I think Courtney Love points out the key difference between musicians and authors:
When you look at the legal line on a CD, it says copyright 1976 Atlantic Records or copyright 1996 RCA Records. When you look at a book, though, it'll say something like copyright 1999 Susan Faludi, or David Foster Wallace. Authors own their books and license them to publishers. When the contract runs out, writers gets their books back. But record companies own our copyrights forever.
I think that makes a big difference in the ability of an author to make money with respect to publishers compared to musicians and record companies.
We have two many nuclear submarines going around in circles that really are not needed any more. How many times over is it necessary to destroy the Planet? We have enough power to destroy *all* life on Earth.
We have enough deterrants already, no need for more, why not pout this money into things that help humanity? Further the prospects of everyone on Earth, not hinder it with the chgance of total death. Can you imagine in 65 million years a new intelligence trying to figure out killed our species out? Was it an Asteroid? Nope. Oh my, it was there own weapons, they must have been primitive.
I can tell you were never in a submarine...
Before you go announcing we have too many submarines, answer me these questions:
What is the expected number of submarines to be lost upon beginning of hostilities?
What is the expected number of surviving subs who will recieve launch orders?
What percentage of those subs will launch?
For each launching sub, how many missles will it get off?
For each launched missle, how many warheads will reach their target and detonate?
Now, based on that consider this fact: you must insure the final number is sufficient to destroy the enemy for deterance to work and insure that many missles are on station at all times. To do this you have X submarines.
Right now we do that with 18 Tridents, At any given time two will be in for long term maintenace, leaving 16. Four to six of those will be inport turning over crews . That means about 11 subs cover this need. If you take away two you decrease that by nearly 20%, which will lead to about 25% longer cruises for the remaining crews.
Right now a boomer run is normally about 90 days, with my shortest having been 83 and the longest I remember any one doing being 113. You are saying we should bump this up to around 113 normally and probably move the record to 130 days. While Tridents are hotels compared to the old 616/640s I served on, I still would not want to do >100 days deployed on one (believe it or not, astronauts on the ISS have more contact with the outside world than a boomer's crew).
Unless you wish to contend that deterance is no longer needed, you should think about the issues driving the number of warheads and launch systems in place instead of just falling back on the "we can destroy the world X times" arguement about force size. It is more complex than that.
Herb
Re:Adventure Shell... old hat?
on
MUD Shell
·
· Score: 1
Isn't this just like the Adventure Shell, which has been around for a long time? Seems pretty MSInnovative to me.
Only if they did it knowing Adventure Shell existed. Separate generation counts as generation even if they are duplicating something that exists. Maybe not as much, but it still counts.
There history seems to suggest an separate origin.
I make a living writing software, and I like the idea of authors, artists, etc. being able to make money from their creations. Someone out there give me a solid ethical justification for intellectual property restrictions, please.
Instead of thinking of IP as property think of it as labor. When you take someone's IP without their permission you are instituting a form of slavery.
How do I come up with that idea. Creating IP takes time. When I expend my time on creating something I sacrifice the ability to do other things. If I wish to charge others for the use of the product of my time I am well within my rights. No one would argue that if a group of people held a gun to my head and threatened to kill me if I did not write them a word processor (or a hit song or the great American novel) that they had not enslaved me in some sense or stolen something. Yet, if I write any of those above things with the intent of charging for them anyone who aquires them without paying me has done something similar.
So if you have a hard time thinking of IP as property in the traditional sense, think of it as labor. Better yet, see it as a third thing we recognize as being as valuable as the other two, but also different is some ways, thus requiring different laws[1]. I am free to give away both my material goods and labor or to charge them. Things created by intellectual labor should have the same status. However, because IP is not a physical object we have to address other issues (overhearing IP, the easy of copying, accounting for its degrading over time, etc).
[1] This is my personable belief. However, the limitations of reproduction and transmission allowed laws to view it more as physical property to serve until now. Shakespear had no copyright, but because you could not record the plays you would have to steal a physical script to take them from him before they lost much of their value for example.
Sorry, I should have clarified - If the Yahoo search engine (which isn't really a search engine, just a directory of links that have been categorized by humans) gets turned into a portal-like "all content comes from us" thing, then it [meaning the search engine part] dies.
Ah, gotcha...that I agree with. In fact, one of the best parts of the Yahoo portal services is they tend to avoid that... Herb
The only reason people visit Yahoo is because it contains useful links.
I must disagree...I use Yahoo quite routinely:
It is my primary email because I have been behind several firewalls that did not allow telnet to an external server, but nowhere has blocked yahoo's mail.
I use their file storage, address book, and planner as a convience...could I implement them on my server account? Sure, but why waste the time.
Their customizable portal is actually useful for me (local movies, new links in their index in my areas, several yahoo bbs I am in, some business news, etc).
Their notepad is a great way to pass myself notes for home/work from work/home.
They are the only portal site I find useful and use their services routinely because of it. I think many people go there for more than links. Herb
Classic OOP features such as inheritence may generally be over-hyped, but specific cases such as polymorphism are very useful (even if there are ways of doing the same thing in languages such as C that were not designed for OOP).
Some of the major benefit of OOP, and specifically C++'s objects, are:
It is a clean module packaging mechanism that encourages cleaner interfaces between modules
It encourages opaque data interfaces (method access vs public access) which results in less bugs
It makes use of self-initialization/cleanup (constructors/deconstructirs) that avoid a whole slew of programmer errors.
The self-containedness of objects does make code reuse simpler and less bug prone.
etc, etc.
Plus, OOP is one way to make having multiple programmers work on the project more likely to be productive. When programs can be broken down into clean interfaced modules then different programmers can work on them with much less coordination than in pure structured programming. In my experience writing BIG BUSINESS in house apps (as opposed to the author's small and medium business) the procedural COBOL work is in some ways organized in an intuitive parallel to OOP.
It is worth noting the in the 30th Anniversery edition of The Mythical Man Month Fred Brooks admitted that one thing he had been wrong about was data and method hiding and that breaking software into pieces that are essentially black boxes does make a difference.
In conclusion, while not a silver bullet by any means, what OOP (and some other advanced design techniques) do is help make the man month a little less mythical not by making it possible for two people to write one project, but by dividing the project cleanly into two to be written in parallel. It may not half time while doubling programmers, but it does allow more programmers to take less time instead of more (within limits). It also makes it easier for new people to do maintenance by limiting their problem space when tracking down a bug or adding a feature.
I wonder how the next programmer to maintain the author's code will feel about his objection to abstraction and separating the project into self-contained pieces.
I think many people feel disenfranchised in the U.S. simply because they don't understand how the system works, and that they CAN make a difference if they have the right idea, and put in a lot of work.
As far as the political machine goes, the most obvious problem is the two party system. I'm of a mind that it should be a NO PARTY system. If you belong to a party, your loyalties go to that party, not to the people who elected you. Is every stance by your party going to be good for those that voted you in? Not hardly! Campaign finance reform needs to be done immediately, too, to minimize corruption. (Help! Help! I'm being repressed!) Something I thought was interesting was when people were 'vote swapping' via websites before the election and all the politicans were aghast at that - vote swapping, imagine that! Well, just what do you think EVERY SINGLE POLITICIANS DOES whenever they want something passed? "Sure, I'll vote for your upcoming nuke-the-whales bill if you vote for my guns-for-tots bill." And let's not even get into the people who influence politicans for a living (LEGALLY!). Yes, there's a lot wrong with the system, but the underlying freedom to change it is vast.
I belief your first paragraph, but I wonder if you understand the system as well as you claim given your tirade against the concept of political parties. Also, given you lack of historical knowledge (Jefferson had less to do with creating our system of government than anyone given he was not part of the Constitutional Convention and originally opposed the Constitution...his major contribution post-Independence to our governmental structure was involvement in the founding of one of the original two parties).
Compromise is essential to democratic government (and most other governmental systems for that matter). Given that no one citizen can impose his version of the world and the extreme rarity of identical attitudes on all issues the only way to select a course of action is compromise.
Political parties evolved historically (and not just in the US) as 'pre-compromises'. A group of people pre-sort out their positions on issues, generally in a hierarchical manner, and then present a unified vision. As a group they attempt to persuade voters that this vision is the best one. Attempts to find methods other than parties (most notably DeGaul's Rally in France) in the end have wound up looking like parties. Even the groups that lobby for ballot initiatives carry out 90% of the activities parties do (fund raising, voter education, voter wooing, voter registration, press handling), they just do it for a limited time (although often this year's inititive groups will have previous year's usual suspects in the majority of positions).
The key thing is to understand that involvement includes party involvement as well as just voting. Also, you need to understand that the parties are not static entities with uniform beliefs or goals. Although the US electoral system skews to two major parties (as does England's to a lesser degree, although they seem to be fairly stable at three now, and other countries (Germany and Isreal for example) skew to many) we have had six major parties in our history (Federalist, Democratic-Republican, Whig, Democratic, Republican, Populist) defined as a party with a national presence over multiple years and over multiple issues that effected the membership of Congress and the President. We have had dozens of minor parties with national presense (short list: Freesoil, several American Parties, Constitutional Party (2 incarnations), Progressive, Libertarian, Prohibition (nine state's ballots for president into the 1980s)).
What happened to all these parties: Either they displaced an existing party (Whig and Democrats grew out of a fractured DR party, GOP replaced the Whigs) or were absorbed by another (GOP is the fulfilment of the old Freesoil party, Populist and Progressive parties were absorbed by the Democrats and partially by the GOP). This is evident even this past year. Carefully scan Bush's stump speech and compare it to a 1992 Perot stump speech. Although specific issues have changed (defiect for example) several basic ideas (reform, the 'best minds', working across party lines) are common to both. Why? To respond to the voter.
In sum, do not rail against the parties de facto, but understand why they exist (and no cynical answers) and how to use them.
Oh, and prediction time: either the GOP or Democratic party will cease to exist by 2010 or be so radically changed as to be a different party (on par with the changes in both major parties between 1964 and 1980, where they both changes in major ways). Through most of the 90s I thought the Libertarians would displace the GOP, but having talked to Greens and watching the Democratic party I think the Greens displacing (or radically altering) the Democratic party is a better bet (regaining the Greens would put the Democratic party back in the majority). And guess what, that is the exact anti-corporate mentality you are looking for.
Herb
Points 1 and 2 could theoretically be done by Congressional rules of procedure (only allowing votes on bills that have been read, and which include a sunset clause), but it would probably require a Constitutional amendment to make it stick the first time it became politically inconvenient.
Actually, 1a would probably have more Constitutional hot water because it would disenfranchise an elected offical. One itself would be a clearly procedural requirement that to a degree is in place. If you watch sufficient C-SPAN a common use of the unanimous consent discussed above is to waive second and third (and later) readings of bills and amendments.
Two is not only Constitutional but common. The Independent Council Law is dead because it had a built in time limit after which it had to be reauthorized. It was at least once in the past (in the early 90s) but when it came up last year it was not reauthorized.
The Voting Rights Act is another law that comes up for routine reauthorization (for those who wonder why, the VRA does not ensure votes but contains specific provisions aimed at practices in the South during the Jim Crow era and theoretically will end when all risk of those practices ends as well). Herb
With the demise of the electric trolley came the use of the automobile and migration to the suburbs. When an individual is able to drive through a neighborhood without thought of the outside environment, he or she becomes removed from the situation.
My friend, you have the buggy before the horse...the trolley, especially in the interurban form, created the suburbs at the turn of the centuary. Look at a trolley map of any eastern state (my town in CT has one in town hall) and observe the maze of lines. Those lines originally existed to connect small towns to big cities, but in the process allowed some workers to live in those small towns and work in the big cities.
As has been pointed out, the bus had a big advantage of not requiring a separate infrastructure. The car, having the same advantage, would ACCELORATE the creation of suburbia by requiring just a strip of asphalt to connect suburbians to the city as opposed to a new station or even new tracks. Herb
Mechanical Voting Machines
on
eLection '04
·
· Score: 2
Based on my experience as the following things:
1. A mechanic who worked on control equipment in the Navy
2. A computer programmer.
3. A poll watcher for a major political party
I think the best choice is the mechanical voting machine. A relative of the mechanical adding it works this way for those unfamiliar with it:
1. You pull the lever that closes the curtain and at the same time reset the counting machinery.
2. You pull down levers for each race for the candidate of your choice...you can change your mind.
3. When done you pull the lever and your is added to each candidate selected (mechanical interlocks limit you to one choice per race) and the levers are raised.
Esentally each candidate has a mechanical adding machine which only has a one key but all the machines use the same cylinder.
When it is time to count the vote, the machine is 'locked down' where a bar is locked on place to stop the cylinder from rotating, the back of the machine opened and each individual candidates adding machine read...
In my opinion it is simpler and more reliable than a similarly designed computer system would be, is less prone to mistakes than paper ballots and probably harder to defraud them both.
Sometimes electronics is not the best choice. Herb
Now this might just be an idea...could the Mandrake guys get a "Release date" thing going? Most Super Wal-Marts are now 24/7 so if they could get Wal Mart to do a mini-release date with the tailgate parties at Wal-Mart (get your local radio stations involved, roast some Brittany Spears CDs or something) we just might get some recruits. Herb
Boycotting individual corporations isn't feasible in the 21st century, either. Boycotts are complicated, especially when most Americans are understandably confused about who owns what. Some of these companies -- Disney,AOL/Time-Warner -- are now so vast it would take a massive uprising to even dent their earnings. Boycotts are also somewhat repugnant to the free-market philosophy many individualists hold.
Not to be obnoxious, but HUH? Boycotts are very free market oriented. A free market allows buyers and sellers to agree to any arrangement that like (that does not violate the law). Jon seem to have fallen into the trap that a free market only allows you to select a seller based on price, but nothing could be further from the truth. I can decide in a free market to buy because the seller is my friend or cool or purple (notice the key word and tricky phrase: FREE).
I try to order things like gaming materials and organic materials from a local store instead of getting them off the self at mega, mega land or an online discounter if possible. This may cost me a few extra dollars, but provides me with the continued existance of the local store, from which I gain other benefits. Although small, this is clearly in the realm of anti-corporatism and it is made possible by the free market.
As MS shows, in fact, large corporations do not like free markets because free markets are their enemy once they reach a certain size (generally measured by market share). In fact, some argue corporations like a certain degree and type of government regulation because it raises the entry bar and prevents compeditors. With no compeditors, we can not choose someone else and must buy their product or go without.
A boycott requires either: a non-essential item, an alternative source, or a substitute. The first is easy to deal with without a free market (you do not need it so you do without), but the last two rely on the free market to be possible. So boycotts clearly rely on free markets.
The other direction works as well. Markets are a communication medium. A seller learns the desires of the buyer and his willingness to sacrifice for those desires through the market. Give people what they want and the market rewards you with increased sales. Fail to give them what they want and you are punished with reduced sales. Boycotts are just a method of translation: I want X (less use of sweatshops) which does not affect profit (the language of business). However, when everyone who wants X boycotts companies that do not supply it they translate it into the language of business (profit) and communicate the idea.
Given that, I fail to see how boycotts violate free market principles. They merely represent my exercising my free to make business with who I choose for what I reasons I choose. Of course, this refers to voluntary boycotts, not government enforced ones.
"(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;
Okay, quick list of reasons to open installer executables with a zip program (the technology in question) with anonation on if I have used it:
To get a single file or set of files to upgrade a previous install without doing a full install (used)
To select specific files for a client install (used)
To obtain information from a file installer for a different OS (get a doc from a windows.exe on linux)
I'm afraid I don't see all that much value to this; to have yet another Diamond Rio clone just doesn't seem all that valuable.
Well, this is the first design I have seen and I like it for one reason. It gives me a starting point.
In my work, especially my hobby stuff, I feel like people will accuse me of working for a Japanese conglomerate in that I am really go at taking someone else's stuff and getting what I need, but not inventing it on my own.
So, a design like this gives me a start on my own portable that meets my requirements. That is worthwhile. While it may be nothing more than a Rio clone, I do not have Rio schematics. I have schematics for this and the basic problem solved.
LZW is patented, so there is a move towards other compression algorithms, many of which are better in a general case. This suggests that progress was promoted. This is of course not how it was meant to work. The purpose is to allow other people to produce works based on the patented technology. This doesn't seem to be happening. I'm not sure I agree there. The purpose of the patent is to ensure your investment of time and treasure is rewarded instead of everyone and his brother using your invention. That is supposed to encourage progress via greed. But if greed is the method what you've proposed works just as well and as a counter balance. If an inventor gets too greedy, someone else will create a substitute technology, charge less, and displace you. It seems that the patent holder has too much control over how their patents are used. In the past this didn't matter so much. Producing a machine costs money. A small surcharge from the inventor of the machine wouldn't affect this significantly. If the inventor asks for a fair price then everybody's happy. The system breaks down when the patent owner uses the patent to prevent competition. Either by refusing to let anyone use the technology, or by charging too much to allow certain groups to use it. Because software can be produced on a shoestring budget, the latter is often unintentionally the case. But, if software is so much cheaper/easier to create then the threshhold for licensing to trigger a substitution effect should be conrespondingly lower. I don't think this in and of itself is the problem. The real problem seems to be the fact that licenses change over the life of the patent. While I can see charging more to people who come after a given technology is established then those who risked, jacking fees/restrictions up on early users doesn't seem to fit the purpose. Maybe we should amend patent law to require that patent licenses last the life of the patent. Each licensee may have to negotiate new terms, but once those terms are get for one licensee they will remain that way for the life of the patent. This would seem to be a way out of situations like the one we have with gifs. Perhaps with software patents we also need separate creation and viewing licenses (or compression and decompression, you get the idea) embedded into the law.
Re:Do we understand the implications?
on
Microsoft Loses
·
· Score: 2
To accuse Microsoft of monopolizing the browser market is like accusing the guys who wrote bash of monopolizing the shell market. It's everywhere, it's the default, and it's the best, BUT if you don't want to use it, you sure as hell don't have to. Microsoft didn't put hooks into the operating system to keep Netscape from operating properly. Netscape does a great job of crashing and misbehaving on its own.
Alright, to wrap up. Microsoft wants the freedom to innovate and we're seriously hurting their and everyone's freedom to innovate by supporting the judge's ruling. So stop the biased "Hoo-rahs" and take a look at the bigger picture here. People will be afraid to try new and exciting things because it may crush or obsolete the current standards or de-facto favorites, but then again people used to think taking a sharpened stick and rubbing it in between your teeth was a good way to clean them before the toothbrush was invented.
Although I agree in part with you on the browser issue, I think you missed the key point (and as I posted earlier the one that changed my mind): that MS[1] was found guilty of anti-competitive practices not for trying to monopolize the browser market per se or by harming Java, but that both were evidence of a larger practice of using existing monopoly to prevent inovation.
A quick summary of the idea behind the judge's ruling based on my reading:
First part: MS enjoys a monopoly in OS which allows it to control the API used for application development. Because there is a symbiotic relationship between OS and apps, this application issue creates a significant barrier of entry for new OSs into the marketplace.
Now this is just a distillation of the killer or essential app idea that has been running around the PC world since at least the spreadsheet. Although some may argue about the reality of MS's monopoly, this section isn't out to lunch.
Next, the ruling is that both N$[2] Navigator and Java represented a significant inovation: middleware that allows platform independence. Again, we can argue about this (and as I'll discuss later, this may indicate one of MS's chief points of counter-attack), but this idea isn't out of the mainstream of thinking.
Finally, MS engaged in business practices designed specifically to prevent these inovations from gaining market share for middleware not to maximize MS profit in the middleware market but to prevent the development of the mareket itself. This is a key point of the ruling. If you read closely, had MS been able to show that their drive to replace N$ with IE in order to PROFIT FROM SALES OF IE the actions would have been much less suspect. The fact (in the judge's opinion) that MS never intended for IE to generate revenue, but to simply control the market implied it was designed to prevent development of web based software that made the Windows API irrelevent. Similar activity occurred with Java according to the ruling. Had J++ not been so broken relative to the Java standard, MS could have claimed it was merely trying to compete with Visual Cafe and others.
This is how the ruling actually changed my opinion on guilt (although I'm still out on penalties...I guess I'd be leaning more to forced separation of the Computer/OS market as the best, but I'm still thinking). By focusing on MS efforts to deny me, as a developer, multiple options for applications development by monopoly power, they seem to have violated existing anti-trust law.
Although most of the ruling focuses on N$, I get the impression that MS's actions to create incompatable JVMs was the key to their loss. The judge seemed to see compatable JVMs as important to web based middleware being a valid application development platform (and this was an idea in common currency when the events occurred) as well as a separate market. Without the Java parallels MS might have been able to argue they were merely overzealous in competiting and not anti-competitive.
It is here when MS both lost the main case and have grist for appeal. If the case had been IE vs. NS the middleware arguement could be countered by MS by stating that IE was simply insurance that if OS independent middleware took off MS was in the game. MS could argue, and if they had played nice with Sun on Java this would be a very strong case, that by providing IE MS was endorcing and furthering the development of this 'new' area. MS could argue that instead of quashing this inovation they were trying to do it better. They can still argue this on appeal because IE is fairly compatable with N$ anymore. If the MS JVM and J++ had been 100% pure java (or whatever their calling it now) this arguement will be damned near unassailible. With the parallel behavior on Java and the percieved importance of the JVM to browsers at that time, MS not only lost a key arguement, but boosted the case against itself. Still, this may be their strongest line of action.
You are quite correct to worry about competitors using similar suits in the future. Much has been made about the fact that some of the companies driving this were very active in DC, while MS really only got into lobbying after the cases started. I had long thought this was primarilly political, either a reward to contributors or punishment for MS not contributing (or both). The focus of the ruling on the larger middleware and platform independence issue, as opposed to the narrow browser market, have lead me to conclude that this case was brought on merits (even if I still don't find them as strong as many do). The direction penalties take will be the final piece of that picture.
[1] For the AC who flamed my earlier comment as meaningless because I used M$: Look, I've gotten smarter. [2] For the same AC: Look, equal opprotunity abuse.
Re:My opinion has actually changed...
on
Microsoft Loses
·
· Score: 1
Ug! Another fucking moron who writes M$.
Believe it or not, a few days ago I might have thought you to be original, but (yes, I read it) your post proves me wrong. You spent the most time proving that you haven't an original thought in your head, but have developed an uncanny ability to regurgitate other posts.
Hmmm...the use of a fairly standard and somewhat humorous (if overused) convention renders my thoughts unoriginal.
Scratch that, my SIGNED post which expresses an opinion is unoriginal beside one that:
Not associated to an account.
Not signed.
Contains no insights.
Contains an ad homien attack.
You'll forgive me if the fact that you let that overcome the content of my thoughts which, with a simple change in ASCII values, you would have thought meaningful fails to impress upon me the errors of my ways.
My opinion has actually changed...
on
Microsoft Loses
·
· Score: 2
Believe it or not, until I read the actual ruling, I was more on M$ side than the government's. The principle reason I was more on M$'s side than the government was that the government has choosen a single application market and one that was a loss leading market even for the market leader (I've never paid for any version of Netscape, all the way back to 2.0).
What changed my mind? That the ruling spent the most effort (and yes, I just read it) on establishing that the attack against Netscape was not an attack for a monopoly in the browser market, but to prevent middleware from making the monopoly that M$ has on the Windows API. Given my view that M$ greatest abuse of a legitimate monopoly[1] was the use of the Windows API to make Office a monopoly and the symbiotic relationship between the two since.
Thus, the judgement does deal with what I consider M$ real abuse: the Windows API and the use of it's current status to prevent competitors from being created. I think the key to making this case wasn't Netscape, but the parallels (and relationships) shown between the Netscape and Java strategies that M$ pursued.
As for judgement, I'm not sure. I don't think breaking M$ up addresses the key issue here, at least not as discussed. Seperating apps from OS would only allow the OS company to pull a repeat of the earlier API stunt, because I doubt cross-platform versions of Office would take hold. I'll have to think about all of that.
[1] Nasty tactics aside, the line from the original IBM contract to Win 3.1 dominance seems to be driven more by a mix of luck, good choices, and helpful opponents. The two exception is the DR-DOS/Windows 3.1 message and per cpu licenses. I honestly question how effective the first was (to be aware of it you pretty much had to have an ear to the developer world where most people have enough of a clue to know it for what it was). The latter is more probamatic, but still seems to me to be overshadowed by M$ biggest victory: IBM support ealry.
What do I mean by this? Simple. When I think Amiga I think "Holy cow, this is beyond cool. I didn't think I could afford anything this cool." That's what the first Amigas made me feel: this is something I have.
Linux has been the closest thing since (because I was jonesin' bad for my personal Unix box at the time). Again, for the same reason: Something that was really cool and that I really wanted just fell into my lap.
Will these new Amigas be nice? Probly, maybe even as nice as BeBoxen, but just having the Amiga name won't do it.
If you're looking for the next Amiga look start looking elsewhere. Not because Amiga won't make a good box, but because what made Amiga what it was is the antithesis of what this company (and 90% of other companies) is trying to do.
I don't see how this decision could be used to thwart Apple's attempts to protect the iMac design and "look" by design patent. According to the decision, product design cannot obtain protection unless it has "acquired distinctiveness such that the marketplace naturally perceives the design to be a designation of product source".
As your latter points have shown, this probably won't affect the iMac. It does have a distinct design.
The tact Apple should take if eMachines uses this case is: Why did eMachines choose the design they did. Does it offer any functional advantages over other, similar (ie unified unit, which dates back to early Sol and CBM machines, among others) designs? Does it offer any manufacturing advantages? If neither is truth (and I doubt they are) then does it offer a MARKETING advantage? If the answer is yes, I'd argue that is a prima faca admittion of a distinctive design.
I do not necessarily agree that the ruling is "right" and that Apple really should be allowed to obtain protection for its design. I am merely asserting that according to the ruling, Apple is probably entitled to this protection
Here, I part company with you. I see this as a broader desendant of 'look and feel' cases. Unless a party can show distinctiveness that would allow, basically, fraud (ie, you think you're buying X when it's really Y because of design copying) design in and of itself shouldn't be protected. That would allow silliness like Sony taking on other CD distributors for design infringement for round CDs (an extreme example, yes, but you get the idea).
Lastly, ANY "Christian" who knocks on the door to "convert" you has broken a dozen laws laid down by Christ, not least of which is the commandment to tolerate others and not judge them. Christians are STRICTLY forbidden from judging or condemning others, other views and other ways of life. If those religious sects involved -lived- the life they claim to profess, everyone would be a great deal happier. And the non-Christians would greatly profit from learning that commandment, too.
That's a bit of an overstatement of Christ's statements on judgement. The oft quoted: "Judge not least ye be judged" is part of the Sermon on the Mount. It is immediately followed by the results of judgement: Mainly that the judgement used by you shall be used to judge you. Next comes the metaphor of the splinter and the mote, directing one to judge oneselve before judging others. This section of the sermon concludes with the statement "Cast not your pearls before swine." Fulfilment of that commandment clearly requires judgement.
An equally valid (more valid IMHO) interpretation of this section is not to avoid judgement, but to:
Understand the consequences of it.
Temper any and all judgement with understanding and mercy.
Not avoid judgement when no other option is availible.
Clearly this is a better descrption of the actions of both Christ and the Aposoles.
Finally, any Christian who would follow the example of the aposoles should try to spread the Good News. This in and of itself shouldn't be viewed as a wrong. Where many modern Christians fail in following the hospitality of Christ is not in preaching the word, but in understanding the meaning of 'NO.'
These two jump out because while they are free on the net, professionally published versions are availible as well as support materials (shameless plug/full disclosure: I am a convention demo gm for Greyghost, the publisher of Fudge material.
RPG.NET has a list of 100 free games on their website and other free directories exist on the web. These range from the above games to jokes to GUPRS lite.
Finally, this idea was mentioned in Pyramid Online about two months ago with speculation that in five years all RPG material would be world based using one of:
(tell a secretary in your office she has a choice: move to a new OS, but keep her office suite or move to a new OS, but keep her office suite...see which she chooses).
Oops, that should be: (tell a secretary in your office she has a choice: move to a new OS, but keep her office suite or move to a new office suite, but keep her OS...see which she chooses).
Slashdot Mirror
When you look at the legal line on a CD, it says copyright 1976 Atlantic Records or copyright 1996 RCA Records. When you look at a book, though, it'll say something like copyright 1999 Susan Faludi, or David Foster Wallace. Authors own their books and license them to publishers. When the contract runs out, writers gets their books back. But record companies own our copyrights forever.
I think that makes a big difference in the ability of an author to make money with respect to publishers compared to musicians and record companies.
Herb
We have enough deterrants already, no need for more, why not pout this money into things that help humanity? Further the prospects of everyone on Earth, not hinder it with the chgance of total death. Can you imagine in 65 million years a new intelligence trying to figure out killed our species out? Was it an Asteroid? Nope. Oh my, it was there own weapons, they must have been primitive.
I can tell you were never in a submarine...
Before you go announcing we have too many submarines, answer me these questions:
- What is the expected number of submarines to be lost upon beginning of hostilities?
- What is the expected number of surviving subs who will recieve launch orders?
- What percentage of those subs will launch?
- For each launching sub, how many missles will it get off?
- For each launched missle, how many warheads will reach their target and detonate?
Now, based on that consider this fact: you must insure the final number is sufficient to destroy the enemy for deterance to work and insure that many missles are on station at all times. To do this you have X submarines.Right now we do that with 18 Tridents, At any given time two will be in for long term maintenace, leaving 16. Four to six of those will be inport turning over crews . That means about 11 subs cover this need. If you take away two you decrease that by nearly 20%, which will lead to about 25% longer cruises for the remaining crews.
Right now a boomer run is normally about 90 days, with my shortest having been 83 and the longest I remember any one doing being 113. You are saying we should bump this up to around 113 normally and probably move the record to 130 days. While Tridents are hotels compared to the old 616/640s I served on, I still would not want to do >100 days deployed on one (believe it or not, astronauts on the ISS have more contact with the outside world than a boomer's crew).
Unless you wish to contend that deterance is no longer needed, you should think about the issues driving the number of warheads and launch systems in place instead of just falling back on the "we can destroy the world X times" arguement about force size. It is more complex than that.
Herb
Only if they did it knowing Adventure Shell existed. Separate generation counts as generation even if they are duplicating something that exists. Maybe not as much, but it still counts.
There history seems to suggest an separate origin.
Herb
Instead of thinking of IP as property think of it as labor. When you take someone's IP without their permission you are instituting a form of slavery.
How do I come up with that idea. Creating IP takes time. When I expend my time on creating something I sacrifice the ability to do other things. If I wish to charge others for the use of the product of my time I am well within my rights. No one would argue that if a group of people held a gun to my head and threatened to kill me if I did not write them a word processor (or a hit song or the great American novel) that they had not enslaved me in some sense or stolen something. Yet, if I write any of those above things with the intent of charging for them anyone who aquires them without paying me has done something similar.
So if you have a hard time thinking of IP as property in the traditional sense, think of it as labor. Better yet, see it as a third thing we recognize as being as valuable as the other two, but also different is some ways, thus requiring different laws[1]. I am free to give away both my material goods and labor or to charge them. Things created by intellectual labor should have the same status. However, because IP is not a physical object we have to address other issues (overhearing IP, the easy of copying, accounting for its degrading over time, etc).
[1] This is my personable belief. However, the limitations of reproduction and transmission allowed laws to view it more as physical property to serve until now. Shakespear had no copyright, but because you could not record the plays you would have to steal a physical script to take them from him before they lost much of their value for example.
Herb
Ah, gotcha...that I agree with. In fact, one of the best parts of the Yahoo portal services is they tend to avoid that...
Herb
I must disagree...I use Yahoo quite routinely:
- It is my primary email because I have been behind several firewalls that did not allow telnet to an external server, but nowhere has blocked yahoo's mail.
- I use their file storage, address book, and planner as a convience...could I implement them on my server account? Sure, but why waste the time.
- Their customizable portal is actually useful for me (local movies, new links in their index in my areas, several yahoo bbs I am in, some business news, etc).
- Their notepad is a great way to pass myself notes for home/work from work/home.
They are the only portal site I find useful and use their services routinely because of it. I think many people go there for more than links.Herb
Some of the major benefit of OOP, and specifically C++'s objects, are:
- It is a clean module packaging mechanism that encourages cleaner interfaces between modules
- It encourages opaque data interfaces (method access vs public access) which results in less bugs
- It makes use of self-initialization/cleanup (constructors/deconstructirs) that avoid a whole slew of programmer errors.
- The self-containedness of objects does make code reuse simpler and less bug prone.
etc, etc.Plus, OOP is one way to make having multiple programmers work on the project more likely to be productive. When programs can be broken down into clean interfaced modules then different programmers can work on them with much less coordination than in pure structured programming. In my experience writing BIG BUSINESS in house apps (as opposed to the author's small and medium business) the procedural COBOL work is in some ways organized in an intuitive parallel to OOP.
It is worth noting the in the 30th Anniversery edition of The Mythical Man Month Fred Brooks admitted that one thing he had been wrong about was data and method hiding and that breaking software into pieces that are essentially black boxes does make a difference.
In conclusion, while not a silver bullet by any means, what OOP (and some other advanced design techniques) do is help make the man month a little less mythical not by making it possible for two people to write one project, but by dividing the project cleanly into two to be written in parallel. It may not half time while doubling programmers, but it does allow more programmers to take less time instead of more (within limits). It also makes it easier for new people to do maintenance by limiting their problem space when tracking down a bug or adding a feature.
I wonder how the next programmer to maintain the author's code will feel about his objection to abstraction and separating the project into self-contained pieces.
Herb
As far as the political machine goes, the most obvious problem is the two party system. I'm of a mind that it should be a NO PARTY system. If you belong to a party, your loyalties go to that party, not to the people who elected you. Is every stance by your party going to be good for those that voted you in? Not hardly! Campaign finance reform needs to be done immediately, too, to minimize corruption. (Help! Help! I'm being repressed!) Something I thought was interesting was when people were 'vote swapping' via websites before the election and all the politicans were aghast at that - vote swapping, imagine that! Well, just what do you think EVERY SINGLE POLITICIANS DOES whenever they want something passed? "Sure, I'll vote for your upcoming nuke-the-whales bill if you vote for my guns-for-tots bill." And let's not even get into the people who influence politicans for a living (LEGALLY!). Yes, there's a lot wrong with the system, but the underlying freedom to change it is vast.
I belief your first paragraph, but I wonder if you understand the system as well as you claim given your tirade against the concept of political parties. Also, given you lack of historical knowledge (Jefferson had less to do with creating our system of government than anyone given he was not part of the Constitutional Convention and originally opposed the Constitution...his major contribution post-Independence to our governmental structure was involvement in the founding of one of the original two parties).
Compromise is essential to democratic government (and most other governmental systems for that matter). Given that no one citizen can impose his version of the world and the extreme rarity of identical attitudes on all issues the only way to select a course of action is compromise.
Political parties evolved historically (and not just in the US) as 'pre-compromises'. A group of people pre-sort out their positions on issues, generally in a hierarchical manner, and then present a unified vision. As a group they attempt to persuade voters that this vision is the best one. Attempts to find methods other than parties (most notably DeGaul's Rally in France) in the end have wound up looking like parties. Even the groups that lobby for ballot initiatives carry out 90% of the activities parties do (fund raising, voter education, voter wooing, voter registration, press handling), they just do it for a limited time (although often this year's inititive groups will have previous year's usual suspects in the majority of positions).
The key thing is to understand that involvement includes party involvement as well as just voting. Also, you need to understand that the parties are not static entities with uniform beliefs or goals. Although the US electoral system skews to two major parties (as does England's to a lesser degree, although they seem to be fairly stable at three now, and other countries (Germany and Isreal for example) skew to many) we have had six major parties in our history (Federalist, Democratic-Republican, Whig, Democratic, Republican, Populist) defined as a party with a national presence over multiple years and over multiple issues that effected the membership of Congress and the President. We have had dozens of minor parties with national presense (short list: Freesoil, several American Parties, Constitutional Party (2 incarnations), Progressive, Libertarian, Prohibition (nine state's ballots for president into the 1980s)).
What happened to all these parties: Either they displaced an existing party (Whig and Democrats grew out of a fractured DR party, GOP replaced the Whigs) or were absorbed by another (GOP is the fulfilment of the old Freesoil party, Populist and Progressive parties were absorbed by the Democrats and partially by the GOP). This is evident even this past year. Carefully scan Bush's stump speech and compare it to a 1992 Perot stump speech. Although specific issues have changed (defiect for example) several basic ideas (reform, the 'best minds', working across party lines) are common to both. Why? To respond to the voter.
In sum, do not rail against the parties de facto, but understand why they exist (and no cynical answers) and how to use them.
Oh, and prediction time: either the GOP or Democratic party will cease to exist by 2010 or be so radically changed as to be a different party (on par with the changes in both major parties between 1964 and 1980, where they both changes in major ways). Through most of the 90s I thought the Libertarians would displace the GOP, but having talked to Greens and watching the Democratic party I think the Greens displacing (or radically altering) the Democratic party is a better bet (regaining the Greens would put the Democratic party back in the majority). And guess what, that is the exact anti-corporate mentality you are looking for.
Herb
Actually, 1a would probably have more Constitutional hot water because it would disenfranchise an elected offical. One itself would be a clearly procedural requirement that to a degree is in place. If you watch sufficient C-SPAN a common use of the unanimous consent discussed above is to waive second and third (and later) readings of bills and amendments.
Two is not only Constitutional but common. The Independent Council Law is dead because it had a built in time limit after which it had to be reauthorized. It was at least once in the past (in the early 90s) but when it came up last year it was not reauthorized.
The Voting Rights Act is another law that comes up for routine reauthorization (for those who wonder why, the VRA does not ensure votes but contains specific provisions aimed at practices in the South during the Jim Crow era and theoretically will end when all risk of those practices ends as well).
Herb
My friend, you have the buggy before the horse...the trolley, especially in the interurban form, created the suburbs at the turn of the centuary. Look at a trolley map of any eastern state (my town in CT has one in town hall) and observe the maze of lines. Those lines originally existed to connect small towns to big cities, but in the process allowed some workers to live in those small towns and work in the big cities.
As has been pointed out, the bus had a big advantage of not requiring a separate infrastructure. The car, having the same advantage, would ACCELORATE the creation of suburbia by requiring just a strip of asphalt to connect suburbians to the city as opposed to a new station or even new tracks.
Herb
Based on my experience as the following things:
1. A mechanic who worked on control equipment in the Navy
2. A computer programmer.
3. A poll watcher for a major political party
I think the best choice is the mechanical voting machine. A relative of the mechanical adding it works this way for those unfamiliar with it:
1. You pull the lever that closes the curtain and at the same time reset the counting machinery.
2. You pull down levers for each race for the candidate of your choice...you can change your mind.
3. When done you pull the lever and your is added to each candidate selected (mechanical interlocks limit you to one choice per race) and the levers are raised.
Esentally each candidate has a mechanical adding machine which only has a one key but all the machines use the same cylinder.
When it is time to count the vote, the machine is 'locked down' where a bar is locked on place to stop the cylinder from rotating, the back of the machine opened and each individual candidates adding machine read...
In my opinion it is simpler and more reliable than a similarly designed computer system would be, is less prone to mistakes than paper ballots and probably harder to defraud them both.
Sometimes electronics is not the best choice.
Herb
Now this might just be an idea...could the Mandrake guys get a "Release date" thing going? Most Super Wal-Marts are now 24/7 so if they could get Wal Mart to do a mini-release date with the tailgate parties at Wal-Mart (get your local radio stations involved, roast some Brittany Spears CDs or something) we just might get some recruits.
Herb
How do you think they knew who was who?
Admittedly they used several methods, but one was Census data, given quite willingly at that time by the Census Bureau...
Herb
Not to be obnoxious, but HUH? Boycotts are very free market oriented. A free market allows buyers and sellers to agree to any arrangement that like (that does not violate the law). Jon seem to have fallen into the trap that a free market only allows you to select a seller based on price, but nothing could be further from the truth. I can decide in a free market to buy because the seller is my friend or cool or purple (notice the key word and tricky phrase: FREE).
I try to order things like gaming materials and organic materials from a local store instead of getting them off the self at mega, mega land or an online discounter if possible. This may cost me a few extra dollars, but provides me with the continued existance of the local store, from which I gain other benefits. Although small, this is clearly in the realm of anti-corporatism and it is made possible by the free market.
As MS shows, in fact, large corporations do not like free markets because free markets are their enemy once they reach a certain size (generally measured by market share). In fact, some argue corporations like a certain degree and type of government regulation because it raises the entry bar and prevents compeditors. With no compeditors, we can not choose someone else and must buy their product or go without.
A boycott requires either: a non-essential item, an alternative source, or a substitute. The first is easy to deal with without a free market (you do not need it so you do without), but the last two rely on the free market to be possible. So boycotts clearly rely on free markets.
The other direction works as well. Markets are a communication medium. A seller learns the desires of the buyer and his willingness to sacrifice for those desires through the market. Give people what they want and the market rewards you with increased sales. Fail to give them what they want and you are punished with reduced sales. Boycotts are just a method of translation: I want X (less use of sweatshops) which does not affect profit (the language of business). However, when everyone who wants X boycotts companies that do not supply it they translate it into the language of business (profit) and communicate the idea.
Given that, I fail to see how boycotts violate free market principles. They merely represent my exercising my free to make business with who I choose for what I reasons I choose. Of course, this refers to voluntary boycotts, not government enforced ones.
Herb
Okay, quick list of reasons to open installer executables with a zip program (the technology in question) with anonation on if I have used it:
Add your own.
Herb
Well, this is the first design I have seen and I like it for one reason. It gives me a starting point.
In my work, especially my hobby stuff, I feel like people will accuse me of working for a Japanese conglomerate in that I am really go at taking someone else's stuff and getting what I need, but not inventing it on my own.
So, a design like this gives me a start on my own portable that meets my requirements. That is worthwhile. While it may be nothing more than a Rio clone, I do not have Rio schematics. I have schematics for this and the basic problem solved.
Plus, building it might be just plain fun.
Herb
LZW is patented, so there is a move towards other compression algorithms, many of which are better in a general case. This suggests that progress was promoted. This is of course not how it was meant to work. The purpose is to allow other people to produce works based on the patented technology. This doesn't seem to be happening. I'm not sure I agree there. The purpose of the patent is to ensure your investment of time and treasure is rewarded instead of everyone and his brother using your invention. That is supposed to encourage progress via greed. But if greed is the method what you've proposed works just as well and as a counter balance. If an inventor gets too greedy, someone else will create a substitute technology, charge less, and displace you. It seems that the patent holder has too much control over how their patents are used. In the past this didn't matter so much. Producing a machine costs money. A small surcharge from the inventor of the machine wouldn't affect this significantly. If the inventor asks for a fair price then everybody's happy. The system breaks down when the patent owner uses the patent to prevent competition. Either by refusing to let anyone use the technology, or by charging too much to allow certain groups to use it. Because software can be produced on a shoestring budget, the latter is often unintentionally the case. But, if software is so much cheaper/easier to create then the threshhold for licensing to trigger a substitution effect should be conrespondingly lower. I don't think this in and of itself is the problem. The real problem seems to be the fact that licenses change over the life of the patent. While I can see charging more to people who come after a given technology is established then those who risked, jacking fees/restrictions up on early users doesn't seem to fit the purpose. Maybe we should amend patent law to require that patent licenses last the life of the patent. Each licensee may have to negotiate new terms, but once those terms are get for one licensee they will remain that way for the life of the patent. This would seem to be a way out of situations like the one we have with gifs. Perhaps with software patents we also need separate creation and viewing licenses (or compression and decompression, you get the idea) embedded into the law.
Alright, to wrap up. Microsoft wants the freedom to innovate and we're seriously hurting their and everyone's freedom to innovate by supporting the judge's ruling. So stop the biased "Hoo-rahs" and take a look at the bigger picture here. People will be afraid to try new and exciting things because it may crush or obsolete the current standards or de-facto favorites, but then again people used to think taking a sharpened stick and rubbing it in between your teeth was a good way to clean them before the toothbrush was invented.
Although I agree in part with you on the browser issue, I think you missed the key point (and as I posted earlier the one that changed my mind): that MS[1] was found guilty of anti-competitive practices not for trying to monopolize the browser market per se or by harming Java, but that both were evidence of a larger practice of using existing monopoly to prevent inovation.
A quick summary of the idea behind the judge's ruling based on my reading:
First part: MS enjoys a monopoly in OS which allows it to control the API used for application development. Because there is a symbiotic relationship between OS and apps, this application issue creates a significant barrier of entry for new OSs into the marketplace.
Now this is just a distillation of the killer or essential app idea that has been running around the PC world since at least the spreadsheet. Although some may argue about the reality of MS's monopoly, this section isn't out to lunch.
Next, the ruling is that both N$[2] Navigator and Java represented a significant inovation: middleware that allows platform independence. Again, we can argue about this (and as I'll discuss later, this may indicate one of MS's chief points of counter-attack), but this idea isn't out of the mainstream of thinking.
Finally, MS engaged in business practices designed specifically to prevent these inovations from gaining market share for middleware not to maximize MS profit in the middleware market but to prevent the development of the mareket itself. This is a key point of the ruling. If you read closely, had MS been able to show that their drive to replace N$ with IE in order to PROFIT FROM SALES OF IE the actions would have been much less suspect. The fact (in the judge's opinion) that MS never intended for IE to generate revenue, but to simply control the market implied it was designed to prevent development of web based software that made the Windows API irrelevent. Similar activity occurred with Java according to the ruling. Had J++ not been so broken relative to the Java standard, MS could have claimed it was merely trying to compete with Visual Cafe and others.
This is how the ruling actually changed my opinion on guilt (although I'm still out on penalties...I guess I'd be leaning more to forced separation of the Computer/OS market as the best, but I'm still thinking). By focusing on MS efforts to deny me, as a developer, multiple options for applications development by monopoly power, they seem to have violated existing anti-trust law.
Although most of the ruling focuses on N$, I get the impression that MS's actions to create incompatable JVMs was the key to their loss. The judge seemed to see compatable JVMs as important to web based middleware being a valid application development platform (and this was an idea in common currency when the events occurred) as well as a separate market. Without the Java parallels MS might have been able to argue they were merely overzealous in competiting and not anti-competitive.
It is here when MS both lost the main case and have grist for appeal. If the case had been IE vs. NS the middleware arguement could be countered by MS by stating that IE was simply insurance that if OS independent middleware took off MS was in the game. MS could argue, and if they had played nice with Sun on Java this would be a very strong case, that by providing IE MS was endorcing and furthering the development of this 'new' area. MS could argue that instead of quashing this inovation they were trying to do it better. They can still argue this on appeal because IE is fairly compatable with N$ anymore. If the MS JVM and J++ had been 100% pure java (or whatever their calling it now) this arguement will be damned near unassailible. With the parallel behavior on Java and the percieved importance of the JVM to browsers at that time, MS not only lost a key arguement, but boosted the case against itself. Still, this may be their strongest line of action.
You are quite correct to worry about competitors using similar suits in the future. Much has been made about the fact that some of the companies driving this were very active in DC, while MS really only got into lobbying after the cases started. I had long thought this was primarilly political, either a reward to contributors or punishment for MS not contributing (or both). The focus of the ruling on the larger middleware and platform independence issue, as opposed to the narrow browser market, have lead me to conclude that this case was brought on merits (even if I still don't find them as strong as many do). The direction penalties take will be the final piece of that picture.
[1] For the AC who flamed my earlier comment as meaningless because I used M$: Look, I've gotten smarter.
[2] For the same AC: Look, equal opprotunity abuse.
Believe it or not, a few days ago I might have thought you to be original, but (yes, I read it) your post proves me wrong. You spent the most time proving that you haven't an original thought in your head, but have developed an uncanny ability to regurgitate other posts.
Hmmm...the use of a fairly standard and somewhat humorous (if overused) convention renders my thoughts unoriginal.
Scratch that, my SIGNED post which expresses an opinion is unoriginal beside one that:
You'll forgive me if the fact that you let that overcome the content of my thoughts which, with a simple change in ASCII values, you would have thought meaningful fails to impress upon me the errors of my ways.
What changed my mind? That the ruling spent the most effort (and yes, I just read it) on establishing that the attack against Netscape was not an attack for a monopoly in the browser market, but to prevent middleware from making the monopoly that M$ has on the Windows API. Given my view that M$ greatest abuse of a legitimate monopoly[1] was the use of the Windows API to make Office a monopoly and the symbiotic relationship between the two since.
Thus, the judgement does deal with what I consider M$ real abuse: the Windows API and the use of it's current status to prevent competitors from being created. I think the key to making this case wasn't Netscape, but the parallels (and relationships) shown between the Netscape and Java strategies that M$ pursued.
As for judgement, I'm not sure. I don't think breaking M$ up addresses the key issue here, at least not as discussed. Seperating apps from OS would only allow the OS company to pull a repeat of the earlier API stunt, because I doubt cross-platform versions of Office would take hold. I'll have to think about all of that.
[1] Nasty tactics aside, the line from the original IBM contract to Win 3.1 dominance seems to be driven more by a mix of luck, good choices, and helpful opponents. The two exception is the DR-DOS/Windows 3.1 message and per cpu licenses. I honestly question how effective the first was (to be aware of it you pretty much had to have an ear to the developer world where most people have enough of a clue to know it for what it was). The latter is more probamatic, but still seems to me to be overshadowed by M$ biggest victory: IBM support ealry.
What do I mean by this? Simple. When I think Amiga I think "Holy cow, this is beyond cool. I didn't think I could afford anything this cool." That's what the first Amigas made me feel: this is something I have.
Linux has been the closest thing since (because I was jonesin' bad for my personal Unix box at the time). Again, for the same reason: Something that was really cool and that I really wanted just fell into my lap.
Will these new Amigas be nice? Probly, maybe even as nice as BeBoxen, but just having the Amiga name won't do it.
If you're looking for the next Amiga look start looking elsewhere. Not because Amiga won't make a good box, but because what made Amiga what it was is the antithesis of what this company (and 90% of other companies) is trying to do.
As your latter points have shown, this probably won't affect the iMac. It does have a distinct design.
The tact Apple should take if eMachines uses this case is: Why did eMachines choose the design they did. Does it offer any functional advantages over other, similar (ie unified unit, which dates back to early Sol and CBM machines, among others) designs? Does it offer any manufacturing advantages? If neither is truth (and I doubt they are) then does it offer a MARKETING advantage? If the answer is yes, I'd argue that is a prima faca admittion of a distinctive design.
I do not necessarily agree that the ruling is "right" and that Apple really should be allowed to obtain protection for its design. I am merely asserting that according to the ruling, Apple is probably entitled to this protection
Here, I part company with you. I see this as a broader desendant of 'look and feel' cases. Unless a party can show distinctiveness that would allow, basically, fraud (ie, you think you're buying X when it's really Y because of design copying) design in and of itself shouldn't be protected. That would allow silliness like Sony taking on other CD distributors for design infringement for round CDs (an extreme example, yes, but you get the idea).
That's a bit of an overstatement of Christ's statements on judgement. The oft quoted: "Judge not least ye be judged" is part of the Sermon on the Mount. It is immediately followed by the results of judgement: Mainly that the judgement used by you shall be used to judge you. Next comes the metaphor of the splinter and the mote, directing one to judge oneselve before judging others. This section of the sermon concludes with the statement "Cast not your pearls before swine." Fulfilment of that commandment clearly requires judgement.
An equally valid (more valid IMHO) interpretation of this section is not to avoid judgement, but to:
- Understand the consequences of it.
- Temper any and all judgement with understanding and mercy.
- Not avoid judgement when no other option is availible.
Clearly this is a better descrption of the actions of both Christ and the Aposoles.Finally, any Christian who would follow the example of the aposoles should try to spread the Good News. This in and of itself shouldn't be viewed as a wrong. Where many modern Christians fail in following the hospitality of Christ is not in preaching the word, but in understanding the meaning of 'NO.'
- FUDGE
- SORD
These two jump out because while they are free on the net, professionally published versions are availible as well as support materials (shameless plug/full disclosure: I am a convention demo gm for Greyghost, the publisher of Fudge material.RPG.NET has a list of 100 free games on their website and other free directories exist on the web. These range from the above games to jokes to GUPRS lite.
Finally, this idea was mentioned in Pyramid Online about two months ago with speculation that in five years all RPG material would be world based using one of:
- D20
- GURPS
- FUDGE
in the interests of money.Oops, that should be:
(tell a secretary in your office she has a choice: move to a new OS, but keep her office suite or move to a new office suite, but keep her OS...see which she chooses).