As far as I know there is no requirement for fairness in real market environment so that law maker do not care about your regular fairness concept, but "unfair business practices" usually is a placeholder for "Mafia like extortion techniques"...
No, there's no requirement for fairness, but using a monopoly position to control a market through pricing is a pretty clear violation of antitrust laws.
That would never work. These [wikipedia.org] guys would be easily bribed with lavish gifts, like cookies and milk. That would never happen with SCOTUS.
Yeah, they want at least a couple of kilos of cocaine, a case of 20-year-old single malt Scotch, and a blowjob. Trust me, I know.
Yeah? Well, as long as there are no bizarrolets, then no parallel universes will be created in which there is Superman with an upside-down S who talks like retarded caveman.
Which is funny, because we know, for instance, that among the many conditions that cause hurricane formation, one of the biggest and least understood is ocean currents.
Imagine if we could predict category 5 hurricanes weeks or months in advance. How many lives would have been spared in the aftermath of Katrina and Rita?
If you RTFA, you'll find that the reasoning behind the decision is one you're more likely to find from businesses than from FOSS projects. Israel was among the list of countries from which they were receiving overly many fraudulent donations.
So an organization that is developing a particular open source -- or even closed source -- software tool might make business decisions that are incompatible with your own?
Actually, apparently the court ruled that the modellers didn't own the copyright because it's a representation of Toyota's design. I doubt if you got hold of this mesh and published it that you could avoid getting sued by Toyota. To clarify --
The ruling is that a digital model is not subject to copyright. An original design, on the other hand, is subject to copyright or possibly 'trade dress' rights.
IOW, if I make a model of something existing -- there's no copyright protection. If I make a model of a nifty new product or a new design for a building, then that design is copyrighted, but the model is not.
It sounds like I'm splitting hairs here, but I'm not.
After all, we can't start an operating system revolution by stealing someone else's GUI because it's already been done. Many times over.
*sigh*
Microsoft's success was well-established already secure before they rolled out Windows 1.0.
They were successful because of MS-DOS. Without MS-DOS, Windows would have been a colossal failure. The only advantage Windows 3.x and 95 had over their contemporary competitors -- Mac OS and OS/2 -- was that it could run MS-DOS applications better than anything else out there. Apple had a better GUI, OS/2 had superior memory management and multitasking, and the Amiga and Atari ST had better multimedia capabilities than any of them.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
The Contitution is the United States -- it is the document that defines it. Betrayal of the Constitution is betrayal of the United States -- "adhering to their Enemies". Perhaps it is even tanatamount to declaring War.
Non-sequitar. First off, those are edge cases, and secondly, it doesn't erase the fact that Web developers have to make special allowances for Microsoft's poor support of the HTML and CSS standards as a matter of routine.
I thought you weren't allowed to get a patent for something that's considered basic functionality?
No, you aren't allowed to patent something that is either prior art (someone else did it first) or obvious to someone skilled in the trade.
This would fall in the latter category. It's obvious that anyone who develops Web sites that you can do dynamic pages, so that means you can do dynamic legal agreements.
There will be an option in both the installer and options menu to choose ODF as the default format, if you want.
Hmmmm... I'm still waiting for the other shoe to drop on that one -- "Oh, well, we tried, but we couldn't make it the default format because ODF is just too lacking." or other some such nonsense.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's your chance to finally get a life! Gentlemen, place your bids!
-- Bill Gates
What the spread?
No, actually, they were waiting for WINE 1.0 to be r....oh, nevermind.
Pssst. DoJ had oversight of Vista, too, and it turned out just f...uhhh...oh. Nevermind. Nothing to see here, move along
Yeah? Well, as long as there are no bizarrolets, then no parallel universes will be created in which there is Superman with an upside-down S who talks like retarded caveman.
Is this a variation on 'Naw you kiahds git off ma lawn!"?
Right here:
Die nichten feeden da Voorwerp!!!
Which is funny, because we know, for instance, that among the many conditions that cause hurricane formation, one of the biggest and least understood is ocean currents.
Imagine if we could predict category 5 hurricanes weeks or months in advance. How many lives would have been spared in the aftermath of Katrina and Rita?
If you RTFA, you'll find that the reasoning behind the decision is one you're more likely to find from businesses than from FOSS projects. Israel was among the list of countries from which they were receiving overly many fraudulent donations.
So an organization that is developing a particular open source -- or even closed source -- software tool might make business decisions that are incompatible with your own?
Shocking! Shocking, I tell you!
The ruling is that a digital model is not subject to copyright. An original design, on the other hand, is subject to copyright or possibly 'trade dress' rights.
IOW, if I make a model of something existing -- there's no copyright protection. If I make a model of a nifty new product or a new design for a building, then that design is copyrighted, but the model is not.
It sounds like I'm splitting hairs here, but I'm not.
Since this is someone's personal data, I assumed that they wouldn't be buying a bunch of drives.
Also, you can't have RAID 5 only 2 drives. The minimum amoutn is 3.
In theory and practice RAID 5+1 IS the most secure, but RAID 5+1 requires at least 6 drives, whereas RAID 1 can be done with only 2 drives.
Then again, I keep forgetting that drives are cheap nowadays.
Shhhh! Don't go around making sense! They'll put you in Gitmo!
In related news, Broyhill has been given the contract to replace ALL of the chairs at Microsoft Headquarters in Redmond, Washington.
Use multiple different media, with redudancy.
Store it on HDDs. Mirrored RAID like RAID 1 or RAID 10 is preferred. but even RAID 5 buys you some extra integrity protection.
Then back it up. CDs. DVDs. BluRay. Tape. Whatever. Multiple times, multiple ways. Every few years do some copies onto new media.
Keep at least one copy off of your premises. A safe deposit box might be good.
Damn. You owe me a new keyboard!
Microsoft's success was well-established already secure before they rolled out Windows 1.0.
They were successful because of MS-DOS. Without MS-DOS, Windows would have been a colossal failure. The only advantage Windows 3.x and 95 had over their contemporary competitors -- Mac OS and OS/2 -- was that it could run MS-DOS applications better than anything else out there. Apple had a better GUI, OS/2 had superior memory management and multitasking, and the Amiga and Atari ST had better multimedia capabilities than any of them.
Without MS-DOS, Windows was teh suck.
Definition of treason from the Constitution:
The Contitution is the United States -- it is the document that defines it. Betrayal of the Constitution is betrayal of the United States -- "adhering to their Enemies". Perhaps it is even tanatamount to declaring War.Michael Jackson is suing Red Hat for trademark infringement, stating that the name 'Spacewalk' is just too similar to his trademark, 'Moonwalk'. ;)
Non-sequitar. First off, those are edge cases, and secondly, it doesn't erase the fact that Web developers have to make special allowances for Microsoft's poor support of the HTML and CSS standards as a matter of routine.
No, you aren't allowed to patent something that is either prior art (someone else did it first) or obvious to someone skilled in the trade.
This would fall in the latter category. It's obvious that anyone who develops Web sites that you can do dynamic pages, so that means you can do dynamic legal agreements.
Duh.
Not if this guy is telling the truth. I have no reason to think he'd be lying, either.
See White, Great.