No, not everyone has a price. There are lots of things I would never do for any price. And there are lots of things you would never do for any price, too.
Additionally, if they fired him after a single day, then the contract is not beneficial to one party, was predatory, and I've seen contracts like this get utterly destroyed in court decision databases. However, if you read it properly, you'll notice that he's talking about being prevented from doing this stuff "in [his] free time." It really doesn't look like a "never" non-compete. If they fire him a day later, he just goes back to doing whatever it is he's doing.
I just wish he'd mention the name of the damn project so we can mirror it now and save a copy of it.
Yes. You can't relicense BSD code. The *copyright* still belongs to the author of the BSD-licensed code. They want to buy it so they can actually relicense those sections, and then hope that the stuff already released disappears from easy availability.
I am just explaining why your *argument* fails, and I'm doing so by attacking its structure, form, theses, and logical foundation.
Even if we all knew p2p = legal, it might be possible to make a convincing legal argument that in this case, it is not. How do we know what they mean? Plus, since they have other arguments that have a higher likelihood of succeeding, if even one of them actually does, then they have enough of an understanding of the law to win a case; also, that should one of their seemingly obviously wrong assertions succeed, then they not only know enough to win a case, but also know enough to make precedent. We are simply not in a position to make a judgement call on their legal competence until after the suit is over. For these reasons, your implied postulate--that they don't understand the law at all--fails.
You said, "Why do they insist on calling p2p itself illegal? Do they actually understand the law at all[...]"
Your antecedent question must be interpreted together and in context with your sarcastic comment regarding their ability to comprehend law. If that is not how you meant it to be interpreted, then perhaps you should have elaborated in your original post. However, it is a reasonable interpretation that you meant to comment on their overall ability to comprehend basic law by pointing out a single point which they may simply be misinterpreting.
My point is that, especially from the extremely biased and crappy information sources, we simply don't know the full extent of the company's position. Therefore, even after explaining your position, I believe you're still making at least a non-sequiteur.
p2p = illegal is not their only argument. If it were, it could fail as you describe.
Therefore, your argument is both a non-sequiteur and a strawman.
p or q or s or r -> conclusion... any one of those arguments could be wrong and the argument could still succeed. It's in part how cases are won and lost.
That's a lot of assumptions you're making. I really don't think people, who have no direct experience with precisely what California uses as their payroll and accounting system, should be making these sorts of judgements calls--and that includes those of us who are capable of working in COBOL. We really don't know what sorts of special requirements, union rules, or laws could be fudging the logic up.
Looks, it's simple. It's not just raising the levels again afterwards: it's the cost of the accountants figuring out what the back pay would be once the budget is approved and they have funding again.
..for unrestricted *reporting* abilities, not unrestricted porn access. Has anyone mentioned anything about China restricting *outgoing* communications? Else, where's the *actual* promise documented? It seems to me this story is getting blown way out of proportion, ironically, by a sort of blogger Chinese whisper.
You can usually reset the CEL light manually. On my car, just start it five times, and shut it down immediately, in a row. The CEL goes off, and the code is cleared.
Toning muscles won't make you lose fat.
on
How Do Geeks Exercise?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
It'll just give you toned muscles. If you want to burn fat, you have to spend more calories than you consume. You need cardio: get the heart rate up, and keep it up. Sit-ups are also bad for you: do crunches instead.
And I even have a little meter for it mixed in with my signal strength.
I find it pretty useful.. I'm pretty sure everyone's wireless chipset can tell them how much noise or at least how many mangled packets arrive. It's just the little dummy strength meter doesn't convey any of that. I liken most of those sorts of things to the CEL light in cars anyway. Good to know when something's not *perfect* but not so good for understanding why (nor whether it's just a gas tank cap seal broken, or a head gasket blown.)
Tabbed browsing, clean mouse gestures, two-handed browsing, single-click image disabling, single-click user CSS mode.. heck, most of the user-friendly advances have been standard features on Opera for many, many years. And half of the really good stuff *still* isn't stock and standard on any other browser.
But, Opera did open its doors to the free download hype as a result of Firefox. So I owe you that much.:)
Incorrect. Fido has unlimited incoming plans in Canada for a flat-rate. And that includes unlimited evening and weekend calls, unlimited incoming text messages, and per-second billing.
This thread on Debian-Legal seems to suggest that Debian does not think the licensing issue has been resolved.
And this thread on Debian-Legal which the Liberation Fonts page itself links to, also has Francesco Poli describing very clearly that he thinks Debian doesn't have the right to redistribute the fonts with the current license.
So.. where are the messages showing the Debian people actually accepting the licensing terms and deciding to add the font package to Debian?
... do you mean uncontrolled and therefore meaningless?
What, did he browse a bunch of sites, switch browsers, and browse a bunch more? Maybe visit youtube.com with one, and then some Amiga sites with Firefox? Oh, I get it.. he visited "just regular stuff." Well, we know his benchmarks are reliable and useful then don't we? Cause look, he has pretty graphs.
Is it now? A two-line translation, while accurate in itself, is so uninformative as to be useless. I don't care what some blogger thinks. I want to make up my own mind. If the blogger were being helpful, he would've translated enough that we could usefully agree or disagree with him. Instead, we get to see his (poorly constructed) rhetoric splashed on the page and all we can do is roll our eyes and click to the next Slashdot news item.
There's a pretty good book about it, called "Malicious Cryptovirology." He goes to great lengths to describe the various ways this can be done, how there's very little the victim can do about it, and it's even a relatively short read. Go check it out.
Incorrect. Crypto-virology (because that's what this is) only requires public key crypto. Can you break RSA? Good luck getting your data back. Either pay up for the private key, or you're screwed.
Not much of a translation. That link seems mostly to be a rant about how wrong the court was. The best we get of what the court actually *said* was a two-line couple of sentences, and some single-word translations like "seemingly" as though the word "seemingly" somehow makes their judgement suspect.
Slashdot Mirror
Why bother summarising the article if you're not going to do an actual summary?
No, not everyone has a price. There are lots of things I would never do for any price. And there are lots of things you would never do for any price, too.
Additionally, if they fired him after a single day, then the contract is not beneficial to one party, was predatory, and I've seen contracts like this get utterly destroyed in court decision databases. However, if you read it properly, you'll notice that he's talking about being prevented from doing this stuff "in [his] free time." It really doesn't look like a "never" non-compete. If they fire him a day later, he just goes back to doing whatever it is he's doing.
I just wish he'd mention the name of the damn project so we can mirror it now and save a copy of it.
Yes. You can't relicense BSD code. The *copyright* still belongs to the author of the BSD-licensed code. They want to buy it so they can actually relicense those sections, and then hope that the stuff already released disappears from easy availability.
It's a great treatment of this precise topic.
Check it out here:
Malicious Cryptography: Exposing Cryptovirology
It's an excellent book on the topic, with plenty of technical descriptions and the problems associated with the idea.
I am just explaining why your *argument* fails, and I'm doing so by attacking its structure, form, theses, and logical foundation.
Even if we all knew p2p = legal, it might be possible to make a convincing legal argument that in this case, it is not. How do we know what they mean? Plus, since they have other arguments that have a higher likelihood of succeeding, if even one of them actually does, then they have enough of an understanding of the law to win a case; also, that should one of their seemingly obviously wrong assertions succeed, then they not only know enough to win a case, but also know enough to make precedent. We are simply not in a position to make a judgement call on their legal competence until after the suit is over. For these reasons, your implied postulate--that they don't understand the law at all--fails.
You said, "Why do they insist on calling p2p itself illegal? Do they actually understand the law at all[...]"
Your antecedent question must be interpreted together and in context with your sarcastic comment regarding their ability to comprehend law. If that is not how you meant it to be interpreted, then perhaps you should have elaborated in your original post. However, it is a reasonable interpretation that you meant to comment on their overall ability to comprehend basic law by pointing out a single point which they may simply be misinterpreting.
My point is that, especially from the extremely biased and crappy information sources, we simply don't know the full extent of the company's position. Therefore, even after explaining your position, I believe you're still making at least a non-sequiteur.
p2p = illegal is not their only argument. If it were, it could fail as you describe.
Therefore, your argument is both a non-sequiteur and a strawman.
p or q or s or r -> conclusion ... any one of those arguments could be wrong and the argument could still succeed. It's in part how cases are won and lost.
.. why would an employer need to know what your credit score is?
That's a lot of assumptions you're making. I really don't think people, who have no direct experience with precisely what California uses as their payroll and accounting system, should be making these sorts of judgements calls--and that includes those of us who are capable of working in COBOL. We really don't know what sorts of special requirements, union rules, or laws could be fudging the logic up.
Looks, it's simple. It's not just raising the levels again afterwards: it's the cost of the accountants figuring out what the back pay would be once the budget is approved and they have funding again.
Not every problem is a programming problem.
..for unrestricted *reporting* abilities, not unrestricted porn access. Has anyone mentioned anything about China restricting *outgoing* communications? Else, where's the *actual* promise documented? It seems to me this story is getting blown way out of proportion, ironically, by a sort of blogger Chinese whisper.
You can usually reset the CEL light manually. On my car, just start it five times, and shut it down immediately, in a row. The CEL goes off, and the code is cleared.
It'll just give you toned muscles. If you want to burn fat, you have to spend more calories than you consume. You need cardio: get the heart rate up, and keep it up. Sit-ups are also bad for you: do crunches instead.
And I even have a little meter for it mixed in with my signal strength.
I find it pretty useful.. I'm pretty sure everyone's wireless chipset can tell them how much noise or at least how many mangled packets arrive. It's just the little dummy strength meter doesn't convey any of that. I liken most of those sorts of things to the CEL light in cars anyway. Good to know when something's not *perfect* but not so good for understanding why (nor whether it's just a gas tank cap seal broken, or a head gasket blown.)
Still incorrect. My brother calls me all the time from the U.S. *INCOMING CALLS ARE FREE.* Honestly. :)
If you're talking about whether incoming calls are free while I'm roaming, that's not so. But then I'm roaming..
Tabbed browsing, clean mouse gestures, two-handed browsing, single-click image disabling, single-click user CSS mode.. heck, most of the user-friendly advances have been standard features on Opera for many, many years. And half of the really good stuff *still* isn't stock and standard on any other browser.
But, Opera did open its doors to the free download hype as a result of Firefox. So I owe you that much. :)
But.. catch up already would you?
Incorrect. Fido has unlimited incoming plans in Canada for a flat-rate. And that includes unlimited evening and weekend calls, unlimited incoming text messages, and per-second billing.
Works for me.
Not mathematically.. logically.
But it'd be tough to explain all that random data that keeps getting written over and over to your drive.
H3DII-50 has had 50 megapixel backends for quite some time..?
Is it unprecedented because it's now available at a cheaper price or something?
My eyes never burn no matter how many 16- and 24-hour sessions.
This thread on Debian-Legal seems to suggest that Debian does not think the licensing issue has been resolved.
And this thread on Debian-Legal which the Liberation Fonts page itself links to, also has Francesco Poli describing very clearly that he thinks Debian doesn't have the right to redistribute the fonts with the current license.
So.. where are the messages showing the Debian people actually accepting the licensing terms and deciding to add the font package to Debian?
... do you mean uncontrolled and therefore meaningless?
What, did he browse a bunch of sites, switch browsers, and browse a bunch more? Maybe visit youtube.com with one, and then some Amiga sites with Firefox? Oh, I get it.. he visited "just regular stuff." Well, we know his benchmarks are reliable and useful then don't we? Cause look, he has pretty graphs.
Gimme a break.
Is it now? A two-line translation, while accurate in itself, is so uninformative as to be useless. I don't care what some blogger thinks. I want to make up my own mind. If the blogger were being helpful, he would've translated enough that we could usefully agree or disagree with him. Instead, we get to see his (poorly constructed) rhetoric splashed on the page and all we can do is roll our eyes and click to the next Slashdot news item.
I mean honestly..
There's a pretty good book about it, called "Malicious Cryptovirology." He goes to great lengths to describe the various ways this can be done, how there's very little the victim can do about it, and it's even a relatively short read. Go check it out.
Incorrect. Crypto-virology (because that's what this is) only requires public key crypto. Can you break RSA? Good luck getting your data back. Either pay up for the private key, or you're screwed.
Not much of a translation. That link seems mostly to be a rant about how wrong the court was. The best we get of what the court actually *said* was a two-line couple of sentences, and some single-word translations like "seemingly" as though the word "seemingly" somehow makes their judgement suspect.
Sigh.