The judiciary can make determinations on specific civil suits, after the fact, but there is no prior restraint.
Which is an incredibly important distinction that is lost on some of the other posters here. The Founders were not (so far as I can tell) attempting to make us exempt from the consequences of what we say. They were very much aware of the potential consequences of opening one's mouth, or of setting ideas to paper.
They did, however, want us to have the power to speak in the first place, no matter what, and the biggest single threat to that ability is government itself. That fact is no less true today.
Depending on how you look at it, kinda useful, but nonetheless creepy.
Almost thirty years, back in the Apple ][ days, ago a friend of mine was playing a text adventure game (I forget which one). So, after he played the thing for a while, it asked him a question using his first name. He got all freaked out, "How did it know my name?!!"
I told him "Because when you started the game it asked you for it."
You're free to say whatever you want so long as it doesn't unduly cause harm to other people.
It's probably more correct to say, "you're free to say whatever you want so long as it's true", at least in the United States. If the truth causes harm, well, sometimes the truth hurts. If you don't want people to talk about the bad things you do, don't do the bad things in the first place. I mean, it has to cut both ways.
Dunno about Canada, but I'd think it would be similar.
Things like this help us remember why we have the right to free speech.
Well, I'm not sure what the term free speech means in Canada, but down here in the U.S. it means that the government is not allowed to suppress Constitutionally-protected speech (which it does anyway, but that's a topic for another day.) It does not mean that we aren't allowed to suppress each other. The courts determine when and if we can do that, and if Mr. Crook wants to throw his weight around and try to "suppress" his detractors, that really doesn't come under the heading of free speech. It may be an abuse of laws, and of those being threatened. I don't know, I'm not Canadian, and like I said maybe the term means something different under Canada's legal system.
It's a fight that can't be won.
Sure it can. You understand that the Internet is evolving, but you're assuming that the Internet, as it stands today, is the only way such a network can be run. China has already shown us a different way (certainly not a better way, by Western standards) where what can be found online can be strictly controlled, if the government so chooses. Even here, in the land of the brave, home of the free... the locking down of the Internet is already underway. Five years from now, or ten, and I think those of us "old timers" will look back fondly on the so-called Wild West days, where you could send a packet anywhere and not worry about whether a blood-sucking ISP, an unfriendly government, or even our own governments would block it.
Certainly there will always technological measures that can be implemented to get around most such obstacles, but the problem is that those tools will never be in the hands of the majority of the voting public. If the Internet doesn't just conveniently "work", doesn't just let them go where they want to go, most people will never get there... and that's exactly how some people want it.
I guess what I'm saying is, enjoy it while it lasts.
The only thing we need worry about is whether 4chan becomes the dominant player in the free expression market:-)
True... but last I heard roughly a third of the value in many consumer electronic products was still going to Japan, because Japan still controls a number of key technologies. The risk Toshiba is taking is in giving the Chinese enough technical information to manufacture the entire product on their own, and you can bet the Chinese will be pushing for everything they can get.
Yes, but the GP is correct about the goodwill elements and from a Japanese perspective the U.S. would be a lot less threatening as a "business partner". From Toshiba's perspective, ringing in the Chinese is like making a pact with the Devil. Short term gains in exchange for long-term... what? When the dust settles, I think it's a good bet that Toshiba won't be the dominant force in the HD-DVD arena. Of course, maybe they're okay with that.
I gather from your comment and that of the previous ex-examiner that there's a reason you don't do this for a living anymore. Patent examiners catch a lot of heat here on Slashdot, and I suppose some of it is justified, but it does seem as if the game is very much rigged, and not in your favor.
At the time (and this was many years ago) that worked out to be less that I would have lost by giving it to them sooner. I think. I've always paid an accountant to do my returns, and I don't remember exactly what the deal was, although I think they've since changed that. But IANAA.
Oh, I'm not arguing that they simulated the effects of long-term storage as best they can, but it is, at best, a guess. An educated guess, perhaps, but nevertheless a guess. My point is that we won't know that those products actually hold up, that the designers didn't miss something (or the marketers didn't lie) until decades have passed. Consequently, it's best not to depend upon a manufacturer's theoretical claims of media life, and instead perform proper periodic maintenance of your archives (converting to new technology as needed) with the assumption that the vendor is wrong. Otherwise you'll end up like a number of big organizations that have lost vast quantities of data once stored on 9-track tape, which was supposed to last a lot longer than it actually did.
No, I haven't caught it stealing yet, in fact I have it watching over my girlfriend's jewelry... but the people that decided to sell the printers at a loss and make up the difference (and then some!) on the ink most certainly are.
There's a reason that Lexmark tried to sue a plug-compatible cartridge maker out of existence: without the artificially-inflated price of the ink the current business practices of all printer makers just aren't sustainable.
Theoretically: it's only a presumption and one that usually has a larger price tag. As with all supposedly long life media, we'll find out one day, when we still have our pictures and printouts and computer data... or we don't.
They're not inherently illegal in most countries, but yeah... they are pretty much inherently bad. Corporations, much like the life forms that own and operate them, will evolve over time. When they are under evolutionary pressure (i.e. competition) they either improve, adapt, or die. When that pressure is removed, when that corporate organism achieves total dominance of its environment (that is, market sector), the process of devolution sets in. It doesn't matter how a corporation starts out, if it is ever too successful it will become a cancer.
Probably the reason for these deals and comments about Linux is the one suggested in the article: not because it will help in any future lawsuit, but as a FUD tactic to create the impression that Linux may have patent problems without having to supply hard evidence, and so dissuade other companies from using it.
It only held together because Harrison Ford said, "She'll hold together!", and then patted the reactor housing and muttered "you hear me, baby? Hold together."
Slashdot Mirror
As long as it's nothing criminal, let it be...
Yeah, but the determination of what is criminal involves a whole lot of conflicting legal and moral standards, even within the same nation.
Actually, no ... it was by the weight of the card stack.
By the definitions of rule, it almost seems that there needs to be a ruler in some form for there to be rules ...
So then, what it really boils down to is a choice between English or Metric.
La, La, La, that little blue planet is heating up and cooking itself, La, La, La...
... I thought both of you were pretty funny. One of the most oblique references to global warming I've ever heard.
I can see how you got your nickname.
I dunno
Maybe some medication will assist you?
... just some good Canadian beer.
Nah
The judiciary can make determinations on specific civil suits, after the fact, but there is no prior restraint.
Which is an incredibly important distinction that is lost on some of the other posters here. The Founders were not (so far as I can tell) attempting to make us exempt from the consequences of what we say. They were very much aware of the potential consequences of opening one's mouth, or of setting ideas to paper.
They did, however, want us to have the power to speak in the first place, no matter what, and the biggest single threat to that ability is government itself. That fact is no less true today.
And you're a goofball that apparently can't read.
Thanks for playing.
Depending on how you look at it, kinda useful, but nonetheless creepy.
Almost thirty years, back in the Apple ][ days, ago a friend of mine was playing a text adventure game (I forget which one). So, after he played the thing for a while, it asked him a question using his first name. He got all freaked out, "How did it know my name?!!"
I told him "Because when you started the game it asked you for it."
"Oh."
You're free to say whatever you want so long as it doesn't unduly cause harm to other people.
It's probably more correct to say, "you're free to say whatever you want so long as it's true", at least in the United States. If the truth causes harm, well, sometimes the truth hurts. If you don't want people to talk about the bad things you do, don't do the bad things in the first place. I mean, it has to cut both ways.
Dunno about Canada, but I'd think it would be similar.
Things like this help us remember why we have the right to free speech.
... the locking down of the Internet is already underway. Five years from now, or ten, and I think those of us "old timers" will look back fondly on the so-called Wild West days, where you could send a packet anywhere and not worry about whether a blood-sucking ISP, an unfriendly government, or even our own governments would block it.
... and that's exactly how some people want it.
:-)
Well, I'm not sure what the term free speech means in Canada, but down here in the U.S. it means that the government is not allowed to suppress Constitutionally-protected speech (which it does anyway, but that's a topic for another day.) It does not mean that we aren't allowed to suppress each other. The courts determine when and if we can do that, and if Mr. Crook wants to throw his weight around and try to "suppress" his detractors, that really doesn't come under the heading of free speech. It may be an abuse of laws, and of those being threatened. I don't know, I'm not Canadian, and like I said maybe the term means something different under Canada's legal system.
It's a fight that can't be won.
Sure it can. You understand that the Internet is evolving, but you're assuming that the Internet, as it stands today, is the only way such a network can be run. China has already shown us a different way (certainly not a better way, by Western standards) where what can be found online can be strictly controlled, if the government so chooses. Even here, in the land of the brave, home of the free
Certainly there will always technological measures that can be implemented to get around most such obstacles, but the problem is that those tools will never be in the hands of the majority of the voting public. If the Internet doesn't just conveniently "work", doesn't just let them go where they want to go, most people will never get there
I guess what I'm saying is, enjoy it while it lasts.
The only thing we need worry about is whether 4chan becomes the dominant player in the free expression market
What's a 4chan?
True ... but last I heard roughly a third of the value in many consumer electronic products was still going to Japan, because Japan still controls a number of key technologies. The risk Toshiba is taking is in giving the Chinese enough technical information to manufacture the entire product on their own, and you can bet the Chinese will be pushing for everything they can get.
Yes, but the GP is correct about the goodwill elements and from a Japanese perspective the U.S. would be a lot less threatening as a "business partner". From Toshiba's perspective, ringing in the Chinese is like making a pact with the Devil. Short term gains in exchange for long-term ... what? When the dust settles, I think it's a good bet that Toshiba won't be the dominant force in the HD-DVD arena. Of course, maybe they're okay with that.
Okay, so I stretched the analogy a bit. Have a heart.
I gather from your comment and that of the previous ex-examiner that there's a reason you don't do this for a living anymore. Patent examiners catch a lot of heat here on Slashdot, and I suppose some of it is justified, but it does seem as if the game is very much rigged, and not in your favor.
At the time (and this was many years ago) that worked out to be less that I would have lost by giving it to them sooner. I think. I've always paid an accountant to do my returns, and I don't remember exactly what the deal was, although I think they've since changed that. But IANAA.
Oh, I'm not arguing that they simulated the effects of long-term storage as best they can, but it is, at best, a guess. An educated guess, perhaps, but nevertheless a guess. My point is that we won't know that those products actually hold up, that the designers didn't miss something (or the marketers didn't lie) until decades have passed. Consequently, it's best not to depend upon a manufacturer's theoretical claims of media life, and instead perform proper periodic maintenance of your archives (converting to new technology as needed) with the assumption that the vendor is wrong. Otherwise you'll end up like a number of big organizations that have lost vast quantities of data once stored on 9-track tape, which was supposed to last a lot longer than it actually did.
Is Your Printer Ripping You Off?
... but the people that decided to sell the printers at a loss and make up the difference (and then some!) on the ink most certainly are.
No, I haven't caught it stealing yet, in fact I have it watching over my girlfriend's jewelry
There's a reason that Lexmark tried to sue a plug-compatible cartridge maker out of existence: without the artificially-inflated price of the ink the current business practices of all printer makers just aren't sustainable.
and Epson sold a special ink that lasted 100 yrs.
... or we don't.
Theoretically: it's only a presumption and one that usually has a larger price tag. As with all supposedly long life media, we'll find out one day, when we still have our pictures and printouts and computer data
Only because you're paying off the subsidy that the printer vendor provided when you bought the printer.
Now that's actually funny.
Dot Brunette? Seriously?
Sounds like a veiled reference to Marlo Thomas. "Hey look! It's dot brunette again!"
They're not inherently illegal in most countries, but yeah ... they are pretty much inherently bad. Corporations, much like the life forms that own and operate them, will evolve over time. When they are under evolutionary pressure (i.e. competition) they either improve, adapt, or die. When that pressure is removed, when that corporate organism achieves total dominance of its environment (that is, market sector), the process of devolution sets in. It doesn't matter how a corporation starts out, if it is ever too successful it will become a cancer.
It is inevitable, Mr Anderson.
Probably the reason for these deals and comments about Linux is the one suggested in the article: not because it will help in any future lawsuit, but as a FUD tactic to create the impression that Linux may have patent problems without having to supply hard evidence, and so dissuade other companies from using it.
Otherwise known as "doing the SCO."
It only held together because Harrison Ford said, "She'll hold together!", and then patted the reactor housing and muttered "you hear me, baby? Hold together."
They'll be plenty green after he has them pushing up daisies.