I find this whole conversation odd, because the concept of free software (speech and beer) is an assertion of basic rights that Libertarians embrace, specifically the ability of a programmer to do with his/her property as they please.
Libertarians can't be painted with a broad brush. There are many who resent what appears to be a hijacking of the word "Libertarian" by some who are trying to advance political beliefs that at their heart are really not libertarian. Unions are often the opposite of "free association". Often, you aren't given a choice about joining. Try getting a teaching job or a acting job without signing a union card. (Of course, most Libertarians wouldn't be caught dead teaching in a public school, but that's a whole other issue.)
"Liber" -> "free" -> "free software". You'd think it would be a natural fit.
Yes, but if when all ISPs use more or less the same boilerplate TOS, and given that internet connectivity is not exactly optional for many people these days, your choices are a) get/stay disconnected, or b) take what they give you. It's not always a literal gun to the head that takes choice away.
I generally abhor government interference in private business, but when a severe power imbalance exists between consumer and provider, there may be justification for leveling the playing field a little. I supported McCain in the last election, but I don't support his anti-neutrality proposal.
Point taken. I was thinking of the clause that states that an ISP
"2. Would not be allowed to prevent any of its users from running the lawful applications or using the lawful services of the user’s choice;",
but you are talking about
"3. Would not be allowed to prevent any of its users from connecting to and using on its network the user’s choice of lawful devices that do not harm the network;".
I would tend to view a webserver as a lawful application rather than a device, but I suppose the courts could interpret it the other way. But even so, the text (which isn't the actual proposal, but a summary, so I might be wrong) states "devices that do not harm the network", rather than "devices that MAY harm the network", implying that the ISP would have to demonstrate damage of some sort. IOW, it seems to state that a lawful device is fine until it harms the network, which seems like it would place the burden of proof on the ISP.
Indeed. And what does this mean for those crappy terms-of-service "agreements"?
If my ISP's TOS forbids me from running a webserver from my house over my home internet connection, but there is no government law written to prevent it, it appears at this point that this law would trump the TOS. Of course, given the past actions of large ISPs, I wouldn't be surprised if they ignored the law and disconnected customers based on outdated TOS "agreements" (is it really an agreement if it gets shoved down your throat?) until a multi-year, multi-bazzillion dollar class-action lawsuit forced them to acquiesce.
But that also begs the question, what legal status will the law give to the ISPs' TOSs? If the law gives them legal effect, what is to prevent ISPs from circumventing net neutrality in their TOS? For example, "by using this service, you agree to surrender your right to host websites, or offer other server-based services, through your ConGlommoISP, Inc. home account, and agree not to hold ConGlommoISP, Inc. liable in the event we disconnect you and charge you a bunch of fees up the wazoo for violating these Terms of Service."
No, I didn't read the proposed law. Yes, this might be answered in there. I'm waiting for someone who can decipher legalese to do a more informed job than I can.
Disney failing would be huge and unlikely. Disney doesn't have to go out of business for this to fail. This could happen easily. After the hype and marketing dies down, and as the consumers are less excited about it, watch sales dry up. Disney is a corporation, not a charity. This won't last if it's not profitable.
The goals:
* Determine the security risks associated with editing this code in the field.
* Determine what this code does, and if it does so honestly, effectively or in a legal fashion.
* Determine if this code even legally exists or meets the legal definitions for a "voting system" at all under federal or state published guidelines.
They can't say at the moment whether vote rigging could or did take place, they simply have gotten access to code that Sequoia apparently wanted kept secret, and are studying it and making it available for others to study. It may turn out that regardless of the relative security and trustworthiness of the code, it may be in violation of Federal laws for other reasons. Let's not jump to any fun conspiracy-theory conclusions (although I wouldn't be terribly surprised if they turn out to be correct). There will be plenty of time to hang people after we know more about what was found.
At $13 a share the marketcap of SCO is about $2.5M. That is more than the company is worth but less than you would need to pay to buy the company.
Which brings up a good point - why doesn't IBM buy them up (or at least a controlling interest) and finally drop the curtain on SCO's last act? It's got to cost less than any additional litigation.
When I first read the article, it made me realize that my least-favorite people were neatly represented here; a gold-digger playing "Lawsuit Lotto", brainless marketing drones, and two sets of evil lawyers; a) the lawyers who wrote a shitty, incomprehensible opt-in, and b) the ambulance-chasing losers inciting this woman to get every penny she thinks she deserves.
What I propose is simple. Arm them all with machetes, and drop them in a pit. Last one standing get lifted out, bandaged, and after convalescence is put to work earning a modest but honest living for the rest of their life.
Within 1 year, I predict that frivolous lawsuits would mostly cease to exist, legalese would become plainer, and slimy marketing campaigns would become scarce.
$_EVIL_RANT = "false"
The preceding text may contain hyperbole and derision, substances which the State of California has determined can cause cancer and advanced stages of whining. By reading this post, you agree to the following:
a) you are opting in to reading it, you agree not to hold the writer responsible for your personal wretchedness,
b) you agree not to take the writer literally, and/or post responses implying the above proposal was in any way serious (unless you are a television producer, and are willing to pay me lots of money to produce this as a prime-time sporting event),
c) you agree that if you have mod points, you will award the writer +1 (of any positive category of moderation),
d) and most importantly, you agree not to sue the writer in an attempt to pay off the credit cards you maxed out a couple years ago. Plus, I have no money, so suing me won't do you a damn bit of good anyway.
Clearly by saying "light (electromagnetic radiation)", where he should have just said "microwave radiation", he was being unclear.
This device doesn't work with xrays, gamma rays, infrared, ultraviolet, or any other stuff ("light", whatever) except some of the microwave segment of the electromagnetic spectrum. I'd say that on a site devoted to technical news, it's sloppy to use "light" as a generic term for electromagnetic radiation, and also sloppy to substitute either of the above for microwaves.
you were being a douche
Fine. Whatever. I'm a douche for correcting someone else's ambiguous post. Now you're a douche for calling me a douche.
Nope. They don't have it working with light yet. This device works with microwave radiation only at the moment. They are working to scale it to work with light wavelengths.
How am I to differentiate this from any salesman saying, "Buy the most expensive one for the best experience."
There is no difference, he is just a salesman, and that's exactly what he is saying, albeit in Marketingspeak.
You know, I don't mind supporting Slashdot, but I thought that one of the benefits of a subscription was you could opt out of viewing ads, and no doubt about it, this is an ad.
Slashdot Mirror
We further hold that the owners of property have the full right to control, use, dispose of, or in any manner enjoy, their property without interference.
Libertarians can't be painted with a broad brush. There are many who resent what appears to be a hijacking of the word "Libertarian" by some who are trying to advance political beliefs that at their heart are really not libertarian. Unions are often the opposite of "free association". Often, you aren't given a choice about joining. Try getting a teaching job or a acting job without signing a union card. (Of course, most Libertarians wouldn't be caught dead teaching in a public school, but that's a whole other issue.)
"Liber" -> "free" -> "free software". You'd think it would be a natural fit.
Agreed. However, it seems that "endlessly redefining terms" is at the heart of what government and the judicial system do.
I still like your version better.
Yes, but if when all ISPs use more or less the same boilerplate TOS, and given that internet connectivity is not exactly optional for many people these days, your choices are a) get/stay disconnected, or b) take what they give you. It's not always a literal gun to the head that takes choice away.
I generally abhor government interference in private business, but when a severe power imbalance exists between consumer and provider, there may be justification for leveling the playing field a little. I supported McCain in the last election, but I don't support his anti-neutrality proposal.
"2. Would not be allowed to prevent any of its users from running the lawful applications or using the lawful services of the user’s choice;",
but you are talking about
"3. Would not be allowed to prevent any of its users from connecting to and using on its network the user’s choice of lawful devices that do not harm the network;".
I would tend to view a webserver as a lawful application rather than a device, but I suppose the courts could interpret it the other way. But even so, the text (which isn't the actual proposal, but a summary, so I might be wrong) states "devices that do not harm the network", rather than "devices that MAY harm the network", implying that the ISP would have to demonstrate damage of some sort. IOW, it seems to state that a lawful device is fine until it harms the network, which seems like it would place the burden of proof on the ISP.
The next question is what consitiutes "harm"?
Indeed. And what does this mean for those crappy terms-of-service "agreements"?
If my ISP's TOS forbids me from running a webserver from my house over my home internet connection, but there is no government law written to prevent it, it appears at this point that this law would trump the TOS. Of course, given the past actions of large ISPs, I wouldn't be surprised if they ignored the law and disconnected customers based on outdated TOS "agreements" (is it really an agreement if it gets shoved down your throat?) until a multi-year, multi-bazzillion dollar class-action lawsuit forced them to acquiesce.
But that also begs the question, what legal status will the law give to the ISPs' TOSs? If the law gives them legal effect, what is to prevent ISPs from circumventing net neutrality in their TOS? For example, "by using this service, you agree to surrender your right to host websites, or offer other server-based services, through your ConGlommoISP, Inc. home account, and agree not to hold ConGlommoISP, Inc. liable in the event we disconnect you and charge you a bunch of fees up the wazoo for violating these Terms of Service."
No, I didn't read the proposed law. Yes, this might be answered in there. I'm waiting for someone who can decipher legalese to do a more informed job than I can.
Disney failing would be huge and unlikely. Disney doesn't have to go out of business for this to fail. This could happen easily. After the hype and marketing dies down, and as the consumers are less excited about it, watch sales dry up. Disney is a corporation, not a charity. This won't last if it's not profitable.
Sun and Oracle hardly have a monopoly on anything on their line cards.
The goals:
* Determine the security risks associated with editing this code in the field.
* Determine what this code does, and if it does so honestly, effectively or in a legal fashion.
* Determine if this code even legally exists or meets the legal definitions for a "voting system" at all under federal or state published guidelines.
They can't say at the moment whether vote rigging could or did take place, they simply have gotten access to code that Sequoia apparently wanted kept secret, and are studying it and making it available for others to study. It may turn out that regardless of the relative security and trustworthiness of the code, it may be in violation of Federal laws for other reasons. Let's not jump to any fun conspiracy-theory conclusions (although I wouldn't be terribly surprised if they turn out to be correct). There will be plenty of time to hang people after we know more about what was found.
Exactly. And they have a history of doing that repeatedly.
- "Beam me up Scotty" on a *communicator* > now a cell phone
Yeah, we have cell phones, but they still can't beam me up.
I see. Personally, I liked "set off by the slightest excuse" from inflammable. It seems to define his excessively litigious nature nicely.
At $13 a share the marketcap of SCO is about $2.5M. That is more than the company is worth but less than you would need to pay to buy the company.
Which brings up a good point - why doesn't IBM buy them up (or at least a controlling interest) and finally drop the curtain on SCO's last act? It's got to cost less than any additional litigation.
Wow, do I miss Comical Ali.
Inflammable
1. Capable of burning; easily set on fire.
2. (figuratively) Easily excited; set off by the slightest excuse; easily enraged or inflamed.
Get that MatterTorrent client working with porn and you'll revolutionize the sex industry.
I'm guessing that shady porn sites would see their traffic spike.
Ahhh, shit. Thanks a lot. Now I'll never get that thing out of my head.
What? A fault in the plan? It can't be. There can't be a fault in the plan. (rereads post)
... (realization dawns)
...)
Hmm. Well, would you look at that, you're right. But wait, that would mean
(me slides quietly out of the room
I'm going to sue you for making me lose my day job.
$_EVIL_RANT = "true"
When I first read the article, it made me realize that my least-favorite people were neatly represented here; a gold-digger playing "Lawsuit Lotto", brainless marketing drones, and two sets of evil lawyers; a) the lawyers who wrote a shitty, incomprehensible opt-in, and b) the ambulance-chasing losers inciting this woman to get every penny she thinks she deserves.
What I propose is simple. Arm them all with machetes, and drop them in a pit. Last one standing get lifted out, bandaged, and after convalescence is put to work earning a modest but honest living for the rest of their life.
Within 1 year, I predict that frivolous lawsuits would mostly cease to exist, legalese would become plainer, and slimy marketing campaigns would become scarce.
$_EVIL_RANT = "false"
The preceding text may contain hyperbole and derision, substances which the State of California has determined can cause cancer and advanced stages of whining. By reading this post, you agree to the following:
a) you are opting in to reading it, you agree not to hold the writer responsible for your personal wretchedness,
b) you agree not to take the writer literally, and/or post responses implying the above proposal was in any way serious (unless you are a television producer, and are willing to pay me lots of money to produce this as a prime-time sporting event),
c) you agree that if you have mod points, you will award the writer +1 (of any positive category of moderation),
d) and most importantly, you agree not to sue the writer in an attempt to pay off the credit cards you maxed out a couple years ago. Plus, I have no money, so suing me won't do you a damn bit of good anyway.
AC == small "device". Heh heh heh. I knew it.
This device doesn't work with xrays, gamma rays, infrared, ultraviolet, or any other stuff ("light", whatever) except some of the microwave segment of the electromagnetic spectrum. I'd say that on a site devoted to technical news, it's sloppy to use "light" as a generic term for electromagnetic radiation, and also sloppy to substitute either of the above for microwaves.
you were being a douche
Fine. Whatever. I'm a douche for correcting someone else's ambiguous post. Now you're a douche for calling me a douche.
Nope. They don't have it working with light yet. This device works with microwave radiation only at the moment. They are working to scale it to work with light wavelengths.
How am I to differentiate this from any salesman saying, "Buy the most expensive one for the best experience."
There is no difference, he is just a salesman, and that's exactly what he is saying, albeit in Marketingspeak.
You know, I don't mind supporting Slashdot, but I thought that one of the benefits of a subscription was you could opt out of viewing ads, and no doubt about it, this is an ad.
Yet.