That's very long and informative, but regrettably off-topic. I was actually replying to a chap who appeared to think that you needed to have 100% of a market to be a monopoly.
No, there is quite a balancing process to be done by the courts, but the context of the comment was to address a claim that 80-90% was not a monopoly. In fact, it could easily be, depending on the size and market penetration of others in the market.
The newest T-series SPARCs were based on two persons' work using a much earlier variant, contemporary with the open SPARC design. It takes brilliance, not huge companies, you see.
Actually, 83% is often used as a cutoff in both the US and Canada, derived from (US) judge Learned Hand's opinion that a market share of ninety percent 'is enough to constitute a monopoly; it is doubtful whether sixty . . . percent would be enough; and certainly thirty-three percent is not.' [ United States v. Aluminum Co. of Am., 148 F.2d 416, 424 (2d Cir. 1945)]
The statement on the bill was so that no-one could refuse it during the "Great Rebellion", as the American Revolution was called at the time. A citation from 1869 is typical: https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/...
At that time, the government did not wish to give person the option of refusing the (new) U.S. Dollar and demanding gold or silver before completing a transaction with the government or private individuals.
The Department of the Treasure has stated a legal opinion that the law does not apply to a large class of private transactions, on the grounds that a "debt" does not exist until the transaction is complete.
There is case law on paying the debt in cash as opposed to gold and silver, but Google Scholar doesn't report anything on refusal to accept cash for a non-debt.
An arguement can be made that the intention of the US founding fathers was to give "debt" its broadest possible reading, and that the position of the Treasury is pilpul, and requires authorizing legislation, such as (Canada's) "Currency Act"
This, of course, does not speak to other parts of the criminal code. For example, it may well be illegal to refuse to sell a necessity to a minor if they only have cash.
If I compare 25 people's birthdays to one another, I have a 50% chance of getting a match. That's because I compare one person with 25 others, another with 24, another with 23, and so on. That's with a 1:365 chance of sucess on a single trial (0.27%).
Now try this with a few thousand "people of interest" out of 25 billion.
One asks for public comments to know what the various parts of the pubic wants, to weigh in your deliberations. If you want to pretend to listen but actually ignore the comments, you have a comments period but set rules that exclude the answers you don't wish to hear.
You can ask for only blue-haired commentators, but that would be a bit obvious. Instead, you might ask for "novel" comments, meaning only those no-one had ever made before[1].
That should get it down to just things like "Dr Who personally said he disapproved" or "please eat an elephant", which can be ignored on the basis that they're non-responsive. (:-))
--dave
[1. of a new kind; different from anything seen or known before: a novel idea. Origin. 1375-1425; late Middle English. Courtesy of dictionary.com]
It's possible to be secure in a few dimensions: confidentiality is well-understood, but people inserting covert channels is an unsolved problem. Back in the mainframe days, I could be pretty sure the boot deck for Hi-Multics.ARPA didn't have any cool features, but I don't want to boot Fedora from a card-reader to get that assurance.
Apple is motivated to protect their customers at the moment, but if there is enough pressure or investment from those wishing otherwise, the secure coprocessor becomes just another back door.
Our project manangers varied from "everybody wants onto her team" to "was peremptorally released from the project and company".
We kept the first kind, and could tell them from the second by looking at the dollar value of projects that suceeded. If the PM earned us $12.00 in a year, they were clearly doing something wrong (;-))
Google got a US judgement that they need not obey a Canadian Supreme Court order (a temporary restraining order), but it wasn't about free speech, just commecial speech, by which they meant advertisements for stolen hardware designs.
They would have been far happier if the Canadian case was the <expletive deleted> pile of crap the Australian one was.
If you're prevented from paying your own way, then you can get a graduate degree if and only if youre parents are already well-to do, and can pay an inflated tuition and support you as well.
This mat be an intentional change: in Ontario a former permier got his degrees using provincial grants and loans, and when elected, promptly cut them so other people's children couldn't compete with his.
I do like go, but primarily because it's another language like C, where they took stuff out. (And yes, I did use Multics PL/1, so I can sympathise with Kernighan: "You don't need this, or this, or that either. See?")
The old "orange book" standards defind four letter grades, just like in school. A was excellent, B was good, C was a comfortable pass and D was a bare pass. Windows struggled to make C with networking turned off.
The standards have been replaced with easier ones, and this bundle of hardware might make D...
In Canada, ask your solicitor whether the device is "suitable for the purpose sold", ie, to watch broadcast tv without interference, and if the seller is "obtaining money upon a false and fradulent pretense", by rerpresenting a lease as a sale, and by representing the device as being as TV, as opposed to a "telescreen" (ie, from 1984).
Logically, one can make numerous arguements that the devices break statute law, but you need a lawyer to research the case law and see if the courts will countenance your complaints. And that will differ from one legal regime to another.
Slight flaw: even if this costs 0.00000001 cents per device that's 0.00000001 cents too much.
The proposed RFC tries to solve far too many problems at once, and is about as elegant as a bowl of spagetti. We don't like that in code any more, much less as a requirements statement
Slashdot Mirror
That's very long and informative, but regrettably off-topic. I was actually replying to a chap who appeared to think that you needed to have 100% of a market to be a monopoly.
No, there is quite a balancing process to be done by the courts, but the context of the comment was to address a claim that 80-90% was not a monopoly. In fact, it could easily be, depending on the size and market penetration of others in the market.
Thanks!
The newest T-series SPARCs were based on two persons' work using a much earlier variant, contemporary with the open SPARC design. It takes brilliance, not huge companies, you see.
Actually, 83% is often used as a cutoff in both the US and Canada, derived from (US) judge Learned Hand's opinion that a market share of ninety percent 'is enough to constitute a monopoly; it is doubtful whether sixty . . . percent would be enough; and certainly thirty-three percent is not.' [ United States v. Aluminum Co. of Am., 148 F.2d 416, 424 (2d Cir. 1945)]
Righto, thanks!
The statement on the bill was so that no-one could refuse it during the "Great Rebellion", as the American Revolution was called at the time. A citation from 1869 is typical: https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/...
At that time, the government did not wish to give person the option of refusing the (new) U.S. Dollar and demanding gold or silver before completing a transaction with the government or private individuals.
The Department of the Treasure has stated a legal opinion that the law does not apply to a large class of private transactions, on the grounds that a "debt" does not exist until the transaction is complete.
There is case law on paying the debt in cash as opposed to gold and silver, but Google Scholar doesn't report anything on refusal to accept cash for a non-debt.
An arguement can be made that the intention of the US founding fathers was to give "debt" its broadest possible reading, and that the position of the Treasury is pilpul, and requires authorizing legislation, such as (Canada's) "Currency Act"
This, of course, does not speak to other parts of the criminal code. For example, it may well be illegal to refuse to sell a necessity to a minor if they only have cash.
HDCP has nothing to do with that: you can forge fake games with any tecnology.
... If it is used by an xbox game, then it only forbids you from recording your gaming sessions.
This makes it hard to prove you won when you're playing in a for-money tournament. Better have your phone on a tripod, recording the match as you play
My old employer, https://worldgaming.com/ sponsors just such tournaments and asks for evidence in case of two people claiming to have won.
--dave
If I compare 25 people's birthdays to one another, I have a 50% chance of getting a match. That's because I compare one person with 25 others, another with 24, another with 23, and so on. That's with a 1:365 chance of sucess on a single trial (0.27%).
Now try this with a few thousand "people of interest" out of 25 billion.
--dave
One asks for public comments to know what the various parts of the pubic wants, to weigh in your deliberations. If you want to pretend to listen but actually ignore the comments, you have a comments period but set rules that exclude the answers you don't wish to hear.
You can ask for only blue-haired commentators, but that would be a bit obvious. Instead, you might ask for "novel" comments, meaning only those no-one had ever made before[1].
That should get it down to just things like "Dr Who personally said he disapproved" or "please eat an elephant", which can be ignored on the basis that they're non-responsive. (:-))
--dave
[1. of a new kind; different from anything seen or known before: a novel idea. Origin. 1375-1425; late Middle English. Courtesy of dictionary.com]
They just slid the knofe in between the ribs of Jeph Jacques, the cartoonist who does "Questionable Content", http://questionablecontent.net...
See his article at https://www.patreon.com/posts/...
Assuming it stays up!
Er, Rodgers and Bell are really /really/ non-left. In Canada we call the alt-right "Reform", qv.
One upon a time, an Italian leader named Benny proposed a council of businesses should be the legislature of the country...
A similar one, from tech in asia, https://yro.slashdot.org/story...
Right now it's false advertising (;-))
It's possible to be secure in a few dimensions: confidentiality is well-understood, but people inserting covert channels is an unsolved problem. Back in the mainframe days, I could be pretty sure the boot deck for Hi-Multics.ARPA didn't have any cool features, but I don't want to boot Fedora from a card-reader to get that assurance.
Apple is motivated to protect their customers at the moment, but if there is enough pressure or investment from those wishing otherwise, the secure coprocessor becomes just another back door.
Our project manangers varied from "everybody wants onto her team" to "was peremptorally released from the project and company".
We kept the first kind, and could tell them from the second by looking at the dollar value of projects that suceeded. If the PM earned us $12.00 in a year, they were clearly doing something wrong (;-))
Just for context, Jeremy is one of the major developers of Samba, and Samba is one of the projects referred to.
Google got a US judgement that they need not obey a Canadian Supreme Court order (a temporary restraining order), but it wasn't about free speech, just commecial speech, by which they meant advertisements for stolen hardware designs.
They would have been far happier if the Canadian case was the <expletive deleted> pile of crap the Australian one was.
If you're prevented from paying your own way, then you can get a graduate degree if and only if youre parents are already well-to do, and can pay an inflated tuition and support you as well.
This mat be an intentional change: in Ontario a former permier got his degrees using provincial grants and loans, and when elected, promptly cut them so other people's children couldn't compete with his.
I do like go, but primarily because it's another language like C, where they took stuff out. (And yes, I did use Multics PL/1, so I can sympathise with Kernighan: "You don't need this, or this, or that either. See?")
The old "orange book" standards defind four letter grades, just like in school. A was excellent, B was good, C was a comfortable pass and D was a bare pass. Windows struggled to make C with networking turned off.
The standards have been replaced with easier ones, and this bundle of hardware might make D...
In Canada, ask your solicitor whether the device is "suitable for the purpose sold", ie, to watch broadcast tv without interference, and if the seller is "obtaining money upon a false and fradulent pretense", by rerpresenting a lease as a sale, and by representing the device as being as TV, as opposed to a "telescreen" (ie, from 1984).
Logically, one can make numerous arguements that the devices break statute law, but you need a lawyer to research the case law and see if the courts will countenance your complaints. And that will differ from one legal regime to another.
Slight flaw: even if this costs 0.00000001 cents per device that's 0.00000001 cents too much.
The proposed RFC tries to solve far too many problems at once, and is about as elegant as a bowl of spagetti. We don't like that in code any more, much less as a requirements statement
Too many words, take some out!