They do care what the company's doing...Hormel realized a while back that, like it or not, they had ended up with the ownership of the term 'spam' as well as 'SPAM', their product.
That's why (and how) they went after Stanford Wallace, the self proclaimed 'spam king', and sued his ass for trademark infringement, way back when spam was legal everywhere and Wallace was walking around blatantly selling spamming services. (Now, of course, no spammer calls it 'spamming' anymore.)
Hormel hates 'spam' as much as the rest of us, and it's telling they only sue spammers who use the term 'spam', not the anti-spammers. (Even if, in this case, the spammers are posing as anti-spammers.)
In short...yeah, it's probably a misuse of their trademark, but I can't get too worked up about misusing trademarks against felons who are committing a DDoS attack on the email system.
While I'm never had a chance to interact with an escort service, 85-100 sounds about right for a real escort service, as in one who provides a companion to an event, and about half the price of an 'escort service', someone who doesn't escort you anywhere, if you get the implication there.
Their model doesn't rely on them annoying their customers...their customers are the businesses who hire them, not the people who purchase things from them.
Don't make it a pyromaniac, make it a gang inititation thing, like the 'driving around with the headlights off waiting for someone to flash you'.
Claim there are some 'white collar gangs' going around calling people to see if they can dup you into giving you your credit card number, and then they drive to your house and blow your brains out as you walk out the door...then rack up charges n your credit card in the confusion. Obviously, if they stole your wallet and killed you, the police might report the cards stolen, or find them with the cards...this way no one can track them. So they sit and make calls out of the phone book, trying to find an idiot who will purchase a great deal on a ficitonal product.
Yeah, it's stupid, but people who believe urban rumors will fall for it.
What always blows my mind is people giving credit card numbers to telemarketers. Hey, idiot, you have no idea who just called you. That's just amazingly bizarre behavior.
Re:How does mozilla handle old caches?
on
Netscape 7.1 Released
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
It's apparently completely unknown among web browser designers, but web browsers are not supposed to generate any network traffic at all on back and forward buttons. They're supposed to be backwards and forwards in what you have viewed, not 'where you're been'.
Of course, absolutely no browser's back and forward buttons actually follows this standard. (Or, alternately, they do not possess the commands the HTTP spec says they should have, and instead possess completely different commands named the same thing.)
Yes, because of Linus's amazing abilities to delete mailing list archives, google Usenet archives, and copies of the source code on billions of CDs all around the world.
No, sorry, that's not how copyright law works. To sue someone for copyright infringement, the very very very very first thing you're doing is notify them what is infringing so they can stop reproducing it and infringing your copyright. Don't take all my 'very's as hyperbole, it happens before the lawsuit, before the discovery, before anything. It happens in the very first letter from the copyright holder.
The fact they still haven't done it implies there is no such code.
The reason there's no good analogy is that it doesn't make any legal sense whatsoever.
According to copyright law, once you've purchased software, you can run it, period, in whatever way, shape, or form is needed for it to run. You don't need a program to give you permission after you click okay.
I don't think the Grail made anyone 'immortal'. I think it simply subtracted a day off their life, or made the current day not count, or however you want to put that.
So, as the Grail couldn't pass beyond the seal, and you had to drink from it every day to remain the same age, it meant you either had to live in the cave or right next to it to not die.
The real question was how the Grail couldn't pass beyond the seal...was there a forcefield or something? We didn't see anything like that, just an earthquake that the Grail fell into.
In what universe is 'control' the justification for copyright law?
The point of copyright law is NOT to let artists control their work. It is to reward artists for giving their work out, and thus hopefully encourage more work.
Any company that refuses to give their work out has basically already broken their end of the arrangement. In times past, the work would fall into public domain after a few years...but no work does that anymore. Sadly, there's not a way for that to void the contract under current copyright law...but there should be. As copyright law has been entirely taken over by giant corporations, though, I doubt we'll ever see that.
The correct thing to do, of course, would be to introduce his son in this movie.
You either set it 20 years later, and cast a young adult, or set it 10 years later, and cast a kid, and that lets you recast the role later. (Remember, this is all happening in the past, so they can just skip a decade in the timeline.)
At first glance it's a natural monopoly, but that fall apart when you look at people who own hundreds of square miles of land. No one could 'naturally' control or be in possession of any property outside of their eyesite. (In fact, land as 'property' is basically as flaky a concept as intellectual 'property'.)
Likewise, money 'ownership' is just a plain silly concept, because money is something you can't share anyway,or, to be exact, can share in exactly the opposite way of possessions. It's a created token that is meaningless until you've given it to someone else. Referring to an natural monopoly on it is silly when you realize it's an attribute of a person (how much money they have), and not a 'thing' in itself. (Despite the fact people walk around with 'money' in their wallet. They do not actually do this, they walk around with a physical item representing the token called 'money'.) It's akin to talking about someone owning their own ability to juggle.
Calling real property ownership 'a natural monopoly' just doesn't work. Yes, only one person can be in possession of a TV at a time (Well, 'control' of a TV.), and you can argue that there's some sort of natural ownership there, but that entire concept falls apart when you have people mainly owning stock, bonds, real estate, and money, none of which can be duplicated, but none of which are real physical items, they are all tokens.
Of course, the trick is...none of those are really property in the first place, they're just things that have fallen under our property ownership laws, and thus are wrongly considered property. If you want to argue there's some sort of natural monopoly on hairbrush ownership, though, and that we base our laws on, I'll agree with that.
Since they've pulled Linux ditribution before the trial has even started, I doubt there's any grey area here.
Uh, no they didn't. Stop making up crap.
They are to this day providing downloadable copies of the source on their web site, although they are playing a shell game with paths to make all the links stop working.
As SCO continued to sell Linux days after the suit was filed (And months after they 'realized' there was a problem, and were talking with IBM.), there was no mistake there.
Uh, the only right anyone wants to deny people working for corporations is the 'right' to not take any accountablity for their actions, which is obviously not actually a right.
Absolutely no one has suggested that people working for corporations shouldn't have the right to do whatever they normally have the right to do. They simply say the individual people should be accountable when they violate the law. (And, of course, you don't have the right to violate the law, by definition.)
Well, all property is a 'legislatively created monopoly right'...IP is just that right over something that doesn't exist anyway, as opposed to normal property ownership, which is a legislatively created monopoly right over something that does exist.
So, basically, you're correct that calling it property is bad, but you fell into the trap with phrases like '(real) property'...intellectual property is not property in any way, shape or form. That's the trick, that's the lie they are trying to convince you of.
The entire intellectual 'property' concept is completely absurd, it's like talking about your 'freedom-of-speech property', and how you can 'sell' it using an NDA, and how the government can steal it...it's just making up vague analogies that don't have anything similiar in legal or moral implications. It is not property, it is a contract, and you do not own 'the property', you are simply in control of the contract and able to change your name for someone else's.
That's the plot of the Heinlein story 'Let There Be Light'. These inventors discover a cystal substance that converts light to electricity with a 99% or so conversion factor. (They're trying to invent 'cold light', a lightbulb without wasted energy in the form of heat, and they discover their lights work backwards.)
They get some energy people leaning on them, and they run to the newspaper with an exclusive...and with the requirement that anyone who wants an interview must publish the full plans, plans any idiot can impliment in a somewhat equipped lab, which they then go and patent. (Yes, you can patent stuff up to a year after you invent it.)
All this 'government coverup' stuff is nonsense...in these days, you don't even have to force a newspaper to publish it...we have Usenet, you just dump the plans on that, then patent it after everyone's learned of your amazing discovery and it's too late to supress it.
Sure, by having simple-to-use plans out in the open like that, you're inviting a few patent infringers...but does that really matter when you'd have power companies paying you trillions of dollars to impliment your technology? I mean, honest to God, if you had legal control of a magical energy-making machine, you would have more power than anyone in the world, no pun intended.
Of course, the obvious explaination occurs when you check the compound's wiring. Guess what? He's still on the grid! Isn't that silly of him.
I didn't say they were called Linux/GNU at all, I thik that's a fairly silly name. I call them 'Linux', or if I want to differiential from the kernel, the 'Linux OS'.
That said, I gave a partial list above...you need a lot of system libraries (in fact, I'd basically call every library that comes on a default install of various distros part of the OS), you need a shell, usually whatever/bin/sh is, you need all the filesystem creation and fixing utilities, you need all the networking utilities, and all the text stuff commonly used in scripts like 'cat' and 'cut'. There's probably some I've left out.
If you want to know what's part of the Linux OS, do a minimal install of any distro and see what you get. Of course, like I said, there's a blurry line between 'the OS' and 'comes with the OS'...but the OS is the layer below application programs, it's safe to consider anything below that, that multiple programs require to function, and are assumed to be installed, part of the OS. (And remember I mentioned the other systems, like X, that are in a sense an OS on top of an OS, or maybe the entire thing is an OS that can be split in half.)
An OS is a set of programs that controls access to devices, filesystems, scheduling, startup, etc. Sure, it needs a kernel, but it also, under Linux, includes glibc, init, ifconfig, fsck, dd, etc.
All OSes include some sort of ability to launch programs, and standard libraries to access files and devices and whatnot. When an OS is loaded in a computer, the computer must 'work', for undefined values of work.
There's a reason there's two different terms for 'operating system' and 'kernel'.
Now, with Linux, there's a blur between 'the OS' and 'stuff that comes with the OS but isn't needed'. And with Windows, there's a blur between 'the kernel' and 'the OS' and 'stuff that comes with the OS but isn't needed'.
Note, BTW, that you can have systems on top of OSes...like Linux has the X Window System. They are, in a way, mini-computers...they have a kernel, usually XFree86, they have an OS, which can be anything from an xterm launched at startup to Gnome, and they have application software.
In fact, I'm willing to bet that SCO doesn't have the right to use works developed in their Unix, by others, in anything except their Unix.
And SCO, of course, knowingly distributed Linux with all IBM's stuff in it, breaking their contract with IBM. They may, in some wacky legal universe, get control over the IP just because it was developed for the OS, but I seriously doubt they got copyright or a completely unlimited license, and probably can't go around selling it in other products.
Slashdot Mirror
That's why (and how) they went after Stanford Wallace, the self proclaimed 'spam king', and sued his ass for trademark infringement, way back when spam was legal everywhere and Wallace was walking around blatantly selling spamming services. (Now, of course, no spammer calls it 'spamming' anymore.)
Hormel hates 'spam' as much as the rest of us, and it's telling they only sue spammers who use the term 'spam', not the anti-spammers. (Even if, in this case, the spammers are posing as anti-spammers.)
In short...yeah, it's probably a misuse of their trademark, but I can't get too worked up about misusing trademarks against felons who are committing a DDoS attack on the email system.
While I'm never had a chance to interact with an escort service, 85-100 sounds about right for a real escort service, as in one who provides a companion to an event, and about half the price of an 'escort service', someone who doesn't escort you anywhere, if you get the implication there.
It's 'anti-spam' in the same way that ransom money is 'anti-kidnapping', because it's how you get the person back.
Their model doesn't rely on them annoying their customers...their customers are the businesses who hire them, not the people who purchase things from them.
Don't make it a pyromaniac, make it a gang inititation thing, like the 'driving around with the headlights off waiting for someone to flash you'.
Claim there are some 'white collar gangs' going around calling people to see if they can dup you into giving you your credit card number, and then they drive to your house and blow your brains out as you walk out the door...then rack up charges n your credit card in the confusion. Obviously, if they stole your wallet and killed you, the police might report the cards stolen, or find them with the cards...this way no one can track them. So they sit and make calls out of the phone book, trying to find an idiot who will purchase a great deal on a ficitonal product.
Yeah, it's stupid, but people who believe urban rumors will fall for it.
What always blows my mind is people giving credit card numbers to telemarketers. Hey, idiot, you have no idea who just called you. That's just amazingly bizarre behavior.
Of course, absolutely no browser's back and forward buttons actually follows this standard. (Or, alternately, they do not possess the commands the HTTP spec says they should have, and instead possess completely different commands named the same thing.)
All this is a bit silly as I don't think SCO has any technical people, though.
No, sorry, that's not how copyright law works. To sue someone for copyright infringement, the very very very very first thing you're doing is notify them what is infringing so they can stop reproducing it and infringing your copyright. Don't take all my 'very's as hyperbole, it happens before the lawsuit, before the discovery, before anything. It happens in the very first letter from the copyright holder.
The fact they still haven't done it implies there is no such code.
According to copyright law, once you've purchased software, you can run it, period, in whatever way, shape, or form is needed for it to run. You don't need a program to give you permission after you click okay.
Who the hell wants a car in their home?
Indy presumably skipped a day aging when he drank out of the Grail, but resumed aging the next day when he didn't drink from it again.
So, as the Grail couldn't pass beyond the seal, and you had to drink from it every day to remain the same age, it meant you either had to live in the cave or right next to it to not die.
The real question was how the Grail couldn't pass beyond the seal...was there a forcefield or something? We didn't see anything like that, just an earthquake that the Grail fell into.
The point of copyright law is NOT to let artists control their work. It is to reward artists for giving their work out, and thus hopefully encourage more work.
Any company that refuses to give their work out has basically already broken their end of the arrangement. In times past, the work would fall into public domain after a few years...but no work does that anymore. Sadly, there's not a way for that to void the contract under current copyright law...but there should be. As copyright law has been entirely taken over by giant corporations, though, I doubt we'll ever see that.
You either set it 20 years later, and cast a young adult, or set it 10 years later, and cast a kid, and that lets you recast the role later. (Remember, this is all happening in the past, so they can just skip a decade in the timeline.)
Likewise, money 'ownership' is just a plain silly concept, because money is something you can't share anyway,or, to be exact, can share in exactly the opposite way of possessions. It's a created token that is meaningless until you've given it to someone else. Referring to an natural monopoly on it is silly when you realize it's an attribute of a person (how much money they have), and not a 'thing' in itself. (Despite the fact people walk around with 'money' in their wallet. They do not actually do this, they walk around with a physical item representing the token called 'money'.) It's akin to talking about someone owning their own ability to juggle.
Calling real property ownership 'a natural monopoly' just doesn't work. Yes, only one person can be in possession of a TV at a time (Well, 'control' of a TV.), and you can argue that there's some sort of natural ownership there, but that entire concept falls apart when you have people mainly owning stock, bonds, real estate, and money, none of which can be duplicated, but none of which are real physical items, they are all tokens.
Of course, the trick is...none of those are really property in the first place, they're just things that have fallen under our property ownership laws, and thus are wrongly considered property. If you want to argue there's some sort of natural monopoly on hairbrush ownership, though, and that we base our laws on, I'll agree with that.
As a 60 year old Ford would look fairly surreal playng someone who is, at most, 5 years older than the guy in the first movie, it's no big loss.
In fact, the newest Indiana games already graduated to postwar time, and he's now fighting the Russians.
Uh, no they didn't. Stop making up crap.
They are to this day providing downloadable copies of the source on their web site, although they are playing a shell game with paths to make all the links stop working.
As SCO continued to sell Linux days after the suit was filed (And months after they 'realized' there was a problem, and were talking with IBM.), there was no mistake there.
Absolutely no one has suggested that people working for corporations shouldn't have the right to do whatever they normally have the right to do. They simply say the individual people should be accountable when they violate the law. (And, of course, you don't have the right to violate the law, by definition.)
So, basically, you're correct that calling it property is bad, but you fell into the trap with phrases like '(real) property'...intellectual property is not property in any way, shape or form. That's the trick, that's the lie they are trying to convince you of.
The entire intellectual 'property' concept is completely absurd, it's like talking about your 'freedom-of-speech property', and how you can 'sell' it using an NDA, and how the government can steal it...it's just making up vague analogies that don't have anything similiar in legal or moral implications. It is not property, it is a contract, and you do not own 'the property', you are simply in control of the contract and able to change your name for someone else's.
They get some energy people leaning on them, and they run to the newspaper with an exclusive...and with the requirement that anyone who wants an interview must publish the full plans, plans any idiot can impliment in a somewhat equipped lab, which they then go and patent. (Yes, you can patent stuff up to a year after you invent it.)
All this 'government coverup' stuff is nonsense...in these days, you don't even have to force a newspaper to publish it...we have Usenet, you just dump the plans on that, then patent it after everyone's learned of your amazing discovery and it's too late to supress it.
Sure, by having simple-to-use plans out in the open like that, you're inviting a few patent infringers...but does that really matter when you'd have power companies paying you trillions of dollars to impliment your technology? I mean, honest to God, if you had legal control of a magical energy-making machine, you would have more power than anyone in the world, no pun intended.
Of course, the obvious explaination occurs when you check the compound's wiring. Guess what? He's still on the grid! Isn't that silly of him.
That said, I gave a partial list above...you need a lot of system libraries (in fact, I'd basically call every library that comes on a default install of various distros part of the OS), you need a shell, usually whatever /bin/sh is, you need all the filesystem creation and fixing utilities, you need all the networking utilities, and all the text stuff commonly used in scripts like 'cat' and 'cut'. There's probably some I've left out.
If you want to know what's part of the Linux OS, do a minimal install of any distro and see what you get. Of course, like I said, there's a blurry line between 'the OS' and 'comes with the OS'...but the OS is the layer below application programs, it's safe to consider anything below that, that multiple programs require to function, and are assumed to be installed, part of the OS. (And remember I mentioned the other systems, like X, that are in a sense an OS on top of an OS, or maybe the entire thing is an OS that can be split in half.)
An OS is a set of programs that controls access to devices, filesystems, scheduling, startup, etc. Sure, it needs a kernel, but it also, under Linux, includes glibc, init, ifconfig, fsck, dd, etc.
All OSes include some sort of ability to launch programs, and standard libraries to access files and devices and whatnot. When an OS is loaded in a computer, the computer must 'work', for undefined values of work.
There's a reason there's two different terms for 'operating system' and 'kernel'.
Now, with Linux, there's a blur between 'the OS' and 'stuff that comes with the OS but isn't needed'. And with Windows, there's a blur between 'the kernel' and 'the OS' and 'stuff that comes with the OS but isn't needed'.
Note, BTW, that you can have systems on top of OSes...like Linux has the X Window System. They are, in a way, mini-computers...they have a kernel, usually XFree86, they have an OS, which can be anything from an xterm launched at startup to Gnome, and they have application software.
And SCO, of course, knowingly distributed Linux with all IBM's stuff in it, breaking their contract with IBM. They may, in some wacky legal universe, get control over the IP just because it was developed for the OS, but I seriously doubt they got copyright or a completely unlimited license, and probably can't go around selling it in other products.
Maybe I'm confused, but I thought JFS was developed on OS/2, and then ported to AIX, and then Linux.