Linux-Advocacy Digest #19, Volume #29 Sat, 9 Sep 00 04:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (T. Max Devlin)
Re: what's up with Sun? ("Andrew N. McGuire ")
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Computer and memory (2:1)
Re: Computer and memory ("Quantum Leaper")
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2000 02:43:35 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
[...]
>You are saying that KDE is a commercial enterprise because it fits
>your definition of a "commercial enterprise". Therefore, you are
>the one who defines "commercial enterprise", and the only
>judge of accuracy. And then you even refuse to share
>this definition we are being measured against. That prevents any
>honest debate.
Do you see how you have to layer assumptions on top of assumptions to
get the truth to come out the way you want? That's a sign that it isn't
the truth you want. I said KDE is a commercial enterprise because it
fits my definition of one. Therefore, I am the one who defines what I
mean by commercial enterprise, and whether KDE is accurately judged to
be it. I've already shared the definition, so I would propose that I'm
not the one here preventing honest debate. In context, the definition
was self-evident (originally, it was simply rhetoric, even hyperbole; I
had no idea the can of worms I'd opened.) Later, I gave an explicit
definition, which was "excessive entanglements with commercial
entities", which was, admittedly, soft-soaping it. Merely because the
entire debate is a rhetorical, and now, an academic one.
>I can just as easily say that it doesn't fit mine, and this whole
>argument becomes pointless.[...]
That would corroborate with my assessment, I'll point out. This
argument is pointless. Still, I can't just let post-modernist claptrap
go uncommented.
> I think I also have a fair chance
>at saying that it doesn't fit the most usual definitions, and
>if you share your definition, I can see if you are, indeed,
>using an unusual one.
Well, obviously we've crossed in propagation. Just don't keep whining
about how I want to redefined words. I don't want to, and I don't do it
unless I have to, and I haven't done it at all in this discussion. You
just don't want people to think of KDE as a commercial organization,
just because its an organization of developers. But whether its
commercial for our purposes does not depend on whether KDE itself has a
profit motive, but on whether the members of the KDE organization have a
direct profit motive in supporting and advocating KDE. Until TT GPLed
QT, they definitely did. Now, the situation is more diffuse. But that
just moves us from the possibility of monopolization to the possibility
of collusion. You boys better watch your steps and work on the
integrity bit; this is the real world, now, and the courts are the ones
that really get to define things. If there's money to be made, there's
money to be lost, and there's going to be people watching what's going
on, whether you'd like them to or not.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.hardware
From: "Andrew N. McGuire " <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: what's up with Sun?
Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 01:45:51 -0500
On Fri, 8 Sep 2000, T. Max Devlin quoth:
~~ Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 01:42:00 -0400
~~ From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
~~ Newsgroups: alt.os.linux, comp.os.linux.advocacy, comp.os.linux.misc,
~~ comp.os.linux.hardware
~~ Subject: Re: what's up with Sun?
~~
~~ Said Andrew N. McGuire in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
~~ >On Thu, 7 Sep 2000, T. Max Devlin quoth:
~~ [...]
~~ >~~ Ooh-rah.
~~ >
~~ >Marine?
~~
~~ Navy, Triple Threat Company, NRTC Great Lakes. Choir.
Well for me:
USMC, VMAQ-3 TERPES, Cherry Point NC., Now inactive.
I live in Evanston, not too far from you, huh?
anm
--
BEGIN { $\ = $/; $$_ = $_ for qw~ just another perl hacker ~ }
my $J = sub { return \$just }; my $A = sub { return \$another };
my $P = sub { return \$perl }; my $H = sub { return \$hacker };
print map ucfirst() . " " => ${&$J()}, ${&$A()}, ${&$P()}, ${&$H()};
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2000 02:54:07 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Ermine Todd in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >He didn't. ALL that he did was remove a small piece of it so that
>> >iexplore.exe wasn't there - but even with this gone, it was trivial to
>still
>> >get to the Internet and perform all the same actions. The NETWORKING,
>> >TCP/IP, SOCKETS elements are essential elements to the OS and without
>these,
>> >the OS won't run.
>>
>> But all these were a part of the *OS*, not IE, before the integration.
>> So why wouldn't Microsoft have been able to remove IE without removing
>> them? Its the *functionality* which needs to be removed, and this
>> entails removing the code for IE and much of the rest (but NOT any of
>> the actual 'network stack' which you described.)
>
>Bit of an arbitrary decision... why leave RichEdit in there, and not an HTML
>display system? Why leave the networking code in there and not an HTTP
>client?
Because the market wants it that way. Its not supposed to be an
absolute decision one way or the other, you see. If this were actual
development, some alternatives would include some bits and some would
include others, and all that would be considered by the people deciding
which they want. That's competition, see; and eventually it becomes
obvious that to make a 'good' OS (acceptable in sufficient quantity to
the market that you can make a profit), you include a text editor, not a
web browser; you include a TCP/IP stack, but not a bolted-in client.
Its no surprise that having to double-check Microsoft looks like an
arbitrary decision. From the perspective of the market, they're all
arbitrary decisions, and as long as its a free market with a competitive
environment, that's perfectly OK. I wouldn't expect that it would have
taken more than four or five years for the market to incorporate some of
the functionality into the OS, leaving the part which demands
competition to continue development in order to become efficient as an
after-market value-added application opportunity. Unfortunately, we've
got a monopoly, so here we are eight years later, and none of this shit
works very well. The reality is, there isn't any real reason to include
any of this crud in an OS package; the HTML renderer would have to rev
too often, and the bookmark systems need too much work to even be
considered 'part of the OS'. The closest you could get would be to
include an http fetcher, but that's so simplistic that its better for an
app to bring their own, so its optimized to their purposes.
The fact is that putting things into an OS is a dumb *business*
decision, as well as a dubious technical choice. I don't even like the
idea of kernel NFS, though I can understand the efficiencies.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2000 02:57:54 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> [...]
>> >OK... if that's the case, please detail how you take Netscape 4.7 and use
>> >its rendering surface in your own application window.
>> >
>> >ANSWER: You can't.
>>
>> Well, we never said that Windows wasn't a monopoly.
>
>So let's see.. because Netscape engineers were too incompetent to do this
>work themselves, Microsoft doing it makes them evil?
>
>Go away.
Pshaw; 'because Netscape engineers were too incompetent'. You really
don't have a clue, I'm afraid. Don't you understand that when you have
an anti-competitive (illegal) monopoly, *everybody* becomes 'too
incompetent to do this...'? That's why they call it a 'monopoly', see.
You know, the ol' 'one company controls the market'?
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2000 03:02:15 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Donovan Rebbechi in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>On Fri, 08 Sep 2000 02:08:06 -0400, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>Said Donovan Rebbechi in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>>On Thu, 07 Sep 2000 13:46:01 -0400, Seán Ó Donnchadha wrote:
>>>>"Simon Cooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Simon, forget it. It's like trying to explain basic algebra - to a
>>>>parakeet.
>>>
>>>Not quite. Parokeets are ignorant, but not arrogant. Max is both.
>>
>>And this makes me different from everyone else... how?
>
>Well, there are many in this group that lack your ignorance ( willful and
>otherwise ) and there are also many that are not as arrogant. There are
>some who manage to be neither ignorant or arrogant. ( duh! )
And yet across the field of them, I've yet to see more than a small
handful that can carry on a decent topical discussion without resorting
to ridicule in place of argument. Perhaps more ignorance (lack of
assumption and curiosity about things unknown) and arrogance (dogged
belief in the supremacy of honest integrity and reason) is called for.
(Doh!)
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2000 03:06:49 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> You are vaguely aware, I think, with the concept "software", right? Did
>> you ever stop to consider why they call it "soft"? You've heard of
>> "hardware"? Yea, that's the stuff like buildings, right. Well,
>> consider what might be common, and what might be different, between
>> those two words. "Hardware". "Software". 'Soft', see? Why do they
>> say that? I don't think its because its furry, or marked by tenderness.
>> Keep trying.
>
>No; it's because it's mutable, volatile, and isn't made of anything other
>than electrons.
Funny, I thought it was made from mostly alpha-numeric characters.
>This has nothing to do with the consequences of architectural decisions, nor
>how difficult it would be to roll them back. It just means that you don't
>have to go out and start using a lathe or electron sputtering gun.
Hey, they're the ones that made the stupid move, why should anyone else
be concerned about it? Its quite clear that we've finally wrestled you
to the root of the argument: Microsoft would have had to re-write Win98
almost entirely, because they'd buried and dispersed as much of what
they pretended was the new version of IE (like 'html help'! Ha!) as
possible throughout the OS. And the only response I think you're ever
going to get back to that concern, seriously, is, "So?"
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2000 03:15:11 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Zenin in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: Said Zenin in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>:>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>:>: Said Zenin in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>: [...]
>:> Half-Life multi-player isn't RPG, which is where the real fun is.
>:
>: I'm definitely not a big fan of multi-player games. Its an interesting
>: diversion for a little while, but its never kept my interest.
>
> Ah, ok, then you're right; HL probably isn't for you (well, maybe
> the single player, as it's kind of a strategy/puzzle game with a
> story then a RPG).
And what do you think an RPG is? :-)
> Personally I lost intrest in challenging computers a long, long time
> ago. The games I play now really have to directly challenge other
> real people on a level playing field to hold any interest for me.
> Anyone can program a bot to beat you and "beating" them has no
> thrill for me. Beating another live player however, brings a real
> sense of competition.
Funny, to be honest, I actually have just the opposite perspective.
Humans may be unpredictable (we think), but you need a programmer
sitting down to think in advance about how to make things hard before a
game gets really challenging. Playing against other people; you shoot
them, they shoot you; what's the big deal? A real game isn't just one
bot, you see; its the over-all level of difficulty which I find
challenging, not the chest-beating 'competition'.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 02:31:58 -0500
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Pshaw; 'because Netscape engineers were too incompetent'. You really
> don't have a clue, I'm afraid. Don't you understand that when you have
> an anti-competitive (illegal) monopoly, *everybody* becomes 'too
> incompetent to do this...'? That's why they call it a 'monopoly', see.
> You know, the ol' 'one company controls the market'?
Please explain to me why, if a componentized browser architecture is so bad,
Netscape 6 has gone to a completely componentized version (that is already
being used in at least one 3rd party browser, kmeleon). And guess what
else? It's based on COM. Not COM itself, but what they call a cross
platform COM (or XPCOM) that is virtually identical to COM in most ways.
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Computer and memory
Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2000 07:06:27 GMT
In article <QC5u5.32589$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "2:1" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8pabel$4hg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Chad, you are as ignorant as you are stupid.
>
> Judging by this post, you are the ignorant one.
Hmmm... we'll see..
> Case in point:
> -----------------
> > The USA came in to the war after they were attacked. It was to help
> > themselves, when they realised they were under threat. Not to help
the
> > europeans.
> -----------------
>
> Oh, so we just decided that, since we got hit by the Japs, that we'd
> embark on one of the largest military campaigns ever to liberate
> western Europe?
>
> That doesn't strike you at all odd?
Had the Nazis won the war in Europe. the USA would have been attacked.
The attacks from the Japs rammed that idea home. The US eralised it had
a choice: let Europe fall and be the only ones fighting later, of fight
now with others. The choice was really a fairly simple one.
>
> Britain begged for our help because they couldn't hold out much
longer.
> Their air force was left in tatters, they didn't have a large enough
> ground force to invade mainland Europe, the situation as bleek.
Eh? we had already won the battle of Britain (iirc): we has air
superiorit ofer our own country, at least.
> The US was hesitant, the population unwilling to engage in yet
> ANOTHER World War just to save the ungrateful Brits and Francs, who
> STILL TO THIS DAY, don't realize let alone thank us for saving their
> asses TWICE within 50 years! We still get this kind of attitude...
I think we can acredit the USSR with saving all our arses in WWII. They
scarificed the most. Not even you can deny a hisrotical fact.
> > And as for this communist `threat'. They were your bloody allies in
> > WWII.
>
> An enemy of an enemy is not an ally. The Soviets had committed their
> fair share of attrocities in the war and were no friend of the US.
An enemy of an enemy who is fighting wioth you is an ally. They fought
with you. The US was afraid of losing dominance, that is all.
> This non-friendship was evident in the negotiations for splitting up
> Germany. It's effects are still apparent today.
True.
> > If they didn't sacrifice 20 million people against the Nazis and
> > stop them in their tracks, then the allies might never had won the
war.
> > Some threat. Had that heppened, the US would have been attacked
sooner
> > or later. Would you have won or lost? who knows...
>
> We would've saved ourselves, that was never in question. The question
> was, should we aide the helpless Brits and Francs. Hindsight, since
you're
> so insolent, we probably have shouldn't. We probably should've taught
> the Japs a lesson and then let things be.
You can't know how things would have turned out. It is likely, though,
that you would have been attacked by the Nazis and the Japanese.
> > Let me reiterate, if the COMMUNISTS didn't stand up to the nazis,
they
> > all in your precious Americs (as well as europe) might be
goos-stepping
> > too. Secondly, the behaviour of many people in the 50's communist
witch
> > hunts in the US was quite frnakly appauling. Free country, eh? As
long
> > as you have the /right/ political beliefs.
>
> The problem is, the Communists WANTED to be goos-stepping. Lest you
not
> forget that the USSR was allied with the Axis up until Hitlers
blunder.
Still, they stopped the Nazis in ther tracks. Without them, thw war
probably would have been lost. The Nazis lost most tanks against the
USSR (iirc).
> The 50's were a sad time in the US, no one denies this. It was a
travesty
> of Justice. However, it's actually somewhat of a testament of the will
of
> the American people that they can decide their own future. They wanted
> blood of Communists and elected officials to every branch of
government
> to make sure it was taken care of. It shows you that our government is
> for the people, by the people and even if the situation gets bleak,
> the people can decide their future: good or bad.
So, the communists aren't people, then? Don't they have a right to
protection?
> > The reason the world (the US and UK included) turned againt Saddam
was
> > for OIL. Who helped many of the other contries that have been
invaded,
> > such as Tibet? Noone.
>
> No one could stop China at the time. Tibet will be free eventually.
Not with your help, as `world protector'
> Besides, the US was strung thin coming out of WWII and battling Korea,
> we couldn't have done anything to stop it. Not even the U.S. can
> tell China what to do.
Mabey that's a good thing. That way, places like China might do the
right thing (like sign up to the Kyoto Protocol... (the version that
works , anyway))
> > So don't go banging on aboput the Americans
> > helping out the little guy. They're just as bad as the rest of the
world
> > at only helping who they wish for personal gain.
>
> Europe (twice), Vietnam, Korea, Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, shall I go
on?
>
> What possible monetary gain could've come out of Bosnia or Kosovo?
>
> Re: OIL
>
> It wasn't about money, it was about protecting the little guy as much
> as it was about protecting our interests and the interests of the
world.
> If the flow of oil stops, so does the world.
Sorry, but I don't believe you. Besides it was the USs fault in the
first place of supplying That Nice Mr Husssein with weapons to kill all
those Nasty Iranians.
> > <shipped patriotic, xenophobic bullshit>
>
> Heh.. just showing your ignorance. Perhaps you should plug your ears/
> ignore less and read more.
Mabey you should take a trip abroad...
> > Oh, have you ever heard of the UN?
>
> What a joke.
>
> The UN should just be called the U.S. because we do everything
> for the U.N. Without the US, the UN is nothing.
ROTFL
>
> > You're precious America is no better than the rest of us. How on
earth
> > you think you are superior and that Americans are better people is
> > beyond me. If you truly think that then I hope you never visit this
> > country.
>
> You seem to confuse ethnic culture with superiority. Granted,
Americans
> don't have as rich culture as most Europeans, but then, that's about
> the only redeeming quality most Europeans have.
WTF are you talking about. All I said was that you were no better.
>
> Need I remind you that you wouldn't be writing any of these words
> had it not have been for American's superiority in both technology
> (the Internet) and in military might (WWI and WWII). You'd
> probably be speaking German too.
Superior tech in WWII? Are you kidding.
Who ad the first computer: The Germans (Knorad Zuse, Z1)
http://irb.cs.tu-berlin.de/~zuse/Konrad_Zuse/en/Rechner_Z1.html
But the mil ignored it.
Anyway, we had the seccond (Colussus). You were the 3rd nation to get a
computer. Superior tech, eh?
Lets look at proximity shells. First appeared here in WWII to shoot down
V1 rockets. Looks like you were behind there too...
And microwave radar. Same as above. Still feeling superior.
Also, the Nazis had far better subs than either the UK or US.
Oh, and which plane had the mmost advanced wings? Could that have been
the spitfire?
Where was the Jet Engine invented? And which people got the first jet
planes? (Germans, then the UK)
And the Nazis had very advanced rocket tech.
In WWII, your technology was actually quite inferior. You had strength
in numbers.
I'm assuming your claim of having the internet in WWII was a
missinterpretation on your part. So, how is your internet superior to
ours. Oh, I forgot, you guys have a faster transatlantic link...
-Ed
--
BBC Computer 32K | Edward Rosten
Acorn DFS | Engineer and Jupiter ACE advocate
Basic | fuji.stcatz.ox.ac.uk/cult
>*MAIL ku.ca.xo.gne@rje98u (backwards, if you want to talk to me)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Quantum Leaper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Computer and memory
Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2000 07:24:14 GMT
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:a4hu5.41974$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Quantum Leaper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:OFau5.19962$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > Hiroshima was between 42,000 and 93,000, alot less the what the Nazis
> > killed,
>
> Excuse me? Have you forgotten about the millions of Jews slaughtered
> at the hands of Nazi ethnic cleansing?
>
It was a typo, sorry.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2000 03:27:30 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Andrew Carpenter in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>> Said Andrew Carpenter in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>That's why I mentioned "fair use"; it's being discussed a lot in the
>DeCSS case (where the DVD scheme and the DCMA are looking like negating
>said "fair use" options).
Yes, they would have to, in some ways. In other ways, they would negate
the 'essential steps' exemptions, as well. It seems plain to me, at
least, that anyone who wants to can use the DVD encoding software in
almost any way they want, legally, if they've bought a DVD or want to
sell DVDs or build systems which they'd like to read DVDs. I've
hesitated to get into the DCMA itself, to be honest, as I'm sure I'll
find it rather grossly offensive. To me, it is the last bastion of the
'lets have the profiteers write the copyright laws' approach we've been
using for the last eighty years.
>More specifically, people have been talking about "first sale", which (I
>think) means the originator of the product has no control of any further
>sale of the product beyond the first. A book publisher can't prevent me
>from selling their book second-hand, for example.
Yes, that's precisely it. An OEM in Germany recently sold some 'OEM
version' packages of Win98, raw, without a computer. Microsoft, of
course, tried to say that they couldn't; that they had to bundle them
with a computer. The European Union court said that the 'first sale
doctrine' does not allow Microsoft to determine what the OEM does with
the product (EULA licenses and CDs) that they bought from Microsoft,
regardless of the OEM contracts arranging the sale. These contracts
probably were basing the transfer on PPL-style pricing, no doubt, which
requires an OEM to commit to buying more than they can sell to get the
best price on what they do sell, thus ensuring that every computer will
have windows.
Technically, BTW, the first sale doctrine has nothing to do with fair
use. It also isn't as formal in US Law; a modification making it
illegal to rent, lease, or lend recordings and software for profit is
included in the copyright act, for instance. And the term itself, while
recognized, does not have a great deal of US precedent, I don't think.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
