Is this the same reasonable and non-discriminatory terms that exclude open source from other MS extentions etc?
I reject the conflation between "GPL" and "open source," and in any case, the question is moot until Microsoft actually asserts a patent right on this, which they haven't.
I already posted this much further down, but you might want to actually read the spec, which says at the bottom:
As to software implementations, Microsoft is not aware of any patent claims it owns or controls that would be necessarily infringed by a software implementation that conforms to the specification's extensions. If Microsoft later becomes aware of any such necessary patent claims, Microsoft also agrees to offer a royalty-free patent license on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms and conditions to any such patent claims for the purpose of publishing and consuming the extensions set out in the specification.
So, it seems to me that the answer to your query is "no."
As to software implementations, Microsoft is not aware of any patent claims it owns or controls that would be necessarily infringed by a software implementation that conforms to the specification's extensions. If Microsoft later becomes aware of any such necessary patent claims, Microsoft also agrees to offer a royalty-free patent license on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms and conditions to any such patent claims for the purpose of publishing and consuming the extensions set out in the specification.
So they don't think they have any patents, and even if it turns out they do, licenses are granted under RAND terms.
Amen. This really is pathetic. Here we have a technical proposal perfectly free for anyone to examine, and all that is here is lame "I bet is suckz d00d l0l!!!" posts and IGNORANT tin-foil-hattery. Those of you who are bashing without having even looked at the source - you ought to be ashamed of yourselves.
Why? I argue the opposite: punishment very much is and end to itself, and really, it's the strongest defense of the death penalty. Many criminal wrongs can never be fully righted. When a criminal deprives an innocent person of something that cannot be restored, then, to most people, principles of fairness and justice demand that the criminal be deprived of something at least equal in value. This is accomplished by restitution where possible, but by punishment where it (frequently) is not. Support for the death penalty comes mostly from those who believe that depriving a criminal of liberty is simply not punishment enough when the victims are numerous, or are very innocent, or the crime was singularly heinous.
In fact, there are generally recognized to be four main functions of the corrections system:
1. Deterrance, both individual and general - persuade people not want to commit crimes.
2. Incapacitation - a person in prison cannot be out committing crimes.
3. Rehabilitation - make the criminal into a noncriminal.
4. Punishment/retribution - the guilty must suffer for their wrongs.
I see no reason why punishment is any less a valid goal than the other three.
Parent is talking about the original Xbox, which can play hi-def content (to a limit), and which can actually be pretty easily modded entirely with software, no chipping required.
Parent has some extremely useful, technically sound suggestions.
The bottom line is this: nothing will slow your system down more than installing (and uninstalling) lots of programs, shell extensions, API hooks, unneccessary device drivers, applets, and COM objects. There are two rules of Windows Zen you must learn.
1. Install only what you need.
2. See rule number 1.
Avoid virus scanners and spyware programs. You won't need them if you are not downloading and running lots of programs. Find a stable set of software, and try really hard not to install anything more unless you really, really need to. You should not get a slowdown problem.
Yes, but stupidly, unless you have a rare sound card or an Nforce2-based mobo, you don't get 7.1. channel surround output unless you use all analog connections. At least the Xbox outputs a digital surround signal.
Grumble grumble sound-card manufacturers and their misleading claims...
It'll be cheaper and you'll know it will run every Xbox game
Heh. Not to mention every Nintendo game, Super Nintendo game, Sega Genesis game, Atari game, Coleco game...you get the idea. In terms of sheer breadth of games, the modded Xbox blows the doors off anything before or since.
So if the USA censoring the domain name system isn't a free speech issue, then how is China, the UN, Europe or whoever censoring the domain name system a free speech issue?
That's a red herring. Obviously, the concern isn't that that the UN will or will not introduce specific TLD extensions. The concern is who those extensions will be sold to, what conditions are required for sale, how they might be revoked, and what the costs will be.
I really don't see how the lack of an.xxx TLD is a free speech issue. How does not having an.xxx TLD prevent you from saying or expressing anything you want?
Keep in mind, that patents can be seized under the power of eminent domain. You'd get a token compensation, I suppose, equal to the amount of business that you would lose by having the government appropriate your process, but as the private legislative industry isn't exactly booming, that's not likely to be very much.
I think it's also reasonable to assume that it's easier to contain solid waste (a stack of batteries) than to deal with the gaseous emissions from zillions of individual car tailpipes...
You'd think so, but try explaining that to anti-nuclear zealots...
They weren't talking about saving trees (since we don't get our electricity from wood-burning power plants), they were talking about saving CO2 emissions. Since trees absorb CO2, it's a measure of how many trees it would take to absorb the CO2 emitted by the burning of fuel sufficient to power the chips. So it's really more of a "Tree-Reduction Equivalency Estimate". In this case, one MegaTREE.
There are also problems with the "loser pays" rule. One is that it would discourage the opposite scenario here: knowing she would have to pay if she loses, would this women even consider suing the polluters? It discourages meritless lawsuits, but at the expense of also discouraging meritorious lawsuits, and the meritorious ones are discouraged right at the margin where they are particularly usefull. Another problem is that it strongly discourages the ability of groups like the ACLU or NRA to file "test cases" to challenge the exact meaning of unclear judicial rulings or legislations, leaving the law in a more muddled and possibly unjust state. Finally, it encourages wealthier parties to intentionally run up their legal expenses, to try to force the less wealthy party to withdraw opposition once their cost-benefit expectation climbs too high. In poker, terms, this is exactly the same as raising the stakes to make the other players fold.
The loser-pays rule is appropriate in some circumstances, which is why judges should always have the option to allocate legal fees. But it is not a panacea.
NOBODY goes to jail in civil suits, unless you refuse to pay your judgement, and usually not even then. You're thinking of a criminal case, in which case the culpability would fall on individual executives.
Slashdot Mirror
They want to run KDE.
I reject the conflation between "GPL" and "open source," and in any case, the question is moot until Microsoft actually asserts a patent right on this, which they haven't.
That's an interesting program, but I still find full-screen G-FORCE + William Orbit, JS Bach, or Rachmaninoff to be most effective.
So, it seems to me that the answer to your query is "no."
But, you aren't. Pity.
Why? I argue the opposite: punishment very much is and end to itself, and really, it's the strongest defense of the death penalty. Many criminal wrongs can never be fully righted. When a criminal deprives an innocent person of something that cannot be restored, then, to most people, principles of fairness and justice demand that the criminal be deprived of something at least equal in value. This is accomplished by restitution where possible, but by punishment where it (frequently) is not. Support for the death penalty comes mostly from those who believe that depriving a criminal of liberty is simply not punishment enough when the victims are numerous, or are very innocent, or the crime was singularly heinous.
In fact, there are generally recognized to be four main functions of the corrections system:
1. Deterrance, both individual and general - persuade people not want to commit crimes.
2. Incapacitation - a person in prison cannot be out committing crimes.
3. Rehabilitation - make the criminal into a noncriminal.
4. Punishment/retribution - the guilty must suffer for their wrongs.
I see no reason why punishment is any less a valid goal than the other three.
Parent is talking about the original Xbox, which can play hi-def content (to a limit), and which can actually be pretty easily modded entirely with software, no chipping required.
The bottom line is this: nothing will slow your system down more than installing (and uninstalling) lots of programs, shell extensions, API hooks, unneccessary device drivers, applets, and COM objects. There are two rules of Windows Zen you must learn.
1. Install only what you need.
2. See rule number 1.
Avoid virus scanners and spyware programs. You won't need them if you are not downloading and running lots of programs. Find a stable set of software, and try really hard not to install anything more unless you really, really need to. You should not get a slowdown problem.
You can't animate a PNG.
Yes, but stupidly, unless you have a rare sound card or an Nforce2-based mobo, you don't get 7.1. channel surround output unless you use all analog connections. At least the Xbox outputs a digital surround signal. Grumble grumble sound-card manufacturers and their misleading claims...
Heh. Not to mention every Nintendo game, Super Nintendo game, Sega Genesis game, Atari game, Coleco game...you get the idea. In terms of sheer breadth of games, the modded Xbox blows the doors off anything before or since.
That's a red herring. Obviously, the concern isn't that that the UN will or will not introduce specific TLD extensions. The concern is who those extensions will be sold to, what conditions are required for sale, how they might be revoked, and what the costs will be.
I really don't see how the lack of an .xxx TLD is a free speech issue. How does not having an .xxx TLD prevent you from saying or expressing anything you want?
Two screens! Wow! Such innovation...back in the 80's when I bought my Nintendo Game & Watch Pinball game.
And what if your determination of worth is different than theirs?
Keep in mind, that patents can be seized under the power of eminent domain. You'd get a token compensation, I suppose, equal to the amount of business that you would lose by having the government appropriate your process, but as the private legislative industry isn't exactly booming, that's not likely to be very much.
You'd think so, but try explaining that to anti-nuclear zealots...
They weren't talking about saving trees (since we don't get our electricity from wood-burning power plants), they were talking about saving CO2 emissions. Since trees absorb CO2, it's a measure of how many trees it would take to absorb the CO2 emitted by the burning of fuel sufficient to power the chips. So it's really more of a "Tree-Reduction Equivalency Estimate". In this case, one MegaTREE.
That is one seriously mixed metaphor.
A freudian slip is when you type one thing but mean your mother.
The loser-pays rule is appropriate in some circumstances, which is why judges should always have the option to allocate legal fees. But it is not a panacea.
Knowledge for knowledge's sake, my friend. Not all science must be applied science. Or do you disrespect pure science? That seems silly.
NOBODY goes to jail in civil suits, unless you refuse to pay your judgement, and usually not even then. You're thinking of a criminal case, in which case the culpability would fall on individual executives.