You don't understand the legal system. If Microsoft wrongfully damaged a programmer by using his copyrighted code without permission and then made a lot of money from the use of that code, then the programmer holds a "chose in action." In other words, the programmer owns something--the right to sue.
That right can be assigned to others (the FSF, for example), who can sue to make them stop and/or to open their code. That right to so can, if it's got great winning potential, also be collateral for a loan.
Moreover, lawyers are drawn to lawsuits like ants are drawn to honey. They've got this thing called the "contingent fee," where they take a cut of the recovery (typically 25 to 33 percent).
It's a major Slashdot misconception that the little programmer cannot afford to sue the big company. If you've got damages (the right to recover lots of money), then you've got a case and you can get a lawyer. If you've got no damages, then you're just whining and should retire to your programming cave.
Unless stealth penetration is required (for which not that many planes are needed), isn't a swarm of inexpensive (and non-casualty bearing) drones better than a few expensive fighters and even more expensive pilots?
The people who argue that giving up fighters makes us weak against potential adversaries appear just like the people who argued that battleships were the decisive force in naval warfare--even after Pearl Harbor.
I'm not against spending big dollars for national defense. I'm for spending those dollars intelligently.
The genre as it exists now is just fun. If it ever expanded into real teaching with a real guitar, you'd create a new generation of Eric Claptons zoning out with their guitar in their room for months at a time until they got good.
Real fun teaching software would rule the software world.
Nope. The guy SHOULD sit in jail. You can't defy court orders. If you can defy court orders, the system loses all of its terror and, consequentially, all of its power.
If the court loses its power and authority, then people will resort to self-help to resolve their legal problems.
Don't assume that social stability is always a given!
Reading your post, I can only assume that you must be very young.
Free speech for absolutely everything would mean free speech for planning and advocating genocide and murder. Free speech for absolutely everything means free speech for fraud and deception. Free speech for absolutely everything means "fighting words" that provoke another to attack.
I'm glad that I live in a country that carefully regulates certain forms of speech.
So the taxpayers of the city ought to pay for stuff dumbass cops do? Not only that--the lawyers get attorney fees for this case if they win!
You can't fire the dumbass cops, because they have all their contractual and Loudermill (civil due process) rights.
Racist bullshit is intolerable in a police force. The key for me in this case is whether or not the plaintiffs really tried to work within the system to get the dumbass racist bullshit to stop--and whether police admin. gave stopping the bullshit their best shot.
If cop admin did the best they could or if the plaintiff's didn't really try to use existing procedures to get the bullshit to stop, then the plaintiffs and their lawyers are greedy assholes who should go to hell.
Otherwise . . . the taxpayers will pay. Unfortunately, unfucking a fucked up police culture is one of the most impossible things in the world to do. So, the taxpayers pay and pay and pay--and nothing gets fixed. The system is fucked up.
But, there is a bright shining lining to all of this---THE FUCKING LAWYERS GET PAID!!!!!!!!
Pro bono is not the same thing as public defender. Public defenders are for criminal cases--this is civil.
There are lawyers in big firms who take on cases for the public good. These lawyers have an enhanced sense of social responsibility. Pro bono is short for "pro bono publico" (for the benefit of the public).
The pro bono lawyer will probably be skilled and ethical and not simply out to make a name for himself/herself. The defendant won't get absurd theatricals and stupid gamesmanship, but will get decent fair representation.
Your post is REALLY interesting. Is a photograph of a public domain portrait sufficiently original to warrant copyright protection?
Surely a digital scan of a copyrighted book is not protected. A scanner is a form of digital camera and a scan is a series of photographs of a book. Sometimes scanning is a highly technical art (look at Google's book scanning/OCR software). Should such scans also be awarded copyright protection?
The photograph of the work might be creative, but is it original? Especially when the intent of the photographer is to faithfully copy the work of the painter. Isn't originality necessary to get a copyright.
I don't know the answers, but the questions sure are interesting.
The truth is apparently easier for a person to relate than a lie is. This makes sense because obtaining the truth is just a matter of data retrieval and access.
The lie also involves data retrieval and access--only lots more of it, because the liar has to anticipate different narratives (I'm reading Anathem, so sorry.). The lie also involves a lot more plain processing.
The truth display process can also be readily completed. The liar can never be sure if his lie is adequately developed, so its resolution is a more open-ended procedure.
All this extra stuff takes work (in the sense of energy). That excessive energy use ought to be detectable, if one knows how and where to look.
Psychopaths still have to do all the work to lie, it's just that lying to them is like ordinary conversation to non-psychopaths. All the extra processing ought to be detectable--if you do the MRI in addition to the standard lie detector, the psychopath ought to stand out as a mountain of absurdity--his brain is processing like mad but all his other systems are flat normal.
This, of course, is speculation.
On the other hand, this shit really sucks because lying is the only real defense against totalitarian oppression. No doubt US companies will be selling these devices to China and North Korea like crazy.
In the U.S., such procedures will probably only get employed by consent, or with a warrant. If the general scientific community comes to the conclusion that this kind of stuff is reliable, then it gets admitted into court. The lie detector can't pass this evidentiary test so it doesn't get admitted into court unless everybody agrees. There will be big battles over this kind of evidence because it is potentially a game-changer.
Wait till you can project images out of people's minds!!!
"Soviet Russia?" Not nearly. It was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Mongolia, Uzbekistan, Ukraine, Lativia, Lithuania, Estonia, Kazakhstan, Moldova, Chechnya, Georgia, and other VERY different national entities made up the USSR, in addition to Russia and others.
These nationalist forces ripped the Soviet Union apart as much or more than the "failed experiment" did.
Nationalism did in the Soviet Union as much as its inability to equitably deliver goods and services to its people.
Simplistic 'Russia failed because it was not America' arguments are completely unhelpful.
Human being seem to always put their own short-term self-interest ahead of group self-interest, even when group self-interest is in the individual's longer term self-interest. There is no good reason to broadcast the Rohrschach test. Anybody who wants to do research can access it without any problem. Nobody else has any legitimate reason to access it unless they're being examined.
Man! That reminds me of the scene from "This is Spinal Tap" where the musician is discussing why his amplifier is better because you can turn it up to level 11!
Suing yourself is collusive litigation. We pay taxes to support the legal system and it is outrageous for a corporation to abuse the already overburdened judicial system resolving disputes that are not really disputes.
There must be more to this story, though. Maybe it's Wells Fargo Holding Co., Inc. versus Wells Fargo Partners, Inc. That would make sense.
.08 doesn't mean you're drunk. It means you can't drive a car. A hard-core alcoholic probably wouldn't be "drunk" at.08, for example.
When you don't have a blood/breath alcohol level, the test isn't even "drunk." The test is usually "impaired." There's a BIG difference between the two.
If a woman gets your blood, then she can bear your children? Wow! This will be a great argument for deadbeat dads! Now they can truthfully say "I never had sexual relations with that woman."
Black markets for the blood of rich men . . . Personal IP rights in your personal blood composition . . .
Wow, the world got more interesting on 7/08/2009!!!!
I agree. I'd rather see her damages reduced to $10K and make her spend a year in jail for perjury. People who present false testimony are traitors to our society.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't understand the legal system. If Microsoft wrongfully damaged a programmer by using his copyrighted code without permission and then made a lot of money from the use of that code, then the programmer holds a "chose in action." In other words, the programmer owns something--the right to sue.
That right can be assigned to others (the FSF, for example), who can sue to make them stop and/or to open their code. That right to so can, if it's got great winning potential, also be collateral for a loan.
Moreover, lawyers are drawn to lawsuits like ants are drawn to honey. They've got this thing called the "contingent fee," where they take a cut of the recovery (typically 25 to 33 percent).
It's a major Slashdot misconception that the little programmer cannot afford to sue the big company. If you've got damages (the right to recover lots of money), then you've got a case and you can get a lawyer. If you've got no damages, then you're just whining and should retire to your programming cave.
Unless stealth penetration is required (for which not that many planes are needed), isn't a swarm of inexpensive (and non-casualty bearing) drones better than a few expensive fighters and even more expensive pilots?
The people who argue that giving up fighters makes us weak against potential adversaries appear just like the people who argued that battleships were the decisive force in naval warfare--even after Pearl Harbor.
I'm not against spending big dollars for national defense. I'm for spending those dollars intelligently.
The genre as it exists now is just fun.
If it ever expanded into real teaching with a real guitar, you'd create a new generation of Eric Claptons zoning out with their guitar in their room for months at a time until they got good.
Real fun teaching software would rule the software world.
Argh . . . The USSR fell more because of divergent nationalist impulses than because it didn't provide enough consumer goods.
Nope. The guy SHOULD sit in jail. You can't defy court orders. If you can defy court orders, the system loses all of its terror and, consequentially, all of its power.
If the court loses its power and authority, then people will resort to self-help to resolve their legal problems.
Don't assume that social stability is always a given!
Loose lips will earn you a stay in FEDERAL PRISON. Informers are everywhere . . . and they're looking at you.
Who's got the samizdat??????
Reading your post, I can only assume that you must be very young.
Free speech for absolutely everything would mean free speech for planning and advocating genocide and murder.
Free speech for absolutely everything means free speech for fraud and deception.
Free speech for absolutely everything means "fighting words" that provoke another to attack.
I'm glad that I live in a country that carefully regulates certain forms of speech.
So the taxpayers of the city ought to pay for stuff dumbass cops do? Not only that--the lawyers get attorney fees for this case if they win!
You can't fire the dumbass cops, because they have all their contractual and Loudermill (civil due process) rights.
Racist bullshit is intolerable in a police force. The key for me in this case is whether or not the plaintiffs really tried to work within the system to get the dumbass racist bullshit to stop--and whether police admin. gave stopping the bullshit their best shot.
If cop admin did the best they could or if the plaintiff's didn't really try to use existing procedures to get the bullshit to stop, then the plaintiffs and their lawyers are greedy assholes who should go to hell.
Otherwise . . . the taxpayers will pay. Unfortunately, unfucking a fucked up police culture is one of the most impossible things in the world to do. So, the taxpayers pay and pay and pay--and nothing gets fixed. The system is fucked up.
But, there is a bright shining lining to all of this---THE FUCKING LAWYERS GET PAID!!!!!!!!
BTW IAAL!!
Your statement is not correct. I know of many lawyers who take pro bono cases because they think that it is the right thing to do.
Pro bono is not the same thing as public defender.
Public defenders are for criminal cases--this is civil.
There are lawyers in big firms who take on cases for the public good. These lawyers have an enhanced sense of social responsibility. Pro bono is short for "pro bono publico" (for the benefit of the public).
The pro bono lawyer will probably be skilled and ethical and not simply out to make a name for himself/herself. The defendant won't get absurd theatricals and stupid gamesmanship, but will get decent fair representation.
That alone should be a pain for the RIAA.
Your post is REALLY interesting. Is a photograph of a public domain portrait sufficiently original to warrant copyright protection?
Surely a digital scan of a copyrighted book is not protected. A scanner is a form of digital camera and a scan is a series of photographs of a book. Sometimes scanning is a highly technical art (look at Google's book scanning/OCR software). Should such scans also be awarded copyright protection?
The photograph of the work might be creative, but is it original? Especially when the intent of the photographer is to faithfully copy the work of the painter. Isn't originality necessary to get a copyright.
I don't know the answers, but the questions sure are interesting.
The truth is apparently easier for a person to relate than a lie is. This makes sense because obtaining the truth is just a matter of data retrieval and access.
The lie also involves data retrieval and access--only lots more of it, because the liar has to anticipate different narratives (I'm reading Anathem, so sorry.). The lie also involves a lot more plain processing.
The truth display process can also be readily completed. The liar can never be sure if his lie is adequately developed, so its resolution is a more open-ended procedure.
All this extra stuff takes work (in the sense of energy). That excessive energy use ought to be detectable, if one knows how and where to look.
Psychopaths still have to do all the work to lie, it's just that lying to them is like ordinary conversation to non-psychopaths. All the extra processing ought to be detectable--if you do the MRI in addition to the standard lie detector, the psychopath ought to stand out as a mountain of absurdity--his brain is processing like mad but all his other systems are flat normal.
This, of course, is speculation.
On the other hand, this shit really sucks because lying is the only real defense against totalitarian oppression. No doubt US companies will be selling these devices to China and North Korea like crazy.
In the U.S., such procedures will probably only get employed by consent, or with a warrant.
If the general scientific community comes to the conclusion that this kind of stuff is reliable, then it gets admitted into court. The lie detector can't pass this evidentiary test so it doesn't get admitted into court unless everybody agrees. There will be big battles over this kind of evidence because it is potentially a game-changer.
Wait till you can project images out of people's minds!!!
It's not a lost sale because the purchase price of the new game includes the resale value of that same game when it becomes used.
In other words, they get to charge such high prices because users can sell the game later and recoup some of the loss.
"Soviet Russia?" Not nearly. It was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Mongolia, Uzbekistan, Ukraine, Lativia, Lithuania, Estonia, Kazakhstan, Moldova, Chechnya, Georgia, and other VERY different national entities made up the USSR, in addition to Russia and others.
These nationalist forces ripped the Soviet Union apart as much or more than the "failed experiment" did.
Nationalism did in the Soviet Union as much as its inability to equitably deliver goods and services to its people.
Simplistic 'Russia failed because it was not America' arguments are completely unhelpful.
We wouldn't have had Vietnam (this frees up the money) and the Cold War would still be going on (this motivates rocket development).
Wow! You really miss the point. The lesson from Nixon is that the cover-up is what kills you.
Hey, if you're the mod police,does that mean that you're part of the MOD SQUAD?
Human being seem to always put their own short-term self-interest ahead of group self-interest, even when group self-interest is in the individual's longer term self-interest. There is no good reason to broadcast the Rohrschach test. Anybody who wants to do research can access it without any problem. Nobody else has any legitimate reason to access it unless they're being examined.
Nevertheless . . .
Man! That reminds me of the scene from "This is Spinal Tap" where the musician is discussing why his amplifier is better because you can turn it up to level 11!
Suing yourself is collusive litigation. We pay taxes to support the legal system and it is outrageous for a corporation to abuse the already overburdened judicial system resolving disputes that are not really disputes.
There must be more to this story, though. Maybe it's Wells Fargo Holding Co., Inc. versus Wells Fargo Partners, Inc. That would make sense.
Don't go to law school. Become a legislator. That's the ONLY way any of this can possibly change.
I'll bet you see attempts at prosecution when the interfaces for obscene games are well developed.
Games will be pretty wild, then.
.08 doesn't mean you're drunk. It means you can't drive a car. A hard-core alcoholic probably wouldn't be "drunk" at .08, for example.
When you don't have a blood/breath alcohol level, the test isn't even "drunk." The test is usually "impaired." There's a BIG difference between the two.
If a woman gets your blood, then she can bear your children? Wow! This will be a great argument for deadbeat dads! Now they can truthfully say "I never had sexual relations with that woman."
Black markets for the blood of rich men . . .
Personal IP rights in your personal blood composition . . .
Wow, the world got more interesting on 7/08/2009!!!!
I agree. I'd rather see her damages reduced to $10K and make her spend a year in jail for perjury. People who present false testimony are traitors to our society.