I stop and tell a tale on the first day of class about a law school friend's wedding. THis person's watch regularly went off in class, to the dismay of, well, everyone.
At his wedding, his wife ordered the watch off, and hannded to me with instructions to grind it under my boot heel if it made a peep. This, I note, would have made me a hero at the school when we returned.
ALas, the watch remained silent. SO I'm still waiting for my chance.
Additionally, I"m checking with the administration on my new policy of summary confiscation or ejection (permanently) from my classroom.
>If you really need to both shave and drive but >can't find time for both, why not just wake up 5 >minutes earlier?
WOuldn't growing a beard be a more reasonable solution? Running a piece of sharp metal across your throat every morning before you're fully awake is hardly a rational act . . .
OK, technically you're right. The real problem is that teh technology in the article is redundant with the existing low-tech gunpowder solutions.
If letting it ring *at all* in a restaurant or theater is part of the "intended use" of a cell phone, then possession of one of these devices should be a crime.
OK, maybe something less lethal than a glock should be used to aprehend the perpetrator, but . . .
I want these things *jammed* in public places. Restaraunts should have wheeled vats of battery acid, and waiters should seize ringing cellphones and drop them in--the rest of the patrons will cheer loudly . . .
>Shouldn't this be: (IE/Win32)keep pushing back, >you don't deserver better?:)
I initially was moderating this as funny, then I realized that this was already implemented in Netscape 3, and is part of the reason I still use it.
In the Mac & Unix versions, alt- moves you through the history--alt-2 goes to the prior page, alt-9 goes back 8 pages, etc. And if you've only gone back, alt-1 takes you as far as you go.
For some reason, this wasn't in the darkside version, and has been removed from later versions of netscape.
[the other reason is the window-by-window setting of autoload images, rather than as a universial preference]
>If I try to load a file in program X, it's >called "happy/sad: a poem"; if I try to load the >same file in program Y, it's called "happy:sad/ >a poem".
The solution, of course,is not to write such puerile poetry, thereby not creating the file in the first place:)
>Why keep MacOS X backwards compatible? It's >killing efficiency:
It's not quite backwards compatible; certainly not in the was that windows and system 7 were. The "compatibility stuff" isn't generally around or loaded; it's done by an artificial environment.
*Darwin* already runs on x86. The mac interface is another story.
Apple is a hardware manufacturor. You'll see MacOS/X running on x86 the same day Apple demonstrates an x86 Mac--and even then, they're unlikely to offer it for non-Apple machines.
My webpage is still on my former boss's machine at ISU. I had a one-year visiting position last year, so it made more sense to leave it all there while still on the market (that, and ISU's connection is *far* more stable/reliable than UNI' s).
Sometime in the fall I'll probably move it here, but that probably won't happen unitl I have new content for my classes on my as yet unordered new machine.
Actually, even if you don't *say* so, but just *act* that way, the same thing happens.
*However*, whether by your disclaimer or your action, you're going to have trouble including other GPL code once you do this.
I don't agree with rms on much of anything, but, from a legal standpoint, it is *quite* usefull to have a standardized way of doing this. The only way out of this mess that I see is for the possiblity of such a clause to be included is placed in future versions of the GPL--which effectively places that clause in all GPL software, which will create new religious wars, and a fork of the GPL:)
Currently, there are programs that have done the same thing--I wrote the LyX disclaimer, another is mentioned above, still others do it by actions. It is fare from clear that these projects can currently share code; if they all used the same disclaimer (whether mine or rms'), they could.
>There are very few OSS projects(maybe with the >exception of KLyx) that really revolutionize >their market segment.
Klyx??? Klyx was a one-off port of a badly out of date version of lyx. It allowed multiple windows to be open at once, and cut and paste between them, but twas otherwise *very* far behind. Unless things have changed recently, there is *no* plan for another version of klyx prior to the toolkit independence of lyx (though there was initially a plan to eventually merge the two).
however, if you s/klyx/lyx/ , I'll agree with you. I'll also point out that lyx solved the QGPL license problem:)
I am a lawyer, but this isn't legal advice. If you need legal advice, see an appropriately licensed lawyer.
>>There is nothing illegal about writing GPLed >>code which uses the Qt API and libraries.
>Writing a derived work from GPLed and QPLed >source is not the problem or illegal. The >question is wheter distributing a derived work >based on a GPLed application and a QPLed library >is.
No, there's a question even before that--to which the answer is that "KDE is not GPL software."
It may or may not be true that KDE has violated the GPL license of other software by including it within KDE. I don't know (and am not even interested, for that matter:)
However, it is *not legally possible* for the authors of software to violate their own license. The general claim that "Program XXX violates the GPL" is generally nonsense--a program may violate other licenses that provide material, but the GPL is not some abstract; either it provides the terms for that piece of code, or it does not.
In the case of KDE and several otehr purportedly GPL projects, it does not. These are a class of projects which put out code, call it GPL, but at the same time invite, implicitly or explicitly, people to modify and redistribute--in spite of relying upon (typically) libraries which are not subject to annexation by GPL software.
The action (publication) is inconsistant with the words (GPL), and the law resolves the conflict: the actions govern, and the contract/license is "reformed" in accordance. The software is not GPL, but Quasi-GPL (QGPL).
This doesn't necessarily solve the problem, though. For example, I mentioned above the possibility that GPL software was included in the QGPL software; this could be a problem (offhand, I don't see how it couldn't be). In fact, the various QGPL licenses may be mutually incompatible, depending upon which terms of the GPL must be tossed for each.
Bottom line: release software with an invitation to develop and distribute, proclaiming "GPL" from the treetops, but link to a non-annexable libray, and you land in the land of QGPL, not GPL.
Ugly? Yes. But that's life:)
hawk, esq.
The article seems to cleam that the distribution is legal, but that does not make it true.
I am a lawyer, but this is not legal advice. If you need legal advice, contact an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.
There are a number of factors at play here. The bottom line will be that, for the most part this data cannot be sold.
Forming a contract is *very* easy. Put up a message that says, "give me this information, and I promise not to reveal it," and you have an offer. Anyone providing the information accepts the contract, and the recipient is contractually bound not to reveal it. Selling it would be a breach.
Given a breach, the consumers would be entitled to "specific performance," a court order enforcing the terms of the contract.
But then comes bankruptcy, which can do all kinds of strange things to contracts, setting aside large parts of the contract, which *might* allow a sale--but this introduces a new catch, namely that every single person who provided a name becomes a creditor with rights in the bankruptcy.
There's a couple of ways that this could play out. It certainly isn't crystal clear that privacy wins, but my money is on privacy. Given that the expectation of continued privacy covered the gathering of the information, the potential sale of that information could not have been looked upon as an asset by the other creditors. THere's a couple of ways to reach this, the simplest being the contract.
Sale of the *entire* company might be a different matter. If thugs.com branches out from lockpicks to handgus, would they have been allowed to use the information they gathered to promote their new product line? If so, the entire company can probably be sold, and the new parent company can likely use the information in a similar manner. If not, the new parent company would be similarly barred from the information.
WHere can I find an emulator? I have a used cartridge of caveman games in my trunk, but never owned a nintendo. The friend I meeant for ruined it before I could deliver it:(
Hmm, then I need to read the rom in the cartridge, too . . .
You don't have to *do* or *figure out* three possible things before breakfast; merely believe three of them. However, if you believe you did the two you mention, you're halfway there. Now just believe that the common housecat could be the result of an evolutionary process, and you're there:)
I am a layyer, but this isn't legal advice. See an attorney licensed in your jurisdiciton if you need legal advice. Send me a better keyboard if you're having trouble reading my typing:)
Even in my office, I had trouble getting people to read the document. Yes, I was their lawyer, and no, I wasn't tryring to trick them. But, damnit, when someone's signing under penalty of perjury that they've read the document before signing, I expect them to read it -- *especially* when I'm notarizing their oath.
Nonetheless, again and again, people tried to just sign it, and were surprised that I wouldn't let them hand it back to me without actually reading it . . .
I had this problem even though I was conscientious about it. For a clerk who just has to initial it it will be a lot worse.. . .
There's also the problem of an "adhesion contract." If you hand someone the contract and tell them what it says rather than making them read it, the contract is on the terms you tell them, not the written contract. A few car rental companies have been burned badly this way.
of course, they can't use *that*, because it would cause confusion with a certain operating system.
hawk, who asked a friend's wife for chalk before booting their darkside computer. She brought it, and I drew a pentium around their computer before booting windows . . .
And therein is the problem: 80586 is an "even" number. See, they'd have been safe if they'd integrated the x86 processors into the x87 coprocessors instead of hte othe rway around . . .
Slashdot Mirror
I stop and tell a tale on the first day of class about a law school friend's wedding. THis person's watch regularly went off in class, to the dismay of, well, everyone.
At his wedding, his wife ordered the watch off, and hannded to me with instructions to grind it under my boot heel if it made a peep. This, I note, would have made me a hero at the school when we returned.
ALas, the watch remained silent. SO I'm still waiting for my chance.
Additionally, I"m checking with the administration on my new policy of summary confiscation or ejection (permanently) from my classroom.
Prof. Hawk
>If you really need to both shave and drive but
>can't find time for both, why not just wake up 5
>minutes earlier?
WOuldn't growing a beard be a more reasonable solution? Running a piece of sharp metal across your throat every morning before you're fully awake is hardly a rational act . . .
:)
hawk, the bearded
>And what point was that exactly?
OK, technically you're right. The real problem is that teh technology in the article is redundant with the existing low-tech gunpowder solutions.
If letting it ring *at all* in a restaurant or theater is part of the "intended use" of a cell phone, then possession of one of these devices should be a crime.
OK, maybe something less lethal than a glock should be used to aprehend the perpetrator, but . . .
I want these things *jammed* in public places. Restaraunts should have wheeled vats of battery acid, and waiters should seize ringing cellphones and drop them in--the rest of the patrons will cheer loudly . . .
>Shouldn't this be: (IE/Win32)keep pushing back, :)
>you don't deserver better?
I initially was moderating this as funny, then I realized that this was already implemented in Netscape 3, and is part of the reason I still use it.
In the Mac & Unix versions, alt- moves you through the history--alt-2 goes to the prior page, alt-9 goes back 8 pages, etc. And if you've only gone back, alt-1 takes you as far as you go.
For some reason, this wasn't in the darkside version, and has been removed from later versions of netscape.
[the other reason is the window-by-window setting of autoload images, rather than as a universial preference]
hawk
Many filenames are already obsolete:
:)
command.com
win.exe
c:\
and the list goes on
>Your eyes tend to hurt only if you have your
>refresh rate too low, or you have a cheap
>monitor.
Yes, but very vew of us can afford 300dpi monitors with a 300hz refresh rate . . .
:)
:)
Raising the important question, just what kind of cheese *do* you get from a gnu?
:)
>If I try to load a file in program X, it's
:)
:)
>called "happy/sad: a poem"; if I try to load the
>same file in program Y, it's called "happy:sad/
>a poem".
The solution, of course,is not to write such puerile poetry, thereby not creating the file in the first place
hawk, apparently a borderline troll today
>Why keep MacOS X backwards compatible? It's
>killing efficiency:
It's not quite backwards compatible; certainly not in the was that windows and system 7 were. The "compatibility stuff" isn't generally around or loaded; it's done by an artificial environment.
hawk
*Darwin* already runs on x86. The mac interface is another story.
Apple is a hardware manufacturor. You'll see MacOS/X running on x86 the same day Apple demonstrates an x86 Mac--and even then, they're unlikely to offer it for non-Apple machines.
To keep tossing stereotypes around, that would be straight hair to the waste, and crinkly ankle length skirts.
:)
>Of course, the next thing we'll see is the gnu >utilities suite recreated in UnrealScript :).
!ack! You've opened the can of worms. Now the next thing will be a demand that everyone call it GNU/Mozilla . . .
:(
>Basically, Linux people want Linux to be able to >do everything that Windows can.
:()
so far, so good. But then:
>They want it to be a robust server operating
>system. They want it to be an easy-to-use client >operating system. They want it to run everything.
So which one of these is Windows supposed to be able to do?
My webpage is still on my former boss's machine at ISU. I had a one-year visiting position last year, so it made more sense to leave it all there while still on the market (that, and ISU's connection is *far* more stable/reliable than UNI'
s).
Sometime in the fall I'll probably move it here, but that probably won't happen unitl I have new content for my classes on my as yet unordered new machine.
I am a lawyer, but this isn't legal advice, etc.
:)
Actually, even if you don't *say* so, but just *act* that way, the same thing happens.
*However*, whether by your disclaimer or your action, you're going to have trouble including other GPL code once you do this.
I don't agree with rms on much of anything, but, from a legal standpoint, it is *quite* usefull to have a standardized way of doing this. The only way out of this mess that I see is for the possiblity of such a clause to be included is placed in future versions of the GPL--which effectively places that clause in all GPL software, which will create new religious wars, and a fork of the GPL
Currently, there are programs that have done the same thing--I wrote the LyX disclaimer, another is mentioned above, still others do it by actions. It is fare from clear that these projects can currently share code; if they all used the same disclaimer (whether mine or rms'), they could.
hawk, esq.
>There are very few OSS projects(maybe with the
:)
>exception of KLyx) that really revolutionize
>their market segment.
Klyx??? Klyx was a one-off port of a badly out of date version of lyx. It allowed multiple windows to be open at once, and cut and paste between them, but twas otherwise *very* far behind. Unless things have changed recently, there is *no* plan for another version of klyx prior to the toolkit independence of lyx (though there was initially a plan to eventually merge the two).
however, if you s/klyx/lyx/ , I'll agree with you. I'll also point out that lyx solved the QGPL license problem
I am a lawyer, but this isn't legal advice. If you need legal advice, see an appropriately licensed lawyer.
:)
:)
>>There is nothing illegal about writing GPLed
>>code which uses the Qt API and libraries.
>Writing a derived work from GPLed and QPLed
>source is not the problem or illegal. The
>question is wheter distributing a derived work
>based on a GPLed application and a QPLed library
>is.
No, there's a question even before that--to which the answer is that "KDE is not GPL software."
It may or may not be true that KDE has violated the GPL license of other software by including it within KDE. I don't know (and am not even interested, for that matter
However, it is *not legally possible* for the authors of software to violate their own license. The general claim that "Program XXX violates the GPL" is generally nonsense--a program may violate other licenses that provide material, but the GPL is not some abstract; either it provides the terms for that piece of code, or it does not.
In the case of KDE and several otehr purportedly GPL projects, it does not. These are a class of projects which put out code, call it GPL, but at the same time invite, implicitly or explicitly, people to modify and redistribute--in spite of relying upon (typically) libraries which are not subject to annexation by GPL software.
The action (publication) is inconsistant with the words (GPL), and the law resolves the conflict: the actions govern, and the contract/license is "reformed" in accordance. The software is not GPL, but Quasi-GPL (QGPL).
This doesn't necessarily solve the problem, though. For example, I mentioned above the possibility that GPL software was included in the QGPL software; this could be a problem (offhand, I don't see how it couldn't be). In fact, the various QGPL licenses may be mutually incompatible, depending upon which terms of the GPL must be tossed for each.
Bottom line: release software with an invitation to develop and distribute, proclaiming "GPL" from the treetops, but link to a non-annexable libray, and you land in the land of QGPL, not GPL.
Ugly? Yes. But that's life
hawk, esq.
The article seems to cleam that the distribution is legal, but that does not make it true.
I am a lawyer, but this is not legal advice. If you need legal advice, contact an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.
There are a number of factors at play here. The bottom line will be that, for the most part this data cannot be sold.
Forming a contract is *very* easy. Put up a message that says, "give me this information, and I promise not to reveal it," and you have an offer. Anyone providing the information accepts the contract, and the recipient is contractually bound not to reveal it. Selling it would be a breach.
Given a breach, the consumers would be entitled to "specific performance," a court order enforcing the terms of the contract.
But then comes bankruptcy, which can do all kinds of strange things to contracts, setting aside large parts of the contract, which *might* allow a sale--but this introduces a new catch, namely that every single person who provided a name becomes a creditor with rights in the bankruptcy.
There's a couple of ways that this could play out. It certainly isn't crystal clear that privacy wins, but my money is on privacy. Given that the expectation of continued privacy covered the gathering of the information, the potential sale of that information could not have been looked upon as an asset by the other creditors. THere's a couple of ways to reach this, the simplest being the contract.
Sale of the *entire* company might be a different matter. If thugs.com branches out from lockpicks to handgus, would they have been allowed to use the information they gathered to promote their new product line? If so, the entire company can probably be sold, and the new parent company can likely use the information in a similar manner. If not, the new parent company would be similarly barred from the information.
hawk, esq.
Don't read my postings in these threads until you send me $1 :)
hawk, esq.
WHere can I find an emulator? I have a used cartridge of caveman games in my trunk, but never owned a nintendo. The friend I meeant for ruined it before I could deliver it :(
Hmm, then I need to read the rom in the cartridge, too . . .
You don't have to *do* or *figure out* three possible things before breakfast; merely believe three of them. However, if you believe you did the two you mention, you're halfway there. Now just believe that the common housecat could be the result of an evolutionary process, and you're there :)
hawk
I am a layyer, but this isn't legal advice. See an attorney licensed in your jurisdiciton if you need legal advice. Send me a better keyboard if you're having trouble reading my typing :)
Even in my office, I had trouble getting people to read the document. Yes, I was their lawyer, and no, I wasn't tryring to trick them. But, damnit, when someone's signing under penalty of perjury that they've read the document before signing, I expect them to read it -- *especially* when I'm notarizing their oath.
Nonetheless, again and again, people tried to just sign it, and were surprised that I wouldn't let them hand it back to me without actually reading it . . .
I had this problem even though I was conscientious about it. For a clerk who just has to initial it it will be a lot worse.. . .
There's also the problem of an "adhesion contract." If you hand someone the contract and tell them what it says rather than making them read it, the contract is on the terms you tell them, not the written contract. A few car rental companies have been burned badly this way.
hawk, esq.
>It's a ZDNet article. It's not News for Nerds:
:)
>it's News for Dummies.
Either that, or it's an editorial comment on the nature of Windows . . .
of course, they can't use *that*, because it would cause confusion with a certain operating system.
hawk, who asked a friend's wife for chalk before booting their darkside computer. She brought it, and I drew a pentium around their computer before booting windows . . .
And therein is the problem: 80586 is an "even" number. See, they'd have been safe if they'd integrated the x86 processors into the x87 coprocessors instead of hte othe rway around . . .