There have been many precedents about fair usage of graphics, images, and the like. However, for places like online forums where users want Avatars (small 50x50 pixel images), I find the case law is unclear.
There are several cases that say that recognizable images (Spiderman, Anime, etc) are all NOT okay to use - but there are also some cases that say that depending on the size and the usage, it may be okay.
So, what is your opinion (not legal advice) about what would and would not be legal in terms of Avatars on forums, and also for graphics in general on the net.
Well, start with the cost of an OEM copy - $179 - for Windows 2000 Pro locally.
Now, imagine that for sales in the range of a Dell (7million per year-ish).. Some discount is clearly going to be applied. Lets say for each order-of-magnitude, you give another 10% off. Thats 1->1mil, thats 6 orders of magnitude - 60% off.
Works out to about $72 per copy. Now of course, Windows 2000 isn't the latest, so it might be 10-20% higher, putting us right near $100.
Microsoft simply makes a deal based on estimated number of computers sold - Dell pays a flat rate for *all* the machines they will sell. By doing so, they get mass-discounting. Even if they sold 1% of PC's without the MS OS, they still end up saving money by paying MS for that OS - because the discount makes it worthwhile.
Thanks to the antitrust settlement, that mass-discounting has to be consistent among sellers, but it can make it extremely worthwhile to sellers to include MS OS regardless of minority customer demands.
It would take upwards of 5-10% of customers wanting to NOT have the MS OS for it to be a savings for the large manufacturers to be able to save money - and thats based on the numbers above.. they might not be nearly that good, in which case you'd need even MORE customers not wanting a MS OS.. Not likely in the near future.
So you are correct - users don't pay for the OS.. the manufacturers pay for the option to offer it.:)
" I bet we see Vodaphone or Verizon grab T-Mobile now. "
Wrong technologies. Verizon Wireless would more likely grab Sprint - which uses the same carrier technology. Its also one of the reasons Sprint's stock raised on the news of the AT&T merger - rampant speculation that they would be "plan B".
Your nick is well chosen.. just responding with a counter point for the sake of doing so.
But valid questions one and all, so I'll respond to them..
"Why is that sad?" Because, with few exceptions, microsoft makes computer hardware and software. Thats it. Granted, they happen to be the dominant provider, but that is the net value add to our world from them - software and hardware.
Compare and contrast with Disney, who has created childhood legends - nay, histories! They have inspired generations of animators, pushed forward the arts, ALSO made software and hardware, ALSO single-handedly revolutionized theme parks, and so on. They've made a lasting positive cultural investment. Microsoft gave us the blue-screen of death.
"Why is this "absolute insanity""
Because the valuations are insane. They said so themselves by issuing dividends - stating explicitly that their cash holdings were too large NOT to return some value directly to share holders.
They simply didnt do it enough!
"Are you just railing against Microsoft?"
Not at all. While I do have serious problems with them as a corporate citizen, and more serious issues with them as a computer user, I simply brought up a valid point about their valuation being out of line with reality - a point of view shared by numerous stock analysts before and after their dividends were issued.
"They aren't involved here? Also, why mod to Interesting??????"
No, they arent. But they make an interesting point for comparison. Its modded to interesting because people find it - shock here - interesting that a company that has added practically nothing to our culture, and has demonstrated time and again that it is willing to break the law, is capable of buying a company that is the polar opposite of it. Without trying. Without any change in their stock structure.
"As for "In other words, if the price was lower, Microsoft could buy Disney without change ANYTHING in their business" - where does that come from. "
The fact that their available cash reserves (published) is over $50B. That means they could make a tender cash offer - ie, without issuing, re-valuing, or requesting approval for any change in stocks - for the company.
"Having available cash like that does impact their business. It allows them to quickly move when an opportunity presents itself without worrying about financing. That is a huge business advantage versus every other company out there."
Thats a valid argument, but you are over-stating that advantage signifigantly. They'd immediately gain a tremendous amount of value, assets, and expansion items that would - BY FAR - offset any loss of potential.
Thats exactly why the analysts recommended MS do some acquisitions before their stock dividends - because they had TOO MUCH potential, and not enough capital goods.
Put simply, its nuts that they have enough cash laying around to buy a cultural icon (even a tarnished one) without even issuing a single stock cert.
As part of the proposal, Comcast has noted the applicability of the FCC's current program access and program carriage rules to the combined company, which should address potential concerns that could be raised in the regulatory process. Those rules ensure that the combined company will continue to make all of its satellite-delivered national and regional cable networks available on a non-exclusive, non-discriminatory basis and that there will be no discrimination against unaffiliated programming services, all comparable to the undertakings made by News Corp. in its recent acquisition of DirecTV.
So no, they wouldnt deny access to other companies simply because they werent comcast.
There is a huge difference between professional organizations and unions, and you do a disservice to both by lumping them together.
Unions exist - as you said - to assist with collective bargaining, to work for better wages and working conditions, and most importantly (imho), to reduce layoffs without cause.
Professional organizations on the other hand can have a variety of functions. Most are focused on knowledge sharing. The AMA, for example, publishes magazines and gives doctors strong recommended guidelines based on thousands of doctors feedback.
There would definitely be a benefit to both types of organizations for computer scientists/engineers. However, try not to lump them together, as you'll get the arguments against both, and few of the pro's for either.
My two cents on unions are that they need to get a foothold in the one place that can make a huge difference - tech support centers. Places like "CallTech" and other minimum wage, low-benefit, high-stress environments are the perfect foothold.
They get the numbers needed to show that people gain benefit from being under collective bargaining, and they build a groundswell of support.
When you then leverage that to move into call/support for say, Sprint or Microsoft, you can see that it would be a trivial extension to break into the server rooms, the switch closets, and the rest of the company.
I don't think for a second that I need to give the Unions ideas though.. they've thought of it, they are working on it, and it will happen in time.
I really like the idea of a professional organization though.. add some strong credibility, and knowledge sharing.
Microsoft isn't a monopoly, per say, they're just really successful.
You are confused about what they have a monopoly IN. Multiple courts ruled that they were in fact a monopoly. You seem to be under the false impression it is for being a PC monopoly - far from it.
They have become a defacto OS monopoly - while there are other choices, they leverage their market share to ensure you can't, shouldn't, or won't want to use a competitors product.
Good companies encourage you to choose their product OVER the competitors, monopolies discourage competitors products through control, price gouging, and more.
I had a completely legit profile (my only one!), with 19 friends (all real people!), and a completed profile.
After two months of using it, one day I log in, and its gone. My profile still exists, but only the most basic information. All 19 friends were gone, all my profile information, all my personal messages, EVERYTHING - gone.
So I emailed for support, and a form letter response indicated that "It wasnt a virus, nor could Friendster" infect my computer. WTH?
I replied to it, but never heard back.
Two months later, several friends report no problems with it, but my account has yet to be restored. It's very odd. I even wrote to feedback, but no response yet.
Not a great way to build 'trust' on a social network.
"So all of these blurbs in print add up to around 4000 words. That's a good amount of room."
In print, the 4000 words wouldnt be dwarfed by ads easily double the size of the text.
There is a reason magazines have layout specifications, and the fact that pcmag split your (admittedly well written) article THAT many places made it completely unacceptable to read.
When reading a magazine, people will only generally tolerate a 2 to 1 ratio of ads to text, and the ads generally have to be seperate from the text. (Otherwise the ratio drops to roughly 1 to 1).
Why do your editors think online viewing is so different?
I had at one point 3 alarms, at opposition points in the room for this very purpose.
No more.
Instead, I use a system tray application that plays mp3's as an alarm.
Now heres the kicker - you have to right click on the icon in the system tray for it to deactivate.
When your resolution is 1280+, and its first thing in the morning, you generally *will* wake up in the process of:
Turning the $(*^ed monitor on Moving the sleeping cordless mouse Moving it to the system tray Right clicking the CORRECT icon
As in that wasnt enough, I have two scheduled: one for early, and one for "I'm going to be late for work!".
The controls to deactivate one or the other is not the kind of thing you can do without waking up.
For the record, the MP3 I play is the sound clip from "So I married an Axe Murderer", in which Mike Meyers does the great routine about a kid with a huge head..
"HEAD! PAPER! NOW!" (and it goes on for ~ 20 seconds and then loops).
Very jarring, very loud, and yet, after over 100 days of hearing it, I still laugh when he says.. "That was offsides.. yeah, he's going to cry himself to sleep on his HUGE PILLOW".
SCO also said that the infringing code *wasnt* in the versions of linux they distribute - 2.2 and below.
The problem they face is that if in fact its a valid copyright issue for not including the copyright header, since THEY distributed it, if even they couldnt get it right, no one else should be held to a higher standard.
Linus, by showing the long and specific history of the code as being original did two things:
- Proved that it wasnt copied, as SCO claims - Proved that the header inclusion issue is bunk in at least two very specific files.
The net result of both is that they are filing bogus DMCA claims, and could be held accountable (I know what I want for NEXT christmas).:)
Uh, no, you didn't do your research. The parent poster was correct - the IPv6 address DOES include the MAC address, including during full network routing - not just local routing like in IPv4.
In IPv6, the MAC is included in the IP address - as you said, on that higher layer.
Slashdot Mirror
"most of it was based around real technology (such as Viral Glass)"
Viral Glass is *not* real technology. Perhaps you should get out more..
There have been many precedents about fair usage of graphics, images, and the like. However, for places like online forums where users want Avatars (small 50x50 pixel images), I find the case law is unclear.
There are several cases that say that recognizable images (Spiderman, Anime, etc) are all NOT okay to use - but there are also some cases that say that depending on the size and the usage, it may be okay.
So, what is your opinion (not legal advice) about what would and would not be legal in terms of Avatars on forums, and also for graphics in general on the net.
Well, start with the cost of an OEM copy - $179 - for Windows 2000 Pro locally.
:)
Now, imagine that for sales in the range of a Dell (7million per year-ish).. Some discount is clearly going to be applied. Lets say for each order-of-magnitude, you give another 10% off. Thats 1->1mil, thats 6 orders of magnitude - 60% off.
Works out to about $72 per copy. Now of course, Windows 2000 isn't the latest, so it might be 10-20% higher, putting us right near $100.
Microsoft simply makes a deal based on estimated number of computers sold - Dell pays a flat rate for *all* the machines they will sell. By doing so, they get mass-discounting. Even if they sold 1% of PC's without the MS OS, they still end up saving money by paying MS for that OS - because the discount makes it worthwhile.
Thanks to the antitrust settlement, that mass-discounting has to be consistent among sellers, but it can make it extremely worthwhile to sellers to include MS OS regardless of minority customer demands.
It would take upwards of 5-10% of customers wanting to NOT have the MS OS for it to be a savings for the large manufacturers to be able to save money - and thats based on the numbers above.. they might not be nearly that good, in which case you'd need even MORE customers not wanting a MS OS.. Not likely in the near future.
So you are correct - users don't pay for the OS.. the manufacturers pay for the option to offer it.
" I bet we see Vodaphone or Verizon grab T-Mobile now. "
Wrong technologies. Verizon Wireless would more likely grab Sprint - which uses the same carrier technology. Its also one of the reasons Sprint's stock raised on the news of the AT&T merger - rampant speculation that they would be "plan B".
Completely different product space. Trademarks are allowed for such things, and the Moz project is well on its way to having the trademark approved.
Your nick is well chosen.. just responding with a counter point for the sake of doing so.
But valid questions one and all, so I'll respond to them..
"Why is that sad?"
Because, with few exceptions, microsoft makes computer hardware and software. Thats it. Granted, they happen to be the dominant provider, but that is the net value add to our world from them - software and hardware.
Compare and contrast with Disney, who has created childhood legends - nay, histories! They have inspired generations of animators, pushed forward the arts, ALSO made software and hardware, ALSO single-handedly revolutionized theme parks, and so on. They've made a lasting positive cultural investment. Microsoft gave us the blue-screen of death.
"Why is this "absolute insanity""
Because the valuations are insane. They said so themselves by issuing dividends - stating explicitly that their cash holdings were too large NOT to return some value directly to share holders.
They simply didnt do it enough!
"Are you just railing against Microsoft?"
Not at all. While I do have serious problems with them as a corporate citizen, and more serious issues with them as a computer user, I simply brought up a valid point about their valuation being out of line with reality - a point of view shared by numerous stock analysts before and after their dividends were issued.
"They aren't involved here? Also, why mod to Interesting??????"
No, they arent. But they make an interesting point for comparison. Its modded to interesting because people find it - shock here - interesting that a company that has added practically nothing to our culture, and has demonstrated time and again that it is willing to break the law, is capable of buying a company that is the polar opposite of it. Without trying. Without any change in their stock structure.
"As for "In other words, if the price was lower, Microsoft could buy Disney without change ANYTHING in their business" - where does that come from. "
The fact that their available cash reserves (published) is over $50B. That means they could make a tender cash offer - ie, without issuing, re-valuing, or requesting approval for any change in stocks - for the company.
"Having available cash like that does impact their business. It allows them to quickly move when an opportunity presents itself without worrying about financing. That is a huge business advantage versus every other company out there."
Thats a valid argument, but you are over-stating that advantage signifigantly. They'd immediately gain a tremendous amount of value, assets, and expansion items that would - BY FAR - offset any loss of potential.
Thats exactly why the analysts recommended MS do some acquisitions before their stock dividends - because they had TOO MUCH potential, and not enough capital goods.
Put simply, its nuts that they have enough cash laying around to buy a cultural icon (even a tarnished one) without even issuing a single stock cert.
Madness.
So no, they wouldnt deny access to other companies simply because they werent comcast.
The truly sad part is that Microsoft could buy Disney at the same price, and only have to use $10B in stock. They have roughly $50B in cash available.
In other words, if the price was lower, Microsoft could buy Disney without changing ANYTHING in their business. Zero impact, other than availabl cash.
Thats absolute insanity.
There is a huge difference between professional organizations and unions, and you do a disservice to both by lumping them together.
Unions exist - as you said - to assist with collective bargaining, to work for better wages and working conditions, and most importantly (imho), to reduce layoffs without cause.
Professional organizations on the other hand can have a variety of functions. Most are focused on knowledge sharing. The AMA, for example, publishes magazines and gives doctors strong recommended guidelines based on thousands of doctors feedback.
There would definitely be a benefit to both types of organizations for computer scientists/engineers. However, try not to lump them together, as you'll get the arguments against both, and few of the pro's for either.
My two cents on unions are that they need to get a foothold in the one place that can make a huge difference - tech support centers. Places like "CallTech" and other minimum wage, low-benefit, high-stress environments are the perfect foothold.
They get the numbers needed to show that people gain benefit from being under collective bargaining, and they build a groundswell of support.
When you then leverage that to move into call/support for say, Sprint or Microsoft, you can see that it would be a trivial extension to break into the server rooms, the switch closets, and the rest of the company.
I don't think for a second that I need to give the Unions ideas though.. they've thought of it, they are working on it, and it will happen in time.
I really like the idea of a professional organization though.. add some strong credibility, and knowledge sharing.
You are confused about what they have a monopoly IN. Multiple courts ruled that they were in fact a monopoly. You seem to be under the false impression it is for being a PC monopoly - far from it.
They have become a defacto OS monopoly - while there are other choices, they leverage their market share to ensure you can't, shouldn't, or won't want to use a competitors product.
Good companies encourage you to choose their product OVER the competitors, monopolies discourage competitors products through control, price gouging, and more.
Yeah, friendster is a pile of crap.
I had a completely legit profile (my only one!), with 19 friends (all real people!), and a completed profile.
After two months of using it, one day I log in, and its gone. My profile still exists, but only the most basic information. All 19 friends were gone, all my profile information, all my personal messages, EVERYTHING - gone.
So I emailed for support, and a form letter response indicated that "It wasnt a virus, nor could Friendster" infect my computer. WTH?
I replied to it, but never heard back.
Two months later, several friends report no problems with it, but my account has yet to be restored. It's very odd. I even wrote to feedback, but no response yet.
Not a great way to build 'trust' on a social network.
That was stopped with the anti-trust trial. Notice the story where dell is doing just that!
How is that not accessible?
Without javascript, the text colors dont change, and with javascript, they end with black on background color..
What isnt accessible about it?
Wow! Another 2NU fan! Nice SIG!
I'm calling Clive Dinkey's..
I@$hri89&Q24gtr24gr
Which translated to..
"We 0wn3d j00r b0x f00lz! S3nd L1nux b0xez N ch1cks n3xt t1me!"
"So all of these blurbs in print add up to around 4000 words. That's a good amount of room."
In print, the 4000 words wouldnt be dwarfed by ads easily double the size of the text.
There is a reason magazines have layout specifications, and the fact that pcmag split your (admittedly well written) article THAT many places made it completely unacceptable to read.
When reading a magazine, people will only generally tolerate a 2 to 1 ratio of ads to text, and the ads generally have to be seperate from the text. (Otherwise the ratio drops to roughly 1 to 1).
Why do your editors think online viewing is so different?
This site has more information from the other side of the fence:
http://wwwpub.utdallas.edu/~liebowit/keys1.html
"studies in the ergonomics literature find no significant advantage for Dvorak that can be deemed scientifically reliable"
In short, there is a considerably large amount of doubt and argument over whether Dvorak is or is not superior to qwerty.
The application is: TCLOCK!
I had at one point 3 alarms, at opposition points in the room for this very purpose.
No more.
Instead, I use a system tray application that plays mp3's as an alarm.
Now heres the kicker - you have to right click on the icon in the system tray for it to deactivate.
When your resolution is 1280+, and its first thing in the morning, you generally *will* wake up in the process of:
Turning the $(*^ed monitor on
Moving the sleeping cordless mouse
Moving it to the system tray
Right clicking the CORRECT icon
As in that wasnt enough, I have two scheduled: one for early, and one for "I'm going to be late for work!".
The controls to deactivate one or the other is not the kind of thing you can do without waking up.
For the record, the MP3 I play is the sound clip from "So I married an Axe Murderer", in which Mike Meyers does the great routine about a kid with a huge head..
"HEAD! PAPER! NOW!" (and it goes on for ~ 20 seconds and then loops).
Very jarring, very loud, and yet, after over 100 days of hearing it, I still laugh when he says.. "That was offsides.. yeah, he's going to cry himself to sleep on his HUGE PILLOW".
SCO also said that the infringing code *wasnt* in the versions of linux they distribute - 2.2 and below.
:)
The problem they face is that if in fact its a valid copyright issue for not including the copyright header, since THEY distributed it, if even they couldnt get it right, no one else should be held to a higher standard.
Linus, by showing the long and specific history of the code as being original did two things:
- Proved that it wasnt copied, as SCO claims
- Proved that the header inclusion issue is bunk in at least two very specific files.
The net result of both is that they are filing bogus DMCA claims, and could be held accountable (I know what I want for NEXT christmas).
The Novell page doesnt seem to reference how long the cert is good for - even in the faq..
Anyone know?
Since you started it..
:)
You *did* notice it was from the CANARY islands, right?
Polly wanna cracker?
They can't do so. The DOJ ruling forced their hand - and this one actually stuck!
All their OEM agreements have to be consistent and non-discriminatory, so they can't pull that old stunt.
This may very well be the chance for Linux on the major-market desktop.
Uh, no, you didn't do your research. The parent poster was correct - the IPv6 address DOES include the MAC address, including during full network routing - not just local routing like in IPv4.
In IPv6, the MAC is included in the IP address - as you said, on that higher layer.
"God only has dsl."
God's not up this late. (Horrible movie, great line).