That's practically a textbook-example curve of a stock losing a chunk of its value all at once, complete with the "dead cat bounce" (in which the price bounces back up briefly after hitting bottom... like a dead cat).
The font/background colors aren't the problem. It's the rather explicitly spectacular excretory photos on the page that... well, trust me: you don't want to see.
how long did it take photography to be accepted as a fine art?
Not that long, actually. "Creative" types were among its early promoters, as well. Meanwhile, the ability of photography to "replace" the painter in producing realistic images many sent fine artists scurrying off into abstraction.
The most fundamental one from a systems-management standpoint (and the internet itself is one huge systems-management nightmare) is that DNS lookup is a core function that affects a lot more than just web browsing. You don't change such a core function without thoroughly testing the impact of such a change. At the very least, the co-operative nature of the internet requires that you at least tell everyone you're going to do it. And when people complain that you've just broken something, you damn well better put it back the way it was.
A case in point: A lot of anti-spam software uses DNS look-ups to identify bogus return addresses. Since DNS for.com and.net is no longer returning "not found" for bogus domains, this function is now failing.
Various legislatures and/or courts have passed/interpretted laws to forbid "squatters" from registering other people's trademarks (or typos of them) for themselves. Verisign has effectively just "registered" every unregistered/mistyped trademark and pointed it to their web site. For example, there's a local business who hasn't registered their name (a trademark) as a domain name. If someone asks for (thisbusinessname).com, Verisign will direct them to a web site (theirs) which instead suggests several other web sites. For the right price, a competitor of this business can have their web site listed here. This is no different from a competitor or unauthorised squatter registering the domain name... which they could be successfully sued for doing. The fact that Verisign is now profiting from the use of trademarks it does not own puts it on very shaky legal ground.
This is a classic case of abuse of monopoly power. In much the same way that (for example) the US FCC licenses broadcasters to use the public airwaves in ways consistent with the public good, Network Solutions (now owned by Verisign) was assigned responsibility for the.com and.net top-level-domains to be operated in ways consistent with the good of the internet community. Reckless management of that responsility, resulting in technical problems which it refuses to correct, and taking financial advantage of that trust in a way unavailable to any other entity... adds up to a "problem".
More accurate translation: No court has ruled on it.
Even if they had proof (and they don't) they'd have to qualify their report like this, or face holy hell for falisfying government reports when/if the courts ruled against them (correctly or not).
IBM owns VisiCalc. Back when 1-2-3 eclipsed VC in the spreadsheet market, Lotus bought the company out, and of course IBM now owns Lotus. They don't seem especially fond of MS these days.
Incidentally, Dan Bricklin (creator of VisiCalc, for the kidz in the audience) has permission from Lotus/IBM to offer the original VC for DOS 1.0 on his website.
I fully expect before long for a set of parents to sue their children for copyright infringement, for creating unauthorised "derivative works" based on their DNA.
I dare say that SCO's goodwill has moved from the "asset" column to the "liability" column for the foreseeable future (i.e. until heatdeath of the universe).
"Many, particularly those in the open source community, dispute the allegations of infringement that we have made"
One of the lovely aspects of government-mandated reports is that they're required to acknowledge the negative side of things, forcing the company to state the obvious truth - rather than the company line - from time to time.
One of the key points to be gleaned from Card's essay is that the record labels are (morally speaking) stealing from the artists themselves by requiring them to sign over all rights to their songs. Personally, I don't feel that gives me the moral right to steal the material from them, however.
To some extent I blame the artists for signing those incredibly horrible Work Made For Hire contracts in the first place. If they stopped signing away all their rights, and this soulless monster known as RIAA could be removed from the question, attention could then be focused on the core issues surrounding copyright: (A) the right of creators to profit (or not: their choice) from their work (as embodied in the file-swapping/piracy phenomenon), and (B) the right of the public to (at some point) claim that material as shared property (as embodied in Disney & friends' purchase from Congress of perpetual copyright extensions).
Which is not to mention that not everyone uses internet connections for steal^H^H^H^H^Hdownloading music and movies. Why should those of us who use ours for (for example) publishing our own material, exchanging e-mail, and browsing freely-available content pay to subsidise the entertainment industry?
I've got a socialist streak this wide {holds arms out as far as they reach}, but as soon as I read "a tax on IP addresses and hard drives" I flinched like an anarcho libertarian. The idea's a non-starter
Slashdot Mirror
That patent has been declared invalid, due to IBM's failure to sue Microsoft over it over the past several years.
That's practically a textbook-example curve of a stock losing a chunk of its value all at once, complete with the "dead cat bounce" (in which the price bounces back up briefly after hitting bottom... like a dead cat).
The logo is a stylized eye and ear, reflecting the OS's excellent support (certainly by contemporary standards) for multimedia.
The font/background colors aren't the problem. It's the rather explicitly spectacular excretory photos on the page that... well, trust me: you don't want to see.
Not that long, actually. "Creative" types were among its early promoters, as well. Meanwhile, the ability of photography to "replace" the painter in producing realistic images many sent fine artists scurrying off into abstraction.
On the other hand, there are some people who have to be asked not to urinate in public.
Even if they had proof (and they don't) they'd have to qualify their report like this, or face holy hell for falisfying government reports when/if the courts ruled against them (correctly or not).
IBM owns VisiCalc. Back when 1-2-3 eclipsed VC in the spreadsheet market, Lotus bought the company out, and of course IBM now owns Lotus. They don't seem especially fond of MS these days. Incidentally, Dan Bricklin (creator of VisiCalc, for the kidz in the audience) has permission from Lotus/IBM to offer the original VC for DOS 1.0 on his website.
I fully expect before long for a set of parents to sue their children for copyright infringement, for creating unauthorised "derivative works" based on their DNA.
I dare say that SCO's goodwill has moved from the "asset" column to the "liability" column for the foreseeable future (i.e. until heatdeath of the universe).
One of the lovely aspects of government-mandated reports is that they're required to acknowledge the negative side of things, forcing the company to state the obvious truth - rather than the company line - from time to time.
To some extent I blame the artists for signing those incredibly horrible Work Made For Hire contracts in the first place. If they stopped signing away all their rights, and this soulless monster known as RIAA could be removed from the question, attention could then be focused on the core issues surrounding copyright: (A) the right of creators to profit (or not: their choice) from their work (as embodied in the file-swapping/piracy phenomenon), and (B) the right of the public to (at some point) claim that material as shared property (as embodied in Disney & friends' purchase from Congress of perpetual copyright extensions).
Some people differentiate between food/housing/medicine and Britney/Matrix downloads.
If this were something that benefited society at large (not just the filetrading subculture), more socialists might like it.
Which is not to mention that not everyone uses internet connections for steal^H^H^H^H^Hdownloading music and movies. Why should those of us who use ours for (for example) publishing our own material, exchanging e-mail, and browsing freely-available content pay to subsidise the entertainment industry?
I've got a socialist streak this wide {holds arms out as far as they reach}, but as soon as I read "a tax on IP addresses and hard drives" I flinched like an anarcho libertarian. The idea's a non-starter