Your contract with the service provider is on an at-will basis. Either party may terminate the contract at any time without further notice. It is only prudent on the part of your service provider to maintain her brand image even while your contract is current. It is when she begins considering competing offers or worse, when she starts providing the services you have an exclusive right to, to others that you need to consider terminating your end of the bargain.
At the same time you need to maintain your own brand image so you are able to contract with alternate service providers if so necessitated by circumstances.
What the hell are you smoking? This has nothing to do with the culture or traditions or trends. It has nothing to do with which country has the bigger penis, either.
This is a simple technical matter of whether not a legal precedent established in another country will apply in the US. The answer is that it will not have the same weight as a legal precedent set in a US court since US courts are bound to rule by US laws, which are different from German laws. However, given that there is a lot of similarity between the laws in both countries around copyrights, the judgement handed down in this case will be considered by any US judge ruling on a similar case.
Reading the comments on this site, it sounds like what most people are really opposed to is frivolous patents rather than patents on software, even though they are targeting their opposition to software patents.
It's like the people who argue to make it harder to issue a speeding ticket when their real gripe is the fact that most speed limits are unreasonably low.
Software patents are good things. It's the fact that frivolous patents are awarded that are too expensive to contest that is the real problem here.
and the democrats wouldn't have their red herring complaint about "tax cuts for the wealthy"
Are you kidding? The last tax cut brought us closer to a flat tax than we were and the democrats had a cow about it.
Here's how it will work (numbers made up):
Current situation: People earning less than $200,000 pay $40 Billion in total taxes. People earning more than $200,000 pay $45 Billion in total taxes.
Flat Tax situation: People earning less than $200,000 pay $50 Billion in total taxes. People earning more than $200,000 pay $30 Billion in total taxes.
This will be labeled as a $15 Billion tax cut for the "wealthy" paid for by $10 Billion in additional taxes on everyone else.
I said "most" American cities. UCLA is not your typical American city. It has about 35,000 students smack bang in the middle of some of the most expensive real estate in the country with Brentwood, Bel Aire and Beverly Hills bordering it on 3 sides. Space IS a premium over there and a stack parking solution would be a great idea so they don't have to do the lottery for students to park. (Btw, when I attended UCLA 5 years ago they DID "stack park" cars but it was more the valet kind of stack park than anything else)
The biggest source of sprawl is peoples desire to live in houses versus apartments. If people were willing to live in high-rise apartment buildings like they live in most other cities in the world, sprawl would not be an issue. It's not the parking structures that causes the sprawl, it's the living structures.
Moron. You would think that someone who goes around declaring others as "morons" would at least display some rudimentary amount of intelligence themselves.
Just because America is "not lacking in parking spaces" doesn't mean an auto-carpark isn't a massive improvement over the traditional, enormously wasteful (of space and money) parking lot. In most American cities, the auto-park is a solution looking for a problem. The machinery itself is fairly complex to build and maintain. The average cost of a parking spot in the auto-park is $25,000. In most American cities, the average cost of a parking spot is a lot less than that. Now you tell me which is the "waste of money".
Sprawl and pollution, for starters, would be significantly less than the major, major insurmountable problems they are now in virtually all American cities if we could do away with our dependence on plentiful free parking. Huhh?? What does expensive stack parking have to do with pollution? I hope you're not suggesting that the extra 100 yards a car has to drive in your average parking lot is a measurable source of pollution. Ditto for sprawl.
Stack parking does make sense in places where real estate is very expensive - Manhattan, for example. However, the value proposition is just not there for the majority of places. Once the value proposition gets there, there will be more of these around.
1. Learn to remember correctly. It was a Turner exec, not a Fox exec. 2. Read that FINE article. Don't rely on idiotic quotes in the article summary. If you had read the article you would learn that Fox was disputing the reasons offered by Nielsen. In fact, of the big networks, Fox was the only one who was not quoted as challenging the numbers. Execs at NBC and ABC disputed the numbers but Fox disputed the reasons and setup an independent research effort to find out why the numbers were in decline.
The quality of the TV electronics has declined if anything. Now that they are made in Mexico, instead of places where quality was a desirable feature, I hear lots of people complaining they die within a year. Plasma TVs for instace only have a lifespan at maximum of about 7 years, compared to I suppose ~15 for CRTs. I have two working 20" colour TVs that are both at least 15 years old.
The fact that Plasma TVs die within 7 years is more a function of the technology than of manufacturing standards. Don't underestimate production standards in Mexico. Remember there was a time, not so long ago, when the "Made in Japan" label meant "cheap, shoddy knockoff".
I am not too excited about this for two reasons. Firstly, its seen as a good philantropic action, which the other MS founder Gates is famous for.
What are you, a frigging idiot? You're not excited about this because it is seen as a good philanthropic action? What do you get excited about then? Actions that are seen as pure evil.
He donates the most cash in the world to the poor. Except its not cash, a lot of it is in the form of software, CDs of Office and XP for the poor that cost nothing to make, and have a huge tax back cost for Microsoft. And its a nice way to get the poor locked into windows and not free OS like Linux.
You are confusing Microsoft's charitable contributions with Bill Gates' charitable contributions. They are two separate entities. Actually, there's a third entity: The Bill & Melinda Gates foundation - funded almost entirely by Bill and Melinda Gates. Bill Gates gives cash & stock to the B&M foundation, which in turn funds various charitable activities around the world. You've read one story about Microsoft donating software somewhere and have the whole thing confused up in your muddled head. Maybe you should educate yourself about the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation and exactly what it has donated before you spout about it because otherwise you sound like an idiot. Microsoft does not get a tax benefit from Bill Gates or the B&M foundations donations. BG or the B&M foundation don't get software for free.
Secondly, This much money can buy a lot of equipment to help find life on other planets. Meanwhile on Earth we still have millions of preventable deaths every year. And by preventable I mean deaths of children or the very poor from malnourishment or lack of clean water supplies. If this much money was given to the poor in developing countries, it could save insane amounts of lives. To give so much cash to look for aliens that might not even exist, While members of our own species die in vast numbers for want of clean water, is disgusting. (sorry if that is a bit "High Horse"-like, but its SO MUCH MONEY!
Let me guess, if you had your way, we would stop all research that wasn't going to immediately benefit humanity in some foreseeable way. The only problem would be that it would have to be foreseeable by a short-sighted fool like you. The whole point of research is to investigate avenues that have the potential to provide a multi-fold benefit to humanity in the future - although some of those might not pan out.
Did attacking a military base require revenge in the form of destroying cities? (Your suggestion is that it did.)
What are you like in high school? What makes you think it was plain revenge? Japan attacked the US and now posed a threat. When an intruder breaks into your home and shoots at you you don't just leave yourself content by shooting one shot back. You have to neutralize the attacker or risk being attacked again.
Please read up on your history and learn to think for yourself instead of swallowing the left-wing crap you are fed. Japan's surrender - even after the second bomb was no guarantee. A coup was in progress and emperor Hirohito had nearly been deposed. The Japanese military was in no mood to surrender - even less so without Nagasaki. It was the original shock-and-awe which saved many more lives by bringing the war to a quick end.
Why is it that so many of these government security programs seem afronted by the concept of "transparency". They say things like "race and national origin will absolutely not be considered", but they don't give you any idea of what WILL be.
It's adding an obscurity layer for added security. If the actual criteria to be used are documented, it makes circumventing those criteria even easier for the "bad guys". Sure, ultimately some really smart "bad guys" will figure out how the system ranks and therefore how to beat it, but the additional layer does not hurt in making that possibility a little harder.
Just to keep history straight: our judicial system (just about) worked, with the exception of the conservative appeals judges giving Judge Jackson a special hate-filled working over after he found against Microsoft.
Right. The seven judges on the appeals panel were "biased" but the one judge who went on record with statements against the defender was clearly unbiased.
IE, WMP, notepad, solitaire belong in Windows for the same reason that most car companies have decided it doesn't even make sense to try and sell a stripped-down version of their car without a stereo, for the same reason that almost every Linux distro comes bundled with a text editor, media player, browser and for the same reason that Apples come with a bundled text editor, media player and browser.
It is obvious even to the most blithering idiot that consumers definitely want these products bundled in and that the cost of creating a version without these tools bundled in is not worth the minimal demand there is for such a product.
We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, We shall fight in the fields, and in the streets, We shall fight in the hills;
No. South Asian Indians are called that because the civilization was based around the Indus river valley. That is also the root for the word Hindu.
Native Americans/Indians were called Indians because the purpose of Columbus's excursion was to discover an alternate route to India. When they got here they realized it wasn't India but decided to call it the West Indies anyway. They also realized the people here weren't Indians but called them Red Indians.
This is not based on ESPN Motion (which is also evil, evil, evil, btw). I don't have ESPN motion and yet I see the ads. You just need to be on the site long enough for the entire ad to download. I see the ads most often when I'm trying to follow the scores of a basketball game that's not on TV.
CBS.Sportsline.com is much better anyway with extensive personalization. Unfortunately for me, some games are only on ESPN.
People dont realize how epidemic this is in American politics. The politicians often don't even write the laws, they _literally_ allow companies to write the laws, and simply sign what they are given into law.
s/companies/special interests/g
Companies are just one example of the special interests that manipulate politicians. Trial lawyers, labor unions, teachers associations, tribal groups, you name it. It's a difference in semantics but a very important one since some of those groups want you to believe it's just the corporations who are doing it so you will turn a blind eye to their political manipulation.
The big difference is that what Oracle did was unethical, but legal and what HP is accused of doing is criminal.
The first kind you get to laugh and say "Ha, ha!" while the second kind you have the Royal Canadian Mounted Police seize your assets and take you to the Royal Candian pound-me-in-the-ass prison.
Many companies disallow their employees from accepting gifts over a certain amount. That is perfectly fair - and the Army does it too. However, it's not the same as a bribe. The purpose of the restriction is to make sure the thin grey line between what is ethical and unethical is a thick black one. It is unethical for employees to accept the gifts and it is unethical for a supplier to give them those gifts after knowing company policy.
No one is saying what happened here is ethical. However, that does not make it a frigging bribe! There is a meaning for the word and this is not it. It's the difference between a felony and being on a blacklist.
You didn't refer to a dictionary did you? See, now you end up looking like an idiot.
It would be perfectly legal for GM to hand out keys to their SUVs if that was what it took to get the people making the buying decisions to be familiar with the car. However, they don't because, unlike you, they are not idiots. Software is not cars. Familiarity with a car doesn't cause someone to order the same car for everyone else. Familiarity with software does cause them to buy other software that works well with it. What stops them is the realization that any offer of free SUVs is more likely to be seen as a quid pro quo deal, i.e. a bribe, than as marketing.
If you were able to make the connection between free versions of Office and a quid pro quo, you would be right. However, you are not. The free versions of Office are marketing because they create a demand for the product. The Army employees want Exchange because it works with what they have. Giving out free Humvees to some employees does not create a demand for other GM products.
No, it's not bribery. You need to learn to use a dictionary.
A bribe is a personal benefit that is offered to an employee with the expectation that a favor will be granted in return. In this case the expectation is that the gift, in and of itself will influence the employees decision.
They are offering a usable version of the product instead of a dummy or eval version because the employees are much more likely to familiarize themselves with it if it is usable than if it were a dummy or eval version.
GM does not hand out keys to SUVs because that costs them a lot more than the expected benefit but you knew that, didn't you?
What is being offered definitely has tangible value and it's unethical but it's not a bribe.
The PC, 90s version of the fable that the parent poster refers to is not the original tale of the tortoise of the hare. Hint: The moral of the original story was "slow and steady wins the race", not "we should all be content being losers".
Back on topic, the "new" fable is interesting for analogy purposes. Microsoft is busy trying to win every contest in every market while Linux is focused on making a rock solid dependable OS and will eventually win for that reason.
Slashdot Mirror
Your contract with the service provider is on an at-will basis. Either party may terminate the contract at any time without further notice. It is only prudent on the part of your service provider to maintain her brand image even while your contract is current. It is when she begins considering competing offers or worse, when she starts providing the services you have an exclusive right to, to others that you need to consider terminating your end of the bargain.
At the same time you need to maintain your own brand image so you are able to contract with alternate service providers if so necessitated by circumstances.
What the hell are you smoking? This has nothing to do with the culture or traditions or trends. It has nothing to do with which country has the bigger penis, either.
This is a simple technical matter of whether not a legal precedent established in another country will apply in the US. The answer is that it will not have the same weight as a legal precedent set in a US court since US courts are bound to rule by US laws, which are different from German laws. However, given that there is a lot of similarity between the laws in both countries around copyrights, the judgement handed down in this case will be considered by any US judge ruling on a similar case.
Reading the comments on this site, it sounds like what most people are really opposed to is frivolous patents rather than patents on software, even though they are targeting their opposition to software patents.
It's like the people who argue to make it harder to issue a speeding ticket when their real gripe is the fact that most speed limits are unreasonably low.
Software patents are good things. It's the fact that frivolous patents are awarded that are too expensive to contest that is the real problem here.
and the democrats wouldn't have their red herring complaint about "tax cuts for the wealthy"
Are you kidding? The last tax cut brought us closer to a flat tax than we were and the democrats had a cow about it.
Here's how it will work (numbers made up):
Current situation:
People earning less than $200,000 pay $40 Billion in total taxes.
People earning more than $200,000 pay $45 Billion in total taxes.
Flat Tax situation:
People earning less than $200,000 pay $50 Billion in total taxes.
People earning more than $200,000 pay $30 Billion in total taxes.
This will be labeled as a $15 Billion tax cut for the "wealthy" paid for by $10 Billion in additional taxes on everyone else.
I said "most" American cities. UCLA is not your typical American city. It has about 35,000 students smack bang in the middle of some of the most expensive real estate in the country with Brentwood, Bel Aire and Beverly Hills bordering it on 3 sides. Space IS a premium over there and a stack parking solution would be a great idea so they don't have to do the lottery for students to park. (Btw, when I attended UCLA 5 years ago they DID "stack park" cars but it was more the valet kind of stack park than anything else)
The biggest source of sprawl is peoples desire to live in houses versus apartments. If people were willing to live in high-rise apartment buildings like they live in most other cities in the world, sprawl would not be an issue. It's not the parking structures that causes the sprawl, it's the living structures.
Moron.
You would think that someone who goes around declaring others as "morons" would at least display some rudimentary amount of intelligence themselves.
Just because America is "not lacking in parking spaces" doesn't mean an auto-carpark isn't a massive improvement over the traditional, enormously wasteful (of space and money) parking lot.
In most American cities, the auto-park is a solution looking for a problem. The machinery itself is fairly complex to build and maintain. The average cost of a parking spot in the auto-park is $25,000. In most American cities, the average cost of a parking spot is a lot less than that. Now you tell me which is the "waste of money".
Sprawl and pollution, for starters, would be significantly less than the major, major insurmountable problems they are now in virtually all American cities if we could do away with our dependence on plentiful free parking.
Huhh?? What does expensive stack parking have to do with pollution? I hope you're not suggesting that the extra 100 yards a car has to drive in your average parking lot is a measurable source of pollution. Ditto for sprawl.
Stack parking does make sense in places where real estate is very expensive - Manhattan, for example. However, the value proposition is just not there for the majority of places. Once the value proposition gets there, there will be more of these around.
Ok, here are some things you need to work on:
1. Learn to remember correctly. It was a Turner exec, not a Fox exec.
2. Read that FINE article. Don't rely on idiotic quotes in the article summary. If you had read the article you would learn that Fox was disputing the reasons offered by Nielsen. In fact, of the big networks, Fox was the only one who was not quoted as challenging the numbers. Execs at NBC and ABC disputed the numbers but Fox disputed the reasons and setup an independent research effort to find out why the numbers were in decline.
290 million people with only two majority opinions.
There are several parties and several view points - only two of those are viable, however.
Think through your point a little further. The exact same arguments can be made for alcohol, drug and anti-abortion laws.
It's not "doing drugs is evil", it's "we can't allow all teenagers to fry their brains on E and continue to be a functioning, growing society".
The quality of the TV electronics has declined if anything. Now that they are made in Mexico, instead of places where quality was a desirable feature, I hear lots of people complaining they die within a year. Plasma TVs for instace only have a lifespan at maximum of about 7 years, compared to I suppose ~15 for CRTs. I have two working 20" colour TVs that are both at least 15 years old.
The fact that Plasma TVs die within 7 years is more a function of the technology than of manufacturing standards. Don't underestimate production standards in Mexico. Remember there was a time, not so long ago, when the "Made in Japan" label meant "cheap, shoddy knockoff".
I am not too excited about this for two reasons. Firstly, its seen as a good philantropic action, which the other MS founder Gates is famous for.
What are you, a frigging idiot? You're not excited about this because it is seen as a good philanthropic action? What do you get excited about then? Actions that are seen as pure evil.
He donates the most cash in the world to the poor. Except its not cash, a lot of it is in the form of software, CDs of Office and XP for the poor that cost nothing to make, and have a huge tax back cost for Microsoft. And its a nice way to get the poor locked into windows and not free OS like Linux.
You are confusing Microsoft's charitable contributions with Bill Gates' charitable contributions. They are two separate entities. Actually, there's a third entity: The Bill & Melinda Gates foundation - funded almost entirely by Bill and Melinda Gates. Bill Gates gives cash & stock to the B&M foundation, which in turn funds various charitable activities around the world. You've read one story about Microsoft donating software somewhere and have the whole thing confused up in your muddled head. Maybe you should educate yourself about the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation and exactly what it has donated before you spout about it because otherwise you sound like an idiot. Microsoft does not get a tax benefit from Bill Gates or the B&M foundations donations. BG or the B&M foundation don't get software for free.
Secondly, This much money can buy a lot of equipment to help find life on other planets. Meanwhile on Earth we still have millions of preventable deaths every year. And by preventable I mean deaths of children or the very poor from malnourishment or lack of clean water supplies. If this much money was given to the poor in developing countries, it could save insane amounts of lives. To give so much cash to look for aliens that might not even exist, While members of our own species die in vast numbers for want of clean water, is disgusting. (sorry if that is a bit "High Horse"-like, but its SO MUCH MONEY!
Let me guess, if you had your way, we would stop all research that wasn't going to immediately benefit humanity in some foreseeable way. The only problem would be that it would have to be foreseeable by a short-sighted fool like you. The whole point of research is to investigate avenues that have the potential to provide a multi-fold benefit to humanity in the future - although some of those might not pan out.
Did attacking a military base require revenge in the form of destroying cities? (Your suggestion is that it did.)
What are you like in high school? What makes you think it was plain revenge? Japan attacked the US and now posed a threat. When an intruder breaks into your home and shoots at you you don't just leave yourself content by shooting one shot back. You have to neutralize the attacker or risk being attacked again.
Please read up on your history and learn to think for yourself instead of swallowing the left-wing crap you are fed. Japan's surrender - even after the second bomb was no guarantee. A coup was in progress and emperor Hirohito had nearly been deposed. The Japanese military was in no mood to surrender - even less so without Nagasaki. It was the original shock-and-awe which saved many more lives by bringing the war to a quick end.
Why is it that so many of these government security programs seem afronted by the concept of "transparency". They say things like "race and national origin will absolutely not be considered", but they don't give you any idea of what WILL be.
It's adding an obscurity layer for added security. If the actual criteria to be used are documented, it makes circumventing those criteria even easier for the "bad guys". Sure, ultimately some really smart "bad guys" will figure out how the system ranks and therefore how to beat it, but the additional layer does not hurt in making that possibility a little harder.
Just to keep history straight: our judicial system (just about) worked, with the exception of the conservative appeals judges giving Judge Jackson a special hate-filled working over after he found against Microsoft.
Right. The seven judges on the appeals panel were "biased" but the one judge who went on record with statements against the defender was clearly unbiased.
How does this crap get moderated up?
IE, WMP, notepad, solitaire belong in Windows for the same reason that most car companies have decided it doesn't even make sense to try and sell a stripped-down version of their car without a stereo, for the same reason that almost every Linux distro comes bundled with a text editor, media player, browser and for the same reason that Apples come with a bundled text editor, media player and browser.
It is obvious even to the most blithering idiot that consumers definitely want these products bundled in and that the cost of creating a version without these tools bundled in is not worth the minimal demand there is for such a product.
We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans,
We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds,
We shall fight in the fields, and in the streets,
We shall fight in the hills;
Sounds like our last family vacation.
No. South Asian Indians are called that because the civilization was based around the Indus river valley. That is also the root for the word Hindu.
Native Americans/Indians were called Indians because the purpose of Columbus's excursion was to discover an alternate route to India. When they got here they realized it wasn't India but decided to call it the West Indies anyway. They also realized the people here weren't Indians but called them Red Indians.
This is not based on ESPN Motion (which is also evil, evil, evil, btw). I don't have ESPN motion and yet I see the ads. You just need to be on the site long enough for the entire ad to download. I see the ads most often when I'm trying to follow the scores of a basketball game that's not on TV.
CBS.Sportsline.com is much better anyway with extensive personalization. Unfortunately for me, some games are only on ESPN.
Correction:
People dont realize how epidemic this is in American politics. The politicians often don't even write the laws, they _literally_ allow companies to write the laws, and simply sign what they are given into law.
s/companies/special interests/g
Companies are just one example of the special interests that manipulate politicians. Trial lawyers, labor unions, teachers associations, tribal groups, you name it. It's a difference in semantics but a very important one since some of those groups want you to believe it's just the corporations who are doing it so you will turn a blind eye to their political manipulation.
The big difference is that what Oracle did was unethical, but legal and what HP is accused of doing is criminal.
The first kind you get to laugh and say "Ha, ha!" while the second kind you have the Royal Canadian Mounted Police seize your assets and take you to the Royal Candian pound-me-in-the-ass prison.
Okay, so what word that would describe knowingly giving a gift to an employee whose value was over this certain amount?
How about the word BRIBE
Umm... no. Words have meanings and you can't make up meanings just because your tiny mind cannot comprehend the semantic differences.
I feel like I'm talking to an infant.
Many companies disallow their employees from accepting gifts over a certain amount. That is perfectly fair - and the Army does it too. However, it's not the same as a bribe. The purpose of the restriction is to make sure the thin grey line between what is ethical and unethical is a thick black one. It is unethical for employees to accept the gifts and it is unethical for a supplier to give them those gifts after knowing company policy.
No one is saying what happened here is ethical. However, that does not make it a frigging bribe! There is a meaning for the word and this is not it. It's the difference between a felony and being on a blacklist.
You didn't refer to a dictionary did you? See, now you end up looking like an idiot.
It would be perfectly legal for GM to hand out keys to their SUVs if that was what it took to get the people making the buying decisions to be familiar with the car. However, they don't because, unlike you, they are not idiots. Software is not cars. Familiarity with a car doesn't cause someone to order the same car for everyone else. Familiarity with software does cause them to buy other software that works well with it. What stops them is the realization that any offer of free SUVs is more likely to be seen as a quid pro quo deal, i.e. a bribe, than as marketing.
If you were able to make the connection between free versions of Office and a quid pro quo, you would be right. However, you are not. The free versions of Office are marketing because they create a demand for the product. The Army employees want Exchange because it works with what they have. Giving out free Humvees to some employees does not create a demand for other GM products.
No, it's not bribery. You need to learn to use a dictionary.
A bribe is a personal benefit that is offered to an employee with the expectation that a favor will be granted in return. In this case the expectation is that the gift, in and of itself will influence the employees decision.
They are offering a usable version of the product instead of a dummy or eval version because the employees are much more likely to familiarize themselves with it if it is usable than if it were a dummy or eval version.
GM does not hand out keys to SUVs because that costs them a lot more than the expected benefit but you knew that, didn't you?
What is being offered definitely has tangible value and it's unethical but it's not a bribe.
Informative??? Please. Funny? yes. Insightful? maybe. Interesting? yes. Informative? no.
The PC, 90s version of the fable that the parent poster refers to is not the original tale of the tortoise of the hare. Hint: The moral of the original story was "slow and steady wins the race", not "we should all be content being losers".
Back on topic, the "new" fable is interesting for analogy purposes. Microsoft is busy trying to win every contest in every market while Linux is focused on making a rock solid dependable OS and will eventually win for that reason.