Look at the history of the Sega Saturn, and you'll see a similar phenomenon (well, I personally don't think the Saturn was very inferior, but it did seem to have half-baked 3D support thrown in at the last minute by doubling CPUs). In the end, it's a combination of things that can help to doom a game console, and releasing a system prior to having a good set of games is a large contributor.
Have you ever used X? It's a stateful protocol. Ever used vnc? It's a stateless protocol? Ever heard of Xvnc which provides a stateless protocol to an X server? It seems silly to me to assume that you can't use a stateless interface to alter a stateful one. After all, all web apps are about is providing a stateless interface to a stateful "rich" app.
3. Using a successful product to
a. force the inclusion of another product even when consumers (like OEMs) demand to be allowed to include other products.
b. implicitly lie about the compatibility of some product with said successful product.
3a occurred when MS barred OEMs from include Netscape with machine and demoting the appearance of IE after MS threatened to revoke licensing on selling Windows. The fact that MS circumvented the normal competition of products through use of another product was ruled illegal and to me seems clearly unethical.
3b occurred during the MS Windows 3.11 beta program where some special code was written and obfusciated with a simple xor encryption scheme to detect non-MS-DOS DOSs and display a warning about said DOS not being properly tested. At the time, DR-DOS and MS-DOS were competing products, and MS didn't itself test its product with a competing product but instead stated that testing wasn't done. Beyond being irresponsible to its consumers, the fact is this only demonstrates that MS realized Windows needed to be joined to DOS to prevent competition, which was observed in MS Windows 95. With DOS bundled with Windows, it removed all economic incentive to buy another DOS even when it was discovered that a simple TSR added to DR-DOS would allow it to work with Windows 95.
Of course, that brings up the issue of where you draw the line. And I think any company can add whatever it wants so long as it doesn't prevent alteration for further customers nor uses deceit to gain consumers. Knowledge or bundling are fine in themselves.
I'd agree, except that that falls into the same category of how file permissions mean a virus only infects one user. For the admin of a system, that's great news, but for that user it's crapy news. As for logging in/out of XP, my understanding is there's no real reason to do that (cool switching removed the last reason; and yes you can launch a separate X server for each user but we're still not at the point where you can emulate cool switching with multiple X servers (actually, it's probably relatively feasible if a ?dm wanted to try); and yes, with multiple X servers if one crashed it'd be only one user's setup that went away, but that's still not good). Unless regular users are servering and those servers can withstand X crashing *cough*gtk-gnutella needs work*cough*, I don't think it counts.
Sounds like ISPs should unionize or something. Until copyright infringement (or DMCA violation) is proven, there is no justification for taking down the material. Of course, each ISP probably has the right to take down such content whenever they please, but the reality is they're intimidated into removing the material under threat of a baseless claim. It is not the duty of an ISP or a phone company or the air to prevent illegal acts from occuring or being judge and jury to censor the discourse of people. Considering that it is a baseless claim, such threats could be construed as racketeering by whatever party who threatens such. If ISPs were to unionize and have a joint lawyer pool for this case, maybe we'd finally get the DMCA struck down for violating the 5th amendment (you know, that part about not being deprived of property without due process of law).
Until the point that there's a chip in your head (okay, even at that point if people are adventurous enough), you can still copy the decoded music that's travelling in the air. But with audio coming out as encrypted in the air and decoded on a chip in the brain, parents will truly have good reason to call the music their children listen to noise.
Is it not Microsoft's responsibility to make non-exploitable software in the first place, or did the money you spent on Windows with your computer not include that?
So instead of a neon glow, we should worry about NEOH (Not Encouraging to One's Health). And I'm sure it'll really pick up into daily conversation like "That new Britney Spears CD is neoh."
Just to be fair, the same thing can be said about Linux with the various kernel exploits that require rebooting (or running kexec of late; anything that involves killing all apps and switching to single user mode I'd claim is equivalent enough to reboot to count as such; and to be even more fair, having to restart X might fall in the same category because a standard Linux user, I would claim, uses X (yes, I know it isn't required, but having a GUI is nicer if nothing else because of the higher resolution to hold terminals) all the time and hence has everything running under it, so X dying means restarting everything that was running and losing all sorts of content; and another side note is if X keeps crashing because of a crapy graphical driver *cough*old ATI driver*cough*, you can use a combination of vnc and screen for most activities which mitigates the effect of X crashing..but for most users that's impractical at worst and at best more a hack than anything, so I don't think it's a valid basis for discussion). With that said, drivers seem the largest problem for both platforms in the stability department, and I have more confidence in all of the open source drivers in Linux than all the closed source ones in Windows if for nothing else, the closed source ones are a massive pain to fix for those technically inclined and wanting enough to fix buggy drivers which only resorts in binary hacks to signed drivers to try to fix problems no one at the hardware company seems willing or able to fix. Of course, maybe it's the hardware that's the problem all along (and just to be clear, I'm talking about pre-radeon ati cards).
Actually, MS's "FAT" patent is over VFAT, not FAT. VFAT, if you don't know, was MS's answer to supporting long file names (lfns). The actual base concept of associating lfns and sfns (short file names) was around in 4DOS well before Windows 95 came out. And I'd assume there are earlier implementations for either DOS or other platforms. The only thing that was ingenious about VFAT was the way in which it encoded the lfn into the directory structure without causing other DOSs to barf. Of course, storing lfn in a file instead of the directory structure would have allowed easier backup from DOS, pretty easy interoperability through a small tsr, and would mean that using non-Windows 9x disk apps on a Windows 9x filesystem wouldn't mean possibly destroying lfn. There'd also probably be a performance penalty for having to cache the lfn file (as if the process of decoding lfn out of the directory structure wasn't a larger performance penalty). So, all in all, what MS did was non-obvious and useful, but it was only non-obvious because of how bad of an idea it is (especially true given that FAT16 has a 512 root entries limit--where that stands for 512 "normal" sfn entries; lfn+sfn take up 2+ entries, which makes it obvious why you'd want to have a subdirectory to store most everything (say Program Files) instead of dumping everything into root).
First off, I didn't say you said ties were a sign of rank/position. I was the one saying it. Anyone who is likely to get dirty on a daily basis or for which it would be a safety hazard for the person probably won't wear a tie. And then everyone else (male, wise) is at least expected to frequently enough to show respect to a boss or clients. To me, there's a clear rift between those two groups. Only in service businesses or the like where no one gets physically dirty or is daily in chance of physical harm from a tie does a tie not signify rank. At the same time, in such companies even the bottom positions usually pay better than "grunt" work.
As for not wearing a tie, was the bikini a way to say "Fuck you" to society? You seem to have ignored my whole point about variety. The fact is, ties have meaning because we give meaning to them (yeah, hardly profound). So, there's nothing stopping you from giving meaning to something else that's unique to show your respect. If you work for a company that makes pencils, one way is to wear a pencil themed tie. Maybe another way is to think of something more creative while still showing that respect (and I can't think of anything, but then I don't work for a pencil company so it doesn't matter a lot to me at the moment). A tie is the cookie-cutter approach to showing respect. Maybe that's appropriate for the job, where it's best to not stand out. But, isn't standing out while showing respect one way to gain positive attention? And it's not "burying one's head in the sand" to realize that the tie symbolized something because people giving meaning to it. If one doesn't like the tie because it's unoriginal or it feels "suffocating", that might be a good time to see if something else will do to show the same respect. And if enough people do it, then it'll be recognized by outsiders as well which is a good thing as well.
In some ways, I'm reminded of the different way cultures approach business partners. Some shake hands while others approach kissing on each cheek. While some people will run away from a different approach to the same thing, most just learn that that's the way some people do things for no apparent logical reason. If businesses are so paranoid about doing "the right thing" in relating to other businesses, it becomes rote which doesn't show respect. I guess, to me at least, it's important to show something more than just some abstract form. Or at least replace one rote form with another one. I hear hot tub orgies are big for sealing deals.:)
Open source developers aren't about being anti-commercial. The original source of the GPL was because Richard Stallman wanted exactly what you suggested, the ability to modify components that came with software. But if you do a lot of work, you might want to give it to friends to help. Under a non-open license, you wouldn't have that right. Even more, if you could give it to your friends under a BSD license, they might end up making more changes and start selling the product under a proprietary license. While that's great for them, if you buy the product from them you're back to not being able to alter or give away your changes to the bought software (and if they don't include source, you can't even easily make changes). Sure, you can try studying the behavior of their program and clone the behavior, but you're just duplicating effort.
So, the GPL breaks you out of this cycle. And of course it also means anyone can resell software under the GPL at whatever price they like, but then the source comes along GPLed which can be sold and redistributed. So, the GPL doesn't allow for a closed system. So, the only reasonable way to make money off GPLed software is through an indirect means (providing a service for support, making changes to source, etc). And adding proprietary components along with GPLed software just gets you back into the "trap" again. With GPLed software, you don't get paid in money; you get paid in all the available free source (or price of shipping and handling plus media).
So, is it a real surprise that open source advocates want people to contribute? Just remember that it's the free software advocates that say it's amoral to use proprietary software. And it's the open source advocates that pragmatically will suggest proprietary software, but they'd rather support open source when they can so they're more free to do what they want with their software.
Maybe you don't see the humor in wearing a tie with a ratty t-shirt, but then I guess you don't realize that while it my be "appropriate" to wear a tie, it's because you associate a rank (aka position) with needing or requiring a tie. Yet a tie has virtually no practical use.
That doesn't mean not wanting to wear a tie means wanting to wear canvas clothes to be utterly practical. So, maybe you want to wear a wristband or armband instead. The fact is, the tie is an archaic fashion statement, and I'd be more interested in seeing a variety of fashion statements to say "I'm dressing up". Variety is the spice of life, and if anything a suit and tie in a corporate environment is like canvas clothes in the right place in a corporation, for any professional tie you might wear.
And what makes you think one can't wear a necktie with a ratty t-shirt or pit-stained polo? While it's nice that ties are a common and simple means of adorning rank upon people, they are still useless. Maybe it'd be appropriate to have wristbands instead which are equally useless? Or maybe everyone in the company should wear ties, even the factory workers. It's most silly because ties only mean a vague "I think I'm important" or "the job demands it". So people will assume the job demands it which it makes it a good job. But it doesn't really convey anything.
Sorry, I meant the 6th amendment (knew I should have double checked). I quote "the accused shall enjoy the right...to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor". The only legal exemption for not being a witness in such a case is the 5th amendment's self-incriminating clause. You can't just invoke the 5th amendment so you never testify. So the 1st amendment and the 6th amendment obviously conflict. And the fact there's the 5th amendment's self-incrimination clause would imply that the 1st amendment does not already cover the issue.
Being an avid Animal Crossing fan, I might as well make the joke. I hope the RIAA is getting fees from Nintendo, since the tone composer in Animal Crossing can let you make clones of copyrighted songs.
Your list of what the freedom of speech does not protect is almost correct.
The government is not allowed to interfere with your freedom of speech. This means not only directly by not making laws to punish speech but also indirectly by not punishing people under certain laws because the victim was speaking unfavorable speech. So, (1) is true so long as the person punching you isn't a government official. (2) is true so long as you're employer is not part of the government. And (3) is never true, since the government has no right to restrict your ability to broadcast your speech on frequencies often used for television or radio.
At the same time, calling Bush an idiot still leaves you with a random person capable of shooting you (though it's not legal because of attempted murder laws). As far as threatening people or the government, there's nothing the government can really do. That doesn't mean people won't sue the person for mental distress or boycott phone companies or internet providers who fail to track down people issuing such threats. And the government can always track people who make threats, but that's not illegal. You can also lie to investigators.
There is a paradox, however. The 5th amendment provides for compulsory witnesses in your favor. At the same time, freedom of speech for the witnesses includes the right to not speak. Yet doing so will put you in contempt of court. And lying will leave you in jail for purgery. In such a situation, it's not clear the way to resolve the problem.
Only in the prosecution of other individuals is there even remotely an excuse for curtailing one person's freedom to prevent the jailing of an innocent man (ie, to protect that person's freedom). To believe the government has a right to arbitrarily restrict speech for the protection of one man (the president) or a group of people (at the location of a bomb threat) is ludicrous because it gives the government far too outreaching power. And if that weren't enough, to think that the government has right to frequencies used for entertainment (generally) is even more laughable.
Since web browsers started requiring ssl, javascript, css, and an object model. If you can do all of the above well in a small amount of ram, feel free to help out.
> Second, forgetting that your name is still on the bill for that ISP, and that in all likely hood (see your ISP TOS) that makes you liable for what happens over your line.
The ISP can't put you in jail for violating some law, and the contract is between you and the ISP. The ISP isn't liable as a common carrier, so there's no reason or ability for them to shuck their non-liability onto someone else who's being a common carrier. Now, whether they can yank your service and try suing you...
To be even more pedantic, "Bill Gates is not the father of MS-DOS" even if you *do* consider imitation a form of creation. So, it'd be more apt a comparison for a whitepaper titled: "Tim Paterson is not the father of MS-DOS". Including Bill Gates name would just be a good way to increase sales.
And the solution for the latter case is for a few people (say two or three) to buy the book and critique it pointing out how flawed it is, using extensive enough quotes to prove how inane it is. Then there's no reason to buy the book (since you see the "juicy" parts), and the claims are firmly put to rest. Of course, some people will think the three sales only encourage the author, but if three sales stop a thousand (and really, beside ebooks you can't make a profit on so few sales) the author is very likely to never be able to publish with that publisher again.
PS - On a fair note, if there are enough useful comments in the book (I don't consider the concept of cloning software as stealing, as MS would be a more entertaining target for that), the critiques would actually increase sales. I think that's another reason why such critiques are fair use.
Slashdot Mirror
Look at the history of the Sega Saturn, and you'll see a similar phenomenon (well, I personally don't think the Saturn was very inferior, but it did seem to have half-baked 3D support thrown in at the last minute by doubling CPUs). In the end, it's a combination of things that can help to doom a game console, and releasing a system prior to having a good set of games is a large contributor.
Thankfully "The Stand" is short enough to watch.
Have you ever used X? It's a stateful protocol. Ever used vnc? It's a stateless protocol? Ever heard of Xvnc which provides a stateless protocol to an X server? It seems silly to me to assume that you can't use a stateless interface to alter a stateful one. After all, all web apps are about is providing a stateless interface to a stateful "rich" app.
The major point that seems to be missing is:
3. Using a successful product to
a. force the inclusion of another product even when consumers (like OEMs) demand to be allowed to include other products.
b. implicitly lie about the compatibility of some product with said successful product.
3a occurred when MS barred OEMs from include Netscape with machine and demoting the appearance of IE after MS threatened to revoke licensing on selling Windows. The fact that MS circumvented the normal competition of products through use of another product was ruled illegal and to me seems clearly unethical.
3b occurred during the MS Windows 3.11 beta program where some special code was written and obfusciated with a simple xor encryption scheme to detect non-MS-DOS DOSs and display a warning about said DOS not being properly tested. At the time, DR-DOS and MS-DOS were competing products, and MS didn't itself test its product with a competing product but instead stated that testing wasn't done. Beyond being irresponsible to its consumers, the fact is this only demonstrates that MS realized Windows needed to be joined to DOS to prevent competition, which was observed in MS Windows 95. With DOS bundled with Windows, it removed all economic incentive to buy another DOS even when it was discovered that a simple TSR added to DR-DOS would allow it to work with Windows 95.
Of course, that brings up the issue of where you draw the line. And I think any company can add whatever it wants so long as it doesn't prevent alteration for further customers nor uses deceit to gain consumers. Knowledge or bundling are fine in themselves.
I'd agree, except that that falls into the same category of how file permissions mean a virus only infects one user. For the admin of a system, that's great news, but for that user it's crapy news. As for logging in/out of XP, my understanding is there's no real reason to do that (cool switching removed the last reason; and yes you can launch a separate X server for each user but we're still not at the point where you can emulate cool switching with multiple X servers (actually, it's probably relatively feasible if a ?dm wanted to try); and yes, with multiple X servers if one crashed it'd be only one user's setup that went away, but that's still not good). Unless regular users are servering and those servers can withstand X crashing *cough*gtk-gnutella needs work*cough*, I don't think it counts.
Don't you mean eXorbitantly eXtreme & eXpensive CPU?
Sounds like ISPs should unionize or something. Until copyright infringement (or DMCA violation) is proven, there is no justification for taking down the material. Of course, each ISP probably has the right to take down such content whenever they please, but the reality is they're intimidated into removing the material under threat of a baseless claim. It is not the duty of an ISP or a phone company or the air to prevent illegal acts from occuring or being judge and jury to censor the discourse of people. Considering that it is a baseless claim, such threats could be construed as racketeering by whatever party who threatens such. If ISPs were to unionize and have a joint lawyer pool for this case, maybe we'd finally get the DMCA struck down for violating the 5th amendment (you know, that part about not being deprived of property without due process of law).
Until the point that there's a chip in your head (okay, even at that point if people are adventurous enough), you can still copy the decoded music that's travelling in the air. But with audio coming out as encrypted in the air and decoded on a chip in the brain, parents will truly have good reason to call the music their children listen to noise.
Is it not Microsoft's responsibility to make non-exploitable software in the first place, or did the money you spent on Windows with your computer not include that?
So instead of a neon glow, we should worry about NEOH (Not Encouraging to One's Health). And I'm sure it'll really pick up into daily conversation like "That new Britney Spears CD is neoh."
Just to be fair, the same thing can be said about Linux with the various kernel exploits that require rebooting (or running kexec of late; anything that involves killing all apps and switching to single user mode I'd claim is equivalent enough to reboot to count as such; and to be even more fair, having to restart X might fall in the same category because a standard Linux user, I would claim, uses X (yes, I know it isn't required, but having a GUI is nicer if nothing else because of the higher resolution to hold terminals) all the time and hence has everything running under it, so X dying means restarting everything that was running and losing all sorts of content; and another side note is if X keeps crashing because of a crapy graphical driver *cough*old ATI driver*cough*, you can use a combination of vnc and screen for most activities which mitigates the effect of X crashing..but for most users that's impractical at worst and at best more a hack than anything, so I don't think it's a valid basis for discussion). With that said, drivers seem the largest problem for both platforms in the stability department, and I have more confidence in all of the open source drivers in Linux than all the closed source ones in Windows if for nothing else, the closed source ones are a massive pain to fix for those technically inclined and wanting enough to fix buggy drivers which only resorts in binary hacks to signed drivers to try to fix problems no one at the hardware company seems willing or able to fix. Of course, maybe it's the hardware that's the problem all along (and just to be clear, I'm talking about pre-radeon ati cards).
Actually, MS's "FAT" patent is over VFAT, not FAT. VFAT, if you don't know, was MS's answer to supporting long file names (lfns). The actual base concept of associating lfns and sfns (short file names) was around in 4DOS well before Windows 95 came out. And I'd assume there are earlier implementations for either DOS or other platforms. The only thing that was ingenious about VFAT was the way in which it encoded the lfn into the directory structure without causing other DOSs to barf. Of course, storing lfn in a file instead of the directory structure would have allowed easier backup from DOS, pretty easy interoperability through a small tsr, and would mean that using non-Windows 9x disk apps on a Windows 9x filesystem wouldn't mean possibly destroying lfn. There'd also probably be a performance penalty for having to cache the lfn file (as if the process of decoding lfn out of the directory structure wasn't a larger performance penalty). So, all in all, what MS did was non-obvious and useful, but it was only non-obvious because of how bad of an idea it is (especially true given that FAT16 has a 512 root entries limit--where that stands for 512 "normal" sfn entries; lfn+sfn take up 2+ entries, which makes it obvious why you'd want to have a subdirectory to store most everything (say Program Files) instead of dumping everything into root).
MS patented hooking up a telegraph to a computer to launch apps?
First off, I didn't say you said ties were a sign of rank/position. I was the one saying it. Anyone who is likely to get dirty on a daily basis or for which it would be a safety hazard for the person probably won't wear a tie. And then everyone else (male, wise) is at least expected to frequently enough to show respect to a boss or clients. To me, there's a clear rift between those two groups. Only in service businesses or the like where no one gets physically dirty or is daily in chance of physical harm from a tie does a tie not signify rank. At the same time, in such companies even the bottom positions usually pay better than "grunt" work.
:)
As for not wearing a tie, was the bikini a way to say "Fuck you" to society? You seem to have ignored my whole point about variety. The fact is, ties have meaning because we give meaning to them (yeah, hardly profound). So, there's nothing stopping you from giving meaning to something else that's unique to show your respect. If you work for a company that makes pencils, one way is to wear a pencil themed tie. Maybe another way is to think of something more creative while still showing that respect (and I can't think of anything, but then I don't work for a pencil company so it doesn't matter a lot to me at the moment). A tie is the cookie-cutter approach to showing respect. Maybe that's appropriate for the job, where it's best to not stand out. But, isn't standing out while showing respect one way to gain positive attention? And it's not "burying one's head in the sand" to realize that the tie symbolized something because people giving meaning to it. If one doesn't like the tie because it's unoriginal or it feels "suffocating", that might be a good time to see if something else will do to show the same respect. And if enough people do it, then it'll be recognized by outsiders as well which is a good thing as well.
In some ways, I'm reminded of the different way cultures approach business partners. Some shake hands while others approach kissing on each cheek. While some people will run away from a different approach to the same thing, most just learn that that's the way some people do things for no apparent logical reason. If businesses are so paranoid about doing "the right thing" in relating to other businesses, it becomes rote which doesn't show respect. I guess, to me at least, it's important to show something more than just some abstract form. Or at least replace one rote form with another one. I hear hot tub orgies are big for sealing deals.
Open source developers aren't about being anti-commercial. The original source of the GPL was because Richard Stallman wanted exactly what you suggested, the ability to modify components that came with software. But if you do a lot of work, you might want to give it to friends to help. Under a non-open license, you wouldn't have that right. Even more, if you could give it to your friends under a BSD license, they might end up making more changes and start selling the product under a proprietary license. While that's great for them, if you buy the product from them you're back to not being able to alter or give away your changes to the bought software (and if they don't include source, you can't even easily make changes). Sure, you can try studying the behavior of their program and clone the behavior, but you're just duplicating effort.
So, the GPL breaks you out of this cycle. And of course it also means anyone can resell software under the GPL at whatever price they like, but then the source comes along GPLed which can be sold and redistributed. So, the GPL doesn't allow for a closed system. So, the only reasonable way to make money off GPLed software is through an indirect means (providing a service for support, making changes to source, etc). And adding proprietary components along with GPLed software just gets you back into the "trap" again. With GPLed software, you don't get paid in money; you get paid in all the available free source (or price of shipping and handling plus media).
So, is it a real surprise that open source advocates want people to contribute? Just remember that it's the free software advocates that say it's amoral to use proprietary software. And it's the open source advocates that pragmatically will suggest proprietary software, but they'd rather support open source when they can so they're more free to do what they want with their software.
Maybe you don't see the humor in wearing a tie with a ratty t-shirt, but then I guess you don't realize that while it my be "appropriate" to wear a tie, it's because you associate a rank (aka position) with needing or requiring a tie. Yet a tie has virtually no practical use.
That doesn't mean not wanting to wear a tie means wanting to wear canvas clothes to be utterly practical. So, maybe you want to wear a wristband or armband instead. The fact is, the tie is an archaic fashion statement, and I'd be more interested in seeing a variety of fashion statements to say "I'm dressing up". Variety is the spice of life, and if anything a suit and tie in a corporate environment is like canvas clothes in the right place in a corporation, for any professional tie you might wear.
And what makes you think one can't wear a necktie with a ratty t-shirt or pit-stained polo? While it's nice that ties are a common and simple means of adorning rank upon people, they are still useless. Maybe it'd be appropriate to have wristbands instead which are equally useless? Or maybe everyone in the company should wear ties, even the factory workers. It's most silly because ties only mean a vague "I think I'm important" or "the job demands it". So people will assume the job demands it which it makes it a good job. But it doesn't really convey anything.
Sorry, I meant the 6th amendment (knew I should have double checked). I quote "the accused shall enjoy the right...to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor". The only legal exemption for not being a witness in such a case is the 5th amendment's self-incriminating clause. You can't just invoke the 5th amendment so you never testify. So the 1st amendment and the 6th amendment obviously conflict. And the fact there's the 5th amendment's self-incrimination clause would imply that the 1st amendment does not already cover the issue.
Being an avid Animal Crossing fan, I might as well make the joke. I hope the RIAA is getting fees from Nintendo, since the tone composer in Animal Crossing can let you make clones of copyrighted songs.
Your list of what the freedom of speech does not protect is almost correct.
The government is not allowed to interfere with your freedom of speech. This means not only directly by not making laws to punish speech but also indirectly by not punishing people under certain laws because the victim was speaking unfavorable speech. So, (1) is true so long as the person punching you isn't a government official. (2) is true so long as you're employer is not part of the government. And (3) is never true, since the government has no right to restrict your ability to broadcast your speech on frequencies often used for television or radio.
At the same time, calling Bush an idiot still leaves you with a random person capable of shooting you (though it's not legal because of attempted murder laws). As far as threatening people or the government, there's nothing the government can really do. That doesn't mean people won't sue the person for mental distress or boycott phone companies or internet providers who fail to track down people issuing such threats. And the government can always track people who make threats, but that's not illegal. You can also lie to investigators.
There is a paradox, however. The 5th amendment provides for compulsory witnesses in your favor. At the same time, freedom of speech for the witnesses includes the right to not speak. Yet doing so will put you in contempt of court. And lying will leave you in jail for purgery. In such a situation, it's not clear the way to resolve the problem.
Only in the prosecution of other individuals is there even remotely an excuse for curtailing one person's freedom to prevent the jailing of an innocent man (ie, to protect that person's freedom). To believe the government has a right to arbitrarily restrict speech for the protection of one man (the president) or a group of people (at the location of a bomb threat) is ludicrous because it gives the government far too outreaching power. And if that weren't enough, to think that the government has right to frequencies used for entertainment (generally) is even more laughable.
Since web browsers started requiring ssl, javascript, css, and an object model. If you can do all of the above well in a small amount of ram, feel free to help out.
This is what Kerberos is for.
> Second, forgetting that your name is still on the bill for that ISP, and that in all likely hood (see your ISP TOS) that makes you liable for what happens over your line.
The ISP can't put you in jail for violating some law, and the contract is between you and the ISP. The ISP isn't liable as a common carrier, so there's no reason or ability for them to shuck their non-liability onto someone else who's being a common carrier. Now, whether they can yank your service and try suing you...
To be even more pedantic, "Bill Gates is not the father of MS-DOS" even if you *do* consider imitation a form of creation. So, it'd be more apt a comparison for a whitepaper titled: "Tim Paterson is not the father of MS-DOS". Including Bill Gates name would just be a good way to increase sales.
And the solution for the latter case is for a few people (say two or three) to buy the book and critique it pointing out how flawed it is, using extensive enough quotes to prove how inane it is. Then there's no reason to buy the book (since you see the "juicy" parts), and the claims are firmly put to rest. Of course, some people will think the three sales only encourage the author, but if three sales stop a thousand (and really, beside ebooks you can't make a profit on so few sales) the author is very likely to never be able to publish with that publisher again.
PS - On a fair note, if there are enough useful comments in the book (I don't consider the concept of cloning software as stealing, as MS would be a more entertaining target for that), the critiques would actually increase sales. I think that's another reason why such critiques are fair use.