Is that $10 billion figure net costs or gross costs? If gross, then what are the benefits from same? Isn't that relevant? If something has a $10 gross cost and a $20 gross benefit, that's a net $10 benefit.
Anyone remember that scandal about Karl Rove [google.com]? Leaking the name of a CIA agent?
In the interest of accuracy, he didn't leak her name, only her relationship to Wilson. Also, her status as a CIA agent was not exactly secret.
I would rather the company do these things rather than pay for ads.
Well that's nice and all, but do you have any rational reason for believing that this is what really happens? In other words, do you have any evidence for believing that the presence or lack of advertising actually is a proxy for these things? Why not invest a little effort and find out about these factors that you are interested in?
Very simple. The government cannot be held liable for the tort of patent infringement. Instead, the infringement is treated as an eminent domain taking and you are entitled to just compensation for the use and/or manufacturing rights confiscated by the government under 28 USC 1498. In this case, since the government is both the abrogator and the only potential customer that they are confiscating, you are thus entitled to be compensated a fair market value for the products that they use; and since the sole offer on the market for the design of such a product is $250,000, I'd say that's a likely fair market value.
they are referring to ability to access files that are encrypted by the Windows file system.
Then you are talking about "permissions," not "encryption." Permissions can be bypassed simply by using an OS that disregards them. Encryption cannot be. Please do not confuse the terminology.
Simply because you can't be held to something or forced to do something thats non-constitutional or against the law because of what a contract says.
Well that's true, it may be illegal (thus void) by statute in one state or another, but I was replying specifically to the proposition that it must be unconstitutional; this is, IMHO, ridiculous.
The fun happens when you leave one job, take another, relocate a couple thousand miles, and then are given this to sign. I have had one place not provide it until after I arrived on-location, despite my request for documents prior to relocation (they provided other documents to be signed).
You have remedies for such a situation should you decide not to sign such an agreement and they refuse to give you a job. If they offered you a job under certain terms, you accept (and act in reasonable reliance) and then they refuse to honor those terms, then they are in breach of contract. Even if there was no firm offer and acceptance, though, there is a doctrine called "promissory estoppel" that may provide you with a remedy.
How about because you voluntarily agreed to that restriction when you signed the contract? Don't like it? Don't sign. Why would the Constitution be involved?
The other day I updated a few packages on my Slackware box using slapt-get and SSH myseriously stopped working. The SSHD process would silently fail as soon as it was started. I figured it was a library I upgraded, so I rolled them back. Still didn't work. So I used slapt-get to reinstall the entire set of Slackware packages. That didn't work. By this point I had been working on getting SSH working for 5 hours, so I gave up, nuked the partition, and reinstalled.
It's an often heard argument, but it's an empty one, at least in the Windows vs OSS context.
No, it's not. They don't face legal accountability, as you yourself point out (though there are limits to the ability to disclaim liability). However, they do face financial accountability; customers pay for the product, and the manufacturer is a for-profit company. The customer, if dissatisfied, knows he can refuse to purchase from the manufacturer, and knows that the manufacturer doesn't want this to happen. This helps to explain Microsoft's world-domination attitude. The more convinced the customer is that the manufacturer is committed to keeping its business, the more assurance the customer has that the manufacturer will hold itself responsible for keeping them as a customer.
Like I said, this isn't legal accountability, but it definitely is a form of accountability.
However, I'm both a Windows and a Linux user, and have absolutely no idea how to pull off what I stated in Windows, while I could quite easily and quickly do it with Linux (or likely any similar Unix tool). Therefore, I stand by the "flavor" of my previous comment, despite the fact that you may consider it a troll.
Haha, classic. "I don't know how, therefore it cannot be done. My ignorance is generalizable as fact." That, sir, is a troll.
Actually that's from the book "Dumbing Down Our Kids : Why American Children Feel Good About Themselves But Can't Read, Write, or Add" by my local talk show host Charlie Sykes.
You're mistaking the supposed (and I do mean "supposed") value system of a small slice of the American population as applying to the entire population, and that just isn't true and never has been.
No, I'm not, I'm merely describing what has actually occurred. The loudest and most vocal (typically also the most highly motivated), though a minority, have more influence on the direction of government policy and setting of cultural memes than a majority that lacks the same conviction. It is also a matter of collateral damage on some activities (like safe, casual sex) which the vast majority think are generally OK that occurs from combat waged on activities that the vast majority thinks are bad and getting worse. It would be nice if social policy was as precise as a surgeon's scalpel, but it's not.
There are a whole number of reasons for the unusually high amount of social approbation toward sexually explicit content in the United States. Some of it has to do with religious conviction, to be sure; but much of it also has to do with other coincidental trends. Casual sex has never been widely approved of in the United States, (due probably to its Protestant cultural ethic of work and family) and when the rate of unwed single (and often teenage) mothers skyrocketed in past decades, the problem could not be addressed through criminal deterrance, which is the usual legislative way of dealing with things, and instead took the form of widespread moral condemndation; and part of this condemnation was toward sexually explicit material that many thought influenced young kids to unsafely experiment with casual sex. At the same time, there was a rising feminist movement against pornography, which it considered to be exploitative toward women and especially harmful to children who were more easily influenced. Finally, with the rise of STD's (mainly AIDS) casual sex became not just wrong but dangerous, and as parents have become ever more protective of their children, the last thing they want is for their young ones to be exposed to material that contradicts their admonishments that casual sex is wrong and dangerous.
we are in a more liberal world with "sex, drugs and rock and roll" being more excepted
Assuming you meant "accepted"...I don't think so. I recall reading a good number of social science surveys that have shown that while our culture have grown more liberal as to individual freedom, it has grown more conservative as far as moral values, possibly a backlash from the 60's and 70's era of hedonism. So culturally we are more likely to allow you to do things of which we are more likely to morally disapprove.
But to put it in perspective, they're still only carrying about 2 percent hydrogen by weight. Some day, a nanotech breakthrough may make it possible to increase that by an order of magnatude.
It's not an order of magnitude, but it appears that among their many other interesting properties, carbon nanotubes can be made to hold up to 8% hydrogen by weight.
Well, I agree with you completely. But it's so trendy to be darkly cynical these days that nobody lets a little thought get in the way of a passive-aggressive, mean-spirited put-down masquerading as innocent humor. Thanks so much, Jon Stewart.
Actually, I believe that the basic Live functionality, which will include friends lists, video chatting, stats, profiles, updates, simple games, etc. will be free all the time. Only the Gold service, required for online play for title games, will be for-fee, and they have stated that they intend to have occasional free weekends of that service.
Slashdot Mirror
Is that $10 billion figure net costs or gross costs? If gross, then what are the benefits from same? Isn't that relevant? If something has a $10 gross cost and a $20 gross benefit, that's a net $10 benefit.
Anyone remember that scandal about Karl Rove [google.com]? Leaking the name of a CIA agent? In the interest of accuracy, he didn't leak her name, only her relationship to Wilson. Also, her status as a CIA agent was not exactly secret.
Wrong! It's both.
17 USC
Well that's nice and all, but do you have any rational reason for believing that this is what really happens? In other words, do you have any evidence for believing that the presence or lack of advertising actually is a proxy for these things? Why not invest a little effort and find out about these factors that you are interested in?
I'd just like to point out that not buying something because an ad told you to is just as illogical as buying something because an ad told you to.
Imagine that! A place where citizens create their own civil society through voluntary association!
Nah, it'll never work.
So the answer is, nothing would end up different.
Punch in an entire phone number to do a reverse-lookup.
Then you are talking about "permissions," not "encryption." Permissions can be bypassed simply by using an OS that disregards them. Encryption cannot be. Please do not confuse the terminology.
Well that's true, it may be illegal (thus void) by statute in one state or another, but I was replying specifically to the proposition that it must be unconstitutional; this is, IMHO, ridiculous.
You have remedies for such a situation should you decide not to sign such an agreement and they refuse to give you a job. If they offered you a job under certain terms, you accept (and act in reasonable reliance) and then they refuse to honor those terms, then they are in breach of contract. Even if there was no firm offer and acceptance, though, there is a doctrine called "promissory estoppel" that may provide you with a remedy.
How about because you voluntarily agreed to that restriction when you signed the contract? Don't like it? Don't sign. Why would the Constitution be involved?
It works now.
No, it's not. They don't face legal accountability, as you yourself point out (though there are limits to the ability to disclaim liability). However, they do face financial accountability; customers pay for the product, and the manufacturer is a for-profit company. The customer, if dissatisfied, knows he can refuse to purchase from the manufacturer, and knows that the manufacturer doesn't want this to happen. This helps to explain Microsoft's world-domination attitude. The more convinced the customer is that the manufacturer is committed to keeping its business, the more assurance the customer has that the manufacturer will hold itself responsible for keeping them as a customer.
Like I said, this isn't legal accountability, but it definitely is a form of accountability.
Haha, classic. "I don't know how, therefore it cannot be done. My ignorance is generalizable as fact." That, sir, is a troll.
I call dibs on "Lock & Load" (for ACID database GUI operations) and "Slash & Burn" for bulk secure file deletion.
Actually that's from the book "Dumbing Down Our Kids : Why American Children Feel Good About Themselves But Can't Read, Write, or Add" by my local talk show host Charlie Sykes.
That's not what IsNot() does.
No, I'm not, I'm merely describing what has actually occurred. The loudest and most vocal (typically also the most highly motivated), though a minority, have more influence on the direction of government policy and setting of cultural memes than a majority that lacks the same conviction. It is also a matter of collateral damage on some activities (like safe, casual sex) which the vast majority think are generally OK that occurs from combat waged on activities that the vast majority thinks are bad and getting worse. It would be nice if social policy was as precise as a surgeon's scalpel, but it's not.
There are a whole number of reasons for the unusually high amount of social approbation toward sexually explicit content in the United States. Some of it has to do with religious conviction, to be sure; but much of it also has to do with other coincidental trends. Casual sex has never been widely approved of in the United States, (due probably to its Protestant cultural ethic of work and family) and when the rate of unwed single (and often teenage) mothers skyrocketed in past decades, the problem could not be addressed through criminal deterrance, which is the usual legislative way of dealing with things, and instead took the form of widespread moral condemndation; and part of this condemnation was toward sexually explicit material that many thought influenced young kids to unsafely experiment with casual sex. At the same time, there was a rising feminist movement against pornography, which it considered to be exploitative toward women and especially harmful to children who were more easily influenced. Finally, with the rise of STD's (mainly AIDS) casual sex became not just wrong but dangerous, and as parents have become ever more protective of their children, the last thing they want is for their young ones to be exposed to material that contradicts their admonishments that casual sex is wrong and dangerous.
Assuming you meant "accepted"...I don't think so. I recall reading a good number of social science surveys that have shown that while our culture have grown more liberal as to individual freedom, it has grown more conservative as far as moral values, possibly a backlash from the 60's and 70's era of hedonism. So culturally we are more likely to allow you to do things of which we are more likely to morally disapprove.
Weird, huh?
It's not an order of magnitude, but it appears that among their many other interesting properties, carbon nanotubes can be made to hold up to 8% hydrogen by weight.
Nist News
Developers!
Developers!
Developers!
Developers!
Well, I agree with you completely. But it's so trendy to be darkly cynical these days that nobody lets a little thought get in the way of a passive-aggressive, mean-spirited put-down masquerading as innocent humor. Thanks so much, Jon Stewart.
Actually, I believe that the basic Live functionality, which will include friends lists, video chatting, stats, profiles, updates, simple games, etc. will be free all the time. Only the Gold service, required for online play for title games, will be for-fee, and they have stated that they intend to have occasional free weekends of that service.