I think that line is very telling, from both IBM and Intel's perspective. If silicon on insulator is so great, why does IBM so desparately want some IP out of Intel, after all, they already have something great. Why not settle for a lot of money? And why is Intel so dead-set against trading IP?
I have a feeling that Intel is on to something, as you suggest. I think IBM knows it too, and they might even know what it is.
I'm in the same boat. I was going to buy an iBook when (if) they released a G5 version, but now it looks like my current Inspiron will be lasting a lot longer than I expected (I hope...)
As many people have pointed out, using Intel procs doesn't mean that they'll necessarily be using all the same hardware. They could easily use a different BIOS, and maybe redesign the rest of the system as well. Even if they do use off-the-shelf hardware, the computers they sell themselves won't be made from the dirt cheap crap you can get at Price Watch, they'll still use only the best, leaving those "superior hardware" claims intact.
We're not talking about protecting a company's profit, we're talking about preventing someone from outright stealing something. By reverse-engineering something, you are stealing profits from that company. Or would you rather have the government decide what forms of theft are morally right?
But reverse-engineering does have negative consequences. It dilutes the value of that company's intellectual property, which does have monetary value. It can also lead to a company, and thus its stockholders, being deprived of profits. Sure, not everyone copying something would have bought it if they couldn't copy it, but there are some that would have. It may be very hard to measure the exact loss, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Remember though, a few generations back the elderly didn't last as long as they do now. Back then it was easy to take Grandma in for a year or two, but now it's more like 20-30 years. We will probably still be shoving them away in homes or with robots for a few generations until our culture adjusts. Hopefully we'll return to caring for them ourselves after that adjustment.
Your point that the US has to waive its sovereign immunity is exactly what I'm challenging, and I also don't have time to argue it, so we should probably leave it as is. When I get the time I'll look at the links you've provided, so thanks for posting them.
As for your other reply, I do agree that the government would find a way out of being help liable, I just don't think they'd use sovereign immunity.
First, the original argument was about an individual v. the U.S. Your second paragraph is exactly what I've found, and says nothing about U.S. Citizens suing the U.S. Government, just suits against state governments. You did explain it much better than I did though.
In your third paragraph, you directly mention looking up tort claims that can be brought against the U.S. That's exactly what would happen in the scenario we were originally discussing, and you directly claim it can be done. You also mention contract suits. Both these show that you can indeed sue the U.S. As for Alden v. Maine, it makes no mention that I can find of suits brought against the U.S. Government, just the governments of the several states.
The only reason I brought the 11th Amendment into this is because I thought perhaps you were mistakenly thinking of it. I didn't mean for this to turn into an argument about all forms of sovereign immunity in the U.S.
Perhaps you're thinking of the 11th Amendment. SCOTUS interpreted it to mean that states can be found "immune from lawsuits brought by private individuals in federal court, unless the state consents to the suit." (page 500, same source) That's only preventing the federal courts from looking at it, not the state's own courts (but what are your chances there). Do you have any sources to quote, because I'm finding nothing to confirm your claim.
Bikes are still made out of it, at least as of 10 years ago. I have one. Sturdy because it's hollow, which also helps make it very light. That's why it was used in the first place.
Citizens sue the U.S. all the time. According to West's Legal Environment of Business, Fifth Edition, sovereign immunity "exempts foreign nations from the jurisdiction of the U.S. Courts." (page 169) Looks like you're the one who needs to Google sovereign immunity.
PS: Taco, you REALLY need to change the images used in these captchas. I couldn't even begin to read the first one, I had to start over.
Notice that in that article, they define mishandling as:
Six of those eight involved guards who either accidentally touched a Koran, "touched it within the scope of his duties" or did not touch it at all.
Using that definition, I'm mishandling it right now, and there's not even one in the house. Here's some more of the article:
The other two cases in which the allegation was not substantiated involved interrogators who either touched or "stood over" a Koran during an interrogation, Hood said. In one case not deemed to be mishandling, an interrogator placed two Korans on a television. In the other case, which Hood did not describe fully, a Koran was not touched and Hood said the interrogator's unspecified "action" was accidental.
So if they touch or stand over one, they're mishandling it? That's incredibly excessive. Why don't we let those troops do their job?
Does only a small part of the ass get wet? I would still think that gushing water would make my ass wetter than that. And I don't exactly stick the toilet paper up into the ass. I don't want to walk around farting streams of water all day. If anyone knows somewhere in the US I can try one of these, let me know. You've peaked my curiosity.
I understand how a bidet cleans, but how do I then dry my ass off after using it? And what's to prevent the water from shooting into my ass? So many questions, and no desire to get them answered first hand. If I did want to though, where would I go to try it? I've never seen a place that had one installed.
I don't know about the originals, but the copies were all anonymous, and a few were getting downmodded as offtopic. Most were unmodded though, I'm guessing that most mods also thought it was a bug in the code so they didn't waste their mod points on it.
Slashdot Mirror
I think that line is very telling, from both IBM and Intel's perspective. If silicon on insulator is so great, why does IBM so desparately want some IP out of Intel, after all, they already have something great. Why not settle for a lot of money? And why is Intel so dead-set against trading IP?
I have a feeling that Intel is on to something, as you suggest. I think IBM knows it too, and they might even know what it is.
I'm in the same boat. I was going to buy an iBook when (if) they released a G5 version, but now it looks like my current Inspiron will be lasting a lot longer than I expected (I hope...)
As many people have pointed out, using Intel procs doesn't mean that they'll necessarily be using all the same hardware. They could easily use a different BIOS, and maybe redesign the rest of the system as well. Even if they do use off-the-shelf hardware, the computers they sell themselves won't be made from the dirt cheap crap you can get at Price Watch, they'll still use only the best, leaving those "superior hardware" claims intact.
We're not talking about protecting a company's profit, we're talking about preventing someone from outright stealing something. By reverse-engineering something, you are stealing profits from that company. Or would you rather have the government decide what forms of theft are morally right?
Yes, requiring me to recycle does take away my right to pollute. So does the Clean Air Act and water pollution laws. Let the market work it out.
Exactly, because we don't already spend enough taxes and restrict enough personal freedoms.
But reverse-engineering does have negative consequences. It dilutes the value of that company's intellectual property, which does have monetary value. It can also lead to a company, and thus its stockholders, being deprived of profits. Sure, not everyone copying something would have bought it if they couldn't copy it, but there are some that would have. It may be very hard to measure the exact loss, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Don't forget the double digit unemployment rates.
Remember though, a few generations back the elderly didn't last as long as they do now. Back then it was easy to take Grandma in for a year or two, but now it's more like 20-30 years. We will probably still be shoving them away in homes or with robots for a few generations until our culture adjusts. Hopefully we'll return to caring for them ourselves after that adjustment.
If you know Spanish, which is common enough, you can give them commands just fine.
Your point that the US has to waive its sovereign immunity is exactly what I'm challenging, and I also don't have time to argue it, so we should probably leave it as is. When I get the time I'll look at the links you've provided, so thanks for posting them. As for your other reply, I do agree that the government would find a way out of being help liable, I just don't think they'd use sovereign immunity.
You've really just proven my point.
First, the original argument was about an individual v. the U.S. Your second paragraph is exactly what I've found, and says nothing about U.S. Citizens suing the U.S. Government, just suits against state governments. You did explain it much better than I did though.
In your third paragraph, you directly mention looking up tort claims that can be brought against the U.S. That's exactly what would happen in the scenario we were originally discussing, and you directly claim it can be done. You also mention contract suits. Both these show that you can indeed sue the U.S. As for Alden v. Maine, it makes no mention that I can find of suits brought against the U.S. Government, just the governments of the several states.
The only reason I brought the 11th Amendment into this is because I thought perhaps you were mistakenly thinking of it. I didn't mean for this to turn into an argument about all forms of sovereign immunity in the U.S.
Perhaps you're thinking of the 11th Amendment. SCOTUS interpreted it to mean that states can be found "immune from lawsuits brought by private individuals in federal court, unless the state consents to the suit." (page 500, same source) That's only preventing the federal courts from looking at it, not the state's own courts (but what are your chances there). Do you have any sources to quote, because I'm finding nothing to confirm your claim.
Bikes are still made out of it, at least as of 10 years ago. I have one. Sturdy because it's hollow, which also helps make it very light. That's why it was used in the first place.
Citizens sue the U.S. all the time. According to West's Legal Environment of Business, Fifth Edition, sovereign immunity "exempts foreign nations from the jurisdiction of the U.S. Courts." (page 169) Looks like you're the one who needs to Google sovereign immunity.
PS: Taco, you REALLY need to change the images used in these captchas. I couldn't even begin to read the first one, I had to start over.
Some ping programs let you specify the payload in the ping packet. It's usually just used to bloat the packet for MTU testing.
+++ATH0 is the modem command to hangup.
Six of those eight involved guards who either accidentally touched a Koran, "touched it within the scope of his duties" or did not touch it at all.
Using that definition, I'm mishandling it right now, and there's not even one in the house. Here's some more of the article:
The other two cases in which the allegation was not substantiated involved interrogators who either touched or "stood over" a Koran during an interrogation, Hood said. In one case not deemed to be mishandling, an interrogator placed two Korans on a television. In the other case, which Hood did not describe fully, a Koran was not touched and Hood said the interrogator's unspecified "action" was accidental.
So if they touch or stand over one, they're mishandling it? That's incredibly excessive. Why don't we let those troops do their job?
The problem lies in that one sentance. There's no mutual economic benefit from file swapping. There is for selling alcohol.
Does only a small part of the ass get wet? I would still think that gushing water would make my ass wetter than that.
And I don't exactly stick the toilet paper up into the ass. I don't want to walk around farting streams of water all day. If anyone knows somewhere in the US I can try one of these, let me know. You've peaked my curiosity.
I understand how a bidet cleans, but how do I then dry my ass off after using it? And what's to prevent the water from shooting into my ass? So many questions, and no desire to get them answered first hand. If I did want to though, where would I go to try it? I've never seen a place that had one installed.
Sounds like you need to smoke some "hemp." It would help you mellow out a little.
Just remember, if you don't like logging, try using plastic toilet paper :) Saw that on a bumper sticker in northern Idaho.
I'm getting them, and as you can see, I'm logged in. Mine was this: xdgtttx.
I don't know about the originals, but the copies were all anonymous, and a few were getting downmodded as offtopic. Most were unmodded though, I'm guessing that most mods also thought it was a bug in the code so they didn't waste their mod points on it.
Maybe you could sue the script writer for copyright infringement. If you used ROT-26 encoding you could even claim DMCA infringement.
I've never seen a computer tell a human they failed a turing test:
Wrong image text, try again
You failed to confirm you are a human. Please double-check the 7-letter image and make sure you typed in what it says.