I'm want to believe you, Mr Random Person on the Internet, because what you say strengthens my own position, but in the interest of lording my superiority over those other myth-believing heathens, can you direct me to some documentation that supports this claim?
Ask the myth believing heathens for the documentation that supposedly supports the myth, if they have anything, what it will be is that the number of cases per year overturned out of the Ninth Circuit are greater than any other, which is unsurprising since the Ninth Circuit decides more cases and sees more cases appealed than any other.
If we are just a licensee, then that means they can't sue for intelectual property theft.
There is no such offense as "intellectual property theft" in the first place. There are various criminal and civil offenses under copyright and other IP laws, and none of them are usually labelled "theft". Often, the word theft is used informally or metaphorically in reference to IP violations, but that has nothing to do with the actual legalities.
Whatever happened to copyright as it was originally made that copyright was a compromise between consumers and producers.
No, it wasn't. Copyright, when it was originally made, was a government granted monopoly for the benefit of producers that was the result of producers lobbying government to protect them.
The 9th Circuit is apparently the most overturned court in the country
That 9th Circuit decisions are more apt to be overturned is a myth just like the myths that the 9th Circuit is more anti-business or more liberal than any other circuit.
This is a ruling that is going to spur a lot of changes to software vendors.
No, because the standards articulated would not require most software vendors to change what they do to make people licensees but not owners of copies.
What it might change, however, is the way books, DVDs, CDs, and all other goods where there is significant copyright-protected content involved are sold other than software to be more like software has been for used.
Textbook publisher have got to be salivating over the way this opens the door for them to convert textbook purchasers into licensees under a non-transferrable license and instantly make sales of used textbooks illegal.
Exactly what I was thinking. How is yahoo still even ranked in the top 10?
SBC partnered with Yahoo! as the default portal for SBC ISP customers (at least residential) back before they bought AT&T and adopted AT&T's name for themselves; if I'm not mistaken, the install procedure for the software that comes with the combined DSL modem/wireless router you get with AT&T internet service also sets your homepage to the "ATT.NET" portal, which is not at http://att.net/ as its name my suggest, but instead is located at http://att.my.yahoo.com./
If facebook has 400 million users, and they spent a total of 40 million minutes in a month, that's only 0.1 minute per month for each user. I don't think you can do much more than log in once in 6 seconds. I read the article, and these numbers all appear to be bogus.
I'm notionally a Facebook user, and I haven't logged on to the site proper in months. I occasionally check some stuff on it through the native iPhone app (though even that only rarely), and use my Facebook logon for Bejeweled Blitz (which, incidentally, I use only on my iPhone.)
I know lots of other marginally-attached Facebook users. I wouldn't be surprised if the number of Facebook users (e.g., named accounts) is an order of magnitude or more greater than the number users that actually visit the Facebook website at least once a month.
Apple must feel secure enough in it's ecosystem or have felt enough pressure from regulators to make the change
Why are those the only two options? Couldn't the threat from competitors have been an issue? Android is gaining ground rapidly, and the greater freedom developers face on that platform combined with its rapidly expanding reach makes developing apps for Android more and more attractive a choice of where to put resources compared to iOS development.
But what about people that just want to do the coding for themselves or fun? I don't want to distribute my app. Why can't I register one device that I can load my code onto for free without paying either of these?
I have a Mac, iPhone and XCode. Why can't I compile my code and move it onto my device without paying (or jailbreaking).
If you aren't paying Apple to develop for their platform, they don't really care about your ability to develop for their platform.
Google has a different philosophy and business model, so if that's where your interest lies, Android is probably better for you.
McCain-Feingold had nothing to do with net neutrality, and so whether or not it related to commerce or free expression has nothing to do with whether or not net neutrality does.
From the FAQ, it doesn't appear that it will be a standard Bluetooth one.
From looking at some of the partner sites, it looks like each of the hardware vendors that is producing devices (TVs, boxes, etc.) with GoogleTV in is planning to include some kind of remote device. I suspect that Google isn't dictating what those hardware vendors do in that regard, so can't be overly specific as to the form of the remote device.
Apple, being the sole AppleTV hardware vendor, can be very specific.
Right. And when the content provider partner says that they will not to provide content that is not rights-managed what will Google do?
The opennes of GoogleTV doesn't seem to mean "no DRM allowed". Its Android, on a TV. So if content providers want to stream DRM laden content to Google TV, all they'll need is an app to receive and display it. AFAIK, Amazon VOD and Netflix are content provider partners, and both use DRM.
The absence of a walled garden is good for consumers, but it doesn't restrict content providers at all. In fact, it leaves content providers more free than a walled garden does, as well.
It's not so much about whether you should be allowed to do with your own property what you wish. Of course you should. It's more like the security model of capabilities. If there is no good reason to allow something to happen then it is better security not to allow it.
I am aware of the basis of your questions; what I am saying is that fact that normal, non-technical Windows users often don't have someone else to administer their machines means that they have to be able to run executables from directories that they can write to.
Now, distinct security roles for the same user can mitigate some of this is risk, and it might make sense to not allow a normal Windows user to run code that they have "casual" write access to (e.g., without escalating to an administrative role temporarily), but the problem with that without is finding a way to make the security model simple and comprehensible enough that users don't simply get into the habit of escalating to an administrative role to do things without understanding what they are doing.
This is not a particular easy problem, because for a general purpose computer, you have to have a fairly fine grained security model to allow software to do what the user wants it to but not other things, and non-technical users aren't going to want to learn the details of a fine-grained security model.
Instead, they have package managers and repositories which have all but eliminated the issues of third-party malware.
I don't think that's really all that true; if Linux becomes popular enough with casual users that the kind of malware that is directed at them becomes worth targeting at the platform, third party repositories will be setup and emailed invitations distributed to add them and download screen savers and other seemingly-innocuous software from them. Which will, of course, be malware that the users are being tricked into installing with elevated privileges. (Of course, you can install packages on Linux straight from files -- even files in email -- since, e.g., Ubuntu, IIRC, runs the graphical package manager by default if you click on a.deb; while many Linux systems have security models that are somewhat better than Windows, I don't think they are all that much more secure against social engineering directed at non-technical users with administrative rights on their own boxes.)
Devils advocate here: is there any reason why a normal non-technical windows user should be able to run an executable in a directory they are able to write to?
Normal, non-technical windows users often own their own machines; consequently, yes, they should be able to run an executable in a directory they are able to right to.
I don't get the relationship of churches and taxes in the USA. Why not just create blanket categories of Not For Profit organizations and treat a church as the appropriate type?
Yes, but the whole point of network neutrality is that free speech laws should apply to ISP's.
No, its not. Network neutrality is about promoting free competition in online content businesses by prohibiting network access providers from leveraging their market power in the access area to stifle competition in content. Its about commerce, not expression.
It certainly is not about prohibiting content hosting companies (whether or not they also happen to be ISPs) from discriminating in the content they choose to host.
my point is that they are speciously using the argument that this is a great social experiment to justify playing with cool gadgets.
No, they are using the argument that this is a great social experiment to get people to cooperate in the advertising campaign for a commercial product designed to address the threat to the textbook industry's revenue posed by open-content texts.
How would eliminating government subsidies to businesses eliminate the right to form corporations?
Corporations are artificial juridical persons created by government as a means of extending special benefits (principally, protection from personal liability for debts incurred by the new entity) to the shareholders of the new corporation.
Combinations by free contract to engage in business without special benefits extended by government are standard partnerships.
There are many reasons to form corporations, most of them legal.
Yes, receiving a benefit extended by government is legal. But that it is legal does not mean that supporting government continuing to provide the benefit is consistent with opposing government subsidizing business.
Eliminating tax breaks for corporations will not change those reasons
I'm not talking about tax breaks given to corporations, I'm talking about the special benefit that is the corporate form itself, which subsidizes the owners (shareholders) of the corporation at the expense of the rest of society by protecting those shareholders from legal liability from the debts incurred by the business operation they combine to create. You know, the whole "problem" with un-subsidized partnerships that businesses lobbied government to create the corporate form in order to solve -- that if they racked up more debts than the business operation could pay, the owners ended up having to pay out of their own pocket beyond the amount they were willing to risk in investment.
Government subsidies are not essential for the creation of a corporation
Incorrect. The corporate form is, in and of itself, a government subsidy. Government subsidies aren't required to form a business, if the form of that business is a standard partnership or sole proprietorship. A corporation (or any of the newer limited-liability forms, like an LLP, LLLP, or LLC) is at its heart a government subsidy to the owners of the business.
Do you even understand what a subsidy and a corporation are?
I'd rather see California do a trial of $200 netbooks running Ubuntu and accessing KahnAcademy.org and a variety of free textbooks that students could use and own for the rest of their professional life.
Sure, but who is going to provide the test units for the pilot? For this pilot, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, the textbook maker that developed the educational package being tested and wants to sell it has a profit motive to underwrite the cost of the pilot.
Its not exactly like school districts in California are rolling around in money to test radical new ideas on their own.
Schwarzenegger launched a program in 2009 to create digital textbooks in math and science owned by the state board of education.
While the second sentence is true, I doubt that that makes the first an accurate assessment of the cost (once it is commercially available, rather than part of a pilot program conducted by the manufacturer) of the interactive learning curriculum being demoed by a textbook manufacturer in the pilot program described in TFA, which has nothing to do with the free digital textbook initiative except in the sense that it is a response to the threat posed by that initiative to the textbook publishing industry.
If this is true, then why isn't California just printing out those "free" digital textbooks and cutting out existing textbook companies from the equation, saving the state 80% of the costs of textbooks...
I suspect that the reason that this textbook manufacturer is conducting a pilot program in California of a new, online interactive multimedia program that includes (but goes beyond) a digital edition of their existing textbooks is that the textbook manufacturer is concerned that otherwise, California school districts might otherwise be inclined, as they need to replace their existing textbooks, to take advantage of the free digital content that the state is assembling rather than paying textbook manufacturers.
Done right, this could make economic sense. Textbook prices have been rising far faster than inflation
If one read the fine article, one would discover that this is a pilot program demonstrating a new interactive learning platform developed by textbook manufacturer Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
One might, at that point, surmise that reducing the amount of money flowing into the pockets of textbook manufacturers is not likely to be a major goal of this project.
What ever happened to the OpenSource textbook that I thought CA was assembling to be 'free'?
Why do you think this textbook manufacturer (this pilot is being conducted by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, one of the biggest textbook publishers) is so keen on demoing their subscription-based digital alternative to traditional textbooks in California, and proving (or at least "proving") that it is superior to static texts?
when all they do is replacing textbooks with PDFs of textbooks, there is no reason why pupils should advance more quickly.
But that's not what theyare doing. While the online platform that is being tested includes a digital test, it also includes various other interactive features.
Slashdot Mirror
Ask the myth believing heathens for the documentation that supposedly supports the myth, if they have anything, what it will be is that the number of cases per year overturned out of the Ninth Circuit are greater than any other, which is unsurprising since the Ninth Circuit decides more cases and sees more cases appealed than any other.
See, e.g., here.
There is no such offense as "intellectual property theft" in the first place. There are various criminal and civil offenses under copyright and other IP laws, and none of them are usually labelled "theft". Often, the word theft is used informally or metaphorically in reference to IP violations, but that has nothing to do with the actual legalities.
No, it wasn't. Copyright, when it was originally made, was a government granted monopoly for the benefit of producers that was the result of producers lobbying government to protect them.
That 9th Circuit decisions are more apt to be overturned is a myth just like the myths that the 9th Circuit is more anti-business or more liberal than any other circuit.
No, because the standards articulated would not require most software vendors to change what they do to make people licensees but not owners of copies.
What it might change, however, is the way books, DVDs, CDs, and all other goods where there is significant copyright-protected content involved are sold other than software to be more like software has been for used.
Textbook publisher have got to be salivating over the way this opens the door for them to convert textbook purchasers into licensees under a non-transferrable license and instantly make sales of used textbooks illegal.
SBC partnered with Yahoo! as the default portal for SBC ISP customers (at least residential) back before they bought AT&T and adopted AT&T's name for themselves; if I'm not mistaken, the install procedure for the software that comes with the combined DSL modem/wireless router you get with AT&T internet service also sets your homepage to the "ATT.NET" portal, which is not at http://att.net/ as its name my suggest, but instead is located at http://att.my.yahoo.com./
Never underestimate the power of defaults.
I'm notionally a Facebook user, and I haven't logged on to the site proper in months. I occasionally check some stuff on it through the native iPhone app (though even that only rarely), and use my Facebook logon for Bejeweled Blitz (which, incidentally, I use only on my iPhone.)
I know lots of other marginally-attached Facebook users. I wouldn't be surprised if the number of Facebook users (e.g., named accounts) is an order of magnitude or more greater than the number users that actually visit the Facebook website at least once a month.
And Android is rapidly overtaking iOS in mobile marketshare. The mobile market is bigger than you, and Apple is probably aware of that.
Why are those the only two options? Couldn't the threat from competitors have been an issue? Android is gaining ground rapidly, and the greater freedom developers face on that platform combined with its rapidly expanding reach makes developing apps for Android more and more attractive a choice of where to put resources compared to iOS development.
If you aren't paying Apple to develop for their platform, they don't really care about your ability to develop for their platform.
Google has a different philosophy and business model, so if that's where your interest lies, Android is probably better for you.
McCain-Feingold had nothing to do with net neutrality, and so whether or not it related to commerce or free expression has nothing to do with whether or not net neutrality does.
From looking at some of the partner sites, it looks like each of the hardware vendors that is producing devices (TVs, boxes, etc.) with GoogleTV in is planning to include some kind of remote device. I suspect that Google isn't dictating what those hardware vendors do in that regard, so can't be overly specific as to the form of the remote device.
Apple, being the sole AppleTV hardware vendor, can be very specific.
The opennes of GoogleTV doesn't seem to mean "no DRM allowed". Its Android, on a TV. So if content providers want to stream DRM laden content to Google TV, all they'll need is an app to receive and display it. AFAIK, Amazon VOD and Netflix are content provider partners, and both use DRM.
The absence of a walled garden is good for consumers, but it doesn't restrict content providers at all. In fact, it leaves content providers more free than a walled garden does, as well.
I am aware of the basis of your questions; what I am saying is that fact that normal, non-technical Windows users often don't have someone else to administer their machines means that they have to be able to run executables from directories that they can write to.
Now, distinct security roles for the same user can mitigate some of this is risk, and it might make sense to not allow a normal Windows user to run code that they have "casual" write access to (e.g., without escalating to an administrative role temporarily), but the problem with that without is finding a way to make the security model simple and comprehensible enough that users don't simply get into the habit of escalating to an administrative role to do things without understanding what they are doing.
This is not a particular easy problem, because for a general purpose computer, you have to have a fairly fine grained security model to allow software to do what the user wants it to but not other things, and non-technical users aren't going to want to learn the details of a fine-grained security model.
I don't think that's really all that true; if Linux becomes popular enough with casual users that the kind of malware that is directed at them becomes worth targeting at the platform, third party repositories will be setup and emailed invitations distributed to add them and download screen savers and other seemingly-innocuous software from them. Which will, of course, be malware that the users are being tricked into installing with elevated privileges. (Of course, you can install packages on Linux straight from files -- even files in email -- since, e.g., Ubuntu, IIRC, runs the graphical package manager by default if you click on a .deb; while many Linux systems have security models that are somewhat better than Windows, I don't think they are all that much more secure against social engineering directed at non-technical users with administrative rights on their own boxes.)
Normal, non-technical windows users often own their own machines; consequently, yes, they should be able to run an executable in a directory they are able to right to.
That's exactly what the US does.
No, its not. Network neutrality is about promoting free competition in online content businesses by prohibiting network access providers from leveraging their market power in the access area to stifle competition in content. Its about commerce, not expression.
It certainly is not about prohibiting content hosting companies (whether or not they also happen to be ISPs) from discriminating in the content they choose to host.
No, they are using the argument that this is a great social experiment to get people to cooperate in the advertising campaign for a commercial product designed to address the threat to the textbook industry's revenue posed by open-content texts.
Corporations are artificial juridical persons created by government as a means of extending special benefits (principally, protection from personal liability for debts incurred by the new entity) to the shareholders of the new corporation.
Combinations by free contract to engage in business without special benefits extended by government are standard partnerships.
Yes, receiving a benefit extended by government is legal. But that it is legal does not mean that supporting government continuing to provide the benefit is consistent with opposing government subsidizing business.
I'm not talking about tax breaks given to corporations, I'm talking about the special benefit that is the corporate form itself, which subsidizes the owners (shareholders) of the corporation at the expense of the rest of society by protecting those shareholders from legal liability from the debts incurred by the business operation they combine to create. You know, the whole "problem" with un-subsidized partnerships that businesses lobbied government to create the corporate form in order to solve -- that if they racked up more debts than the business operation could pay, the owners ended up having to pay out of their own pocket beyond the amount they were willing to risk in investment.
Incorrect. The corporate form is, in and of itself, a government subsidy. Government subsidies aren't required to form a business, if the form of that business is a standard partnership or sole proprietorship. A corporation (or any of the newer limited-liability forms, like an LLP, LLLP, or LLC) is at its heart a government subsidy to the owners of the business.
Yes, do you?
Sure, but who is going to provide the test units for the pilot? For this pilot, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, the textbook maker that developed the educational package being tested and wants to sell it has a profit motive to underwrite the cost of the pilot.
Its not exactly like school districts in California are rolling around in money to test radical new ideas on their own.
While the second sentence is true, I doubt that that makes the first an accurate assessment of the cost (once it is commercially available, rather than part of a pilot program conducted by the manufacturer) of the interactive learning curriculum being demoed by a textbook manufacturer in the pilot program described in TFA, which has nothing to do with the free digital textbook initiative except in the sense that it is a response to the threat posed by that initiative to the textbook publishing industry.
I suspect that the reason that this textbook manufacturer is conducting a pilot program in California of a new, online interactive multimedia program that includes (but goes beyond) a digital edition of their existing textbooks is that the textbook manufacturer is concerned that otherwise, California school districts might otherwise be inclined, as they need to replace their existing textbooks, to take advantage of the free digital content that the state is assembling rather than paying textbook manufacturers.
If one read the fine article, one would discover that this is a pilot program demonstrating a new interactive learning platform developed by textbook manufacturer Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
One might, at that point, surmise that reducing the amount of money flowing into the pockets of textbook manufacturers is not likely to be a major goal of this project.
Why do you think this textbook manufacturer (this pilot is being conducted by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, one of the biggest textbook publishers) is so keen on demoing their subscription-based digital alternative to traditional textbooks in California, and proving (or at least "proving") that it is superior to static texts?
But that's not what theyare doing. While the online platform that is being tested includes a digital test, it also includes various other interactive features.