I've read the "Stuart" story (referenced in the article) before--probably on Slashdot.
These articles appear to be a higher level of troll. From my experience, the Slashdot editors stir the pot with extreme articles every now and then to stimulate responses.
The use of templates and styles in Microsoft Word makes everything very easy. VBA allows you do pretty much any text manipulation that you can imagine.
It can be a pain to keep references intact when using templates to make other templates, and doing large multifile documents in Word is stupid. Other than that, though MS Word is very excellent.
You start to "get" Microsoft Word when you understand the outline of their object model and realize that you should never try to untangle a formatting problem in Word (a' la WordPerfect reveal codes), but rather you should just slap a style on the paragraph that makes the paragraph behave like you want.
It is NOT certain that the case will be struck down. This is a FEDERAL court interpreting a matter of MASSACHUSETTS law. The US Supreme Court is not the final say-so when it comes to interpreting Massachusetts law--the Massachusetts Supreme Court (or whatever it's called) is the final word.
The Supremes COULD take the case to fix a mistake of the federal court in interpreting state law, but it is absolutely no sure bet. The U.S. Supremes don't have to take cases and they only take a small percentage of those cases presented to them. This could very possibly be the final word in this case.
So . . . don't be so certain about uncertain things . . .
If the FOIA won't open up the FBI's OLD OLD OLD files, then reform is needed. The 1940s - 1950s stuff is history. That stuff should be fully open to the public--like a library--unless the FBI specifically claims an exemption for it.
The historians will index that stuff for the FBI. You can bet on that.
Amazon is proving that a market exists for small display devices. This is a valuable service because previous attempts at establishing such a market have failed Mellow out and wait. The technology is exploding right now. Open source readers will soon be coming to a market near you.
For me, the long term goal is not making the world safe for copyright parasites and leeches. For me the long term goal is cutting out the parasitical middlemen, like the "music industry," the "publishing industry," and the "software industry." We are developing a world where it is technically possible (or becoming technically possible) for creators of art and skill to bring their products DIRECTLY and cheaply to the market at much less expense.
Amazon, by popularizing ebooks, is helping us get to that world. Their means are brutal, but legal. I won't buy their damn Kindle because it isn't open source, but I must acknowledge that their success with this product is bringing the advent of the open source ebook reader closer to reality.
Which side are you on: CONTROL or KAOS? That is the question. The Government can only answer that question if it can intercept your communications. Are you going to let them? Can you stop them? Do you care?
Correctamundo. But you must bear the consequences of your actions. And, if you're not willing to bear the consequences of your actions, a piece of advice: Only take on the King if you're ready to kill the King.
The US has had recent battles over this. The NBA tried to claim copyright over its basketball scores and legal publishers tried to claim copyright over digitized court opinions that they took great care to scan.
The railway schedule situation is probably on the stupid end of the fact/copyright spectrum, but serious issues get raised when people put tons of effort into amalgamating and organizing public factual data.
Normandy was a close-run thing. Had the panzers been released, the outcome might have been very different.
Your point (and your continuation of the metaphor) is interesting!
I can't agree with it though. If Microsoft wins, then it gets money (that's the only reason to file a commercial lawsuit) and then it gets bolder and stronger. If Microsoft loses, then its argument dies.
Maintaining a house of prostitution (in the good old USA) is a nuisance. I don't see why maintaining a website of prostitution cannot be a nuisance also. I think that the Sheriff has a good theory going.
A newspaper could be prosecuted if it knowingly promoted prostitution with prostitution want ads. Why should Craigslist be afforded more protection than a newspaper?
If Craigslist started a listing for murderers for hire, the public would rightfully demand that it stop.
In a free country, the people can regulate the internet. The people have the power.
If Microsoft wins, it sucks for Tom Tom and it creates FUD. That's bad, but not too bad. Microsoft still has to sue everybody violating its software patent.
But if Microsoft loses because the Court rejects the concept of software patents a'la Bilski, then Microsoft is royally screwed because if it sues anybody else over a software patent, that defendant can argue that Microsoft can't argue software patents anymore because they already fully fairly and finally litigated the issue against Tom Tom and they lost. They don't get to relitigate the same issue all over again.
You can see why this is HUGE for Microsoft. If they win, they get some money from Tom Tom and they put a scare into the Linux community. If they lose because their software patents are no good, then Microsoft's whole software patent edifice is gravely jeopardized. Microsoft will really fight this hard.
Tom Tom is really vulnerable because the GPS market is slammed in this economy. I suspect that Microsoft is betting that they'll give up. The Linux community ought to prop up Tom Tom with legal and technical support--at least on the software patent theory.
Microsoft's invasion should be defended at the beaches. They should be thrown back into the sea before they create more FUD!
Most musicians don't expect to make a living from their trade. Most musicians supplement their income with music or do it for free. Only a tiny minority make a real good living at music. Your whole argument is based on the statement that "a musician *expects* to be able to make a living from his chosen trade." That statement is simply not true.
Musicians, and movie producers, and pharmaceutical companies, and genetic researchers don't seek an entitlement to make a living at their trade--they seek the entitlement of the law protecting them from people who would leech off of them.
Copyright law is protection against leeches for a limited period of time (far too long in my opinion). If you want to argue with that, you want to argue for changing the copyright law.
The whole purpose of the legal system is not to handle exceptional cases of law. That is one purpose, but not the whole purpose.
A much more salient purpose of the law (especially in the instance of TPB) is to terrorize and coerce people into compliance with expressed social norms.
In the USA and the UK, laws and lawsuits are not about making exceptions--they are about taking the existing body of law and applying it to unanticipated circumstances.
The unintended irony in your post blows me away. You are arguing that the MUSIC INDUSTRY--the creator of the musical product--has a sense of entitlement that is somehow inappropriate?
Maybe they feel entitled to the protection of intellectual property law so that they can make money off of their product? What's wrong with that?
And TPB? They create nothing, but claim entitlement to raid the intellectual property of others . ... What kind of "entitlement mentality" is that? Come on now!
TPB is good comedy. If they beat the rap, they're like Errol Flynn. If they don't, they're the Three Stooges. Don't get invested in the parasites.
The U.S. and the U.K. were perfectly happy to see Soviet blood shed instead of the blood of their own people. We gave Stalin lots of stuff to keep him in the war--and the Soviet Union won World War II because of it. All in all, a pretty good deal.
Tom Tom, from what I've read, has been a bad open-source citizen. Nevertheless, all Linux users have a shared interest in defending Linux against FUD. It would be so cool if the Linux community swarmed this problem. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" seems to apply here. If MS is squashed here, there much less likely to go after even smaller businesses and people.
This is a grand jury proceeding, not a trial of the laptop's owner. He's just a witness. He MUST give up any evidence that he has unless there is a self incrimination/5th amendment problem. The (sworn to secrecy) grand jury gets to look at the evidence and decide if its sufficient to warrant a trial. If people had the right to withhold evidence from the grand jury, the system would break down quickly (think people who are scared of mobsters).
I don't get what you mean when you say "that person has to produce potentially self-incriminating evidence- even if its made up?"
Slashdot Mirror
After Stargate, there's not much left any more. Maybe their problem is quality, not brand identification.
Complicated factual and legal scenarios, deep pockets, core business problems . . . This is a dream scenario--for the lawyers.
The lawyers will be able to earn so much out of this mess!
. . . that's why this tempest ought to blow over pretty soon. T
Oh! I get your analogy!!
Happiness is a warm, yes it is . . .
Gun
Bang Bang Shoot Shoot
I've read the "Stuart" story (referenced in the article) before--probably on Slashdot.
These articles appear to be a higher level of troll. From my experience, the Slashdot editors stir the pot with extreme articles every now and then to stimulate responses.
The use of templates and styles in Microsoft Word makes everything very easy. VBA allows you do pretty much any text manipulation that you can imagine.
It can be a pain to keep references intact when using templates to make other templates, and doing large multifile documents in Word is stupid. Other than that, though MS Word is very excellent.
You start to "get" Microsoft Word when you understand the outline of their object model and realize that you should never try to untangle a formatting problem in Word (a' la WordPerfect reveal codes), but rather you should just slap a style on the paragraph that makes the paragraph behave like you want.
It is NOT certain that the case will be struck down. This is a FEDERAL court interpreting a matter of MASSACHUSETTS law. The US Supreme Court is not the final say-so when it comes to interpreting Massachusetts law--the Massachusetts Supreme Court (or whatever it's called) is the final word.
The Supremes COULD take the case to fix a mistake of the federal court in interpreting state law, but it is absolutely no sure bet. The U.S. Supremes don't have to take cases and they only take a small percentage of those cases presented to them. This could very possibly be the final word in this case.
So . . . don't be so certain about uncertain things . . .
If the FOIA won't open up the FBI's OLD OLD OLD files, then reform is needed. The 1940s - 1950s stuff is history. That stuff should be fully open to the public--like a library--unless the FBI specifically claims an exemption for it.
The historians will index that stuff for the FBI. You can bet on that.
Such bullshit.
Automated clicking of all ads would be statistically detectable. Better just to stop using Google.
Amazon is proving that a market exists for small display devices. This is a valuable service because previous attempts at establishing such a market have failed Mellow out and wait. The technology is exploding right now. Open source readers will soon be coming to a market near you.
For me, the long term goal is not making the world safe for copyright parasites and leeches. For me the long term goal is cutting out the parasitical middlemen, like the "music industry," the "publishing industry," and the "software industry." We are developing a world where it is technically possible (or becoming technically possible) for creators of art and skill to bring their products DIRECTLY and cheaply to the market at much less expense.
Amazon, by popularizing ebooks, is helping us get to that world. Their means are brutal, but legal. I won't buy their damn Kindle because it isn't open source, but I must acknowledge that their success with this product is bringing the advent of the open source ebook reader closer to reality.
Paying geeks money to test smells is not going to help stimulate the economy.
Which side are you on: CONTROL or KAOS? That is the question. The Government can only answer that question if it can intercept your communications. Are you going to let them? Can you stop them? Do you care?
All I can say is that you should Get Smart!
Correctamundo. But you must bear the consequences of your actions. And, if you're not willing to bear the consequences of your actions, a piece of advice: Only take on the King if you're ready to kill the King.
The US has had recent battles over this. The NBA tried to claim copyright over its basketball scores and legal publishers tried to claim copyright over digitized court opinions that they took great care to scan.
The railway schedule situation is probably on the stupid end of the fact/copyright spectrum, but serious issues get raised when people put tons of effort into amalgamating and organizing public factual data.
They are both crimes, sorry. Maybe they shouldn't be, but that's the way it is.
Lowering property values is not an element needed to establish nuisance. Try again.
Normandy was a close-run thing. Had the panzers been released, the outcome might have been very different.
Your point (and your continuation of the metaphor) is interesting!
I can't agree with it though. If Microsoft wins, then it gets money (that's the only reason to file a commercial lawsuit) and then it gets bolder and stronger. If Microsoft loses, then its argument dies.
Maintaining a house of prostitution (in the good old USA) is a nuisance. I don't see why maintaining a website of prostitution cannot be a nuisance also. I think that the Sheriff has a good theory going.
A newspaper could be prosecuted if it knowingly promoted prostitution with prostitution want ads. Why should Craigslist be afforded more protection than a newspaper?
If Craigslist started a listing for murderers for hire, the public would rightfully demand that it stop.
In a free country, the people can regulate the internet. The people have the power.
If Microsoft wins, it sucks for Tom Tom and it creates FUD. That's bad, but not too bad. Microsoft still has to sue everybody violating its software patent.
But if Microsoft loses because the Court rejects the concept of software patents a'la Bilski, then Microsoft is royally screwed because if it sues anybody else over a software patent, that defendant can argue that Microsoft can't argue software patents anymore because they already fully fairly and finally litigated the issue against Tom Tom and they lost. They don't get to relitigate the same issue all over again.
You can see why this is HUGE for Microsoft. If they win, they get some money from Tom Tom and they put a scare into the Linux community. If they lose because their software patents are no good, then Microsoft's whole software patent edifice is gravely jeopardized. Microsoft will really fight this hard.
Tom Tom is really vulnerable because the GPS market is slammed in this economy. I suspect that Microsoft is betting that they'll give up. The Linux community ought to prop up Tom Tom with legal and technical support--at least on the software patent theory.
Microsoft's invasion should be defended at the beaches. They should be thrown back into the sea before they create more FUD!
Most musicians don't expect to make a living from their trade. Most musicians supplement their income with music or do it for free. Only a tiny minority make a real good living at music. Your whole argument is based on the statement that "a musician *expects* to be able to make a living from his chosen trade." That statement is simply not true.
Musicians, and movie producers, and pharmaceutical companies, and genetic researchers don't seek an entitlement to make a living at their trade--they seek the entitlement of the law protecting them from people who would leech off of them.
Copyright law is protection against leeches for a limited period of time (far too long in my opinion). If you want to argue with that, you want to argue for changing the copyright law.
The whole purpose of the legal system is not to handle exceptional cases of law. That is one purpose, but not the whole purpose.
A much more salient purpose of the law (especially in the instance of TPB) is to terrorize and coerce people into compliance with expressed social norms.
In the USA and the UK, laws and lawsuits are not about making exceptions--they are about taking the existing body of law and applying it to unanticipated circumstances.
The unintended irony in your post blows me away. You are arguing that the MUSIC INDUSTRY--the creator of the musical product--has a sense of entitlement that is somehow inappropriate?
Maybe they feel entitled to the protection of intellectual property law so that they can make money off of their product? What's wrong with that?
And TPB? They create nothing, but claim entitlement to raid the intellectual property of others . . .. What kind of "entitlement mentality" is that? Come on now!
TPB is good comedy. If they beat the rap, they're like Errol Flynn. If they don't, they're the Three Stooges. Don't get invested in the parasites.
The U.S. and the U.K. were perfectly happy to see Soviet blood shed instead of the blood of their own people. We gave Stalin lots of stuff to keep him in the war--and the Soviet Union won World War II because of it. All in all, a pretty good deal.
That's the kind of friendship I'm talking about.
Tom Tom, from what I've read, has been a bad open-source citizen. Nevertheless, all Linux users have a shared interest in defending Linux against FUD. It would be so cool if the Linux community swarmed this problem. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" seems to apply here. If MS is squashed here, there much less likely to go after even smaller businesses and people.
That's an easy question to answer. But before I'll answer, you've got to show me the money.
This is a grand jury proceeding, not a trial of the laptop's owner. He's just a witness. He MUST give up any evidence that he has unless there is a self incrimination/5th amendment problem. The (sworn to secrecy) grand jury gets to look at the evidence and decide if its sufficient to warrant a trial. If people had the right to withhold evidence from the grand jury, the system would break down quickly (think people who are scared of mobsters).
I don't get what you mean when you say "that person has to produce potentially self-incriminating evidence- even if its made up?"