What do you mean "where are they now?" In all likelihood, it got booked as revenue. If 30% of revenues went to the DoD, then 30% of the $19.6 billion went to the DoD.
This isn't good enough for some of these commenters, Anpheus. They want to trace each dollar. Here's an analogy: you know how when you deposit a dollar in a bank account, then a year later you withdraw that exact dollar, not any of the others you previously or subsequently deposited? It's just like that.
SCOTUS would never let the bad guys win, or carve out a niche scenario in their majority opinion such that the core underlying question remains fundamentally unanswered... would they?
Most likely, they'll just hold on to it and claim it's value.
No, they'll hold onto it for cross-licensing purposes. The next time a business operating a service that vaguely qualifies as social networking tries to sue Amazon, Amazon plays this card. That's what patents mean to companies like Amazon: they're playing cards in a hand to prevent losing an expensive game. In a pinch Amazon could use it to extract licensing fees, but that's probably not their immediate intent.
That's all very good, Mr. Patent-Law-Reader, but why should we expect a reviewer at the USPTO to be aware of that rule? They don't have time to read legalese: they have patents to grant. Including mine, for a method of storing and nesting hypertext comments in a networked news system. Now get off their backs!
You mean I don't have to keep this thing in the back seat? Funny, the Knowledge was all about streets, and they never covered which bits of the law we could skip. I think I'll dump it in South Ken.
I'm surprised no one has suggested the most obvious upgrade path from the DOS batch file, Windows PowerShell. It's the intended replacement for batch files, and basically looks like Perl, but a little more Windowsy. It's integrated with lots of.NET goodies and ActiveDirectory, but in many ways it will be familiar to DOS scripters.
The lost land area of the American colonies was actually quite small (but valuable),
The land area of Great Britain is 84,556 square miles. The land area of the colonies that became the United States was nearly 400,000 square miles. It was pretty big. We're still not quite sure what to do with all of it, and that's after putting in a lot of effort to make it even larger.:)
For the record, Britain has not been terrorised by a king since Henry VIII (or by a Queen since his daughter Mary), although we did get paranoid about Charles I and James II.
When I read your first clause the first thing that popped into my head was "The Stuarts!" and then "Bloody Mary!" but I see you've got those covered. I'd say the monarchy had the country pretty terrorized until William and Mary, but I suppose it depends on your definition of "terrorized." We've been using the word quite liberally on this side of the pond lately. But if you mean "cruel rule by an absolute monarch who burns people," then yes I guess the pre-Elizabethan Tudors were the last.
Each state is its own sovereign nation, and we should start acting like it, damn it!
I'd like to see a US state form a treaty with a foreign government, or declare war on one, or establish an official religion. Then we'd see how sovereign they are.
I also note you did not say anything about it's constitutionality. Is that because you can't come up with a cogent argument?
You didn't, so why should I?:)
I can not allocate my money how I want to
You have no direct personal control over how your tax money is spent, like the tax dollars we take from your paycheck and send to NASA (which I mention because we should pay at least cursory attention to the subject of TFA), or use to build roads and bridges, or for any socialized services. Unless all those things are socialist as well (and maybe they are), you haven't come up with any argument demonstrating that this differs substantially. You might as well argue that the Interstate highways should be shut down because the government doesn't have the Constitutional authority to run them, or that Neil Armstrong (quoted in TFA) should never have had a job in the first place and should have moved to Russia if he was so eager to join a socialist space program.
It's true that the bill forces you to buy insurance rather than simply providing it to you through taxes, but this hardly makes it socialist. It might be socialist if the public actually owned and allocated the healthcare system as we do the socialized highways or military, but this this plan is to the political right of those services. It's way more conservative than healthcare systems in other modern industrialized countries. But then, its basic ideas were suggested by Republicans.
However other things such as health care have already showed socialism.
I call BS. Give me your definition of socialism and we'll see whether the healthcare bill fits it. Taking Wikipedia's definition, which you are free to reject:
Socialism refers to the various theories of economic organization which advocate either public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources.
Since the states and federal government own no more healthcare or insurance providers than they did before the bill passed, it's incorrect to call it socialism. (Again, by that definition, which you are free to reject because making up your own definition of socialism might help you here). Public assistance is provided for some people to buy insurance, but both the insurance and health care providers are still owned by the people who owned them before, not by the public or the workers.
Apple makes a nice amount from app sales, which they control. If an independent framework becomes popular, this opens the door to someone else controlling the flow of money.
Not exactly the flow of money. Rather, Flash is one of many tools that changes the focus of software development. The best way to think about it is with this analogy: Flash is to Apple in 2010 as Java was to Microsoft in 1997.
Apologies to the fanboys for comparing Apple to Microsoft, but the comparison is very apt. Flash, like Java, provides a write once, run anywhere strategy for developers. Sure, it's not entirely identical because this is not the Flash plugin we're talking about, but rather new Flash tools with which you'd compile separately for different platforms, but the point is that it makes cross-platform development easier. Microsoft tried to kill Java by creating their own broken JVM and releasing the.NET runtime because they were afraid developers would start effortlessly making programs that would run on multiple platforms. Apple is scared of exactly the same thing. For me, this provides an easy answer for GGGGG...P post above:
In a battle between two vendors, one with a closed source, insecure framework and the other with a closed platform, which side do I root for?
Adobe. I hate Flash as much as any web developer, but eliminating it as a choice is all about stifling developers. Apple is very much the bad guy here.
100 Mbit is the lowest I could get even if I tried here in Sweden
Didn't you hear the CEO of Verizon? He says we're number one! That's us in the US, not some Vikings of the north. Stop clouding the debate with your "facts."
You know, it feels like time to deregulate again. It hasn't worked for the last decade and a half, but I'm sure it will work from now on. Too bad there are no countries on the Internet except the US or we'd be able to compare broadband policies and consider something different.
50p on every household with a landline, intended to raise around £170m per year to fund the development of a super-fast broadband network
So the legislature successfully removed the one useful bit of the new law before passing it. In the US we're always careful to remove everything positive from our laws as well.
No, you are contractually obligated to run Apple OSes on 'Apple Branded hardware.'
IANAL, but I understand contract law and licensing law are separate animals, and licenses are not as binding as contracts. Despite pressing "I agree" you don't actually sign anything; the thing you're agreeing to is just a license, and unreasonable license requirements are sometimes judged invalid by the courts. If you bought a valid copy of OS X and ran it on a non-Mac I doubt anything bad would happen to you (aside from finding out your OS has stopped working after installing an update designed to deliberately sabotage your type of installation from your friends in Cupertino).
None of which contradicts the core idea of your statement, of course. The Psystar lawsuit was about this specific license requirement and Psystar argued that it's not valid. They lost this argument and are appealing.
... we now know there's more to the world situation than two big superpowers that can Mutually Assure each other's Destruction (MAD), and we're not going to cling to deliberately acting irrational as a method of psyching 'the other side' out.
This hits the nail on the head. It's always nice to see an administration admit that we're not in the Cold War anymore - you know, outside of the context of scaring us about the new age of global terror.
This is my impression as well. They seem to be changing things for the sake of looking busy. The controversy over the button order is a good example - the new max/min/close buttons make no sense, and Canonical is getting testy about complains. I'm thinking of trying OpenSuSE the next time I install a Linux; my only gripe is that KDE4 destroyed my workflow by changing its component programs substantially. (Rather the opposite of what Canonical does with Ubuntu, but equally irritating.)
In the end it's entirely possible I'll be a Mac user.
No, but the American people are learning (again, as they have short memories) that elections do indeed have consequences. The tea parties, and the general disdain for congress, are a reflection on the knowledge that we, The People, goofed royally when we elected Obama. Neither Clinton nor McCain would have put us into the situation we are currently in.
The 2008 economic collapse and its consequences was definitely Obama's biggest mistake. His lack of time travel to correct the actions of private companies is so unTerminatorlike. I'm voting for Ron Paul.
No, that's the scary thing about the bill: stealing is no longer against the law. And the ACLU and ACORN are in on it; they've been plotting it for years, ever since Elvis and the Illuminati told them to advocate health care reform shortly after they plotted 9/11 in an attempt to control how much salt is in your food (which they pretty much accomplished, you have to admit). So now some random poor person, who already gets free Social Security and Medicare and will never work a day in his life, can have your big screen TV and it's perfectly legal. Don't even try to stop him, or a liberal will call you politically incorrect. Meanwhile some guy who says "Jesus" out loud gets arrested for it. (Probably.) I'm telling you, the sky is falling since the House vote last night. I don't even recognize this country... except the Slashdot bits of it which admittedly look like they did before.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, that's impressive. It's so long ago I practically can't relate. How many digits are in her Slashdot UID?
So not only will I be paying $9.99 but I'll also be watching ads? Hmm... no.
No, you'll be downloading torrents like the rest of us. Noobs will be paying $9.99 and watching ads.
What do you mean "where are they now?" In all likelihood, it got booked as revenue. If 30% of revenues went to the DoD, then 30% of the $19.6 billion went to the DoD.
This isn't good enough for some of these commenters, Anpheus. They want to trace each dollar. Here's an analogy: you know how when you deposit a dollar in a bank account, then a year later you withdraw that exact dollar, not any of the others you previously or subsequently deposited? It's just like that.
Not if my pending "method of delivering a blunt patent-infringement threat" patent has anything to say about it.
SCOTUS would never let the bad guys win, or carve out a niche scenario in their majority opinion such that the core underlying question remains fundamentally unanswered ... would they?
Most likely, they'll just hold on to it and claim it's value.
No, they'll hold onto it for cross-licensing purposes. The next time a business operating a service that vaguely qualifies as social networking tries to sue Amazon, Amazon plays this card. That's what patents mean to companies like Amazon: they're playing cards in a hand to prevent losing an expensive game. In a pinch Amazon could use it to extract licensing fees, but that's probably not their immediate intent.
That's all very good, Mr. Patent-Law-Reader, but why should we expect a reviewer at the USPTO to be aware of that rule? They don't have time to read legalese: they have patents to grant. Including mine, for a method of storing and nesting hypertext comments in a networked news system. Now get off their backs!
You mean I don't have to keep this thing in the back seat? Funny, the Knowledge was all about streets, and they never covered which bits of the law we could skip. I think I'll dump it in South Ken.
I'm surprised no one has suggested the most obvious upgrade path from the DOS batch file, Windows PowerShell. It's the intended replacement for batch files, and basically looks like Perl, but a little more Windowsy. It's integrated with lots of .NET goodies and ActiveDirectory, but in many ways it will be familiar to DOS scripters.
The lost land area of the American colonies was actually quite small (but valuable),
The land area of Great Britain is 84,556 square miles. The land area of the colonies that became the United States was nearly 400,000 square miles. It was pretty big. We're still not quite sure what to do with all of it, and that's after putting in a lot of effort to make it even larger. :)
For the record, Britain has not been terrorised by a king since Henry VIII (or by a Queen since his daughter Mary), although we did get paranoid about Charles I and James II.
When I read your first clause the first thing that popped into my head was "The Stuarts!" and then "Bloody Mary!" but I see you've got those covered. I'd say the monarchy had the country pretty terrorized until William and Mary, but I suppose it depends on your definition of "terrorized." We've been using the word quite liberally on this side of the pond lately. But if you mean "cruel rule by an absolute monarch who burns people," then yes I guess the pre-Elizabethan Tudors were the last.
Each state is its own sovereign nation, and we should start acting like it, damn it!
I'd like to see a US state form a treaty with a foreign government, or declare war on one, or establish an official religion. Then we'd see how sovereign they are.
I also note you did not say anything about it's constitutionality. Is that because you can't come up with a cogent argument?
You didn't, so why should I? :)
I can not allocate my money how I want to
You have no direct personal control over how your tax money is spent, like the tax dollars we take from your paycheck and send to NASA (which I mention because we should pay at least cursory attention to the subject of TFA), or use to build roads and bridges, or for any socialized services. Unless all those things are socialist as well (and maybe they are), you haven't come up with any argument demonstrating that this differs substantially. You might as well argue that the Interstate highways should be shut down because the government doesn't have the Constitutional authority to run them, or that Neil Armstrong (quoted in TFA) should never have had a job in the first place and should have moved to Russia if he was so eager to join a socialist space program.
It's true that the bill forces you to buy insurance rather than simply providing it to you through taxes, but this hardly makes it socialist. It might be socialist if the public actually owned and allocated the healthcare system as we do the socialized highways or military, but this this plan is to the political right of those services. It's way more conservative than healthcare systems in other modern industrialized countries. But then, its basic ideas were suggested by Republicans.
However other things such as health care have already showed socialism.
I call BS. Give me your definition of socialism and we'll see whether the healthcare bill fits it. Taking Wikipedia's definition, which you are free to reject:
Socialism refers to the various theories of economic organization which advocate either public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources.
Since the states and federal government own no more healthcare or insurance providers than they did before the bill passed, it's incorrect to call it socialism. (Again, by that definition, which you are free to reject because making up your own definition of socialism might help you here). Public assistance is provided for some people to buy insurance, but both the insurance and health care providers are still owned by the people who owned them before, not by the public or the workers.
All I know is, Obama refusing to spend billions on this government-run program proves once again that he is a socialist. :-)
Apple makes a nice amount from app sales, which they control. If an independent framework becomes popular, this opens the door to someone else controlling the flow of money.
Not exactly the flow of money. Rather, Flash is one of many tools that changes the focus of software development. The best way to think about it is with this analogy: Flash is to Apple in 2010 as Java was to Microsoft in 1997.
Apologies to the fanboys for comparing Apple to Microsoft, but the comparison is very apt. Flash, like Java, provides a write once, run anywhere strategy for developers. Sure, it's not entirely identical because this is not the Flash plugin we're talking about, but rather new Flash tools with which you'd compile separately for different platforms, but the point is that it makes cross-platform development easier. Microsoft tried to kill Java by creating their own broken JVM and releasing the .NET runtime because they were afraid developers would start effortlessly making programs that would run on multiple platforms. Apple is scared of exactly the same thing. For me, this provides an easy answer for GGGGG...P post above:
In a battle between two vendors, one with a closed source, insecure framework and the other with a closed platform, which side do I root for?
Adobe. I hate Flash as much as any web developer, but eliminating it as a choice is all about stifling developers. Apple is very much the bad guy here.
100 Mbit is the lowest I could get even if I tried here in Sweden
Didn't you hear the CEO of Verizon? He says we're number one! That's us in the US, not some Vikings of the north. Stop clouding the debate with your "facts."
You know, it feels like time to deregulate again. It hasn't worked for the last decade and a half, but I'm sure it will work from now on. Too bad there are no countries on the Internet except the US or we'd be able to compare broadband policies and consider something different.
50p on every household with a landline, intended to raise around £170m per year to fund the development of a super-fast broadband network
So the legislature successfully removed the one useful bit of the new law before passing it. In the US we're always careful to remove everything positive from our laws as well.
No, you are contractually obligated to run Apple OSes on 'Apple Branded hardware.'
IANAL, but I understand contract law and licensing law are separate animals, and licenses are not as binding as contracts. Despite pressing "I agree" you don't actually sign anything; the thing you're agreeing to is just a license, and unreasonable license requirements are sometimes judged invalid by the courts. If you bought a valid copy of OS X and ran it on a non-Mac I doubt anything bad would happen to you (aside from finding out your OS has stopped working after installing an update designed to deliberately sabotage your type of installation from your friends in Cupertino).
None of which contradicts the core idea of your statement, of course. The Psystar lawsuit was about this specific license requirement and Psystar argued that it's not valid. They lost this argument and are appealing.
If they use my intellectual property I will sue them for one billion dollars. No, five.
... we now know there's more to the world situation than two big superpowers that can Mutually Assure each other's Destruction (MAD), and we're not going to cling to deliberately acting irrational as a method of psyching 'the other side' out.
This hits the nail on the head. It's always nice to see an administration admit that we're not in the Cold War anymore - you know, outside of the context of scaring us about the new age of global terror.
This is my impression as well. They seem to be changing things for the sake of looking busy. The controversy over the button order is a good example - the new max/min/close buttons make no sense, and Canonical is getting testy about complains. I'm thinking of trying OpenSuSE the next time I install a Linux; my only gripe is that KDE4 destroyed my workflow by changing its component programs substantially. (Rather the opposite of what Canonical does with Ubuntu, but equally irritating.)
In the end it's entirely possible I'll be a Mac user.
I think good science requires anthropomorphic theories because it feels insecure.
Oh, it's meant to be funny. Lighten up. :)
No, but the American people are learning (again, as they have short memories) that elections do indeed have consequences. The tea parties, and the general disdain for congress, are a reflection on the knowledge that we, The People, goofed royally when we elected Obama. Neither Clinton nor McCain would have put us into the situation we are currently in.
The 2008 economic collapse and its consequences was definitely Obama's biggest mistake. His lack of time travel to correct the actions of private companies is so unTerminatorlike. I'm voting for Ron Paul.
No, that's the scary thing about the bill: stealing is no longer against the law. And the ACLU and ACORN are in on it; they've been plotting it for years, ever since Elvis and the Illuminati told them to advocate health care reform shortly after they plotted 9/11 in an attempt to control how much salt is in your food (which they pretty much accomplished, you have to admit). So now some random poor person, who already gets free Social Security and Medicare and will never work a day in his life, can have your big screen TV and it's perfectly legal. Don't even try to stop him, or a liberal will call you politically incorrect. Meanwhile some guy who says "Jesus" out loud gets arrested for it. (Probably.) I'm telling you, the sky is falling since the House vote last night. I don't even recognize this country ... except the Slashdot bits of it which admittedly look like they did before.