There are hardly any employers out there that actually do computer science. Mostly they want someone to get their web front-end connected to their database. Not exactly CS work, but its the kind of programming that pays the bills. For real CS work, you'd pretty much have to stick to research institutions. For-profit corporations don't really do research anymore since it isn't profitable within the next quarter.
So anyone taken into custody by the US government, or anyone working on their behalf, anywhere in the world has full constitutional rights and protections? Including taxpayer funded attorneys, I presume. Read up on history. You have no clue whatsoever how wars are fought. POWs are almost never put on trial.
I'll consider donating to the ACLU when they stop paying to defend terrorists. I'm not having my money spent on that shit.
Back on topic, that kid is in a pretty good situation already. He gets the notoriety for "sticking it to the man" and even if he loses, so what? What can they collect from a 16 year old kid? No judge is going to support garnishing his wages by the time he's 25 and finally making real money.
Maybe I should clarify: nothing new that most people don't already have in XP (spyware control, better search, non-admin accounts, etc). These are nice things to have in an OS, but there is no need to pay up to $400 for Vista to have these features.
I'm not saying this is the way it should be. I absolutely despise the lawsuit tax on American business. But I'm realistic enough to see that the way it is, and there are too many powerful interests that will keep it from changing.
Any company that cannot afford lawyers in a situation like this should just close their doors now and save themselves the trouble. What are they going to do when a patent troll comes along and tries the same scam? And no matter what business you are in, you're violating someone's patent for something.
So doesn't this pretty much defeat one of the two new features introduced by Vista (prettier pictures and DRM)? The prices for Vista are a lot to pay for DirectX10 and a little more eye candy.
I'm still waiting for ONE reason why the average business should downgrade to Vista. Assuming they don't care about DX10, which most businesses won't, what are the benefits? How would Vista make a business more profitable?
This is why software innovators are now advised to disregard patents. NO software whatsoever can be written without infringing a patent. So anyone investing in a software startup must have the balls to fight a patent lawsuit with an adequate defense team. Otherwise they might as well not even bother, as they'll get sued eventually.
Create a successful product, make a killing, and wait for the leeches to come out of the woodwork with patent suits. When they do, stall them through the courts and litigate them to death. Otherwise, just fold up shop and go occupy a cubicle at a "safe" job somewhere.
This will be true some day, but not anytime soon. There are a lot of Windows 2000 installations still running, even 7 years after it was released. Right now if I installed Vista on my fairly new machine, the only difference I would see is prettier screen art and slower performance. Therefore I should "upgrade" to Vista for what reason exactly?
Well, it is your choice. Standing up for freedom of speech isn't always easy or convenient. If the law is on your side and you have the means to fight, go for it.
It would be even cooler if Vista offered any new features worth having. Between the high price and the high hardware performance cost, I'll be sticking with XP until its no longer available, or until "Longhorn" or whatever they're calling the new new version finally comes out.
And once again, Slashdotters don't give a shit about your moderation opinions. You would need positive karma just to meta-mod, never mind actually moderating comments which would be way beyond your intellectual capacity. I would make a comment about your obvious immaturity, but you've done a great enough job demonstrating it yourself.
Will it also become illegal for a band to freely distribute music on their own website? Or even to have a free concert? Its about the same damn thing. Why should anyone be required to lock up their own broadcast if they don't want to?
Could this be the much-needed nail in the coffin for Blu-Ray? The sooner it dies (and you know it will, its backed by Sony), the sooner the HD-DVD industry can advance. Who'd want to buy while we're still in the midst of a format war and risk having the next Betamax? (Also a Sony product)
Whenever you're going to do something stupid, it always sounds better to say its "for the children". Its not unlike all those attempts to ban certain types of video games; every one of them was justified as protecting children. Now we have someone doing the opposite while using the children as justification as well. Maybe I should have kids afterall; I might need them to justify some stupid stunt.
Who the hell sells CD replacement insurance? Are songs a product or a licensed service? The music industry would love to have it both ways but legally they can't. Wanting something and getting it are 2 different things. If they want CDs to be treated strictly as physical products, like food, then anyone can do anything they want with the product. The grocery store can't tell me who I can or can't give my food to. Lastly, you could at least have the balls to login while you troll.
Slashdot Mirror
There are hardly any employers out there that actually do computer science. Mostly they want someone to get their web front-end connected to their database. Not exactly CS work, but its the kind of programming that pays the bills. For real CS work, you'd pretty much have to stick to research institutions. For-profit corporations don't really do research anymore since it isn't profitable within the next quarter.
This idea is much too common-sense and non-ideological for Slashdot, hence the flamebait mod.
So anyone taken into custody by the US government, or anyone working on their behalf, anywhere in the world has full constitutional rights and protections? Including taxpayer funded attorneys, I presume. Read up on history. You have no clue whatsoever how wars are fought. POWs are almost never put on trial.
And that's the key difference. On US soil. The terrorists in Gitmo were never on US soil. Hence, no part of the constitution applies to them.
I'll consider donating to the ACLU when they stop paying to defend terrorists. I'm not having my money spent on that shit.
Back on topic, that kid is in a pretty good situation already. He gets the notoriety for "sticking it to the man" and even if he loses, so what? What can they collect from a 16 year old kid? No judge is going to support garnishing his wages by the time he's 25 and finally making real money.
Maybe I should clarify: nothing new that most people don't already have in XP (spyware control, better search, non-admin accounts, etc). These are nice things to have in an OS, but there is no need to pay up to $400 for Vista to have these features.
I'm not saying this is the way it should be. I absolutely despise the lawsuit tax on American business. But I'm realistic enough to see that the way it is, and there are too many powerful interests that will keep it from changing.
Any company that cannot afford lawyers in a situation like this should just close their doors now and save themselves the trouble. What are they going to do when a patent troll comes along and tries the same scam? And no matter what business you are in, you're violating someone's patent for something.
So doesn't this pretty much defeat one of the two new features introduced by Vista (prettier pictures and DRM)? The prices for Vista are a lot to pay for DirectX10 and a little more eye candy.
I'm still waiting for ONE reason why the average business should downgrade to Vista. Assuming they don't care about DX10, which most businesses won't, what are the benefits? How would Vista make a business more profitable?
Of course, Vista will eliminate spam. Just like XP eliminated hackers. Chalk it up to another typical Bill Gates prediction gone bad.
But 5 years is a pretty safe guesstimate for that to happen IMHO.
And Microsoft will have nothing to do with it. MSN TV my ass.
You fucking loser.
This is why software innovators are now advised to disregard patents. NO software whatsoever can be written without infringing a patent. So anyone investing in a software startup must have the balls to fight a patent lawsuit with an adequate defense team. Otherwise they might as well not even bother, as they'll get sued eventually.
Create a successful product, make a killing, and wait for the leeches to come out of the woodwork with patent suits. When they do, stall them through the courts and litigate them to death. Otherwise, just fold up shop and go occupy a cubicle at a "safe" job somewhere.
This will be true some day, but not anytime soon. There are a lot of Windows 2000 installations still running, even 7 years after it was released. Right now if I installed Vista on my fairly new machine, the only difference I would see is prettier screen art and slower performance. Therefore I should "upgrade" to Vista for what reason exactly?
I am shaking my giant cock in anger!
Well, it is your choice. Standing up for freedom of speech isn't always easy or convenient. If the law is on your side and you have the means to fight, go for it.
There aren't many people making pirated Vista available, mainly because there aren't many people who would want to pirate it.
It would be even cooler if Vista offered any new features worth having. Between the high price and the high hardware performance cost, I'll be sticking with XP until its no longer available, or until "Longhorn" or whatever they're calling the new new version finally comes out.
And once again, Slashdotters don't give a shit about your moderation opinions. You would need positive karma just to meta-mod, never mind actually moderating comments which would be way beyond your intellectual capacity. I would make a comment about your obvious immaturity, but you've done a great enough job demonstrating it yourself.
Will it also become illegal for a band to freely distribute music on their own website? Or even to have a free concert? Its about the same damn thing. Why should anyone be required to lock up their own broadcast if they don't want to?
Could this be the much-needed nail in the coffin for Blu-Ray? The sooner it dies (and you know it will, its backed by Sony), the sooner the HD-DVD industry can advance. Who'd want to buy while we're still in the midst of a format war and risk having the next Betamax? (Also a Sony product)
Whenever you're going to do something stupid, it always sounds better to say its "for the children". Its not unlike all those attempts to ban certain types of video games; every one of them was justified as protecting children. Now we have someone doing the opposite while using the children as justification as well. Maybe I should have kids afterall; I might need them to justify some stupid stunt.
Nobody likes whiny bitches at the adult table, which means they'd kick your ass right out. About your anger management issues... see a shrink.
Who the hell sells CD replacement insurance? Are songs a product or a licensed service? The music industry would love to have it both ways but legally they can't. Wanting something and getting it are 2 different things. If they want CDs to be treated strictly as physical products, like food, then anyone can do anything they want with the product. The grocery store can't tell me who I can or can't give my food to. Lastly, you could at least have the balls to login while you troll.