privacy is _more_ than just your private correspondence. using cryptography is only one way to ensure your privacy on the net. what cryptography cannot help is what the person/company on the other end of the wire is doing with the info you are prviding. what the europan laws are saying is that whatever you send a company of information so that they can send and bill you for some goods, is _your_ property and you give it to them _only_ for the purpose to facilitate the transaction, and they _cannot_ make a database of user which they can sell to others.
allowing free cryptography is one step to help privacy on the net, but it is naive to believe that all problems with privacy is solved with the use of it.
but on the other hand, about 22% of kids in the USA is growing up in poverty, worst among ALL industrialised nations except mexico. sweden OTOH lets only 2 % grow up in poverty. (tidbit taken from time magazine) so maybe european countries doesnt boom as much as the usa (unemployment has and still is falling in EU), but obviously a lot of people are much better off with the "schelorsis" than what is going on here.
well I would think that communism can work in small communes, because there is transparency in it. when a commune is small and people are dedicated to it, it is easy to see who is not doing his share of work and only feed off the others labour. also in a small commune it is easy to decide "what do we need now, where do we concentrate our resources" as son as communism goes to a nationwide level the transparency goes away and it is easy to not make a decent effort because your input is so small compared to the whole system that if you slack off the total efficiency goes down only a small bit. of course when a lot of people does it, it shows. there are some parallels between communism and the situation the workers feel in big corporations, where your input has no measurable value. also the question of what do we need and where to concentrate resources s also more difficult since there it much more input to sort through.
well this salon story gives some explanation. http://www.salon.com/media/col/shal/1999/11/30/n aming/index.html i think it the story is almost frightening.
And if they don't settle, the FoF can be used in other law suits against microsoft. After all one of the great hurdles in law suits against microsoft is to show thay they are indeed a monopoly. If microsoft does not settle, the FoF can be used as a proof for microsofts monopoly and make civil law suits from competitors much more likely to succeed. By settling, the FoF can be inadmissible in those cases. At least thats what i have been able to understand from legal analysts in the media. IANAL, so the above should be taken with a kg of salt.
Welll havent you seen that educational film they show in school.
".... experts say that by 1965 we will have one dozen moon colonies... the moon belongs to america and its brave astromen...." or however that educational film went in that simpsons episode. palop
If it is true that your compsany has had this since 91, and you can prove it, for gods sake contact B&N's legal department and make them aware of it. same goes for everyone else who knows about prior art. help them make the patent invalid though the court case. so then we dont have to whine about this particular patent anymore, and we can start whining about other software patents.
but Get \Get\ (g[e^]t), v. t. [imp. Got (g[o^]t) (Obs. Gat (g[a^]t)); p. p. Got (Obsolescent Gotten (g[o^]t"t'n)); p. pr. & vb. n. Getting.], so "you've got mail" is just as good/bad as "you've gotten mail"
Slashdot Mirror
privacy is _more_ than just your private correspondence. using cryptography is only one way to ensure your privacy on the net. what cryptography cannot help is what the person/company on the other end of the wire is doing with the info you are prviding. what the europan laws are saying is that whatever you send a company of information so that they can send and bill you for some goods, is _your_ property and you give it to them _only_ for the purpose to facilitate the transaction, and they _cannot_ make a database of user which they can sell to others.
allowing free cryptography is one step to help privacy on the net, but it is naive to believe that all problems with privacy is solved with the use of it.
palop
but on the other hand, about 22% of kids in the USA is growing up in poverty, worst among ALL industrialised nations except mexico. sweden OTOH lets only 2 % grow up in poverty. (tidbit taken from time magazine)
so maybe european countries doesnt boom as much as the usa (unemployment has and still is falling in EU), but obviously a lot of people are much better off with the "schelorsis" than what is going on here.
palop
try reading the other responses before you start posting. he already did answer that question twice, in post 15 and 22.
palop
well I would think that communism can work in small communes, because there is transparency in it. when a commune is small and people are dedicated to it, it is easy to see who is not doing his share of work and only feed off the others labour. also in a small commune it is easy to decide "what do we need now, where do we concentrate our resources"
as son as communism goes to a nationwide level the transparency goes away and it is easy to not make a decent effort because your input is so small compared to the whole system that if you slack off the total efficiency goes down only a small bit. of course when a lot of people does it, it shows. there are some parallels between communism and the situation the workers feel in big corporations, where your input has no measurable value. also the question of what do we need and where to concentrate resources s also more difficult since there it much more input to sort through.
just my rambling thoughs on the subject
palop
well this salon story gives some explanation.n aming/index.html
http://www.salon.com/media/col/shal/1999/11/30/
i think it the story is almost frightening.
palop
And if they don't settle, the FoF can be used in other law suits against microsoft. After all one of the great hurdles in law suits against microsoft is to show thay they are indeed a monopoly. If microsoft does not settle, the FoF can be used as a proof for microsofts monopoly and make civil law suits from competitors much more likely to succeed. By settling, the FoF can be inadmissible in those cases.
At least thats what i have been able to understand from legal analysts in the media. IANAL, so the above should be taken with a kg of salt.
Palop
Welll havent you seen that educational film they show in school.
".... experts say that by 1965 we will have one dozen moon colonies...
the moon belongs to america and its brave astromen...."
or however that educational film went in that simpsons episode.
palop
If it is true that your compsany has had this since 91, and you can prove it, for gods sake contact B&N's legal department and make them aware of it. same goes for everyone else who knows about prior art.
help them make the patent invalid though the court case. so then we dont have to whine about this particular patent anymore, and we can start whining about other software patents.
palop
but
Get \Get\ (g[e^]t), v. t. [imp. Got (g[o^]t) (Obs. Gat (g[a^]t)); p. p. Got (Obsolescent Gotten
(g[o^]t"t'n)); p. pr. & vb. n. Getting.],
so "you've got mail" is just as good/bad as "you've gotten mail"
palop the superlurker