Most people understand that Saddam was a gangster and villain - so are the leaders of many of the nations of the world.
Iraq shouldn't have been our war, it is now so we need to do a good job with it - but there is no reason for Americans to foot the bill in lives and dollars for Iraq's problems. Gulf War I was completely justified but GW2 was waged under false pretenses and with false cost estimates.
And let's all speculate aimlessly until we know which.
Naw, thats the old slashdot style - instead of somewhat honest second guessing and speculation about a technical issue lets have a few +"5, Interesting" comments pushing some political agenda or another.
What bugs me is that the guy illegally accessed the computer but was not successfull in retreiving credit card information. Is such a long term warranted? What about the Corporate crime bosses who bilk millions or billions from people via fraud - they never get this level of sentence.
Both types of criminal are scum and should do some jail time (in an actual jail), but the kind of scum who commit crimes with knowledge rather than position and family connections are obviously more dangerious (and didn't go to the same private schools as the people who run things) than aristos stealing from the great unwashed.
If the "enough eyes" cannot understand the code well enough to port it, how can they be expected to make "all bugs shallow"?;)
That is one of the problems with the expectation that people seem to have of OSS development. The source is available, but the vast majority of people don't have the time, skills, or inclination to actually contribute code - even if they do the codebase is often so large that is difficult to get a start. On the plus side though you don't need to understand the entire project to verify a bug, with the code and a debugger even a moderately skilled programmer can provide a patch for a rare bug that happens to show up in his environment.
I love OSS (for philosophical and practical reasons), but I think people often overestimate the value of source code.
Since the code is available anyone could take it and port it - but it would no longer be the draining the resources of the development group. Were it made very clear by the original development group that they don't approve of, and would not support such a port, I'd think that would discourage a port.
For a large and complicated program the source itself may as well be the binary for all the good it does someone other than a developer immersed in it.
the patent lobby can argue this until they are blue in the face, it makes no difference when they are wrong!
Why would right and wrong (or logic) have anything to do with allowing software to be patented? Money will decide the issue, and the fact that one side can afford to hire lobbyists pretty much lets you know which side has the money.
The only honorable lobbyists I've known are retired people who are paid expenses (if that). Professional lobbyists are scumbags probably get a start pimping their sisters and grandmothers, course the only professional lobbyists I've met worked for unions...
In a business environment 'snail mail' sounds a bit slangy - I have heard 'postal mail' in meetings and conference calls to make it obvious what type of mail is being discussed.
That was a fun game, but as an actual football simulation it failed miserably - probably why so many people who hate most sports games enjoyed it so much.
That was tried. Company failed. Had to sell the OS to Palm.
I'm not sure why Be failed - it could have wound up being what MacOS is becoming: a sucessful desktop UNIX. I think it had more to do with trying to survive on technical skill and pure hype in a strange and competetive market than a flat out failure of the technology.
But even the attitudes themselves are valuable when not taken to an unhealthy extreme.
Take the example of local search - the linux fanboy thinks that just because he can find 'some-damn-anime.avi' in an index file that he has solved the problem, the windows 'solve everything' attitude makes the mistake of wrapping the whole thing up in a single program - capturing code and data in a mess that will only be useful in the circumstance for which it is designed. Between those two attitudes is one where we try to figure out how to keep the data about files and their contents simple and portable and let the front end programs (for input and search) evolve to fit the real world.
Well the problem is an attitude that shuts out the possibility of there being a problem for which locatedb or any other simple solution is not good enough or easy enough. The strength of UNIX is often that it encourages you to actually think about the problem and break it into easy to solve pieces as well as giving you the simple tools (and primitives to build new tools easily) to do pretty much anything with the your data.
So sure there is a problem with linux fanboys dismissing anything outside their worldview, but the tools and attitudes of UNIX are hardly ludism - they are still valuable and are still responsible for a lot of the real work that gets done in the computing world.
Sure the domain is scholarly, but the action involves organization and search. The court might wind up viewing the subject matter as more important than the actual function of the product, who knows - but my instinct says that 'scholar' is not a generic term for a product like this.
You can trademark a term in general use, or generic term, for your product - but if the product itself is naturally described by means of the trademarked term then you may lose certain exclusive rights protected by trademark. That is why MS does not have exclusive rights to "Office" or "Windows", those are natural terms applied to those products. 'Scholar' as a term for a search assistant is probably not generic enough when applied to this product - librarian probably would be though.
If I had to guess I'd say google will either license the name or change it, it'll probably just be easier to change the name at this point though.
How can people play those stupid games? Like a lot of suckers I bought a copy of the first Halo because of the rave reviews and gushes about how wonderful it was. In gameplay terms it was less fun than Doom or Quake. FPS are not a console strong point yet by any measure - especially when measured against PC shooters like UT2004 or HL2.
I'm not trademark lawyer, but I don't think it works that way. Names can be reused when the location and scope of the market is different or when the business is different - your example attempts to confuse those two situations, but nearly those exact circumstances have come up before.
As far as acting intentionally and unethically, the way I see it is that Apple Computer actually paid for use of the trademark in a non-music business, that means their decision to enter the music business was undertaken with the knowledge that they had an agreement with Apple Records not do so.
How about a bong then? They are totaly legal because of thier legal use, but I have YET to see EVEN one person EVER use them for thier LEGAL use.
i've never heard of a civil suit involving a bong, but should a liability suit be brought against the manufacturer I'm fairly sure it would go against them.
Guns and cars are a bad comparison because both of those are heavily regulated and their manufacturers have paid damages in civil suits related to the use of their products - which is what MGM/Universal seem to be aiming for.
Well you didn't outright state it, but you strongly implied it:)
I think MS software is often dangerously naive, misconfigured, and insecure by design - but the nature of the market at this point demands "ease of use" and "value for dollar", both of which are supplied by MS software. I think MS should probably be charged criminally for some of their actions and I think a lot of IT managers should lose their jobs for choosing MS technology - but regardless of their ethical and technical shortcomings the market has accepted what they sell.
I'd say short sightedness, greed, and the fact that reality is complex are far more to blame for the ills of the Internet than MS.
Then MS can start putting their lobbying bucks into fixing patent law.
I kinda doubt that will be their reaction. The reaction of most people to violence is to make sure they are on the winning side next time, if anything I would expect this to cause MS to escalate their acquisition of patents.
Well as I've pointed out a couple times in the thread I can't determine if the guy acted in good faith or not simply by the timeframe of domain and trademark registrations in the US and UK. I was simply pointing out that in trying to win this case Apple might be calling unfavorable legal attention to their involvement in the music business.
Also, why is Apple Records automatically viewed as the badguy in these disputes? I'm a Mac fan - I've got two Macs, an iPod, and buy most of my music (non-RIAA only) from iTunes - but it seems to me that Apple Records has a valid claim to that name in connection with the music business and that Apple Computer's infringement on it is intentional and unethical - they took a measured risk in entering the music business and decided they could get away with it because they have more money and better lawyers.
Every person I've seen try Safari or Firefox has become a true believer in no time. Mozilla is too damn big - but had tabs, and spellcheck, pop-up blocking and hooks to add new features long before anyone else - the browser-only install was well worth using till Firefox came along. I've never really considered Opera an option in the browser market, regardless of how good or bad it was - there was no place for a for a non-free commercial web browser by 1997.
IE is only perfect for home users because they don't believe they have a choice. MS did a great job in taking the opportunity provided by Netscape fumbling so badly and providing a much better product - but they knew they could lose the lead with just a superior product and proceeded to use their position as provider of the OS to get a lock as the only possible choice. Now that they have lost their superiority their lock in is the only thing keeping users with IE.
IE is currently "good enough" for home users, but MS allied themselves with advertisers against consumers and it will probably cost them eventually.
That is kinda my point, an insider could easily make it look as though all spyware opponents are of the 'UR SP13W4R3 I5 TEH SUX0RZ' variety by making sure that any thoughtful posts that discuss dangers or alternatives are removed - leaving only the posts by spoiled and angry children.
I'm sure that quite a few companies have learned the lesson taught by extreme Linux and OS/2 advocates - your cheerleading section can be your own worst enemy when it comes to PR.
Slashdot Mirror
Iraq shouldn't have been our war, it is now so we need to do a good job with it - but there is no reason for Americans to foot the bill in lives and dollars for Iraq's problems. Gulf War I was completely justified but GW2 was waged under false pretenses and with false cost estimates.
Naw, thats the old slashdot style - instead of somewhat honest second guessing and speculation about a technical issue lets have a few +"5, Interesting" comments pushing some political agenda or another.
Are you trying to "take the piss" or any of those other wacky colloquialisms non-American English speakers use?
Both types of criminal are scum and should do some jail time (in an actual jail), but the kind of scum who commit crimes with knowledge rather than position and family connections are obviously more dangerious (and didn't go to the same private schools as the people who run things) than aristos stealing from the great unwashed.
That is one of the problems with the expectation that people seem to have of OSS development. The source is available, but the vast majority of people don't have the time, skills, or inclination to actually contribute code - even if they do the codebase is often so large that is difficult to get a start. On the plus side though you don't need to understand the entire project to verify a bug, with the code and a debugger even a moderately skilled programmer can provide a patch for a rare bug that happens to show up in his environment.
I love OSS (for philosophical and practical reasons), but I think people often overestimate the value of source code.
For a large and complicated program the source itself may as well be the binary for all the good it does someone other than a developer immersed in it.
Why would right and wrong (or logic) have anything to do with allowing software to be patented? Money will decide the issue, and the fact that one side can afford to hire lobbyists pretty much lets you know which side has the money.
The only honorable lobbyists I've known are retired people who are paid expenses (if that). Professional lobbyists are scumbags probably get a start pimping their sisters and grandmothers, course the only professional lobbyists I've met worked for unions...
In a business environment 'snail mail' sounds a bit slangy - I have heard 'postal mail' in meetings and conference calls to make it obvious what type of mail is being discussed.
That was a fun game, but as an actual football simulation it failed miserably - probably why so many people who hate most sports games enjoyed it so much.
I'm not sure why Be failed - it could have wound up being what MacOS is becoming: a sucessful desktop UNIX. I think it had more to do with trying to survive on technical skill and pure hype in a strange and competetive market than a flat out failure of the technology.
Take the example of local search - the linux fanboy thinks that just because he can find 'some-damn-anime.avi' in an index file that he has solved the problem, the windows 'solve everything' attitude makes the mistake of wrapping the whole thing up in a single program - capturing code and data in a mess that will only be useful in the circumstance for which it is designed. Between those two attitudes is one where we try to figure out how to keep the data about files and their contents simple and portable and let the front end programs (for input and search) evolve to fit the real world.
So sure there is a problem with linux fanboys dismissing anything outside their worldview, but the tools and attitudes of UNIX are hardly ludism - they are still valuable and are still responsible for a lot of the real work that gets done in the computing world.
Sure the domain is scholarly, but the action involves organization and search. The court might wind up viewing the subject matter as more important than the actual function of the product, who knows - but my instinct says that 'scholar' is not a generic term for a product like this.
If I had to guess I'd say google will either license the name or change it, it'll probably just be easier to change the name at this point though.
How can people play those stupid games? Like a lot of suckers I bought a copy of the first Halo because of the rave reviews and gushes about how wonderful it was. In gameplay terms it was less fun than Doom or Quake. FPS are not a console strong point yet by any measure - especially when measured against PC shooters like UT2004 or HL2.
As far as acting intentionally and unethically, the way I see it is that Apple Computer actually paid for use of the trademark in a non-music business, that means their decision to enter the music business was undertaken with the knowledge that they had an agreement with Apple Records not do so.
i've never heard of a civil suit involving a bong, but should a liability suit be brought against the manufacturer I'm fairly sure it would go against them.
Guns and cars are a bad comparison because both of those are heavily regulated and their manufacturers have paid damages in civil suits related to the use of their products - which is what MGM/Universal seem to be aiming for.
I think MS software is often dangerously naive, misconfigured, and insecure by design - but the nature of the market at this point demands "ease of use" and "value for dollar", both of which are supplied by MS software. I think MS should probably be charged criminally for some of their actions and I think a lot of IT managers should lose their jobs for choosing MS technology - but regardless of their ethical and technical shortcomings the market has accepted what they sell.
I'd say short sightedness, greed, and the fact that reality is complex are far more to blame for the ills of the Internet than MS.
I kinda doubt that will be their reaction. The reaction of most people to violence is to make sure they are on the winning side next time, if anything I would expect this to cause MS to escalate their acquisition of patents.
Sorry to offend, but good for them.
The inconsiderate 95% portion of the population have ruined it for those few good parents who can control their little monsters.
Also, why is Apple Records automatically viewed as the badguy in these disputes? I'm a Mac fan - I've got two Macs, an iPod, and buy most of my music (non-RIAA only) from iTunes - but it seems to me that Apple Records has a valid claim to that name in connection with the music business and that Apple Computer's infringement on it is intentional and unethical - they took a measured risk in entering the music business and decided they could get away with it because they have more money and better lawyers.
Every person I've seen try Safari or Firefox has become a true believer in no time. Mozilla is too damn big - but had tabs, and spellcheck, pop-up blocking and hooks to add new features long before anyone else - the browser-only install was well worth using till Firefox came along. I've never really considered Opera an option in the browser market, regardless of how good or bad it was - there was no place for a for a non-free commercial web browser by 1997.
IE is currently "good enough" for home users, but MS allied themselves with advertisers against consumers and it will probably cost them eventually.
I'm sure that quite a few companies have learned the lesson taught by extreme Linux and OS/2 advocates - your cheerleading section can be your own worst enemy when it comes to PR.