The problem is that ostensibly pro-business politicians are really just pro-business-leader politicians. They're more interested in giving out a tax break or regulating away competition than in fostering real capitalism. After Enron and Worldcom, I thought Congress and shareholders might actually start taking corporate governance seriously, but apart from some activist pension funds waging proxy fights, nothing happens. If capitalism is going to work, everyone needs to play fairly. I don't mean fair in the sense of giving to the less fortunate. I mean following the rules and not stealing from the corporate coffers.
they are essentially converting British Pounds Sterling into US Dollars and sending them off to US-owned companies
there's no magic machine that changes pounds into dollars. american companies are forced to either to sell the pounds at the market (driving down the pound, thus increasing british exports), or to invest in the british capital markets which is also good for british investors. so basically quit whining you silly protectionist.
By the current laws, which admittedly are very very vague, the answer is yes.
I think you're confusing the issue. A country can make any laws they so desire (within a few constraints) including making acts done outside their borders illegal.
The question, though, is one of enforcement. If the offending entity does business or travels in the country where their actions are illegal (like what happened with Dmitry Sklyarov), they can have assets seize or be arrested. The US has been known to send a chopper into a foreign country and extract a person. No extradition hearing. The federal judge really doesn't care how they got you there. The home country might, but that's another story.
I think the situation is quite clear. It may make you upset that countries exert their influence outside their borders, but that's been going on since the birth of civilization and perhaps earlier. You can blame globalization, but that's not really true. Nation states (hell, even tribes) have a long history of attempting to project their power on their neighbors and it many times led to war.
The only thing that's changed is, with better communication and transportation, issues like this come up more often, and it isn't going to change.
By your definition of losing, AMD lost as well. They have ~20% market share where Intel has the rest, and they certainly make less money.
To beat Microsoft, you don't necessarily need to destroy them. You just need to cut into their margins and make them more responsive to the needs of their customers.
The English chemist Sir Humphry Davy who discovered the element derived the name from alumina, which was taken from the French tanning mineral "alum".
Sir Humphrey first called it alumium, then aluminum, and finally aluminium. Somehow the Americans ended up calling it by the intermediate name and it stuck.
I can't believe your comment got mod'ed up. Complete misinformation about how contracts work.
1. "not signed" - Many contracts do not require signatures. The ones that do are enumerated under the Statute of Frauds, but it defaults to legally enforceable otherwise.
2. "no witnesses" - this certainly hurts the enforceability (i.e., you could LIE and say you didn't agree), but it hardly consititutes a void contract.
3. "impaired or underage" - contracts made under these conditions are voidABLE not void. hence, if you choose to void the contract YOU TOO must give up the rights you received under the contracts (e.g., software)
I'm going to ignore the notary part. It's too absurd to bother with.
Re:The Great Microsoft Problem
on
Windows in 2020
·
· Score: 1
Your post makes a good point "Theorectically", but unfortunately it's crap. Capitalist theory does not claim to have "constant" improvements in products and productivity. Business cycles are an accepted phenomenon, although their cause is frequently debated. The point you may have been trying to make is that capitalism has failed to produce a trend toward better products and productivity gains. I find this an absurdly ignorant point of view. Perhaps we could argue that the Third World has failed to produce the gains that capitalists have advertised, but you limit your argument to modern capitalist societies.
Returning to the central issue, though, Microsoft should hardly be used as evidence of the failures of capitalism. Few would claim that markets cannot fail, and the typical scenario used to illustrate market failure is the monopoly. Excuse me, but did you miss the antitrust case? Furthermore, every company you list holds a nice portfolio of patents. What is a patent other than a monopoly granted by the government. The legitimacy of the patent claims issued by the USPTO is another issue entirely.
You're crying wolf if you think capitalism has failed. It's sad that so many people will drive their SUVs into their offices today and sit with coffee in hand and nod while reading your post. Your misinformation along with the ignorant protests of other anti-capitalists are worse than anything a Microsoft marketing rep has ever written because they risk the foundation of our society and the future of our families far more than the next Microsoft Security Advisory.
It's difficult to sue the plants, now isn't it? If parents don't properly watch after their children, they can similarly be held liable for their actions.
Unlike the virus analogy, this plant was not genetically engineered to sprout wings and fly to other farmers' plots of land.
OpenBSD is not the answer in this case, because it does not suitably lend itself to being an easily administered desktop machine.
If you're looking for servers or firewalls, OpenBSD is the way to go. But the requirements the article speaks of are for the workstation machines, hence the need for Motif & CDE.
The article deals primarily with the IBM investment. Those lines you plucked out are just background for general readers. Why bore laypeople with minor details like that? I thought the article was more balanced and thorough than the treatment given by some more tech-oriented magazines.
The GPL is great but does every article about Linux need to have a book-length appendix discussing its license? Next we'll see every article having to do with Windows talking about the EULA.. hmm, maybe that wouldn't be such a bad idea after all.
One of the interesting features of this insurance is the liability coverage that shields companies from lawsuits stemming from their negligence. I wonder if companies will now feel less concerned with the safety of user information now that they can count on their insurance company covering them if worse comes to worst.
Further, up until now many startup companies had shallow pockets, but with this kind of protection, we could see a lot of groundless litigation, and people just try to pressure these insurance companies into settling.
A tape backup drive does nothing to recover the financial losses of a DoS attack. If a transaction can't be processed because the system is down, no miles of tape are going to recoup the lost revenues.
This is news because it's new. It illustrates how businesses are acknowledging that e-commerce has risks, but instead of retreating they're packaging the online risk into a nice financial instrument that can then be sold to speculators.
This is good news because businesses that were hesistant at first to join the so-called new economy can do so now when a reasonable expectation of the risks they're taking.
It's clear from this beta agreement that some companies trying to get very close to Linux still don't get it. Here is a company that is hoping to jump on the OSS bandwagon to make some serious money, but they obviously don't understand what that entails. I could almost sympathize if this was another company that was just entering this domain, but here is a company that is marketing a distribution, and if you control a distribution with enough users, you hold considerable influence over the community. Do you want to entrust someone so braindead with the task?
The agreement is worthless, but I'm curious to see how it will be handled. Obviously Corel will have to back down or legal action will be taken. I just hope it doesn't have to go that far.
If you read the license, once a product is released under GPL, any derived products from that work are also under the same conditions of the GPL.
This applies even to the author! If I write a program and version 1 is GPL, version 2 if it is based on version 1 must also be GPL. You own the copyright, yes. But your "ownership" is under the same contions as the GPL.
Linus can't tomorrow say "This open source software movement was neat, but now that I've got them hooked.." Nope. Of course this is a simplistic example because much of the Linux code is owned by other people, but you get my meaning.
You can probably get more info from http://www.fsf.org. From "What is the Copyleft?",
"To copyleft a program, first we copyright it; then we add distribution terms, which are a legal instrument that gives everyone the rights to use, modify, and redistribute the program's code or any program derived from it but only if the distribution terms are unchanged. Thus, the code and the freedoms become legally inseparable. "
Linux is all about the freedom to choose. It begins by choosing the operating system, but it doesn't end there. You could choose whether or not to have a "window system", then select a desktop system, window manager, and finally customize it all to hell.
GNOME and KDE are not encouraging the fragementation of the Linux desktop--the flame wars are. Why on earth do these little people run around crying "my desktop system is better"? It beats the hell out of me, and frankly it's a little sad.
That aside, GNOME cannot be un-GPLed, and that is what you propose when you suggest moving to a BSD-like license. Once you GPL your software, that's it buddy. In order to move to a more "restrictive" license, you have to totally rewrite the code. Fat chance at getting current GNOME developers to do that.
The majority of desktop users are running a particular OS that will remain nameless. A single security hole there can and does have serious ramifications. How is this any different from putting all your eggs on a server?
The same rules on exporting crypto don't apply to Canada. An American can move to Canada and work on cryptography if he wishes, so long as it isn't with the intent to distribute it outside of US/Canada.
Top on the list was "What would you think if the head of the KGB was elected president of Russia?".
Well, how does the head of the KGB as Prime Minister suit you? He in charge for all intents and purposes now. Further, Boris has chosen him to succeed him as president after his term is up. Of course no one listens to that drunk anymore, though.
Clearly in the short-term, they're claiming that development won't stop for the current version.
In the long-run, it's anyone's guess. If the server model is successful, they'll try to ween people off of the fat client model, but if it flops like the last time they pushed the thin-client, the current version may be the only thing to survive.
It would be all nice and dandy if we had direct democracy, but get with the program: we live in a world where you elect a few people to take care of things for you. These "lazy" people you refer to have real jobs and other more personal concerns than making sure the country is run correctly.
The problem is that the few people we do elect serve certain special (read: their own) interests first and the constituency that elected them second. Eventually they run into the roadblock of not having anymore money so they have three choices: a) don't spend anymore b) borrow c) tax. Choice (a) is the first to go out the window. Choice (b)... well we didn't get a trillion dollar debt from being frugal. And choice (c), well.. at least we're not Canadians/Europeans.
You want us all the go run the country, but then you sit back and say complaining is bad. "Go to Cuba" you say. What kind of ignorant nonsense statement is that? "Oh, so you don't like paying taxes? -- go to a communist nation" "Oh, you don't like your government -- Go to Cuba. They're much better at dealing with dissidents." Yeah, that's bright.
I have no idea what orifice this is all coming out of. "Be vocal, but shut up and don't complain" - "hey it could be worse". You sound like a Microsoft user.:)
Let's consider for a moment the fact that for the most part Windows dominates the desktop market. I don't think any open source "Killer-app" is going to drive more people to buy Windows.
On the contrary, I believe OSS on Windows is a good thing because it proves to many Windows users the value of OSS. It's a much smaller "leap-of-faith" to try a free software package than to repartition your hard drive and move to a true Open Source OS.
I think if everyone's goal is really domination of the desktop than you've got to consider that not everyone is going to be as adventurous as the current Linux pioneer community.
The people that get Windows OEM don't necessarily see the value in switching, but if you offer them a better, free alternative, you may convert a few in the long run.
Slashdot Mirror
If you're worried about setting a bad precedent, then hope they don't appeal. This case has loser written all over it if it goes to the next level.
The problem is that ostensibly pro-business politicians are really just pro-business-leader politicians. They're more interested in giving out a tax break or regulating away competition than in fostering real capitalism. After Enron and Worldcom, I thought Congress and shareholders might actually start taking corporate governance seriously, but apart from some activist pension funds waging proxy fights, nothing happens. If capitalism is going to work, everyone needs to play fairly. I don't mean fair in the sense of giving to the less fortunate. I mean following the rules and not stealing from the corporate coffers.
there's no magic machine that changes pounds into dollars. american companies are forced to either to sell the pounds at the market (driving down the pound, thus increasing british exports), or to invest in the british capital markets which is also good for british investors. so basically quit whining you silly protectionist.
I think you're confusing the issue. A country can make any laws they so desire (within a few constraints) including making acts done outside their borders illegal.
The question, though, is one of enforcement. If the offending entity does business or travels in the country where their actions are illegal (like what happened with Dmitry Sklyarov), they can have assets seize or be arrested. The US has been known to send a chopper into a foreign country and extract a person. No extradition hearing. The federal judge really doesn't care how they got you there. The home country might, but that's another story.
I think the situation is quite clear. It may make you upset that countries exert their influence outside their borders, but that's been going on since the birth of civilization and perhaps earlier. You can blame globalization, but that's not really true. Nation states (hell, even tribes) have a long history of attempting to project their power on their neighbors and it many times led to war.
The only thing that's changed is, with better communication and transportation, issues like this come up more often, and it isn't going to change.
The game allows you to do it, but never is the objective in GTA3 to beat up prostitutes and cops.
To beat Microsoft, you don't necessarily need to destroy them. You just need to cut into their margins and make them more responsive to the needs of their customers.
He also didn't force her to switch her name to Tesla, which I'm sure other geeks would have requested.
The English chemist Sir Humphry Davy who discovered the element derived the name from alumina, which was taken from the French tanning mineral "alum".
Sir Humphrey first called it alumium, then aluminum, and finally aluminium. Somehow the Americans ended up calling it by the intermediate name and it stuck.
1. "not signed" - Many contracts do not require signatures. The ones that do are enumerated under the Statute of Frauds, but it defaults to legally enforceable otherwise.
2. "no witnesses" - this certainly hurts the enforceability (i.e., you could LIE and say you didn't agree), but it hardly consititutes a void contract.
3. "impaired or underage" - contracts made under these conditions are voidABLE not void. hence, if you choose to void the contract YOU TOO must give up the rights you received under the contracts (e.g., software)
I'm going to ignore the notary part. It's too absurd to bother with.
Returning to the central issue, though, Microsoft should hardly be used as evidence of the failures of capitalism. Few would claim that markets cannot fail, and the typical scenario used to illustrate market failure is the monopoly. Excuse me, but did you miss the antitrust case? Furthermore, every company you list holds a nice portfolio of patents. What is a patent other than a monopoly granted by the government. The legitimacy of the patent claims issued by the USPTO is another issue entirely.
You're crying wolf if you think capitalism has failed. It's sad that so many people will drive their SUVs into their offices today and sit with coffee in hand and nod while reading your post. Your misinformation along with the ignorant protests of other anti-capitalists are worse than anything a Microsoft marketing rep has ever written because they risk the foundation of our society and the future of our families far more than the next Microsoft Security Advisory.
It's difficult to sue the plants, now isn't it? If parents don't properly watch after their children, they can similarly be held liable for their actions.
Unlike the virus analogy, this plant was not genetically engineered to sprout wings and fly to other farmers' plots of land.
OpenBSD is not the answer in this case, because it does not suitably lend itself to being an easily administered desktop machine.
If you're looking for servers or firewalls, OpenBSD is the way to go. But the requirements the article speaks of are for the workstation machines, hence the need for Motif & CDE.
The article deals primarily with the IBM investment. Those lines you plucked out are just background for general readers. Why bore laypeople with minor details like that? I thought the article was more balanced and thorough than the treatment given by some more tech-oriented magazines.
The GPL is great but does every article about Linux need to have a book-length appendix discussing its license? Next we'll see every article having to do with Windows talking about the EULA.. hmm, maybe that wouldn't be such a bad idea after all.
One of the interesting features of this insurance is the liability coverage that shields companies from lawsuits stemming from their negligence. I wonder if companies will now feel less concerned with the safety of user information now that they can count on their insurance company covering them if worse comes to worst.
Further, up until now many startup companies had shallow pockets, but with this kind of protection, we could see a lot of groundless litigation, and people just try to pressure these insurance companies into settling.
A tape backup drive does nothing to recover the financial losses of a DoS attack. If a transaction can't be processed because the system is down, no miles of tape are going to recoup the lost revenues.
This is news because it's new. It illustrates how businesses are acknowledging that e-commerce has risks, but instead of retreating they're packaging the online risk into a nice financial instrument that can then be sold to speculators.
This is good news because businesses that were hesistant at first to join the so-called new economy can do so now when a reasonable expectation of the risks they're taking.
It's clear from this beta agreement that some companies trying to get very close to Linux still don't get it. Here is a company that is hoping to jump on the OSS bandwagon to make some serious money, but they obviously don't understand what that entails. I could almost sympathize if this was another company that was just entering this domain, but here is a company that is marketing a distribution, and if you control a distribution with enough users, you hold considerable influence over the community. Do you want to entrust someone so braindead with the task?
The agreement is worthless, but I'm curious to see how it will be handled. Obviously Corel will have to back down or legal action will be taken. I just hope it doesn't have to go that far.
If you read the license, once a product is released under GPL, any derived products from that work are also under the same conditions of the GPL.
This applies even to the author! If I write a program and version 1 is GPL, version 2 if it is based on version 1 must also be GPL. You own the copyright, yes. But your "ownership" is under the same contions as the GPL.
Linus can't tomorrow say "This open source software movement was neat, but now that I've got them hooked.." Nope. Of course this is a simplistic example because much of the Linux code is owned by other people, but you get my meaning.
You can probably get more info from http://www.fsf.org. From "What is the Copyleft?",
"To copyleft a program, first we copyright it; then we add distribution terms, which are a legal instrument that gives everyone the rights to use, modify, and redistribute the program's code or any program derived from it but only if the distribution terms are unchanged. Thus, the code and the freedoms become legally inseparable. "
Linux is all about the freedom to choose. It begins by choosing the operating system, but it doesn't end there. You could choose whether or not to have a "window system", then select a desktop system, window manager, and finally customize it all to hell.
GNOME and KDE are not encouraging the fragementation of the Linux desktop--the flame wars are. Why on earth do these little people run around crying "my desktop system is better"? It beats the hell out of me, and frankly it's a little sad.
That aside, GNOME cannot be un-GPLed, and that is what you propose when you suggest moving to a BSD-like license. Once you GPL your software, that's it buddy. In order to move to a more "restrictive" license, you have to totally rewrite the code. Fat chance at getting current GNOME developers to do that.
The majority of desktop users are running a particular OS that will remain nameless. A single security hole there can and does have serious ramifications. How is this any different from putting all your eggs on a server?
The same rules on exporting crypto don't apply to Canada. An American can move to Canada and work on cryptography if he wishes, so long as it isn't with the intent to distribute it outside of US/Canada.
Well, how does the head of the KGB as Prime Minister suit you? He in charge for all intents and purposes now. Further, Boris has chosen him to succeed him as president after his term is up. Of course no one listens to that drunk anymore, though.
Clearly in the short-term, they're claiming that development won't stop for the current version.
In the long-run, it's anyone's guess. If the server model is successful, they'll try to ween people off of the fat client model, but if it flops like the last time they pushed the thin-client, the current version may be the only thing to survive.
It would be all nice and dandy if we had direct democracy, but get with the program: we live in a world where you elect a few people to take care of things for you. These "lazy" people you refer to have real jobs and other more personal concerns than making sure the country is run correctly.
... well we didn't get a trillion dollar debt from being frugal. And choice (c), well.. at least we're not Canadians/Europeans.
:)
The problem is that the few people we do elect serve certain special (read: their own) interests first and the constituency that elected them second. Eventually they run into the roadblock of not having anymore money so they have three choices: a) don't spend anymore b) borrow c) tax. Choice (a) is the first to go out the window. Choice (b)
You want us all the go run the country, but then you sit back and say complaining is bad. "Go to Cuba" you say. What kind of ignorant nonsense statement is that? "Oh, so you don't like paying taxes? -- go to a communist nation" "Oh, you don't like your government -- Go to Cuba. They're much better at dealing with dissidents." Yeah, that's bright.
I have no idea what orifice this is all coming out of. "Be vocal, but shut up and don't complain" - "hey it could be worse". You sound like a Microsoft user.
Let's consider for a moment the fact that for the most part Windows dominates the desktop market. I don't think any open source "Killer-app" is going to drive more people to buy Windows.
On the contrary, I believe OSS on Windows is a good thing because it proves to many Windows users the value of OSS. It's a much smaller "leap-of-faith" to try a free software package than to repartition your hard drive and move to a true Open Source OS.
I think if everyone's goal is really domination of the desktop than you've got to consider that not everyone is going to be as adventurous as the current Linux pioneer community.
The people that get Windows OEM don't necessarily see the value in switching, but if you offer them a better, free alternative, you may convert a few in the long run.