I recall reading a story many years ago about some young disgruntled Fred Meyers customers, who, upon realizing that the store's paging unit was simply attached to a local extension of the store PBX, would call the store periodically and ask to be transferred to that extension. Eventually, they got somebody who didn't realize what they were doing, and, once transferred to that extension, they proceeded to lambaste the store and offer their opinions over the paging system. Worse, once connected, there was no obvious way to disconnect them; eventually, the store manager had to go and start yanking wires out of the phone system patch panel.
Don't make this mistake! Put your paging extensions in a local context!
Don't be so sure. Let's assume that the PS3 at peak load draws roughly as much power as an Xbox 360 - 160 watts. Assuming that the folding program completely loads the box, and assuming a 24/7 runtime for 30 days, that's about 115 kilowatt hours. According to the Department of Energy, the average retail price of electicity in the US for June of 2006 was 10.84 cents per kilowatt hour. 10.84 cents times 115 kilowatt hours is $12.46 per month, or over $150 a year!
I agree that it doesn't categorically apply to all software in use by the government. In fact, most software would not be covered because the agency didn't create it. But if the agency is itself producing the software, then the software is itself a data output from their operations and I would argue that it is covered by the above provisions.
Slashdot is now blatantly ripping off Salon.com, which also had an article headline about Kennedy's Rolling Stone piece staring with Was the 2004 Election Stolen?" Too bad Slashdot, in its ridiculous slanting, removed the final word of Salon's headline: "No." Even Mother Jones and NPR repudiated Kennedy's claims. Mother Jones, fer Christ's sake! What's next, Slashdot? How about some articles about World Trade Center demolition conspiracies! And Was Paul Wellstone's Plane Shot Down?
I don't know that you're wrong about your municipality having cameras installed, but if you are talking about these sensors, then those are simple strobe sensors, not cameras. If this isn't what you are talking about, can you provide a picture?
As far as i know, you can't file freedom of information act requests for pieces of software:P
Why not? Are you sure about this? Works of the federal government are automatically in the public domain. If they create a work of code, and it is recorded by a federal agency, it is public domain and should be available for request.
Your website example is true because the company is not physically operating within Spanish borders. Consider, however, if such company maintained offices in Spain, operated servers in Spain, and actively conducted business inside Spain. Would you still argue they are not subject to Spanish civil law simply because they do not have a Spanish corporate charter? That doesn't make any sense, and that's not how jurisdiction law works.
Dare I ask where you got your law degree? Significant operations in an area are usually enough to establish jurisdiction, regardless of the location of legal incorporation. That said, whether the operations of Spamhaus in the United States are significant enough to establish jurisdiction is an open question.
If they have servers in the United States, then doesn't it exist at least partially within U.S. jurisdiction? Just like Ebay has to obey French law for its French servers, for example.
Probably no need, since your brain is fairly adept at re-wiring itself to adapt to new motor controls. Between your brain and a computer, your brain is ultimately better at that kind of fine-tuning.
No, the Wii packs in a Wiimote and a nunchuck. The answer is saying, however, that additional ones are sold as separate units - i.e., the Wiimote does not come with the nunchuck, and vice-versa.
I'm also fairly sure there's a duty to mitigate damages before seeking relief
It's called - get ready for this - "mitigation!"
Seriously, though, I Am Not An IP Lawyer, but I am an attorney who sat through a couple of IP law classes, and I believe that you are 100% correct - there is no duty to defend a patent; of course this is not legal advice.
And I want them to explain why MS (and the others) don't just release the patents into the public domain.
The reason for that is obvious: by releasing it to the public domain, they would no longer be able to use it defensively, which is clearly of value to them.
Oh phleeeeze... after two convictions from EU and one from US, there are still people that claim MS is not monopoly. Live with it people, they are monopoly, and they are repeatingly ignoring anticompetitive laws.
Oh, well, then that settles it! Courts are never ever wrong, especially on technology-related issues.
No, but my point is that the restrictions on closing GPL code are only possible because of the exact same IP rights that Microsoft is choosing to exercise, but to a different end.
Slashdot Mirror
one of the many that doesn't understand the "seperation of church and state" clause also
Indeed? Exactly what "clause" are you "quoting" there anyways?
I recall reading a story many years ago about some young disgruntled Fred Meyers customers, who, upon realizing that the store's paging unit was simply attached to a local extension of the store PBX, would call the store periodically and ask to be transferred to that extension. Eventually, they got somebody who didn't realize what they were doing, and, once transferred to that extension, they proceeded to lambaste the store and offer their opinions over the paging system. Worse, once connected, there was no obvious way to disconnect them; eventually, the store manager had to go and start yanking wires out of the phone system patch panel. Don't make this mistake! Put your paging extensions in a local context!
Bucks?! C'mon, it's more like cents.
Don't be so sure. Let's assume that the PS3 at peak load draws roughly as much power as an Xbox 360 - 160 watts. Assuming that the folding program completely loads the box, and assuming a 24/7 runtime for 30 days, that's about 115 kilowatt hours. According to the Department of Energy, the average retail price of electicity in the US for June of 2006 was 10.84 cents per kilowatt hour. 10.84 cents times 115 kilowatt hours is $12.46 per month, or over $150 a year!
If you do indeed have evidence and not circumstantial conjecture, I'd love to see it. Put up or shut up.
I agree that it doesn't categorically apply to all software in use by the government. In fact, most software would not be covered because the agency didn't create it. But if the agency is itself producing the software, then the software is itself a data output from their operations and I would argue that it is covered by the above provisions.
Slashdot is now blatantly ripping off Salon.com, which also had an article headline about Kennedy's Rolling Stone piece staring with Was the 2004 Election Stolen?" Too bad Slashdot, in its ridiculous slanting, removed the final word of Salon's headline: "No." Even Mother Jones and NPR repudiated Kennedy's claims. Mother Jones, fer Christ's sake! What's next, Slashdot? How about some articles about World Trade Center demolition conspiracies! And Was Paul Wellstone's Plane Shot Down?
I don't know that you're wrong about your municipality having cameras installed, but if you are talking about these sensors, then those are simple strobe sensors, not cameras. If this isn't what you are talking about, can you provide a picture?
Why not? Are you sure about this? Works of the federal government are automatically in the public domain. If they create a work of code, and it is recorded by a federal agency, it is public domain and should be available for request.
Those aren't cameras, they're just simple brightness sensors that detect a strobe pattern.
Your website example is true because the company is not physically operating within Spanish borders. Consider, however, if such company maintained offices in Spain, operated servers in Spain, and actively conducted business inside Spain. Would you still argue they are not subject to Spanish civil law simply because they do not have a Spanish corporate charter? That doesn't make any sense, and that's not how jurisdiction law works.
Dare I ask where you got your law degree? Significant operations in an area are usually enough to establish jurisdiction, regardless of the location of legal incorporation. That said, whether the operations of Spamhaus in the United States are significant enough to establish jurisdiction is an open question.
If they have servers in the United States, then doesn't it exist at least partially within U.S. jurisdiction? Just like Ebay has to obey French law for its French servers, for example.
Now Scotty, she's the hottie. She can weld, wrench, machine, and I betcha she can ride a bike. She has more ink than Kari to boot.
And she blows FIRE. That's hot by definition.
Probably no need, since your brain is fairly adept at re-wiring itself to adapt to new motor controls. Between your brain and a computer, your brain is ultimately better at that kind of fine-tuning.
No, the Wii packs in a Wiimote and a nunchuck. The answer is saying, however, that additional ones are sold as separate units - i.e., the Wiimote does not come with the nunchuck, and vice-versa.
Wii Sports: Baseball, Tennis, Boxing, Bowling, Golf.
Brings back memories of the "Pong Sports" cart included with the Atari 2600.
Yes, thank you, I went to law school. My point is, what is the "performance" that is being rendered by the offeree in this scenario?
I'm also fairly sure there's a duty to mitigate damages before seeking relief
It's called - get ready for this - "mitigation!"
Seriously, though, I Am Not An IP Lawyer, but I am an attorney who sat through a couple of IP law classes, and I believe that you are 100% correct - there is no duty to defend a patent; of course this is not legal advice.
And I want them to explain why MS (and the others) don't just release the patents into the public domain.
The reason for that is obvious: by releasing it to the public domain, they would no longer be able to use it defensively, which is clearly of value to them.
Interesting...what do you see as the consideration from the acceptor of this unilateral contract?
I love that somewhat Orwellian slide that Engadget has from the presentation:
Apple is in your den
Apple is in your living room
Apple is in your car
Apple is in your pocket
What's next?
Strength Through iTunes
iTunes Through Apple
Apple Prevails
Apple doesn't include this kind of stuff in the OS.
Wait - so OS X doesn't even come with a firewall? What's all this then?
Oh phleeeeze ... after two convictions from EU and one from US, there are still people that claim MS is not monopoly. Live with it people, they are monopoly, and they are repeatingly ignoring anticompetitive laws.
Oh, well, then that settles it! Courts are never ever wrong, especially on technology-related issues.
'd like to see a user way to add new things to the lock down / in list
Have you investigated the "Software Restrictions Policies" policy in the "Local Security Settings" management console?
No, but my point is that the restrictions on closing GPL code are only possible because of the exact same IP rights that Microsoft is choosing to exercise, but to a different end.