Lotus & Wordperfect? IIRC, the backlash started on the Mac side of things. It had been brewing a while, and then Macworld urged its readers to flatly boycott any copy protected software, and "key disk" software. It spread rapidly, and the manufacturors backed down in a matter of months.
It seems to me that it was about three years ago that IBM first announced this, though there was no linux angle at the time.
Assuming that these are the same boards, or descendants of them, there is a *very* simple explanation as to why IBM is doing this. It's *not* the system's division that produced and demonstrated the original boards, but the CPU folks. It was nothing more (or less) than a way to sell CPU's. Fortuneately, I didn't hold out for one, as I needed the new machine for my (now complete) dissertation . . .
Yes, but then someone slapped the GPL on it, and they had to share:)
Use the novella, not the novel
on
Ender's Shadow
·
· Score: 2
I found the original novella to be much better, and to the point. It's not the first case where the oauthor should have left well enough alone (Though, unlike "Flowers for Algernon," he didn't utterly destroy the original work).
Re:Lawyer: Repeat after me: "It's not a law."
on
UCITA is passed
·
· Score: 2
It's just court judgments, not laws, and there's even exceptions to court judgments. For example, many states may not accepet *any* judgment for a gambling debt, as it violates public policy (Nevada only began allowing judgments on casino markers about 10 years ago).
The repo order you mention is only valid within the court's jurisdiction, which stops at the county or state line.
Also, note that the act of removal occurs within Nevada, not Washington. If it's hunting season for dancing paperclips in Iowa, but not in Missouri, and I shoot from within Iowa to kill one in Missouri, I've committed a crime in missouri. My actions have reached into missouri, and subjected me to missouri jurisdiction.
hawk,esq.
Lawyer: Repeat after me: "It's not a law."
on
UCITA is passed
·
· Score: 2
Read carefully. Uniform acts are *not* laws. The committee has *no* power to enact laws. None. Zero. Ever.
What it does is suggest laws so that they'll be the same or nearly the same in various states. The ones that make sense tend to get accepted. The ones that don't get laughed at. This will end up in the latter category.
The only two uniform acts that I can think of that have been adopted by all the states are article 2 of the U.C.C. (sales), and the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act. Others have been adopted by a handful or most, and I believe that some have been adopted by none. I'd guess that this will end in the last group.
States have *no* obligation to pass this, and could choose bits, pieces, or completely rewrite it if it were proposed. I can't speak for other states, but Nevada is more likely to criminalize the newly "permitted" acts than to allow them. Your states results may vary, depending upon whether you elect legislators who support liberty, or those who support big government.
And as a passing thought, if Nevada criminalizes the remote shutoff of software, sending a termination order electronically into Nevada would lead directly to issues of federal wire fraud and racketeering . . .
I have a devil of a time finding the plain, simple, stuff that is the base of a solid lego collection. Of the three cubic feet or so of lego from my childhood (still with my parents), the majority is plain, simple, blocks.
The basic "build what you want" sets (remember the semi-opaque plastic trays?) seem to be long gone, as well as the sets of specialty parts (axles, bevelled roof pieces, etc.). When the pieces exist, they're part of a larger set to build something specific. For that matter, almost everything available now is a set to build somehting specific, with specialized pieces. And where are the blue train tracks?
So far, I'm having better luck with Megablocks (?)--and my daughters seem to prefer their pastel colors, too.
Never mind the fancy doo-dads. Sell me about 20 lbs of 2x4 blocks, 2 lbs of 4x4, and about 5 lbs of miscellaneous other blocks. THen I'll be happy to add the odds & ends.
>Actually, Texas was independent for about 10 >years befor it joined the US.
So was California by the time Mexico "sold" it. THe "Bear Flaggers" had formed the California Republic, and planneed to use the Texas model.
>But, while we're talking about returning land, >what about all the land that the spanish took >from the aztecs and incas? What about all the >land taken from the other indians by the british >and french?
Mmm, and the land taken from the native north americans, let's give that back. Oops, can't do that, the "American Indians" killed them all off a great many centuries ago . . .
>The very first thing I noticed is that it's much, >much more difficult for a layman to read and >understand than the GNU GPL is.
Believe me, the GPL isn't easy for lawyers, either. For that matter, I'm not yet convinced (as a laywer) that it does what it thinks it does, or says it does, or that it is claimed it does; I'm not sure how much these intersect, either.
>Now, everyone reading Slashdot knows how much >controversy, confusion and debate the GPL has >spawned -- imagine how much worse it would be if >the GPL had been written in this incomprehensible >style.
Had the GPL been written in standard legalese, we wouldn't have these problems . . .
The kilt isn't unknown in ireland, just far less common. Come to think of it, there's a couple of british military units that still use them in dress uniforms.
>As I beleive one of your "founding fathers" once >said (and I think I'm paraphrasing)"Those >who would give up liberty for security deserve >niether."
Benjamin Franklin. (Who might also make a more literal claim to being "Father of our country" [hmm, and parts of france, too:) ] than Washington.)
yes, but i have to leave that unselected for all windows, so that if i want images in one window, and not others, i have to load them every time i load a page. I should be able to set the auto-load window by window
>IIRC, Osborne produced *the* "portable" computer, >there really wasn't any serious competition to >them
Try Kaypro. It stacke the drives on one side rather than one on each side of the screen, allowing a 9" (?) monitor that displayed a full 80 columns at a time rather than Osborne's 5" with 52(?) columns that scrolled with the cursor to cover 80 columns. ANd it's been a few years, but it seems to me that they had the same price.
Using them damns your immortal soul, to a hell in which you are required to use all microsoft products, even bob, enhanced with the paper clip. Your descendants are cursed unto the seventh generation, and your daughters will become first prostitutes, and then meter-maids. Your sons, after siring the next generation, will go to switzerland for removal of optional factory equipment and join your daughters when they return. You will become obsessed with Roseanne Barr, and search the net for porn sites featuring her. You are a bad person, and your mother will deny you.
There, that's more like it. I don't bother to block ads. I do bother to block anything that blinks.
Until I find time to patch lynx so that I can launch extra instances from links, I'm not giving up netscape 3. 4.x crash far to often, and don't have features I use, such as alt to go back, and the moronic move of autoloading of images into preferences rather than a per-page option.
But then, I have no use for graphic, java, and the like, anyway. Just give me the information.
Hmm, and I decided that I didn't want any more of those MBA courses even without knowing this:)
OK, I'll make up for it by tossing out one that I personally verified, having been in the car to take her to appointments: my grandmother was treated for her terminal cancer by a a specialist--named posthumous.
But on the nova UL--It seems to me that versions of that that I've seen in print specified the name the Nova was changed to, and I thought I'd found it as a chevy model in reference models. Did the name eventually get changed for some other reason?
>Look at Digitals compilers under Digital Unix. >Produces much faster code than \1. But does >that matter one bit for the \1 community? No. >Didn't think so.
Speak for yourself. I work daily from my FreeBSD box to my boss's linux box running a commercial fortran compiler (g77, etc., don't even play in the same league). We have absoft fortan, but it would have been digital if it were available.
We were even willing to pay the extra cost for the alpha box, but the costs of DU itself, both for purchase and the risk of getting sucked into the university system and fee'd to death there, mean the x86/linux/absoft solution.
A year an a half later, I've hit the price. I never thought I'd see the day I *needed* a 64 bit operating system, but now I do: I need an array with more thatn 2^32 bits, and more than 2^32 bytes would be nice, too. Absoft uses Cray code that bit addresses, leaving the size limit on an array of derived type at about.25G.
I am a lawyer, but this is not legal advice. See a lawyer in your own jurisdiction if you need some.
This is *ancient* contract law in the english speaking world. The particular overrides the general; the addendum overrides the boilerplate.
Put in a preface, suffix, or extra file, and anything in it that contradicts the GPL overrides those terms, and the rest of the GPL remains intact.
Or, claim to release it under the GPL, but take actions inconsistant with the GPL, such as having dependencies upon GPL-non-assimilable code, and encourage people to distribute binaries. Your actions then override the GPL and modify it, for a quasi-GPL (QGPL?) license. THere are tons of those out there, many calling themselves GPL when they're not, and they don't even know it . . .
This is not legal advice. I probably don't have a license in your jurisdiction. If you need advice on this matter, see a lawyer who does.
Mr. Geist has *really* got to go back and study legal history. In particular, he needs to study the history of the Common Law (English speaking); his response is inconsistant with it.
If you boil the whole thing down to its essence, the judge has ruled that custom is enforcable. Or, more precisely, that the law is not going to overturn custom on its own. The origin of the Common Law is judges *uncovering* the law, not making it. They did so by examining custom, and precedent became important because it showed that another judge had already found the custom. The dominance of the legislature in issueing law is (in the English speaking world) a twentieth century phenomenon.
ANother issue that needs to be addressed here is that of government involvement. This type of ruling is *exactly* the kind needed to keep government out of the picture. This is not legislation, or fiat, but a determination of property rights. There is a huge difference between the government determining what can or cannot be communicated, and the courts awarding or refusing to award damages for breach of property rights.
While one solution to *determining* those rights would be for a legislature to decide, the better approach is probably to rely on custom, as this judge did.
This is not to say that there is no need for legislation to allow the private solutions. In particular, either legislation or changes in court rules need to address "joinder" and "venue."
Joinder determines the manner in which claims can be combined, while venue determines *where* they can be brought. In particular, I see value in allowing an ISP, as part of its service contract, to be allowed to act simultaneously on the claims of all its spammed subscribers. That is, if 1000 customers receive the same spam, it should be legally possible for the ISP to enter court for the whole lot at the same time; its not practical for each individual to do so.
Similarly, a well defined notion of which court the matter should be filed in would be useful, though not critical: the home jurisdiction of the spammer already has "in personam" jurisdiction, while the victim's jurisdiction has jurisdiction due to the contact made by deliberately sending the message into it.
hawk, esq.
That's the last name I'd choose
on
Storm Linux
·
· Score: 2
to suggest a usable interface . . .
The interface, documentation, and particularly the on-line help are so bad in SAS that it tends to be easier to start from scratch and write in Fortran. That stupid program is still emulating a card reader in its handling of data sets. Once I figured this out, I coudl predict its eccentricities and limitations.
>This one isn't so obvious. Lets say.. if Rodney >King didn't have a video tape to prove police >abuse, he'd be a n*****r that Ferman saw fall >down. Alot.
We hear this a lot, but it just plain isn't true. The CHP (California Highway Patrol) was already investigating the incident *that night*. A CHP officer was at the scene, wrote down badge numbers, and launched the probe.
Also, the clip shown on television was clipped--If you watch the whole thing, *especially* in slow motion, it just isn't the same event that caused the commotion. The initial use of massive force was necessary. When someone is still coming at the police after the *second* taser, the only reasonable conclusion is that he's on PCP. Tests showed this wasn't the case, but this information wasn't available to the officers at the scene. (I don't think it's been explained at all.) And he wasn't helpless on the ground; he was still fighting.
Unacceptable levels of force were used. It went on after he stopped fighting. But this wasn't the random beating that it's made out as in the mythology.
Slashdot Mirror
>And besides.... a stereo SHOULD still work if it
>thinks it's 1900...
Yeah, but there wasn't anything to listen too back then, save maybe a space alien or two (and they had to beat the y19C problem to broadcast).
Lotus & Wordperfect? IIRC, the backlash started on the Mac side of things. It had been brewing a while, and then Macworld urged its readers to flatly boycott any copy protected software, and "key disk" software. It spread rapidly, and the manufacturors backed down in a matter of months.
It seems to me that it was about three years ago that IBM first announced this, though there was no linux angle at the time.
Assuming that these are the same boards, or descendants of them, there is a *very* simple explanation as to why IBM is doing this. It's *not* the system's division that produced and demonstrated the original boards, but the CPU folks. It was nothing more (or less) than a way to sell CPU's. Fortuneately, I didn't hold out for one, as I needed the new machine for my (now complete) dissertation . . .
>did they give the penguins beer?
:)
Yes, but then someone slapped the GPL on it, and they had to share
I found the original novella to be much better, and to the point. It's not the first case where the oauthor should have left well enough alone (Though, unlike "Flowers for Algernon," he didn't utterly destroy the original work).
It's just court judgments, not laws, and there's even exceptions to court judgments. For example, many states may not accepet *any* judgment for a gambling debt, as it violates public policy (Nevada only began allowing judgments on casino markers about 10 years ago).
The repo order you mention is only valid within the court's jurisdiction, which stops at the county or state line.
Also, note that the act of removal occurs within Nevada, not Washington. If it's hunting season for dancing paperclips in Iowa, but not in Missouri, and I shoot from within Iowa to kill one in Missouri, I've committed a crime in missouri. My actions have reached into missouri, and subjected me to missouri jurisdiction.
hawk,esq.
Read carefully. Uniform acts are *not* laws. The committee has *no* power to enact laws. None. Zero. Ever.
What it does is suggest laws so that they'll be the same or nearly the same in various states. The ones that make sense tend to get accepted. The ones that don't get laughed at. This will end up in the latter category.
The only two uniform acts that I can think of that have been adopted by all the states are article 2 of the U.C.C. (sales), and the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act. Others have been adopted by a handful or most, and I believe that some have been adopted by none. I'd guess that this will end in the last group.
States have *no* obligation to pass this, and could choose bits, pieces, or completely rewrite it if it were proposed. I can't speak for other states, but Nevada is more likely to criminalize the newly "permitted" acts than to allow them. Your states results may vary, depending upon whether you elect legislators who support liberty, or those who support big government.
And as a passing thought, if Nevada criminalizes the remote shutoff of software, sending a termination order electronically into Nevada would lead directly to issues of federal wire fraud and racketeering . . .
I have a devil of a time finding the plain, simple, stuff that is the base of a solid lego collection. Of the three cubic feet or so of lego from my childhood (still with my parents), the majority is plain, simple, blocks.
The basic "build what you want" sets (remember the semi-opaque plastic trays?) seem to be long gone, as well as the sets of specialty parts (axles, bevelled roof pieces, etc.). When the pieces exist, they're part of a larger set to build something specific. For that matter, almost everything available now is a set to build somehting specific, with specialized pieces. And where are the blue train tracks?
So far, I'm having better luck with Megablocks (?)--and my daughters seem to prefer their pastel colors, too.
Never mind the fancy doo-dads. Sell me about 20 lbs of 2x4 blocks, 2 lbs of 4x4, and about 5 lbs of miscellaneous other blocks. THen I'll be happy to add the odds & ends.
Yes, but how old does she have to be to handle an errector set? I was nearly done with high school by the time I had one.
And why aren't they interested in lego? THough one loves those horrid new-fangled, over-sized, plastic tinker toys . . .
>Actually, Texas was independent for about 10
>years befor it joined the US.
So was California by the time Mexico "sold" it. THe "Bear Flaggers" had formed the California Republic, and planneed to use the Texas model.
>But, while we're talking about returning land,
>what about all the land that the spanish took
>from the aztecs and incas? What about all the
>land taken from the other indians by the british
>and french?
Mmm, and the land taken from the native north americans, let's give that back. Oops, can't do that, the "American Indians" killed them all off a great many centuries ago . . .
>The very first thing I noticed is that it's much,
>much more difficult for a layman to read and >understand than the GNU GPL is.
Believe me, the GPL isn't easy for lawyers, either. For that matter, I'm not yet convinced (as a laywer) that it does what it thinks it does, or says it does, or that it is claimed it does; I'm not sure how much these intersect, either.
>Now, everyone reading Slashdot knows how much
>controversy, confusion and debate the GPL has >spawned -- imagine how much worse it would be if
>the GPL had been written in this incomprehensible >style.
Had the GPL been written in standard legalese, we wouldn't have these problems . . .
hawk, esq.
The kilt isn't unknown in ireland, just far less common. Come to think of it, there's a couple of british military units that still use them in dress uniforms.
:) ] than Washington.)
>As I beleive one of your "founding fathers" once
>said (and I think I'm paraphrasing)"Those
>who would give up liberty for security deserve
>niether."
Benjamin Franklin. (Who might also make a more literal claim to being "Father of our country" [hmm, and parts of france, too
yes, but i have to leave that unselected for all windows, so that if i want images in one window, and not others, i have to load them every time i load a page. I should be able to set the auto-load window by window
who did the clean-room implementation. They also picked up a *huge* insurance policy to cover anyone who licensed it from them.
The original compaq licensed IBM's bios.
>IIRC, Osborne produced *the* "portable" computer,
>there really wasn't any serious competition to
>them
Try Kaypro. It stacke the drives on one side rather than one on each side of the screen, allowing a 9" (?) monitor that displayed a full 80 columns at a time rather than Osborne's 5" with 52(?) columns that scrolled with the cursor to cover 80 columns. ANd it's been a few years, but it seems to me that they had the same price.
rick
They're beyond being evil.
Using them damns your immortal soul, to a hell in which you are required to use all microsoft products, even bob, enhanced with the paper clip. Your descendants are cursed unto the seventh generation, and your daughters will become first prostitutes, and then meter-maids. Your sons, after siring the next generation, will go to switzerland for removal of optional factory equipment and join your daughters when they return. You will become obsessed with Roseanne Barr, and search the net for porn sites featuring her. You are a bad person, and your mother will deny you.
There, that's more like it. I don't bother to block ads. I do bother to block anything that blinks.
Until I find time to patch lynx so that I can launch extra instances from links, I'm not giving up netscape 3. 4.x crash far to often, and don't have features I use, such as alt to go back, and the moronic move of autoloading of images into preferences rather than a per-page option.
But then, I have no use for graphic, java, and the like, anyway. Just give me the information.
Hmm, and I decided that I didn't want any more of those MBA courses even without knowing this :)
OK, I'll make up for it by tossing out one that I personally verified, having been in the car to take her to appointments: my grandmother was treated for her terminal cancer by a a specialist--named posthumous.
But on the nova UL--It seems to me that versions of that that I've seen in print specified the name the Nova was changed to, and I thought I'd found it as a chevy model in reference models. Did the name eventually get changed for some other reason?
>Look at Digitals compilers under Digital Unix.
.25G.
>Produces much faster code than \1. But does
>that matter one bit for the \1 community? No.
>Didn't think so.
Speak for yourself. I work daily from my FreeBSD box to my boss's linux box running a commercial fortran compiler (g77, etc., don't even play in the same league). We have absoft fortan, but it would have been digital if it were available.
We were even willing to pay the extra cost for the alpha box, but the costs of DU itself, both for purchase and the risk of getting sucked into the university system and fee'd to death there, mean the x86/linux/absoft solution.
A year an a half later, I've hit the price. I never thought I'd see the day I *needed* a 64 bit operating system, but now I do: I need an array with more thatn 2^32 bits, and more than 2^32 bytes would be nice, too. Absoft uses Cray code that bit addresses, leaving the size limit on an array of derived type at about
In the not so distant past, Chevy tried to sell the Nova in Mexico, and couldn't understand why noone bought them.
After they changed the name to a word that didn't mean "doesn't go" in spanish, it sold quite well . . .
I am a lawyer, but this is not legal advice. See a lawyer in your own jurisdiction if you need some.
This is *ancient* contract law in the english speaking world. The particular overrides the general; the addendum overrides the boilerplate.
Put in a preface, suffix, or extra file, and anything in it that contradicts the GPL overrides those terms, and the rest of the GPL remains intact.
Or, claim to release it under the GPL, but take actions inconsistant with the GPL, such as having dependencies upon GPL-non-assimilable code, and encourage people to distribute binaries. Your actions then override the GPL and modify it, for a quasi-GPL (QGPL?) license. THere are tons of those out there, many calling themselves GPL when they're not, and they don't even know it . . .
hawk, esq.
But you're already pushing against springs. Less spring, more magnet . . .
I never could get the generator to stay properly attached; it kept drifting around the mount point . . .
This is not legal advice. I probably don't have a license in your jurisdiction. If you need advice on this matter, see a lawyer who does.
Mr. Geist has *really* got to go back and study legal history. In particular, he needs to study the history of the Common Law (English speaking); his response is inconsistant with it.
If you boil the whole thing down to its essence, the judge has ruled that custom is enforcable. Or, more precisely, that the law is not going to overturn custom on its own. The origin of the Common Law is judges *uncovering* the law, not making it. They did so by examining custom, and precedent became important because it showed that another judge had already found the custom. The dominance of the legislature in issueing law is (in the English speaking world) a twentieth century phenomenon.
ANother issue that needs to be addressed here is that of government involvement. This type of ruling is *exactly* the kind needed to keep government out of the picture. This is not legislation, or fiat, but a determination of property rights. There is a huge difference between the government determining what can or cannot be communicated, and the courts awarding or refusing to award damages for breach of property rights.
While one solution to *determining* those rights
would be for a legislature to decide, the better approach is probably to rely on custom, as this judge did.
This is not to say that there is no need for legislation to allow the private solutions. In particular, either legislation or changes in court rules need to address "joinder" and "venue."
Joinder determines the manner in which claims can be combined, while venue determines *where* they can be brought. In particular, I see value in allowing an ISP, as part of its service contract, to be allowed to act simultaneously on the claims of all its spammed subscribers. That is, if 1000 customers receive the same spam, it should be legally possible for the ISP to enter court for the whole lot at the same time; its not practical for each individual to do so.
Similarly, a well defined notion of which court the matter should be filed in would be useful, though not critical: the home jurisdiction of the spammer already has "in personam" jurisdiction, while the victim's jurisdiction has jurisdiction due to the contact made by deliberately sending the message into it.
hawk, esq.
to suggest a usable interface . . .
The interface, documentation, and particularly the on-line help are so bad in SAS that it tends to be easier to start from scratch and write in Fortran. That stupid program is still emulating a card reader in its handling of data sets. Once I figured this out, I coudl predict its eccentricities and limitations.
>This one isn't so obvious. Lets say.. if Rodney
>King didn't have a video tape to prove police
>abuse, he'd be a n*****r that Ferman saw fall
>down. Alot.
We hear this a lot, but it just plain isn't true. The CHP (California Highway Patrol) was already investigating the incident *that night*. A CHP officer was at the scene, wrote down badge numbers, and launched the probe.
Also, the clip shown on television was clipped--If you watch the whole thing, *especially* in slow motion, it just isn't the same event that caused the commotion. The initial use of massive force was necessary. When someone is still coming at the police after the *second* taser, the only reasonable conclusion is that he's on PCP. Tests showed this wasn't the case, but this information wasn't available to the officers at the scene. (I don't think it's been explained at all.) And he wasn't helpless on the ground; he was still fighting.
Unacceptable levels of force were used. It went on after he stopped fighting. But this wasn't the random beating that it's made out as in the mythology.