In fact, most of the spam is *not* from the US. The answer to spam is seen in your next to last paragraph, which interestingly enough contradicts your third paragraph.
If service providers, companies, and individuals used spam filtering techniques and eliminated half of all spam before it ever reached a recipient, costs for spam would roughly double. This will result in a lower cost-effectiveness of spam, and thus a reduction of it. Sure, someone will find a way to get around the filters, but they will want more money for their products that do this, thus keeping the rise in costs a reality. With modern techniques and server methods, it is possible to block over 90% of spam.
You complain about others using *your* resources (your inbox, your bandwidth --that you lease), yet propose that the government take *my* resources (the money I use to feed and cloth my family and myself, not to mention that which I donate to chariries) to make you happier.
In truth, the remedy you prpose is worse than the problem, typical of a cry for government intervention. There is a history of evidence that shows that the resolution you propose will do nothing to deter the spammer, just as prohibition did nothing to stop alcohol, and modern prohibition has done nothing to stop it. Just the same, modern prohibition on hacking/cracking has done nothing to stop it, as well.
A prohibition on spam, particularly on a global network, would do nothing as well. Indeed, I'd suggest that it would make the valid ways of fighting spam more difficult as spammers would develop more of an infrastructure for avoiding detection and/or prosecution.
Hate to break it to you, but there *is* a demand for spam. Why? Quite frankly, it works. Teh demand fo rspam comes from the person/entity *selling* or hawking something, not from us.
Let us assume that one in 500,000 people will buy something from a spammer, or visit the referenced website (which probably gets counted as a hit or click somehwere earning the spammer money).
Spam is cheap. Let us say (assumption alert!) that one could send out 5 million spams for 10 bucks. One would only need to make 10 bucks or more on 10 sales, or an average of a bucks/sale. That isn't hard to do.
Any Windows virus contains the capability to send spams using your system (assuming you run Windows, of course). Wait till the public sees a 65 year old grandmother getting her stuff ripped away from here because of a virus that spammed using her machine, or becuase a spammer used her address as a reply to w/forged headers. Yeah, that'll make people feel good about themselves, eh?
You write as if the Internet repealed the laws of supply and demand. In truth, the prevalence of spam is an excellent example of them in action. The cost of electronic spam is next to nothing, and there is a demand for it, thus the supply busts wide open.
Think of this: If postal spam was as cheap as email spam, how much postal spam would you be getting? I'd wager a helluva lot more. Why? Cheaper advertising costs, and at even low rates of return, it becomes cost effective.
Consider that direct mail has a 3-5% action rate. Cut that by an order of magnitude for spam, just for sake of dicussion, and do the math. Five million spams *.4% = 20,000 responses from people waiting to buy. Assuming a net profit of but a single penny per response that comes out to 200 bucks. At a nickel it is a thousand dollars. Can you send spam for less than that? Absolutely.
As long as people, such as yourself, ignore the reality of supply and demand in the world of spam, you will fail to understand how to make progress in combating it. And you will result to threats of violence to get your way. There has always been spam, it is just a new medium. Failure to recognize that will lead to failure to successfully combat it.
And as far as someone supplying spam, the spammer *is* the supply. Even modestly uncreative types could probably grab a scripting book and in a matter of a couple hours make spam lists of millions upon millions of potential addresses.
I've got personal experience with the effects a messed up big toe. Twice. No, no amputations. However, I beat the toe up pretty bad playing with my daughter and had a hell of a time trying to walk for about a week. Even when I tried to keep the toe off the ground.
After about a week I could walk somewhat decently. Of course, the pain was subsiding by then, too. Now, this was the big toe. I've hurt other toes w/o much effect other than pain.
Of course, You defined the disk as "a disk with a program on it". I've got dozens of those.:)
As far as the program described, sure. If the system running the program is not a perpetual motion machine with the capability to actually *run* a program forever, yes, it will eventually terminate.:)
Alternatively, I can kill it, cuasing it to terminate.;) Oh, then there is the question:
"Does the program being examined run on a Microsoft OS? If Yes: It Will Terminate.:)
(Yes I know about the halting problem, this is called humor)
somebody mod the parent up --funny. Fricking hilarious.
Now we just need a mod to quake that announces "Quad PPC" when a Linux Quad-PPC player picks up the Quad Damage.
Hail Caesar maker of calendars
on
Opengroupware
·
· Score: 1
Actually, the Julian calendar was done in 45 BC by astronomer Sosigenes of Alexandria. It took a base year of 365.25 days and was was innacurate by a mere 11 minutes (no small feat at the time, IMO). It was the dominant calendar in that part of the world until the 16th century.
There is a big deal to Linux replacing desktop Soalris, Irix, HPUX, and other Unix desktops. Commonality and convergence.
As these different systems get replaced by a single system base (i.e distributions differences don't matter here), a growing base of desktop apps get ported, AND the development costs for new ones decreases. Rather than tracking Irix, Solaris, HPUX, etc., the vendor tracks Linux.
This increases the business case for Linux on the desktop. As this happens, Linux on the Desktop becomes more common.
As this happens, more and more people will be taking a copy of Linux home for their home PC (which in this case is perfectly legal). This spreads it's use among home users.
As far as Linux systems supplanting MS systems, yes it is occurring, more and more. To say you haven't heard about this would be tantamount to stating you either have been in the dark for the last several months, or are deliberately ignoring the news on it.
But Linux' takeover on the desktop will happen silently, and it will be from people using it as business users first. This is Linux's fate. Look at it's history, then look at MS' history. Look at their paths.
MS: Become popular w/Home users, then start getting into business because that's what users had at home. Next, proceed to attempt to infiltrate the server environment. Basically, from home and small business to corporate DT to server environment.
Now look at Linux. It's path is from the server to the corporate desktop to home. It is also, however, taking the small business to home user path. This gives it an additional avenue to exploit in terms of gaining share. As mom and pop run their business on Linux, it becomes familiar to them. As does stability and not requiring larger and larger machines. This overcomes the inertia and "it's different" issue. Then mom and pop start using it at home.
This is also in keeping with the fundamental differences and oppositions behind Linux and MS.
The battle between Linux and MS will not be the home user; it will be the corporate desktop. Like two armies marching toward each other, they'll meet in the middle and duke it out. The battle will take place in the corporate world, at the corporate desktop. Once Linux wins there, it will come off that battlefield with it's victory and leverage that into the home market.
After all, once the corporate world has chosen Linux on the Destop, the argument for apps will become even stronger, if it needs to at all at that point.
Games! You say? Now we're talking. Here is how that one plays out. As Linux gains ground in the corporate deksotp, it beats out Mac as far as desktop market share (it will likely do so this year, btw). This in combination with MacOS-X running a BSD system underneath will make a powerful argument for porting/releasing games on Linux.
The claim against Linux games has largely been "no market". Well, if Linux has a larger market share than Mac, that argument becomes a tool against games NOT being on Linux.
As all these happen (and MS moves more toward software fascism on it's users), those who dual boot find they no longer need that MS partition, and stop using it. As people see less and less dual boot, they realize Linux is a viable desktop alternative, and begin dual booting to try it out, or outright getting it on a new or used PC to try it out. Then they switch.
So acquire a scanner that just picks up and records IDs and walk around a few Wal-marts. Then resent them.
The device could even determine the frequency of the repeats (if any), the interval, etc.. Basically record and replay.
Then you just replay random selections from tthe list you build up when walking through an RFID rich environment -- such as Wally world. Now, all your IDs are valid, and there is no pattern to track on.
Additionally, the "vendor" doesn't sell bogus or known IDs.
Of course, if the devices were deactivated when sold and the store marked them as no longer valid, that would potentially foil it or reduce it's effectiveness.
However, if they were deactivated and removed from the system, that would eliminate (most of) the complaints and concerns, would it not?
People realized that governments Create the Corproation. The corporation is a charter from the government giving protections we "ordinary" folk are not "entitled' to.
Eliminate the Corproation and let *people* do business. Hey, then we can simplify lots of things. No more laws about corporations getting involved in politics, owning things, etc..
You fail to realize that a corproation is a fiction of law. Corporations do not exist "in the wiled". A corporation is a Charter from the government o be granted certain (many) immunities. The government has then gone on to add more immunities, and say that the corproation has nearly every right/protection that a person does.
As such, a corporation is an arm of government; therefore it falls under it's jurisdiction.
Now I've been proposing all along tht the punishment to MS should be the revokation of the Corporate Charter. They do not get the benefit of being split up by the government, nor to they retain their special immune status.
As such, they have to compete w/o the special protections. Just like the rest of us.
While I would love to take credit for this idea, it is one that *used* to be wielded; effectively at that. Break the law, lose the charter. Unfortunately this has not been used in about a century.
Sure, we *people* have a right to choose who to do business with and such, however, when one side has special government protections the other does not, it is not "free trade". A corporation is not a person.
Further, the government operates many monopolies of it's own. I'm all for breaking those up to.
We should break up such government monopolies as the FDA, the FAA, the School Business, the EP, the Federal Education Department, Welfare, etc..
Yes, Bill Gates has a right to trade freely, but the corporate arm of the government (corporations) are neither natural entities, not people, and as such do not posess those rights.
Did you ever or has anyone ever changed any settings in the BIOS, other then IDE or ACPI settings?
So if I turn off or on fastboot, "boot virus protection", turn of the crappy integrated sound/video card, etc. I'd be screwed eh? Whee, glad I don't buy from you.:)
Apart from different types of jurisprudence, different schools of jurisprudence exist. Formalism, or conceptualism, treats law like math or science. Formalists believe that a judge identifies the relevant legal principles, applies them to the facts of a case, and logically deduces a rule that will govern the outcome of the dispute. In contrast, proponents of legal realism believe that most cases before courts present hard questions that judges must resolve by balancing the interests of the parties and ultimately drawing an arbitrary line on one side of the dispute. This line, realists maintain, is drawn according to the political, economic, and psychological inclinations of the judge. Some legal realists even believe that a judge is able to shape the outcome of the case based on personal biases.
Apart from different types of jurisprudence, different schools of jurisprudence exist. Formalism, or conceptualism, treats law like math or science. Formalists believe that a judge identifies the relevant legal principles, applies them to the facts of a case, and logically deduces a rule that will govern the outcome of the dispute. In contrast, proponents of legal realism believe that most cases before courts present hard questions that judges must resolve by balancing the interests of the parties and ultimately drawing an arbitrary line on one side of the dispute. This line, realists maintain, is drawn according to the political, economic, and psychological inclinations of the judge. Some legal realists even believe that a judge is able to shape the outcome of the case based on personal biases.
Apart from the realist-formalist dichotomy, there is the classic debate over the appropriate sources of law between positivist and natural law schools of thought. Positivists argue that there is no connection between law and morality and the the only sources of law are rules that have been expressly enacted by a governmental entity or court of law. Naturalists, or proponents of natural law, insist that the rules enacted by government are not the only sources of law. They argue that moral philosophy, religion, human reason and individual conscience are also integrate parts of the law.
Notice that what you claimed legal realism means is not in agreement with the above. It is a defined term, one you are using incorrectly.
Sorry, but coming from being what my state considers a lawyer I'll have to say if you meant "legal realism" then just say it when you mean it, not similar phrases which mean different things.
Also the claim "If you know that murder will always get the same punishment (although not capital, which I'm not endorsing here) then you will be less apt to do it." is not fully accurate. Most impulse murders take place in a short and emotionally laden period of time, when *thinking* about consequences is not to be found.
Also, I never said, or even implied, that the cirminal justice system in the US was about rehabilitation, so you can take your strawman down.
Nor did I talk about ancient or even old-world legal systems. Another strawman.
And finally, your assertion that a realist must accept that law defines morality is bogus. I am a realist and I do not accept that.
Sicne you chose to not respond to my salient points (including killing in defense of another --which is the willful act of taking someone's life who is not actively trying to murder you), rather you chose to make strawmen to burn, I suppose that realistically means this dicussion is really over.
So, you are more interested in punishment, not justice then. The criminal justice system is about prevent repeat crimes. In this case in particular we are talking about murder.
What good does it serve to put someone in prison for life if that person will not be committing another murder?
The fact that you accept self-defense means you must accept context. Context is not the same as excuses. What about defense of others? More context.
It is, IMO, a special pleading to say you'll accept some context but not others.
The fact is, that even today, impulse murders tend to be relationship related, and those who commit them tend to never commit another one. Those are facts. A "realist philosophy" of law would be required to take that real fact into account.
Of course, if you're all about revenge instead of justice, that's your bag, just don't expect the rest of us to accept that as a "realist philosophy of law". In the real world revenge does not work, and only causes more problems.
In the movie they explained why we only saw "heat of the moment" murders. Premidiated went away. The only murders they had left were the spontaneous ones.
Criminal history shows that these types of murderers are usually non-recidivst. That is, those who who not plan it, generally don't do it again. Thus, with this in mind, stopping the act and removing the factors involved would prevent the vast majority of them from *ever* comitting murder.
For these kinds of topics, we actually have quite a bit of evidence that shows that people who kill their spouse when walking in on them (the opening murder in the movie, btw) never do it again, even when not jailed or even ostracized for it (basically, when they "get away with it").
I'll have to watch it again to confirm, but I recall them talking about particularly violent rapes occasionally being caught too. Nonviolent crimes they could not catch due to some mystical energetic pervasiveness of murder. They did talk about it.
As far as making a distinction regarding having prevented the murder, there are grounds for it. We already make a distinction between premeditated murder and "spontaneous" murder.
Given the right circumstances nearly everyone can be driven to murder. However, history shows us that those who can/will premiditate it and plan in advance a murder, are far fewer.
That is not to say that there should not be some punishment for those who commit murders of passion, just that in the world described where it is known for certain that the murder was passion-driven versus premeditated, there is a difference.
Indeed, as I recall, there was indeed a premeditated murder that was caught, at the end. It was the brown ball (IIRC) indicating that the head of the company was going to kill the hero.
Good to see that people are continuing to just b*tch about things and whine about the choices of other individuals as opposed to getting of their figurative arses and *doing* something.
Lovely how so many things are *so* important people will just sit around and wait for others to do them. After all, how many Linux users would there be if Linus just sat round and waited for someone else to do it?
There wouldn't even *be* a choice between GNOME and KDE if Linus and many others invovled decided these things were *so* important that they should just sit around and whine on the net about them.
Heh, it took KDE THREE versions to get to it?? Clearly GNOME must be better, they did in only two versions.;^)
Seriously though, you act as if KDE3 is ancient. KDE3 is current. KDE2 and KDE1 are old. Just as GNOME1 is.
Sure you've got *minor* releases (like 3.1), but so does GNOME (like 2.2).
Essentially, they both got this in their *CURRENT* versions and you are trying to act as if KDE had it forever. In fact, if you go look, kde.org shows it in the *new* feature list for 3.1. Meaning they "just got it" too.
*That* is old news. That and you are trying to brag about copying someone else first. What's next calling the KDE menu drop shadows "Authentic copies"??
What makes it old is that this patch existed back in February.
These types of advertisements are developed to utilize flaws in insecure web browsers such as IE, and even though their actions have been deemed legal, they are still invading the privacy of the user (unknowingly) and performing annoying actios such as:
-Placing icons on the desktop that launch ad-filled web pages
-Adding itself as a favorite or a home page to the browser
-Adding shortcuts to the Start Menu
All without permission of the user.
No that is not a violation of privacy, it is a violation of property rights.
If I toss a burger wrapper over the fence on to your yard w/o your permission, you don't say I violated your privacy. This is the same thing.
You can't defend your rights w/o knowing what the differences in them are.
SCO has only filed ONE case, and guess who their target was? IBM.
Everything else is just hot-air and misdirection. Well, that and flailing around looking for something, anything.
So far, the dips at SCO have ONLY filed ONE suit. Against IBM. They would love for you to believe it is about Linux. It isn't. It is about contractual obligations.
As long as you think it is all about getting Linux, you are buying the FUD.
"When will there be an actual legal development, meaning what is the next noteworthy date in the legal proceedings of this case? (Hearing, trial, etc.) "
Dunno, what's the temperature in hell right now, and which direction, if any, is it going? Seriously, I wouldn't be suprised to see SCO eventually just drop this thing and try to slink off quietly as if it never happened.
I think there are signs they did not anticipate it going this far; that they expected to get bought out or settled earlier than this. Now they are scrambling.
Just read the various comments by McBridle et. al. when he claims everything is theirs, or that he'll sue LT, or that he'll sue us all, or that Linux is clear, *just particular distributions*.
Why will this enver go as far as MS adn SCO would like? They will never be able to get around overlooked detail.
If there is SCO code their, it's out. Never mind the GPL, I'm talking out. Let us for the moment, assume they are right in that there is code there that belongs to them. Eventually, it will have to be pulled.
Right now, they say they can't tell anyone what it is w/o an NDA. Well that wouldn't hold. Once the word on what code must be removed is out, *everyone* can see that code -- and it is under "trade secret", not Copyright.
Even a D+ level attourney can tell you that this would cause them a serious amount of problems. *If* they are correct --and *IF* the code was theirs originally-- then they would know they have no chance of keeping it secret.
Honestly, they'd be better served by not saying a word about it. But they opened the bottle. Now they are trying to stopper it.
But the genie is out -- and it can not be put back in -- kinda like opening an inflatable raft, it never fits back in the box it came in.
Slashdot Mirror
How so?
In fact, most of the spam is *not* from the US. The answer to spam is seen in your next to last paragraph, which interestingly enough contradicts your third paragraph.
If service providers, companies, and individuals used spam filtering techniques and eliminated half of all spam before it ever reached a recipient, costs for spam would roughly double. This will result in a lower cost-effectiveness of spam, and thus a reduction of it. Sure, someone will find a way to get around the filters, but they will want more money for their products that do this, thus keeping the rise in costs a reality. With modern techniques and server methods, it is possible to block over 90% of spam.
You complain about others using *your* resources (your inbox, your bandwidth --that you lease), yet propose that the government take *my* resources (the money I use to feed and cloth my family and myself, not to mention that which I donate to chariries) to make you happier.
In truth, the remedy you prpose is worse than the problem, typical of a cry for government intervention. There is a history of evidence that shows that the resolution you propose will do nothing to deter the spammer, just as prohibition did nothing to stop alcohol, and modern prohibition has done nothing to stop it. Just the same, modern prohibition on hacking/cracking has done nothing to stop it, as well.
A prohibition on spam, particularly on a global network, would do nothing as well. Indeed, I'd suggest that it would make the valid ways of fighting spam more difficult as spammers would develop more of an infrastructure for avoiding detection and/or prosecution.
Hate to break it to you, but there *is* a demand for spam. Why? Quite frankly, it works. Teh demand fo rspam comes from the person/entity *selling* or hawking something, not from us.
.4% = 20,000 responses from people waiting to buy. Assuming a net profit of but a single penny per response that comes out to 200 bucks. At a nickel it is a thousand dollars. Can you send spam for less than that? Absolutely.
Let us assume that one in 500,000 people will buy something from a spammer, or visit the referenced website (which probably gets counted as a hit or click somehwere earning the spammer money).
Spam is cheap. Let us say (assumption alert!) that one could send out 5 million spams for 10 bucks. One would only need to make 10 bucks or more on 10 sales, or an average of a bucks/sale. That isn't hard to do.
Any Windows virus contains the capability to send spams using your system (assuming you run Windows, of course). Wait till the public sees a 65 year old grandmother getting her stuff ripped away from here because of a virus that spammed using her machine, or becuase a spammer used her address as a reply to w/forged headers. Yeah, that'll make people feel good about themselves, eh?
You write as if the Internet repealed the laws of supply and demand. In truth, the prevalence of spam is an excellent example of them in action. The cost of electronic spam is next to nothing, and there is a demand for it, thus the supply busts wide open.
Think of this:
If postal spam was as cheap as email spam, how much postal spam would you be getting? I'd wager a helluva lot more. Why? Cheaper advertising costs, and at even low rates of return, it becomes cost effective.
Consider that direct mail has a 3-5% action rate. Cut that by an order of magnitude for spam, just for sake of dicussion, and do the math. Five million spams *
As long as people, such as yourself, ignore the reality of supply and demand in the world of spam, you will fail to understand how to make progress in combating it. And you will result to threats of violence to get your way. There has always been spam, it is just a new medium. Failure to recognize that will lead to failure to successfully combat it.
And as far as someone supplying spam, the spammer *is* the supply. Even modestly uncreative types could probably grab a scripting book and in a matter of a couple hours make spam lists of millions upon millions of potential addresses.
I've got personal experience with the effects a messed up big toe. Twice. No, no amputations. However, I beat the toe up pretty bad playing with my daughter and had a hell of a time trying to walk for about a week. Even when I tried to keep the toe off the ground.
After about a week I could walk somewhat decently. Of course, the pain was subsiding by then, too. Now, this was the big toe. I've hurt other toes w/o much effect other than pain.
Of course, You defined the disk as "a disk with a program on it". I've got dozens of those. :)
:)
;) Oh, then there is the question:
:)
As far as the program described, sure. If the system running the program is not a perpetual motion machine with the capability to actually *run* a program forever, yes, it will eventually terminate.
Alternatively, I can kill it, cuasing it to terminate.
"Does the program being examined run on a Microsoft OS? If Yes: It Will Terminate.
(Yes I know about the halting problem, this is called humor)
somebody mod the parent up --funny. Fricking hilarious.
Now we just need a mod to quake that announces "Quad PPC" when a Linux Quad-PPC player picks up the Quad Damage.
Actually, the Julian calendar was done in 45 BC by astronomer Sosigenes of Alexandria. It took a base year of 365.25 days and was was innacurate by a mere 11 minutes (no small feat at the time, IMO). It was the dominant calendar in that part of the world until the 16th century.
Hardly "insightful".
There is a big deal to Linux replacing desktop Soalris, Irix, HPUX, and other Unix desktops. Commonality and convergence.
As these different systems get replaced by a single system base (i.e distributions differences don't matter here), a growing base of desktop apps get ported, AND the development costs for new ones decreases. Rather than tracking Irix, Solaris, HPUX, etc., the vendor tracks Linux.
This increases the business case for Linux on the desktop. As this happens, Linux on the Desktop becomes more common.
As this happens, more and more people will be taking a copy of Linux home for their home PC (which in this case is perfectly legal). This spreads it's use among home users.
As far as Linux systems supplanting MS systems, yes it is occurring, more and more. To say you haven't heard about this would be tantamount to stating you either have been in the dark for the last several months, or are deliberately ignoring the news on it.
But Linux' takeover on the desktop will happen silently, and it will be from people using it as business users first. This is Linux's fate. Look at it's history, then look at MS' history. Look at their paths.
MS: Become popular w/Home users, then start getting into business because that's what users had at home. Next, proceed to attempt to infiltrate the server environment. Basically, from home and small business to corporate DT to server environment.
Now look at Linux. It's path is from the server to the corporate desktop to home. It is also, however, taking the small business to home user path. This gives it an additional avenue to exploit in terms of gaining share. As mom and pop run their business on Linux, it becomes familiar to them. As does stability and not requiring larger and larger machines. This overcomes the inertia and "it's different" issue. Then mom and pop start using it at home.
This is also in keeping with the fundamental differences and oppositions behind Linux and MS.
The battle between Linux and MS will not be the home user; it will be the corporate desktop. Like two armies marching toward each other, they'll meet in the middle and duke it out. The battle will take place in the corporate world, at the corporate desktop. Once Linux wins there, it will come off that battlefield with it's victory and leverage that into the home market.
After all, once the corporate world has chosen Linux on the Destop, the argument for apps will become even stronger, if it needs to at all at that point.
Games! You say? Now we're talking. Here is how that one plays out. As Linux gains ground in the corporate deksotp, it beats out Mac as far as desktop market share (it will likely do so this year, btw). This in combination with MacOS-X running a BSD system underneath will make a powerful argument for porting/releasing games on Linux.
The claim against Linux games has largely been "no market". Well, if Linux has a larger market share than Mac, that argument becomes a tool against games NOT being on Linux.
As all these happen (and MS moves more toward software fascism on it's users), those who dual boot find they no longer need that MS partition, and stop using it. As people see less and less dual boot, they realize Linux is a viable desktop alternative, and begin dual booting to try it out, or outright getting it on a new or used PC to try it out. Then they switch.
That is why it is a big deal.
So acquire a scanner that just picks up and records IDs and walk around a few Wal-marts. Then resent them.
The device could even determine the frequency of the repeats (if any), the interval, etc.. Basically record and replay.
Then you just replay random selections from tthe list you build up when walking through an RFID rich environment -- such as Wally world. Now, all your IDs are valid, and there is no pattern to track on.
Additionally, the "vendor" doesn't sell bogus or known IDs.
Of course, if the devices were deactivated when sold and the store marked them as no longer valid, that would potentially foil it or reduce it's effectiveness.
However, if they were deactivated and removed from the system, that would eliminate (most of) the complaints and concerns, would it not?
People realized that governments Create the Corproation. The corporation is a charter from the government giving protections we "ordinary" folk are not "entitled' to.
Eliminate the Corproation and let *people* do business. Hey, then we can simplify lots of things. No more laws about corporations getting involved in politics, owning things, etc..
Sorry, your broad bush is devoid of paint.
You fail to realize that a corproation is a fiction of law. Corporations do not exist "in the wiled". A corporation is a Charter from the government o be granted certain (many) immunities. The government has then gone on to add more immunities, and say that the corproation has nearly every right/protection that a person does.
As such, a corporation is an arm of government; therefore it falls under it's jurisdiction.
Now I've been proposing all along tht the punishment to MS should be the revokation of the Corporate Charter. They do not get the benefit of being split up by the government, nor to they retain their special immune status.
As such, they have to compete w/o the special protections. Just like the rest of us.
While I would love to take credit for this idea, it is one that *used* to be wielded; effectively at that. Break the law, lose the charter. Unfortunately this has not been used in about a century.
Sure, we *people* have a right to choose who to do business with and such, however, when one side has special government protections the other does not, it is not "free trade". A corporation is not a person.
Further, the government operates many monopolies of it's own. I'm all for breaking those up to.
We should break up such government monopolies as the FDA, the FAA, the School Business, the EP, the Federal Education Department, Welfare, etc..
Yes, Bill Gates has a right to trade freely, but the corporate arm of the government (corporations) are neither natural entities, not people, and as such do not posess those rights.
Did you ever or has anyone ever changed any settings in the BIOS, other then IDE or ACPI settings?
:)
So if I turn off or on fastboot, "boot virus protection", turn of the crappy integrated sound/video card, etc. I'd be screwed eh? Whee, glad I don't buy from you.
According to Cornell
Notice that what you claimed legal realism means is not in agreement with the above. It is a defined term, one you are using incorrectly.
Sorry, but coming from being what my state considers a lawyer I'll have to say if you meant "legal realism" then just say it when you mean it, not similar phrases which mean different things.
Also the claim "If you know that murder will always get the same punishment (although not capital, which I'm not endorsing here) then you will be less apt to do it." is not fully accurate. Most impulse murders take place in a short and emotionally laden period of time, when *thinking* about consequences is not to be found.
Also, I never said, or even implied, that the cirminal justice system in the US was about rehabilitation, so you can take your strawman down.
Nor did I talk about ancient or even old-world legal systems. Another strawman.
And finally, your assertion that a realist must accept that law defines morality is bogus. I am a realist and I do not accept that.
Sicne you chose to not respond to my salient points (including killing in defense of another --which is the willful act of taking someone's life who is not actively trying to murder you), rather you chose to make strawmen to burn, I suppose that realistically means this dicussion is really over.
Cheers.
So, you are more interested in punishment, not justice then. The criminal justice system is about prevent repeat crimes. In this case in particular we are talking about murder.
What good does it serve to put someone in prison for life if that person will not be committing another murder?
The fact that you accept self-defense means you must accept context. Context is not the same as excuses. What about defense of others? More context.
It is, IMO, a special pleading to say you'll accept some context but not others.
The fact is, that even today, impulse murders tend to be relationship related, and those who commit them tend to never commit another one. Those are facts. A "realist philosophy" of law would be required to take that real fact into account.
Of course, if you're all about revenge instead of justice, that's your bag, just don't expect the rest of us to accept that as a "realist philosophy of law". In the real world revenge does not work, and only causes more problems.
In the movie they explained why we only saw "heat of the moment" murders. Premidiated went away. The only murders they had left were the spontaneous ones.
Criminal history shows that these types of murderers are usually non-recidivst. That is, those who who not plan it, generally don't do it again. Thus, with this in mind, stopping the act and removing the factors involved would prevent the vast majority of them from *ever* comitting murder.
For these kinds of topics, we actually have quite a bit of evidence that shows that people who kill their spouse when walking in on them (the opening murder in the movie, btw) never do it again, even when not jailed or even ostracized for it (basically, when they "get away with it").
I'll have to watch it again to confirm, but I recall them talking about particularly violent rapes occasionally being caught too. Nonviolent crimes they could not catch due to some mystical energetic pervasiveness of murder. They did talk about it.
As far as making a distinction regarding having prevented the murder, there are grounds for it. We already make a distinction between premeditated murder and "spontaneous" murder.
Given the right circumstances nearly everyone can be driven to murder. However, history shows us that those who can/will premiditate it and plan in advance a murder, are far fewer.
That is not to say that there should not be some punishment for those who commit murders of passion, just that in the world described where it is known for certain that the murder was passion-driven versus premeditated, there is a difference.
Indeed, as I recall, there was indeed a premeditated murder that was caught, at the end. It was the brown ball (IIRC) indicating that the head of the company was going to kill the hero.
Good to see that people are continuing to just b*tch about things and whine about the choices of other individuals as opposed to getting of their figurative arses and *doing* something.
Lovely how so many things are *so* important people will just sit around and wait for others to do them. After all, how many Linux users would there be if Linus just sat round and waited for someone else to do it?
There wouldn't even *be* a choice between GNOME and KDE if Linus and many others invovled decided these things were *so* important that they should just sit around and whine on the net about them.
Then perhaps you can explain why it was listed in the "What's new in KDE 3.1" dated in January of 2003 on kde.org.
Last I knew we were still in 2003, making that less than a year. See here: the kde 3.1 feature guide
Heh, it took KDE THREE versions to get to it?? Clearly GNOME must be better, they did in only two versions. ;^)
Seriously though, you act as if KDE3 is ancient. KDE3 is current. KDE2 and KDE1 are old. Just as GNOME1 is.
Sure you've got *minor* releases (like 3.1), but so does GNOME (like 2.2).
Essentially, they both got this in their *CURRENT* versions and you are trying to act as if KDE had it forever. In fact, if you go look, kde.org shows it in the *new* feature list for 3.1. Meaning they "just got it" too.
*That* is old news. That and you are trying to brag about copying someone else first. What's next calling the KDE menu drop shadows "Authentic copies"??
What makes it old is that this patch existed back in February.
Score 4 informative, my eye.
Is just something so someone can PADD their wallets a bit more.
"BUT, tobacco (like all drugs for smoking) is not very good for you medically at any age"
I understand smoking porn is bad for you to.
Insightful?? Please.
SCO has only filed ONE case, and guess who their target was? IBM.
Everything else is just hot-air and misdirection. Well, that and flailing around looking for something, anything.
So far, the dips at SCO have ONLY filed ONE suit. Against IBM. They would love for you to believe it is about Linux. It isn't. It is about contractual obligations.
As long as you think it is all about getting Linux, you are buying the FUD.
"When will there be an actual legal development, meaning what is the next noteworthy date in the legal proceedings of this case? (Hearing, trial, etc.) "
Dunno, what's the temperature in hell right now, and which direction, if any, is it going? Seriously, I wouldn't be suprised to see SCO eventually just drop this thing and try to slink off quietly as if it never happened.
I think there are signs they did not anticipate it going this far; that they expected to get bought out or settled earlier than this. Now they are scrambling.
Just read the various comments by McBridle et. al. when he claims everything is theirs, or that he'll sue LT, or that he'll sue us all, or that Linux is clear, *just particular distributions*.
Why will this enver go as far as MS adn SCO would like? They will never be able to get around overlooked detail.
If there is SCO code their, it's out. Never mind the GPL, I'm talking out. Let us for the moment, assume they are right in that there is code there that belongs to them. Eventually, it will have to be pulled.
Right now, they say they can't tell anyone what it is w/o an NDA. Well that wouldn't hold. Once the word on what code must be removed is out, *everyone* can see that code -- and it is under "trade secret", not Copyright.
Even a D+ level attourney can tell you that this would cause them a serious amount of problems. *If* they are correct --and *IF* the code was theirs originally-- then they would know they have no chance of keeping it secret.
Honestly, they'd be better served by not saying a word about it. But they opened the bottle. Now they are trying to stopper it.
But the genie is out -- and it can not be put back in -- kinda like opening an inflatable raft, it never fits back in the box it came in.
I certainly am wondering what these mysterious innovations are.