players. Quite to the contrary, big biz doesn't want any class actions at all, hence the Class Action Fairness [sic] Act.
In a RIAA civil suit that would not apply, and the court would be well within its bounds to subpeona information and/or evidence that might further the suit.
All the court needs to do is issue a subpoena for the password. Refuse, and you're now in contempt.
Once again? Bush signed the Class Action Fairness [sic] Act, which reduces the ways in which class action lawsuits against major corporations can be instigated. Corporations that could still be sued were very pleased.
BTW: Did you know that, in all likelyhood, you've signed away your right to sue your bank, mortgage, or credit card company?
UltraWideBand EXTREME
Some say... right. How many times are you going to post and repost the same drivel?
Says the scientific method. Work it backwards if you like, but it isn't science.
As stated, that's not how it works. You don't prove a negative, you present evidence for a positive (hypothesis) and then let the dogs loose on it (testing).
If it's still standing at the end it's a potential theory, unless something else comes along that explains it better, and ties the orginal observations into other provable theories.
And would also prefer to go back to burning non-believers at the stake. Much easier to simply eliminate them...
And how, pray tell, is open source getting to the market, where everything is supposed to be free and no one wants to pay for anything?
And just where is this apparent in the article? Even Microsoft doesn't have the resources to bring the results of every research project to market. And I'm sure not every project fits into their plans and corporate direction. So it could either get trashed, sit on a shelf, or... actually get used by someone else.
Stop bashing for the sake of bashing.
Right back at you, as you're thinking that you're entitled to something... when you're not.
the right to copy things
That is not an "inherent right" and that is not a right granted by the constitution and that is not a right granted by law. Three strikes.
It's nothing more than your rationalization as to why you're not really stealing and why you're not really a parasite living off the results of other people's hard work.
Ummm.... then why do they need a web browser??? ;)
I think you meant a month AFTER the 'evil' Soviets did the same thing. On April 12, 1961 Yuri Gagarin became the first human to orbit Earth.
...the rural towns that are considering municipal wi-fi... Yeah, Philadelphia, Houston, and San Francisco are pretty much the definition of rural...
I'd much rather be the world's leader in space technology than, as it looks now, simply becoming the world's wheat farmers...
BTW, based on previous messages, I'm sure that if you use uppercase, bold, and enough exclamation points you're sure to convince the judge it's not theft...
Perhaps you can explain, using small words so you can understand them, how your stealing... (excuse me) copying a program it took me a year to write is doing ME a service. Because by your logic NO ONE would ever pay me for the value I created.
Why would I waste my time providing you with free entertainment or software when I still have to put food on the table?
As far as that goes, why do you think YOU deserve something for nothing? What makes you so special that you think you can live simply as a parasite on other people's work?
Why are you entitled to the benefits of MY work, and I, apparently, am not.
Answer the question.
Seriously. Perhaps you can explain so I can convince my landlord he needs to give my my housing for free.
By your "logic" professional developers, musicians, film makers, writers, authors, and so on, those good enough to do it for a living, don't deserve to make a living simply because technology has advanced to the point where you can steal their work from your parent's basement.
Sorry, but I'm not going for it.
Thief. Coward. Parasite. Learn to deal with it.
Sorry, but in effect you stole the results of my efforts, my time, and my money without offering me due compensation.
That which you would steal has VALUE, no matter what the medium or mode of delivery. The value of music or a program is in the music and the program, not in a twenty-cent piece of plastic.
Pehaps in some future Star Trekian utopia everything, including food, clothing, housing, and so on, will be free. Until that time, however, all creative people have to offer are their creations, for which they would like fair compensation so they can eat and send their kids to school.
If you don't want to compensate them, or don't think the requested compensation is fair, THEN DON'T STEAL THEIR MUSIC, SOFTWARE, BOOKS, or GAMES anyway. You're not entitled to them, no matter how you rationalize it.
Or if you must steal, then at least try swiping it off the shelf at Best Buy, and stop being a coward about it...
I offered value for value. You obtained, used, and enjoyed the use of that value without consent and without providing the requested compensation.
Main Entry: theft
Function: noun
Etymology: Old English thiefth
: LARCENY; broadly : a criminal taking of the property or services of another without consent.
You know it's theft. If it didn't have value you wouldn't take it, and you wouldn't spend your time and money copying it, and you for damn well know you're doing so without consent.
Like I said, just rationalization.
So the argument is that now because it's easy to steal someone's work one should be allowed to do so?
If I spend MY time, MY money, and MY talent creating something of value and then I offer it for sale you are NOT entitled to it just because you want it and it's easy to steal.
If I CHOOSE to give it away you're welcome to it.
If not, you're free to decide it's too expensive and NOT buy it. But you're NOT free to steal it and benefit from my work without compensation.
I don't believe I said Apple invented it, I simply said that Microsoft's "new" features are shipping today in a competitor's product, and as such Microsoft again seems to be announcing something that isn't really new, nor innovative, nor available.
I'm sure, however, when they do get around to delivering something usable in 2007 that it will be wonderful... ;)
Oops. That's memory, and here's a link to the ars technica article describing the Quartz graphics engine and rendering pipeline.