Quote me the part of the Constitution that says "seperation of church and state".
I can't quote you the part that says anything about the Internet either. Does that mean that anything relating to the Internet is not covered by the Constitution?
The Constitution was meant and intended to be interpreted, not read verbatim.
Judge Lee West, who seems to think that telemarketers have the right of free speech on the property of others, against their explicit will...
I'll not analyze your whole statement -- others have done a fine job of that -- but this statement seems to be implying that you think judges rule based on their own opinions. They do not. Judges rule based on their opinion of the interpretation of existing law as it applies to the specific issue brough before them. If that is what you meant, very well then. If it is not what you meant, then you should be aware that regardless of wheter you agree with Judge Lee West's rulling, you are agreeing or disagreeing with his interpretation and application of the law, not with his personal opinion. Your problem, therefore, may very well lie with those who wrote an unclear, incomplete, unenforcable, etc. law, not with the judge.
Says who? Take a really good cell phone and a really good... well, okay, an iPod and put them together. You end up with a really shitty cellphone, or a really shitty music device, depending on which one you're using at the time.
Althought this is how this logic usually plays out today, I'm not sure it will remain this way for much longer. Especially considering the iPod uses an OS intended for a mobile phone. (Might give you a hint where Apple might be thinking of taking the iPod, and, no, they don't intend to make a mobile phone.)
The promotion of choice of GUI as a positive feature of using Linux is detrimental to its chances of attacking Microsoft's home user monopoly. From the article: '...the open source community must recognize that its primary goals: freedom of choice, freedom of source code, and freedom to alter applications, are not the goals of the average user.'
I have always been confused by this argument: Why are we attacking Microsoft? Don't get me wrong, I am no M$ lover -- not by a long shot -- and I understand why companies that profit off of open source want to attack Microsoft individually or collectively. But open source is much, much bigger than just these companies. M$ is a choice. It may not be a choice I understand or would make, but it is a choice. If open source sacrifices "choice", as the article says, to attack Microsoft, then we are left with a different solution, but a solution that may offer no more choice than M$. (Obviously, I am ignoring the fact that you get the source with open source for right now.)
I don't see why such a large portion of open source has to standardize on something -- in particular the issue at hand -- to appeal to the average user. Assuming the average user should even be using Linux. M$ offer many products, some of which are intended for the average user. Would it not be appropriate -- is it not the job -- for open source companies to package products that, when appropriate, offer no choice for the average user rather than punishing the entire open source community in search of "attacking Microsoft" and acquiring the average user?
I know the author says open source companies, but what open source companies do has an effect on open source community members and vice-versa. It seems to me that some people want to see the open source community function like a corporation which I think is counter to the whole idea of the community.
Why doesn't M$ concentrate on the Trustworthy Computing Initiative they announced in the beginning of 2002. No matter what technology they implement and burdens they put on their users, they will never fix the problem if they don't fix the problem.
This is not the case, and understanding the difference is what makes the research important. Human somatic (non-germ line) cells are genetically identical -- they all have the same two X chromosomes, one of the two just happens to be deactivated.
Human chimera somatic cells are not genetically identical -- each one derives its genetic complement from one of the two original embryos.
Also of note is the fact that these human chimeras are not tetraploid (have four times the number of chromosomes).
Of course I would never trust anyone who signs a non-disclosure agreement that prevents them from revealing the full truth about what they are examining.
I don't claim to be a legal expert, but it does seem reasonable if SCO is, for trade secret or other reasons, trying to protect the code they claim has been copied that would have those who examine the code sign non-disclosure statements. And I certainly hope they will reveal who is examining the code, with the examiners permission, of course.
This does, however, bring up an interesting problem, which is how will these non-disclosure agreements be structured/worded so as to allow those who examine the code to comment honestly and openly on what they have examined (I am of course assuming that this is what these people would most like to do) without using the code as example or pointing out specific sections of code.
Hopefully, SCO will have enough integrity to make public the non-disclosure statement(s) they are asking those who examine the code to sign. Otherwise, the integrity and fact-finding of this endeavor will be lost, and it will be reduced to a meaningless PR event.
Notice: I intentionally did not use the word experts in the above paragraphs as I will reserve use of that word until those examining the code are revealed.
They mentioned that they will begin using tactics like those of the RIAA in taking action against end-users of Linux.
My concern is that, given how SCO has been conducting itself, they will try to use fear as a reason not to use Linux by first suing individual Linux users and developers. Although I do not believe that SCO has much of a case, but how can you know as they will not release any evidence, the suits SCO would file against individuals would probably be very difficult for these individuals to defend themselves against, and, regardless of whether SCO is right or wrong, these individuals will probably choose to settle.
Therefore, I am proposing the following set of initial steps to bring a quick end to this situation:
As many who read Shashdot probably work in the technology sector, probably individually own stock in technology companies, and may own stock in SCO, dump your SCO stock.
If you own stock in mutual funds, check those funds and make sure they do not own SCO stock. If they do, write a letter to the mutual fund company or fund manager asking them to sell off their SCO stock (you will probably have to follow this with a treat to switch to a different fund if they do not comply).
For those who work in the IT sector, start selling management and your peers on the idea that using SCO products is a bad decision for two reasons: (1) that you are going to suddently be left with software products for which there is no official support and no exit strategy as when SCO crashes they are going to crash quickly; and (2) that SCO is recklesly endangering a superior platform that your company may be looking at or currently running systems on.
I believe that under the combined pressure of a stock sell-off and rapidly decreasing revenues SCO will not even be able to continue its current legal activities.
For example Microsoft can buy Apple (perhaps not monopoly wise) and cripple the BSD kernel so Apple users can only play DRM'ed WMA's.
Unless they've changed things recently, Apple uses a Mach kernel for OS X (at the bottom of the page under the heading "Core OS"), not a BSD kernel.
This is of course theoretical, but KHTML (for KDE Konqueror) has had code back from Apple, due to GPL. I seriously doubt they had provided their changes if KHTML was BSD-licensed.
Actually, the libraries that Apple used from KDE (KHTML and KJS) are covered under the LGPL.
The LGPL being a little bit different than the GPL, this has two implications: (1) Apple is not obliged to send any code back KDE's way; and (2) it is what keeps Apple from having to distribute the source code to Safari (the whole static-dynamic linkage issue aside). If the KDE libraries had been covered by the GPL apple most likely would have had to distribute the code to Safari, and I suspect this was one of the reasons Apple selected the KDE libraries over competing libraries from Mozilla.
add bandwidth, server cost and personel to maintain the system and customer support and you have about the same in the way of back end costs
Rather than telling you how the financials actually work, I encourage you to look at the detailed financial statements for Amazon and Barnes & Noble. Then you tell me if the back-end costs for everything Amazon sells on the web are the same as Barnes & Noble's back-end costs for storage and logistics related services. And that doesn't even take into account that Barnes & Noble is not a manufacturing company, which would be a closer analogy to the comparison you are making.
Lastly, let's not forget the goal of this program. A drop in replacement for Quicken, available for Linux, OS X, and Windows. The last platform is perhaps the MOST important.
I could not disagree more with this statement (even though it is "perhaps"): that Windows is perhaps the most important platform. Unless all you want to do is take market share away from Intuit, which is what it sounds like, the most important platform is not one platform but all three platforms.
Don't kid yourself. Just because you've paid the "Celine Dion tax" on your media does not mean that you can copy music at will.
Do kid yourself. This tax basicaly amounts to two things: (1) treating all tax-payers as criminals, regardless of whether they have participated in criminal activity or not; (2) a tax whos sole purpose is to support a failing industry.
First, if you are going to be treated like a criminaly, then in this case you might as well partake in criminal activities.
Second, supporting failing enterprises does no one any good. Failing enterprises should be allowd -- even encouraged -- to fail as quickly as possible.
Just out of curiosity, how many people consider a 'fair' price point to be greater than $0.00?
I consider something over $0.00 to be fair, but nothing over $0.99. $0.99 a song is about the price of a CD now, and that is an excessively high price.
The reason the record compaines are showing steadily declining sales is:
The overall quality of there product has continued to fall (I'll not name any artists, but you know who they are).
In addition to failing quality, the price of the product has not changed.
The record companies have done just about everything they can to alienate their customers.
People are tierd of being screwed by the record compaines!
The one nice thing about this service is that it is not run by a record company -- I don't care how good the service is, I will never give money to a service run by the record companies.
A lot of people here seem to be either bashing Apple or asking why others are bashing Apple, and then complaining about the bashing.
I believe the reason for the bashing is fairly simple: people who buy Apple hardware and software want to believe they are buying these products from a company that is different, from a company that has always said it was different, and therefore from a different kind of company.
I think the irritation comes from wanting to believe so much that Apple is different, but time and time again having them prove that the only things that make them different is people wanting to believe they are different, and their inablility to actually be different.
For my two cents, I bought an Apple because I could try a new OS and, if I wanted to, I could install Linux if I didn't like the new OS. The Apple apps are nice, and they work well, but they are by no means anything amazing. Their are FS/OSS equivalents to all the Apple applications that are just as good as the Apple applications. So, if Apples strategy is to expect me to pay ~$150/year to upgrade various pieces of software, then I'll just go back to Linux, and will have been a nice six months of OS X usage.
Slashdot Mirror
I can't quote you the part that says anything about the Internet either. Does that mean that anything relating to the Internet is not covered by the Constitution?
The Constitution was meant and intended to be interpreted, not read verbatim.
I'll not analyze your whole statement -- others have done a fine job of that -- but this statement seems to be implying that you think judges rule based on their own opinions. They do not. Judges rule based on their opinion of the interpretation of existing law as it applies to the specific issue brough before them. If that is what you meant, very well then. If it is not what you meant, then you should be aware that regardless of wheter you agree with Judge Lee West's rulling, you are agreeing or disagreeing with his interpretation and application of the law, not with his personal opinion. Your problem, therefore, may very well lie with those who wrote an unclear, incomplete, unenforcable, etc. law, not with the judge.
Althought this is how this logic usually plays out today, I'm not sure it will remain this way for much longer. Especially considering the iPod uses an OS intended for a mobile phone. (Might give you a hint where Apple might be thinking of taking the iPod, and, no, they don't intend to make a mobile phone.)
To: comments@icann.org
Cc: shollenbeck@verisign.com; mlarsen@verisign.com
Subject: Resolution of non-existent domains
Sent: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 18:55:46 -0700
did not reach the following recipient(s):
mlarsen@verisign.com on Tue, 16 Sep 2003 18:51:59 -0700
The recipient name is not recognized
How it must hurt to bite the hand that feeds you -- especially when that hand is yours.
Simply, given the quality of what they produce, I can't image they do.
I have always been confused by this argument: Why are we attacking Microsoft? Don't get me wrong, I am no M$ lover -- not by a long shot -- and I understand why companies that profit off of open source want to attack Microsoft individually or collectively. But open source is much, much bigger than just these companies. M$ is a choice. It may not be a choice I understand or would make, but it is a choice. If open source sacrifices "choice", as the article says, to attack Microsoft, then we are left with a different solution, but a solution that may offer no more choice than M$. (Obviously, I am ignoring the fact that you get the source with open source for right now.)
I don't see why such a large portion of open source has to standardize on something -- in particular the issue at hand -- to appeal to the average user. Assuming the average user should even be using Linux. M$ offer many products, some of which are intended for the average user. Would it not be appropriate -- is it not the job -- for open source companies to package products that, when appropriate, offer no choice for the average user rather than punishing the entire open source community in search of "attacking Microsoft" and acquiring the average user?
I know the author says open source companies, but what open source companies do has an effect on open source community members and vice-versa. It seems to me that some people want to see the open source community function like a corporation which I think is counter to the whole idea of the community.
Why doesn't M$ concentrate on the Trustworthy Computing Initiative they announced in the beginning of 2002. No matter what technology they implement and burdens they put on their users, they will never fix the problem if they don't fix the problem.
This is not the case, and understanding the difference is what makes the research important. Human somatic (non-germ line) cells are genetically identical -- they all have the same two X chromosomes, one of the two just happens to be deactivated.
Human chimera somatic cells are not genetically identical -- each one derives its genetic complement from one of the two original embryos.
Also of note is the fact that these human chimeras are not tetraploid (have four times the number of chromosomes).
I would think that IBM would also move to have Boies disqualified due to his previous involvement with IBM.
Tortious interference with contractual relations
I don't claim to be a legal expert, but it does seem reasonable if SCO is, for trade secret or other reasons, trying to protect the code they claim has been copied that would have those who examine the code sign non-disclosure statements. And I certainly hope they will reveal who is examining the code, with the examiners permission, of course.
This does, however, bring up an interesting problem, which is how will these non-disclosure agreements be structured/worded so as to allow those who examine the code to comment honestly and openly on what they have examined (I am of course assuming that this is what these people would most like to do) without using the code as example or pointing out specific sections of code.
Hopefully, SCO will have enough integrity to make public the non-disclosure statement(s) they are asking those who examine the code to sign. Otherwise, the integrity and fact-finding of this endeavor will be lost, and it will be reduced to a meaningless PR event.
Notice: I intentionally did not use the word experts in the above paragraphs as I will reserve use of that word until those examining the code are revealed.
My concern is that, given how SCO has been conducting itself, they will try to use fear as a reason not to use Linux by first suing individual Linux users and developers. Although I do not believe that SCO has much of a case, but how can you know as they will not release any evidence, the suits SCO would file against individuals would probably be very difficult for these individuals to defend themselves against, and, regardless of whether SCO is right or wrong, these individuals will probably choose to settle.
Therefore, I am proposing the following set of initial steps to bring a quick end to this situation:
I believe that under the combined pressure of a stock sell-off and rapidly decreasing revenues SCO will not even be able to continue its current legal activities.
For example Microsoft can buy Apple (perhaps not monopoly wise) and cripple the BSD kernel so Apple users can only play DRM'ed WMA's.
Unless they've changed things recently, Apple uses a Mach kernel for OS X (at the bottom of the page under the heading "Core OS"), not a BSD kernel.
This is of course theoretical, but KHTML (for KDE Konqueror) has had code back from Apple, due to GPL. I seriously doubt they had provided their changes if KHTML was BSD-licensed.
Actually, the libraries that Apple used from KDE (KHTML and KJS) are covered under the LGPL. The LGPL being a little bit different than the GPL, this has two implications: (1) Apple is not obliged to send any code back KDE's way; and (2) it is what keeps Apple from having to distribute the source code to Safari (the whole static-dynamic linkage issue aside). If the KDE libraries had been covered by the GPL apple most likely would have had to distribute the code to Safari, and I suspect this was one of the reasons Apple selected the KDE libraries over competing libraries from Mozilla.
Rather than telling you how the financials actually work, I encourage you to look at the detailed financial statements for Amazon and Barnes & Noble. Then you tell me if the back-end costs for everything Amazon sells on the web are the same as Barnes & Noble's back-end costs for storage and logistics related services. And that doesn't even take into account that Barnes & Noble is not a manufacturing company, which would be a closer analogy to the comparison you are making.
Please note: the post said, "To do a true test [. . .]" It did not say, to tell the difference.
I could not disagree more with this statement (even though it is "perhaps"): that Windows is perhaps the most important platform. Unless all you want to do is take market share away from Intuit, which is what it sounds like, the most important platform is not one platform but all three platforms.
Don't kid yourself. Just because you've paid the "Celine Dion tax" on your media does not mean that you can copy music at will.
Do kid yourself. This tax basicaly amounts to two things: (1) treating all tax-payers as criminals, regardless of whether they have participated in criminal activity or not; (2) a tax whos sole purpose is to support a failing industry.
First, if you are going to be treated like a criminaly, then in this case you might as well partake in criminal activities.
Second, supporting failing enterprises does no one any good. Failing enterprises should be allowd -- even encouraged -- to fail as quickly as possible.
Just out of curiosity, how many people consider a 'fair' price point to be greater than $0.00?
I consider something over $0.00 to be fair, but nothing over $0.99. $0.99 a song is about the price of a CD now, and that is an excessively high price.
The reason the record compaines are showing steadily declining sales is:
People are tierd of being screwed by the record compaines!
The one nice thing about this service is that it is not run by a record company -- I don't care how good the service is, I will never give money to a service run by the record companies.
A lot of people here seem to be either bashing Apple or asking why others are bashing Apple, and then complaining about the bashing.
I believe the reason for the bashing is fairly simple: people who buy Apple hardware and software want to believe they are buying these products from a company that is different, from a company that has always said it was different, and therefore from a different kind of company.
I think the irritation comes from wanting to believe so much that Apple is different, but time and time again having them prove that the only things that make them different is people wanting to believe they are different, and their inablility to actually be different.
For my two cents, I bought an Apple because I could try a new OS and, if I wanted to, I could install Linux if I didn't like the new OS. The Apple apps are nice, and they work well, but they are by no means anything amazing. Their are FS/OSS equivalents to all the Apple applications that are just as good as the Apple applications. So, if Apples strategy is to expect me to pay ~$150/year to upgrade various pieces of software, then I'll just go back to Linux, and will have been a nice six months of OS X usage.