If they implemented the open standard, you'd still pay them. The problem is the software implementing the open standard isn't implementing accessibility features. Until ODF vendors get their act together, MS is probably the only game in town for Office document creation without violating accessibility laws.
Their issue isn't with free software. Their issue is that a government is mandating the use of a format for which no accessible software exists. Such a mandate is likely illegal under state and federal law.
They let it go because they don't know if the driver is a *derivative work* until they sue for the details. A judge might not think a patched Windows driver with a compatibility layer is a derivative work of the kernel...
I have a feeling that it was rapidly adding and removing data from the TreeMap and the JVM doesn't garbage collect that often or simply couldn't keep up. IIRC, a programmer can force garbage collection in code, though.
MSIE has included search functionality that has pointed to MSN for ages. It's just now that Microsoft is moving it into a separate search bar (like every other major browser) that there's suddenly a problem. This is nothing more than Google using the courts as a weapon. That makes them just as evil as any other abuser of the justice system.
So if a company follows the law of a country they operate in, they are free of any ethical considerations? How bad must they get before it's enough? If their compliance directly results in the jailing and/or death of dissidents (go go yahoo), should we be okay with that? The almighty dollar and "shareholder responsibility" should not be a shield for any corporation aiding in the violation of human rights.
Do we speak up only if Google's behavior directly and significantly impacts us? I suppose we should wait till the DoJ starts acting like China and taking search engine data that shouldn't be tied to individuals to use against us?
The judge on the case misbehaved making himself look biased (he was *extremely* biased) and got his remedy thrown out. They were going back to reargue and the Bush administration decided to settle with terms that theoretically should have kept Microsoft from abusing their monopoly. The reason Microsoft's desktop monopoly hasn't started to shrink is because there simply isn't anything easy to use, with every application imaginable and available on standard PCs. Licensing issues are probably the biggest reason Windows is still running 90+%. Linking with GPLed libraries that aren't part of the standard system (there is NO standard with Linux) requires that you GPL your code as well. Just recently I linked against a "standard" library for Linux that also exists as a GPLed library for Windows. Am I forbidden from shipping a Windows version while the UNIX version is free and clear? I don't want to get a lawyer just to have him give me an answer the FSF doesn't agree with....
You can't even write a hardware driver for Linux unless you bow down to the FSF. Writing a closed source binary driver for Linux is actually a GPL violation according to the FSF and giving out tech specs for hardware isn't something manufacturers like to do.
There should have been allowances made for this stuff in the GPL and other licenses, but the people who wrote the licenses don't want people to write software for their operating system/environment. They just want code written for them.
The foam is on the fuel tank, not the shuttle. The shuttle is covered in tiles. Damage was sustained on some of these tiles when some foam came off the tank during liftoff.
Um, the employee and employer are apples and oranges. The employer is the more powerful entity (sometimes infinitely more powerful). The people are supposed to be protected from *overabuse* by more powerful entities. If "if you don't like it, leave" was accepted, there would be no work safety laws or even discrimination laws.
If Microsoft started lowering prices, their competition would probably claim they're using their cash reserves generated by their "illegal" monopoly to try to crush them with artificially low prices.
They'll take a little bit at a time. That's why it's called *erosion*. We won't notice that they're about a mile away from the original target because they moved an inch at a time until they're targeting us instead of the paedos with "thought crime" laws and the power to enforce them.
Slashdot Mirror
If they implemented the open standard, you'd still pay them. The problem is the software implementing the open standard isn't implementing accessibility features. Until ODF vendors get their act together, MS is probably the only game in town for Office document creation without violating accessibility laws.
Their issue isn't with free software. Their issue is that a government is mandating the use of a format for which no accessible software exists. Such a mandate is likely illegal under state and federal law.
None of the prominent desktop applications that can create and save documents in OpenDocument currently work well with screen readers
I think that's what they are saying...
They let it go because they don't know if the driver is a *derivative work* until they sue for the details. A judge might not think a patched Windows driver with a compatibility layer is a derivative work of the kernel...
Fair use does not require the material to be even published as stated in US law.
His comments were just as sure to cut off his funding as pissing on a 5-star general.
I have a feeling that it was rapidly adding and removing data from the TreeMap and the JVM doesn't garbage collect that often or simply couldn't keep up. IIRC, a programmer can force garbage collection in code, though.
You're equating the browser being shipped as a component with being forced to use it?
MSIE has included search functionality that has pointed to MSN for ages. It's just now that Microsoft is moving it into a separate search bar (like every other major browser) that there's suddenly a problem. This is nothing more than Google using the courts as a weapon. That makes them just as evil as any other abuser of the justice system.
So if a company follows the law of a country they operate in, they are free of any ethical considerations? How bad must they get before it's enough? If their compliance directly results in the jailing and/or death of dissidents (go go yahoo), should we be okay with that? The almighty dollar and "shareholder responsibility" should not be a shield for any corporation aiding in the violation of human rights.
Do we speak up only if Google's behavior directly and significantly impacts us? I suppose we should wait till the DoJ starts acting like China and taking search engine data that shouldn't be tied to individuals to use against us?
The judge on the case misbehaved making himself look biased (he was *extremely* biased) and got his remedy thrown out. They were going back to reargue and the Bush administration decided to settle with terms that theoretically should have kept Microsoft from abusing their monopoly. The reason Microsoft's desktop monopoly hasn't started to shrink is because there simply isn't anything easy to use, with every application imaginable and available on standard PCs. Licensing issues are probably the biggest reason Windows is still running 90+%. Linking with GPLed libraries that aren't part of the standard system (there is NO standard with Linux) requires that you GPL your code as well. Just recently I linked against a "standard" library for Linux that also exists as a GPLed library for Windows. Am I forbidden from shipping a Windows version while the UNIX version is free and clear? I don't want to get a lawyer just to have him give me an answer the FSF doesn't agree with....
You can't even write a hardware driver for Linux unless you bow down to the FSF. Writing a closed source binary driver for Linux is actually a GPL violation according to the FSF and giving out tech specs for hardware isn't something manufacturers like to do.
There should have been allowances made for this stuff in the GPL and other licenses, but the people who wrote the licenses don't want people to write software for their operating system/environment. They just want code written for them.
The Linux kernel is the part that is providing most of the functions of an operating system.
The foam is on the fuel tank, not the shuttle. The shuttle is covered in tiles. Damage was sustained on some of these tiles when some foam came off the tank during liftoff.
National security is more or less a prerequisite for going to war. Whether it's true or not is another thing.
Um, the employee and employer are apples and oranges. The employer is the more powerful entity (sometimes infinitely more powerful). The people are supposed to be protected from *overabuse* by more powerful entities. If "if you don't like it, leave" was accepted, there would be no work safety laws or even discrimination laws.
Power cycling the equipment is the FIRST thing you try. ;p
the aim is probably to try to prevent people from booting a CD and compromising the windows install
If Microsoft started lowering prices, their competition would probably claim they're using their cash reserves generated by their "illegal" monopoly to try to crush them with artificially low prices.
If they're moving UNIX software over, Windows would've been an expensive choice...
What am I supposed to use to access my db?
Didn't you just describe what unfair competition means? ;p
When you go to court for child porn, you get to go to jail even if you claim someone else used your wireless to download it... ;p
Yeah, because they have a great track record of limiting themselves to the proposed purpose...like PATRIOT.
They said little girl...
They'll take a little bit at a time. That's why it's called *erosion*. We won't notice that they're about a mile away from the original target because they moved an inch at a time until they're targeting us instead of the paedos with "thought crime" laws and the power to enforce them.