I had to tranfer an 80mb drive over appletalk . ..
then again, it beat the 100k transfer over cat net--transmission easy, but reception is tough--sometimes "Meow" and "WROWRR" are hard to distinguish . ..
Don't be silly. A criterium is where you keep your criters--dogs, turtles, whatever, just like you use your aquarium to, ahh, never mind . ..
I once used "criterium" on a paper for a Jesuit fluent in Greek. I'll never do *that* again . . . (How fluent you ask? He didn't like the translation of Plato, and did a page himself to show us what the flavor of the writing should be . ..)
Newbies. We were *grateful* to be able to run stacks of cards through the reader, after wlaking 47 miles through the snow, each way.
That was a *huge* improvement over popping the lid to look at core planes, then memorizing the pattern, which we'd go home and enter on rocker switches (except for the rich kids; they're families had toggle switches!)
>"Besides, this is Texas. You never know what he >might have been carrying."
"Everyone down on the floor! NOW! I have an ipod, and I'm not afraid to use it. I got office in here, and I can fit you, too."
At this point, though, it all falls apart, as OfficeXP causes the Ipod to start murmuring, "X P . . . . pho-o-o-ne . . . ho-ome" and everone ROFL (afterall,they were already OF . . )
Buggy whips are much further removed than anything for windows in the ear term, yes. That, and there never was a monopoly in them:).
ESR is actually kind of late to the dance on this one. We've already seen machines doing this: the $400 machines with a browser, email, and text editor. These machines won't make much inroad into the windows dominated office (though somethign else might), and don't tend to be set up with an OS that could replace windows (although you could use a bsd or maybe linux to do that).
We're looking at a bifurcation of the product "PC". We will (or at least could) see the cheaper version toss windows, while the office class machines don't.
They have a monopoly in the OS, and can successfully keep others out. That does *not* mean that people will necessarily continue to find the good useful, or that there are not substitutes for that good--think of what a monopoly on buggy-whips would be worth today.
It is entirely possible that Microsoft holds onto its monopoly in operating systems as the market for them gets smaller and smaller, while something else replaces it--it's just that what replaces it will not face windows head-on, and will probably make minimal inroads on the type of system which uses windows.
I am a lawyer, but this is not legal advice. If you need legal ad ice, contact an attorney licensed in your own jurisdiction.
They do have a serious point: as a policy issue, individual states cannot be determining natiional issues, and shouldn't generally have standing to enforce national laws.
However, the actions also violate the laws of the individual states, and they *do* have standing to enforce those.
Additionally, taken to its extreme, microsoft's argument would seriously damage the notion of precedent. The states are suing because their citizens are damaged. They do not find the proposal by other parties to the suit adequate to solve the problem, and like any other plaintiff, can stay out of an inadequate settlement entered by the other plaintiffs. If they *do* prevail in showing a stronger remedy is proper for themselves, then the judge has the power to apply it nationwide.
Microsoft has a point, and a reasonable argument--it's just not as strong as the arguments against it.
. . . Without this kind of theft (no, it *doesn't* belong in quotes), we could choose between larger/longer benefits, or lower taxes (higher wages).
But this guy is more important than the rest of us, so . ..
The disgraceful behavior by the government here isn't demanding the stolen money back, or the penalties for not responding to proper inquiries ab out the theft, but that there was no criminal prosecution . ..
Yes, so they say. This is AMD, though. They told us the K6 could do SMP, which it technicly could. They *eventually* popped out dual K7's (and we're taking another round at ordering mine today).
I believe the hammer will ship. I'll believe in SMP hammer when a vendor demonstrates one . ..
>If, for whatever reason a court of law decides >the GPL is invalid in a particular case, then you >lose any right to distribute derivative >works.
I am an attorney, but this is not legal advice. If you need legal advice, contact an attorney licesed in your jurisdiction.
This is *far* from clear, though possible. I assumes that part of the GPL is stricken, the rest upheld, and no other defenses prevail.
Other possible outcomes: *finding other terms to the license to replace the stricken terms (reformation) *finding that the failed licensing placed it in the public domain (unlikely without odd facts) *finding that the copyright holder is estopped
While I believe, in the general case, that the most likely result flowing from a purported violation is that the "copier" has no rights, the other outcomes are possible, at least with the right facts. Of them, I would hazard a guess that reformation would be the most likely to arise.
>And how many children's lives were saved by airbags?
That wouldn't have been saved under a sane law? None. Zero. Zilch.
The industry *knows* how to detect passenger wait and adjust airbag response accordingly. They *want* to do this. They're not allowed to.
Airbags detonate with force calculated for an adult mail who didn't use his belt. The result is that *everyone* else is less safe than they would be under a sane system.
Dirtside seems to have entirely missed the point about social conventions establishing consent, and is focused on a very tiny set of cases that might possibly be difficult to classify.
Substantially all of what we call spam is, without dispute, mass-mailed from harvested lists. There is *no* good faith argument for these in any of the cases dirtside brings up, and as I mentioned, the measures taken to bypass filters show that these messages are knowingly nonconsensual.
If we made every case of "we have a past relationship (other thaqn the mere order of merchandise from a retail establishment)" an absolute exception/defense, people would still average less than one spam a year--seriously, folks, how many of you have ever, even once, received a real business proposal from someone with whom you weren't already doing businsess by email?
The trespass would occur when the interference with the property occurred. Legitimate email is that which had explicit or implicit permission to make the physical contact: your family (except maybe *those* inlaws:), friends, people responding to a post you made on usenet, and so forth. You have *agreed* to let those people use your property (implicitly in the usenet case).
Spam had no permission, explicit or implicit, to use your property. Furthermore, email customs dating back over 20 years make it clear that permission is denied. The forging of headers and such also show an actual awareness that there is no "social" permission for this type of contact.
A better analogy would be that you allow your friends on your property, and then ask to have arrested someone who came on to your property to let his doberman "decorate" . ..
Similarly, in most neighborhoods, it is accepted that children will run into an unfenced yard to retrieve a stray toy, but this doesn't suggest that you have permission to follow the identical path to walk your dog or park your trailer.
Somewhere there's a fruzzy line involving implied consent. I don't have references/citations to hand out (and the questions you're asking will be influenced by local ordinances.).
If it interferes or tampers with property, it's probably trespass. I've had brand new (that morning) wipers damaged by the insertion of flyers (fliers? I don't think I've ever typed that word before . ..). If it causes damage, it's almost surely a trespass.
Social convention could imply consent, as in the yellow stickies from UPS--they do no damage, and society is better served with their use. OTOH, if you had a sign up prohibiting posting stickies on your door, it would probably be a trespass--though against real property (the house), not a chattel. (please excuse the occasional ss; I can't type today).
As a first approach, look to potential for harm, consent, and whether society is better off assuming consent.
>First, I'm sure you meant to say "I'll take the movie I consider to be better..."
Perhaps, but that would be a pity--given that his version was correct:)
>Second, you haven't seen the Original Theatrical >Release since it came out some twenty years ago.
Neither have I, but . .. >Are you sure you remember it all that well?
Ahh, swell. Now I'm admitting to remembering things that occurred before the average slashdot reader was born . ..
ANyway, I also haven't seen a video of it since the director's cut first came out--what, 10 years ago?
My preferred reading is dystopian science fiction. At times I (briefly and not seriously) regret the fall of the Evil Empire and the recovery of western culture in the U.S., if only because it put an end to what Pournelle wrote so well in the 70's [but I realize the futility of regretting the win because we miss the struggle.].
I'm one of those fanatics that turns the chromo controls down to eliminate color on colorized movis [Ok, so I once did this on a movie that turned out to have won an award for its use of color, because I thought it *looked* colorized . . . ]
With the voiceovers, this movie was a far better dystopian work. Maybe something *could* have effectively replaced them, but the tone was *far* too light without them.
hawk
The mind does funny
things sometimes... given those are your real memories.
I saw the original release in the theater, and then rented the director'scut years later.
It lost a *lot* of the flavor. Bizarrely, the later cut didn't come across as dark as the original; even having read the book, the voiceover set the tone--somethings are justplain better (and more clearly) done with words than images . ..
>There was this thing called a "Revolution" a few >hundred years ago, which means the American >colonies threw off Brittish rule and formed a new >government,
so far, so good . ..
>with new laws and such.
[insert rude buzzer sound here]
The Constitution *explicityly* acknowledges the Common Law. Common Law rullings until some vaguely defined point in the late eighteenth century are quite valid in the U.S., unless overruled/superceded/obsolete/etc.
>We don't worship a queen,
Worship?:)
We bow our knees to no king--but we're *very* clear which king we're not bowing to.. .
I'll leave 98SE for the stuff the kids really need it for for the moment. I really don't want to listen to the computer murmuring "X P . . . pho-o-one . . . ho-o-mmme":(
I am an attorney, this is not legal advice. If you need legal advice, contact an attorney licensed in your juridiction.
I've been suggesting this approach for years (but wihout the bungled reporting). When the spam enters your system, it exerts physical dominion over your chattels (the bits, the head mechanism, draws additional power, etc.). Trespass clearly applies, just as when some dolt lifts you windshield wiper to insert an ad.
The reporting is a bit mish-mashed, though: Common Law comes from the courts, yet it reports trespass as coming from a particular king (and it would have to have been a king *and* parliament).
I've always assumed trespass to chattels to be Common Law, not a statute, but I'm not willing to spend a half a day looking it up . . . my guess is that the seminal cases in the courts date to his reign, and possibly were decided by the high court known as "the King's Bench," which followed him about England hearing cases & appeals . ..
Slashdot Mirror
then again, it beat the 100k transfer over cat net--transmission easy, but reception is tough--sometimes "Meow" and "WROWRR" are hard to distinguish . .
hawk, still not correcting this stack of papers
Don't be silly. A criterium is where you keep your criters--dogs, turtles, whatever, just like you use your aquarium to, ahh, never mind . .
I once used "criterium" on a paper for a Jesuit fluent in Greek. I'll never do *that* again . . . (How fluent you ask? He didn't like the translation of Plato, and did a page himself to show us what the flavor of the writing should be . .
hawk
Newbies. We were *grateful* to be able to run stacks of cards through the reader, after wlaking 47 miles through the snow, each way.
That was a *huge* improvement over popping the lid to look at core planes, then memorizing the pattern, which we'd go home and enter on rocker switches (except for the rich kids; they're families had toggle switches!)
hawk
:) (i think)
hawk
"Everyone down on the floor! NOW! I have an ipod, and I'm not afraid to use it. I got office in here, and I can fit you, too."
At this point, though, it all falls apart, as OfficeXP causes the Ipod to start murmuring,
"X P . . . . pho-o-o-ne . . . ho-ome" and everone ROFL (afterall,they were already OF . . )
hawk
ESR is actually kind of late to the dance on this one. We've already seen machines doing this: the $400 machines with a browser, email, and text editor. These machines won't make much inroad into the windows dominated office (though somethign else might), and don't tend to be set up with an OS that could replace windows (although you could use a bsd or maybe linux to do that).
We're looking at a bifurcation of the product "PC". We will (or at least could) see the cheaper version toss windows, while the office class machines don't.
hawk
It is entirely possible that Microsoft holds onto its monopoly in operating systems as the market for them gets smaller and smaller, while something else replaces it--it's just that what replaces it will not face windows head-on, and will probably make minimal inroads on the type of system which uses windows.
hawk
They do have a serious point: as a policy issue, individual states cannot be determining natiional issues, and shouldn't generally have standing to enforce national laws.
However, the actions also violate the laws of the individual states, and they *do* have standing to enforce those.
Additionally, taken to its extreme, microsoft's argument would seriously damage the notion of precedent. The states are suing because their citizens are damaged. They do not find the proposal by other parties to the suit adequate to solve the problem, and like any other plaintiff, can stay out of an inadequate settlement entered by the other plaintiffs. If they *do* prevail in showing a stronger remedy is proper for themselves, then the judge has the power to apply it nationwide.
Microsoft has a point, and a reasonable argument--it's just not as strong as the arguments against it.
hawk, esq.
But this guy is more important than the rest of us, so . .
The disgraceful behavior by the government here isn't demanding the stolen money back, or the penalties for not responding to proper inquiries ab out the theft, but that there was no criminal prosecution . .
hawk
I believe the hammer will ship. I'll believe in SMP hammer when a vendor demonstrates one . .
besides, it was a tongue-in-cheek wisecrack.
hawk
yeah, right. Just like the K-6
sure, our processor supports it. No, noone ever made a chip set, though . .
hawk
yes, but . .
>If, for whatever reason a court of law decides
>the GPL is invalid in a particular case, then you
>lose any right to distribute derivative
>works.
I am an attorney, but this is not legal advice. If you need legal advice, contact an attorney licesed in your jurisdiction.
This is *far* from clear, though possible. I assumes that part of the GPL is stricken, the rest upheld, and no other defenses prevail.
Other possible outcomes:
*finding other terms to the license to replace the stricken terms (reformation)
*finding that the failed licensing placed it in the public domain (unlikely without odd facts)
*finding that the copyright holder is estopped
While I believe, in the general case, that the most likely result flowing from a purported violation is that the "copier" has no rights, the other outcomes are possible, at least with the right facts. Of them, I would hazard a guess that reformation would be the most likely to arise.
hawk, esq
That wouldn't have been saved under a sane law? None. Zero. Zilch.
The industry *knows* how to detect passenger wait and adjust airbag response accordingly. They *want* to do this. They're not allowed to.
Airbags detonate with force calculated for an adult mail who didn't use his belt. The result is that *everyone* else is less safe than they would be under a sane system.
hawk
Dirtside seems to have entirely missed the point about social conventions establishing consent, and is focused on a very tiny set of cases that might possibly be difficult to classify.
Substantially all of what we call spam is, without dispute, mass-mailed from harvested lists. There is *no* good faith argument for these in any of the cases dirtside brings up, and as I mentioned, the measures taken to bypass filters show that these messages are knowingly nonconsensual.
If we made every case of "we have a past relationship (other thaqn the mere order of merchandise from a retail establishment)" an absolute exception/defense, people would still average less than one spam a year--seriously, folks, how many of you have ever, even once, received a real business proposal from someone with whom you weren't already doing businsess by email?
hawk, esq.
Spam had no permission, explicit or implicit, to use your property. Furthermore, email customs dating back over 20 years make it clear that permission is denied. The forging of headers and such also show an actual awareness that there is no "social" permission for this type of contact.
A better analogy would be that you allow your friends on your property, and then ask to have arrested someone who came on to your property to let his doberman "decorate" . .
Similarly, in most neighborhoods, it is accepted that children will run into an unfenced yard to retrieve a stray toy, but this doesn't suggest that you have permission to follow the identical path to walk your dog or park your trailer.
hawk, esq.
If it interferes or tampers with property, it's probably trespass. I've had brand new (that morning) wipers damaged by the insertion of flyers (fliers? I don't think I've ever typed that word before . .
Social convention could imply consent, as in the yellow stickies from UPS--they do no damage, and society is better served with their use. OTOH, if you had a sign up prohibiting posting stickies on your door, it would probably be a trespass--though against real property (the house), not a chattel. (please excuse the occasional ss; I can't type today).
As a first approach, look to potential for harm, consent, and whether society is better off assuming consent.
hawk, esq.
Perhaps, but that would be a pity--given that his version was correct
>Second, you haven't seen the Original Theatrical
>Release since it came out some twenty years ago.
Neither have I, but . .
>Are you sure you remember it all that well?
Ahh, swell. Now I'm admitting to remembering things that occurred before the average slashdot reader was born . .
ANyway, I also haven't seen a video of it since the director's cut first came out--what, 10 years ago?
My preferred reading is dystopian science fiction. At times I (briefly and not seriously) regret the fall of the Evil Empire and the recovery of western culture in the U.S., if only because it put an end to what Pournelle wrote so well in the 70's [but I realize the futility of regretting the win because we miss the struggle.].
I'm one of those fanatics that turns the chromo controls down to eliminate color on colorized movis [Ok, so I once did this on a movie that turned out to have won an award for its use of color, because I thought it *looked* colorized . . . ]
With the voiceovers, this movie was a far better dystopian work. Maybe something *could* have effectively replaced them, but the tone was *far* too light without them.
hawk
The mind does funny
things sometimes... given those are your real memories.
It lost a *lot* of the flavor. Bizarrely, the later cut didn't come across as dark as the original; even having read the book, the voiceover set the tone--somethings are justplain better (and more clearly) done with words than images . .
hawk
>hundred years ago, which means the American >colonies threw off Brittish rule and formed a new
>government,
so far, so good . .
>with new laws and such.
[insert rude buzzer sound here]
The Constitution *explicityly* acknowledges the Common Law. Common Law rullings until some vaguely defined point in the late eighteenth century are quite valid in the U.S., unless overruled/superceded/obsolete/etc.
>We don't worship a queen,
Worship?
We bow our knees to no king--but we're *very* clear which king we're not bowing to
hawk
OK, there's a downside; you end up with XP . .
I'll leave 98SE for the stuff the kids really need it for for the moment. I really don't want to listen to the computer murmuring "X P . . . pho-o-one . . . ho-o-mmme"
hawk
I've been suggesting this approach for years (but wihout the bungled reporting). When the spam enters your system, it exerts physical dominion over your chattels (the bits, the head mechanism, draws additional power, etc.). Trespass clearly applies, just as when some dolt lifts you windshield wiper to insert an ad.
The reporting is a bit mish-mashed, though: Common Law comes from the courts, yet it reports trespass as coming from a particular king (and it would have to have been a king *and* parliament).
I've always assumed trespass to chattels to be Common Law, not a statute, but I'm not willing to spend a half a day looking it up . . . my guess is that the seminal cases in the courts date to his reign, and possibly were decided by the high court known as "the King's Bench," which followed him about England hearing cases & appeals . .
hawk, esq.
Quite obviously, you haven't looked at your credit report recently . .
:)
hawk
>and come back (30 days). Sum: 120 days.
Is it any surprise these folks keep running into planets?
:)
hawk
:)
hawk
:)
hawk