What it comes down to is that free speech is not a "postive right," or a right *to* something, but a negative right, the right to prevent government from silencing you.
It has absolutely nothing to do with avoiding the consequences of your speech, or with remaining anoynymous.
It will not work when using junkbuster; it keeps returning to the login page. And it's not about cookies, you can replace the cookie file with a subdirectory, disable junkbuster, and it still goes through. But you get the blinking ads. (I don't mind the ads; I mind the blinking and the use of my computer to keep track of which ones I've been blinked with).
They were K-12 mail servers at a clients. They had a couple that had been running for over a year. They did just fine until a logfile filled a disk . . .
>whats a better license than the GPL that >*ensures* that the code will always remain free?
Raptor: "You can use this code for anything you damned well feel like, so long as the source code for any modifications that you make are made available at no additional cost when you distribute and such source is covered by this license."
Keeps the source free, keeps it under the same license, and is willing to play with any other from any license without attempting to assimulate it.
I seriously doubt that claim
on
Digital VCRs
·
· Score: 2
>It has come to my attention that an AC claims the >following. >Ph.D. in economics and a Masters in Business >administration.
I seriously doubt that he does. Look at his analysis, it's nonsense, and he couldn't pass the qualifying exams in micro at even a third rate school with it.
He has hopelessly confused the number of people on the demand-side of the market with the quantity demanded, missing entirely that demand is a function, while the quantity demanded is the value of that function at some point. Futher, windows and wince are separate products, and there is no reason to assume that the two are complements.
But then, I'm still six weeks from having a real Ph.D. in economics, so I suppose I should defer to the phony claims and stick to being an authority on law:)
You must not have a JVC
on
Digital VCRs
·
· Score: 2
Eventually, you mostly learn to work around it.
But it has this *stupid* "feature."
You can enter the message with the up-down controls, letter by letter, and it has a stupid green blinking light to signal its existance.
Yes, it's dumb, so just todn't use it, right? Wrong, toughcing the button sets the feature. And there's no way to disable it again short of power-cycling the VCR. And once that buttons been touched, *every* other control save the power button ceases working until you touch it again, giving you the green blinky back. And with two 17 month olds in the room, a green blinky gets touched again . . .
And then there's the screw-up with the dates and programming. I forget exactly how it happens, but its to the effect of crossing a month boundary backwards. The first time doesn't change the day of the month, but only the day of the week. The second attempt crosses both. Congratulations, you now have a date that cannot happen, and cannot delete this recording program until fixing it, which you cannot do, since all changes effect day of week and month. You have lost this programming slot until you power cycle the vcr.
>NT BSODs about the same as Linux does it's lovely >kernel panics.
In four years of having a linux box up 24/7, programming and writing on it 6-14 hrs day, 6 days a week, and using either the latest stable kernel or a mid to late development kernel, I have *never* seen a panic, save for the day when we were going down the list of scsi drivers trying to figure out which one would work wiht our screwball drivers (no, this isn't the recommended way of doing it, but when you scrounge from the spare parts bin, you takes what you gets).
4 years, not one panic. While there are exceptions (usually due to hardware failure), this experience seems to be typical.
I saw one kernel panic in about six months an a mac IIci running macbsd (netbsd), which was (apparently) related to an incomplete/late-alpha driver for X.
And FreeBSD 3.1 would panic on boot about 20% of the time if there was an extended partition with linux partitions on the ide disk. It would also corrupted on write to ext2fs often enough to be unusable.
3.2 has solved the first, and I've never tried the second. Unfortuneately, trying to write to a bad floppy drive sends it into an endless loop of failure, which eventually brings the whole system down, and prevents the hard drives from being proprly dismounted. Linux has no problem with this drive (it gets the errors, but doesn't kill them).
Yes, kernel panics do exist. No, the normal user doesn't ever see them. Kernel developers see them, and folks configuring hardware drivers without the docs see them. But the overwhelming majority of regular users never do, while I've never met a windows user that hasn't seen at least several crashes, if not several every week.
I have no idea where my reading glasses are, but I'm still 20/20 without them (20/15, iirc). But I've had to give up early three times in the last two weeks because my eyes were running too much to focus.
>To put this another way, if you hold that the the >Supreme Court cases decided in the first half >of this century that considered the extent of >Congress' power to regulate "interstate >commerce" were wrongly decided . . .
yes, I do. Those cases had nothing to do with interstate commerce, but indirect effects of indirect commerce (basically, that by growing something himself, he didn't buy it on interstate markets).
>But no one should think that the courts "know" >that the government is acting unconstitutionally >all the time, but don't do anything about it.
No, I'm not claiming that. And as a matter of fact, there are a handful of recent cases suggesting that the pendulum is swinging back (ruling that carjacking is inherently intrastate, for example).
>but I don't know what the grounds for transfer to Texas would be.
generally, a defendant can seek to have the federal case transferred to his home jurisdiction. However, after I hit "submit", it occurred to me that there were multiple defendants in multiple jurisdictions . . .
Nope. That sounds more like "collateral estoppel"--which only applies between the same two parties.
However, if Santa Clara County, California, holds a criminal trial, no other county in California can try the same defendant for the same crime. Clark County, Nevada could. However, I know most of the judges there (err, those who were there 5 years ago), and most of them would be downright frosted to see such a case come before them . . .
No, he's not. Rehnquist & O'Connor are conservatives, as is Kennedy on a bad day. Scalia & Thomas are "classic liberals," as liberalism was understood in the eighteenth century. Classic liberals tend to be opposed to government action in general, and will strictly hold the gov't to its defined powers, regardless of what it's trying to do. They'll join the conservative block to slap down extra-constitutional social programs and preferences (with the liberals voting to permit them), and join with the liberal blcok to slap down intrusions on personal freedom and liberty (with the conservatives voting to extend government power).
Given the cases that come up today, they vote with the conservatives more often than the liberals. Bring up free speech issues, or government surveillance issues, and expect them to vote with the liberals.
Kennedy tends to vote with this pair, except when he gets cranky, and spends time in the conservative block. And if police safety or similar issues are in issue, Scalia's knee has a tendency to jerk to the right.
The only one of the lot that you can count on to favor your rights over the government regardless of the issue is Thomas, politically incorrect as it is to say this. I used to think that he was peeking over Scalia's shoulder, but in the still rare cases that they vote opposite each other, it's Thomas voting for individual rights, and Scalia voting for government power.
Disclaimer: I am a lawyer, but this is not legal advice. If you need advice on this matter, see a lawyer in your own jurisdiction.
It's fairly typical for long-arm statutes to claim jurisdition as in all matters not prohibitted by the U.S. Constitution.
While I could also see the case going the other way, I don't see the publication from virginia as all that questionable. Sending an article to usenet is done by having an initial server publish to the next servers in sequence. A deliberate act of the defendant used the virginia server to publish.
OTOH, while there are no surprises in this case, I'm not sure that it's necessarily the best policy. While the overwhelming majority of the activities of today's federal government exceed its constitutional authority, I'd tentatively agree that given that substantially all of the transmission of a usenet message is interstate, that there is at least some authority from the commerce clause to address the matter.
also, It seems to me that the case could have been first removed to federal court on grounds of diversity of citizenship (unless the plea specifically asked for less damages than required for removal), then transferred to federal court in the defendant's home jurisdiction in Texas.
I am a lawyer, but this is not legal advice. Sea a lawyer licensed in your jurisdictionif you need legal advice on this matter.
>1. if i were named in such a suit and refused to >appear, wouldn't VA need an extradition order >or something to get me into the VA court?
nope, this is a civil case, not criminal. They would would enter a default judgment against you, then have that judgment entered in your state (or wherever you had seizable assets or a paycheck).
>2. does the sovereign state of VA have standing >in the case because the AOL server is locate in VA
It's not an issue of standing; that's for the plaintiffs. It's a question of jurisdiction. And it appears that it is not that just *any* server was in VA, but that the newsserver that *published* the statement to the rest of the world was in VA. If this had gone first to a Texas surver, when was relayed to VA in the ordinary course of Usenet distribution, this would be a different matter.
>Well, the problem itself is not new. E.g. if you, >a Californian, kill another Californian in >Nevada, either California or Nevada can try you >for murder (either, but not both, though).
Actually, both could. Double jeopardy applies to multiple trials by the same soverign, and Nevada and California are separate sovergeins (the imperial pretensions of some California agencies notwithstdanding).
Caselaw has held that this permits the federal courts to try an individual after a state fails, as well, though this, IM!HO, is an incorrect application of the principle: the federal government is *not* sovereign in its own right, but relies on delegated power from the states. In these cases, the delegated power is generally from the state that has already held a trial. Hoever, these cases tend to come up when there has been either a miscarriage of justice, or a politically unpopular result, and the maxim that, "hard cases make bad law" comes into play, and the desire to punish the wrongdoer takes precedence over a bedrock legal principle.
>I can read fine on my 15" at 1280*1024 with text and pictures?
I'm not denying that the text *can* be read on current screens. The problem is clarity/resolution/flicker. It's just plain harder on the eyes than paper, it isn't a substitute.
I even end up printing out source code so that I can find things--and this is with an excellent monitor.
For a quick reference, a screen can be useful. For regular reading, it just doesn't cut it.
The ABC was built *prior* to the war, and was an electronic digital computer. The colosus may have been the first to do something important, but it certainly wasn't the first.
I'm a lawyer, but this is not legal advice, but a comment on the general principles involved. If you need advice on this matter, see a lawyer licensed in your jurisdiction.
If slashdot were completely unmoderated, it would probably have near-absolute protection under U.S. law. Individual posters would be liable, but the site would probably be something similar to a common carrier.
If edited for content, though, The situation changes, at least somewhat. Once the task of editing out comments is undertaken, it must be done properly.
However, moderartion on slashdot doesn't remove comments, but is a listing of opinions about the quality of the article. My gut feelign is that this would leave it in the first category of protection, but I'd really need to do some research to be certain. So unless someone wants to send a $5k retainer, I'm certainly not going to stand behind this first impression:)
There is potential foreign liability, though: U.S. law can't protect a U.S. from being sued abroad. However, if a foreign jugdment wouldn't be much use without foreign assets to seize. THe judgment could be brought to the U.S., but a U.S. court would not enter the foreign judgment for actions taken in hte U.S. that are protected by U.S. law.
I have yet to see a dislay that is even close to usable as a substitute for paper. The closest is an active matrix laptop display, and it still needs to at least double (150dpi) , and probably quadruple (300dpi), the linear density before it's really a substitute. And I don't know if there even *is* a density at which a CRT could do it.
Also, the whole idea is not a threat to the existence of journals. It *is* a threat to expensive paper-based journals. There is no reason for these to exist any more, rather than converting to electronic distribution for printing at their end-destination.
That's too close to giving legal advice for comfort.
But as a generalization, all work automatically receives copyright protection in Berne convention countries. However, in the U.S., registration is required prior to instituting an action, and better remedies are available if the work was registered prior to the infringement.
Lubbock is, to the best of my knowledge, the only spot in the US that still has competing power companies. Not the California-style provider selection/deregulation, but two separate grids & sets of wires.
Is it coincidence that they also have lower power rates than comparable areas? (supposedly, you can chart the increase in rates as a function of distance from Lubbock).
Similar things happen with cable. It is now illegal to grant a monopoly franchise. Guess who gets better prices & service, towns with multiple providers or towns with just one?
My father in law waited years for cable in a rural area. The county granted a second franchise, and the first cable company finally called, offering to install it the next week. For some reason, he said no, and called the second:)
The trademark does not apply to content, here or elsewhere.
The trademark *does* apply to LinuxHQ, just as "Slashdot" applies to this site.
Registration has very little to do with whether or not a trademark exists. Registration is nothing more than notice to the world of a claim of trademark, and extends the geographic range of the trademark; actual trademark is valid without registration in the market in which the trademark is used.
If I sell a product underthe name "Zpd" in the western states, and an eastern company files a trademark for "Zpd," its trademark will be valid in the east and those regions where I have no presence. If I'd filed a federal trademark, I could have blocked the eastern usage. Not having done so, the eastern folks get it where I don't use it. However, if they want to come into my market, they'll have to do it under antoher name, or offer me enough for my rights that I'm willing to sell.
And as a note to the other reponse, the GPL has nothing to do with it, nor with any other trademark. The license or copyright deals with the content, not the name. The name is a trademark difference.
before the wide-spread use of freon in a/c. There also seems to be a problem showing a mechanism that gets the freon up there. And to top it off, ozone is constantly created and *destroyed* by UV, so there's a furhter question of whether the freon would even make a difference in the quantity present.
And of course, these are all ignored by those rabbidly eager to ban freon, and taken as proof that there's no problem (rather than an unknown answer) by those against the ban.
Slashdot Mirror
What it comes down to is that free speech is not a "postive right," or a right *to* something, but a negative right, the right to prevent government from silencing you.
It has absolutely nothing to do with avoiding the consequences of your speech, or with remaining anoynymous.
hawk, esq.
odd, you're write. I must have only used one of them when I tried that in the past (probably the www). Thanks.
/usr/local/etc/junkbuster/cookiefile
btw, for FreeBSD, it's
It will not work when using junkbuster; it keeps returning to the login page. And it's not about cookies, you can replace the cookie file with a subdirectory, disable junkbuster, and it still goes through. But you get the blinking ads. (I don't mind the ads; I mind the blinking and the use of my computer to keep track of which ones I've been blinked with).
They were K-12 mail servers at a clients. They had a couple that had been running for over a year. They did just fine until a logfile filled a disk . . .
Watch out your window for four horseman, check that the moon hasn't turned to blood, and keep an eye out for other similar Signs. . .
:)
>whats a better license than the GPL that >*ensures* that the code will always remain free?
Raptor: "You can use this code for anything you damned well feel like, so long as the source code for any modifications that you make are made available at no additional cost when you distribute and such source is covered by this license."
Keeps the source free, keeps it under the same license, and is willing to play with any other from any license without attempting to assimulate it.
>It has come to my attention that an AC claims the >following.
:)
>Ph.D. in economics and a Masters in Business
>administration.
I seriously doubt that he does. Look at his analysis, it's nonsense, and he couldn't pass the qualifying exams in micro at even a third rate school with it.
He has hopelessly confused the number of people on the demand-side of the market with the quantity demanded, missing entirely that demand is a function, while the quantity demanded is the value of that function at some point. Futher, windows and wince are separate products, and there is no reason to assume that the two are complements.
But then, I'm still six weeks from having a real Ph.D. in economics, so I suppose I should defer to the phony claims and stick to being an authority on law
Eventually, you mostly learn to work around it.
But it has this *stupid* "feature."
You can enter the message with the up-down controls, letter by letter, and it has a stupid green blinking light to signal its existance.
Yes, it's dumb, so just todn't use it, right? Wrong, toughcing the button sets the feature. And there's no way to disable it again short of power-cycling the VCR. And once that buttons been touched, *every* other control save the power button ceases working until you touch it again, giving you the green blinky back. And with two 17 month olds in the room, a green blinky gets touched again . . .
And then there's the screw-up with the dates and programming. I forget exactly how it happens, but its to the effect of crossing a month boundary backwards. The first time doesn't change the day of the month, but only the day of the week. The second attempt crosses both. Congratulations, you now have a date that cannot happen, and cannot delete this recording program until fixing it, which you cannot do, since all changes effect day of week and month. You have lost this programming slot until you power cycle the vcr.
>NT BSODs about the same as Linux does it's lovely
>kernel panics.
In four years of having a linux box up 24/7, programming and writing on it 6-14 hrs day, 6 days a week, and using either the latest stable kernel or a mid to late development kernel, I have *never* seen a panic, save for the day when we were going down the list of scsi drivers trying to figure out which one would work wiht our screwball drivers (no, this isn't the recommended way of doing it, but when you scrounge from the spare parts bin, you takes what you gets).
4 years, not one panic. While there are exceptions (usually due to hardware failure), this experience seems to be typical.
I saw one kernel panic in about six months an a mac IIci running macbsd (netbsd), which was (apparently) related to an incomplete/late-alpha driver for X.
And FreeBSD 3.1 would panic on boot about 20% of the time if there was an extended partition with linux partitions on the ide disk. It would also corrupted on write to ext2fs often enough to be unusable.
3.2 has solved the first, and I've never tried the second. Unfortuneately, trying to write to a bad floppy drive sends it into an endless loop of failure, which eventually brings the whole system down, and prevents the hard drives from being proprly dismounted. Linux has no problem with this drive (it gets the errors, but doesn't kill them).
Yes, kernel panics do exist. No, the normal user doesn't ever see them. Kernel developers see them, and folks configuring hardware drivers without the docs see them. But the overwhelming majority of regular users never do, while I've never met a windows user that hasn't seen at least several crashes, if not several every week.
I have no idea where my reading glasses are, but I'm still 20/20 without them (20/15, iirc). But I've had to give up early three times in the last two weeks because my eyes were running too much to focus.
>To put this another way, if you hold that the the
>Supreme Court cases decided in the first half
>of this century that considered the extent of
>Congress' power to regulate "interstate
>commerce" were wrongly decided . . .
yes, I do. Those cases had nothing to do with interstate commerce, but indirect effects of indirect commerce (basically, that by growing something himself, he didn't buy it on interstate markets).
>But no one should think that the courts "know"
>that the government is acting unconstitutionally
>all the time, but don't do anything about it.
No, I'm not claiming that. And as a matter of fact, there are a handful of recent cases suggesting that the pendulum is swinging back (ruling that carjacking is inherently intrastate, for example).
>but I don't know what the grounds for transfer to Texas would be.
generally, a defendant can seek to have the federal case transferred to his home jurisdiction. However, after I hit "submit", it occurred to me that there were multiple defendants in multiple jurisdictions . . .
Nope. That sounds more like "collateral estoppel"--which only applies between the same two parties.
However, if Santa Clara County, California, holds a criminal trial, no other county in California can try the same defendant for the same crime. Clark County, Nevada could. However, I know most of the judges there (err, those who were there 5 years ago), and most of them would be downright frosted to see such a case come before them . . .
No, he's not. Rehnquist & O'Connor are conservatives, as is Kennedy on a bad day. Scalia & Thomas are "classic liberals," as liberalism was understood in the eighteenth century. Classic liberals tend to be opposed to government action in general, and will strictly hold the gov't to its defined powers, regardless of what it's trying to do. They'll join the conservative block to slap down extra-constitutional social programs and preferences (with the liberals voting to permit them), and join with the liberal blcok to slap down intrusions on personal freedom and liberty (with the conservatives voting to extend government power).
Given the cases that come up today, they vote with the conservatives more often than the liberals. Bring up free speech issues, or government surveillance issues, and expect them to vote with the liberals.
Kennedy tends to vote with this pair, except when he gets cranky, and spends time in the conservative block. And if police safety or similar issues are in issue, Scalia's knee has a tendency to jerk to the right.
The only one of the lot that you can count on to favor your rights over the government regardless of the issue is Thomas, politically incorrect as it is to say this. I used to think that he was peeking over Scalia's shoulder, but in the still rare cases that they vote opposite each other, it's Thomas voting for individual rights, and Scalia voting for government power.
Disclaimer: I am a lawyer, but this is not legal advice. If you need advice on this matter, see a lawyer in your own jurisdiction.
It's fairly typical for long-arm statutes to claim jurisdition as in all matters not prohibitted by the U.S. Constitution.
While I could also see the case going the other way, I don't see the publication from virginia as all that questionable. Sending an article to usenet is done by having an initial server publish to the next servers in sequence. A deliberate act of the defendant used the virginia server to publish.
OTOH, while there are no surprises in this case, I'm not sure that it's necessarily the best policy. While the overwhelming majority of the activities of today's federal government exceed its constitutional authority, I'd tentatively agree that given that substantially all of the transmission of a usenet message is interstate, that there is at least some authority from the commerce clause to address the matter.
also, It seems to me that the case could have been first removed to federal court on grounds of diversity of citizenship (unless the plea specifically asked for less damages than required for removal), then transferred to federal court in the defendant's home jurisdiction in Texas.
I am a lawyer, but this is not legal advice. Sea a lawyer licensed in your jurisdictionif you need legal advice on this matter.
>1. if i were named in such a suit and refused to
>appear, wouldn't VA need an extradition order
>or something to get me into the VA court?
nope, this is a civil case, not criminal. They would would enter a default judgment against you, then have that judgment entered in your state (or wherever you had seizable assets or a paycheck).
>2. does the sovereign state of VA have standing
>in the case because the AOL server is locate in VA
It's not an issue of standing; that's for the plaintiffs. It's a question of jurisdiction. And it appears that it is not that just *any* server was in VA, but that the newsserver that *published* the statement to the rest of the world was in VA. If this had gone first to a Texas surver, when was relayed to VA in the ordinary course of Usenet distribution, this would be a different matter.
hawk, esq.
>Well, the problem itself is not new. E.g. if you,
>a Californian, kill another Californian in
>Nevada, either California or Nevada can try you
>for murder (either, but not both, though).
Actually, both could. Double jeopardy applies to multiple trials by the same soverign, and Nevada and California are separate sovergeins (the imperial pretensions of some California agencies notwithstdanding).
Caselaw has held that this permits the federal courts to try an individual after a state fails, as well, though this, IM!HO, is an incorrect application of the principle: the federal government is *not* sovereign in its own right, but relies on delegated power from the states. In these cases, the delegated power is generally from the state that has already held a trial. Hoever, these cases tend to come up when there has been either a miscarriage of justice, or a politically unpopular result, and the maxim that, "hard cases make bad law" comes into play, and the desire to punish the wrongdoer takes precedence over a bedrock legal principle.
>I can read fine on my 15" at 1280*1024 with text and pictures?
I'm not denying that the text *can* be read on current screens. The problem is clarity/resolution/flicker. It's just plain harder on the eyes than paper, it isn't a substitute.
I even end up printing out source code so that I can find things--and this is with an excellent monitor.
For a quick reference, a screen can be useful. For regular reading, it just doesn't cut it.
The ABC was built *prior* to the war, and was an electronic digital computer. The colosus may have been the first to do something important, but it certainly wasn't the first.
I'm a lawyer, but this is not legal advice, but a comment on the general principles involved. If you need advice on this matter, see a lawyer licensed in your jurisdiction.
:)
If slashdot were completely unmoderated, it would probably have near-absolute protection under U.S. law. Individual posters would be liable, but the site would probably be something similar to a common carrier.
If edited for content, though, The situation changes, at least somewhat. Once the task of editing out comments is undertaken, it must be done properly.
However, moderartion on slashdot doesn't remove comments, but is a listing of opinions about the quality of the article. My gut feelign is that this would leave it in the first category of protection, but I'd really need to do some research to be certain. So unless someone wants to send a $5k retainer, I'm certainly not going to stand behind this first impression
There is potential foreign liability, though: U.S. law can't protect a U.S. from being sued abroad. However, if a foreign jugdment wouldn't be much use without foreign assets to seize. THe judgment could be brought to the U.S., but a U.S. court would not enter the foreign judgment for actions taken in hte U.S. that are protected by U.S. law.
I have yet to see a dislay that is even close to usable as a substitute for paper. The closest is an active matrix laptop display, and it still needs to at least double (150dpi) , and probably quadruple (300dpi), the linear density before it's really a substitute. And I don't know if there even *is* a density at which a CRT could do it.
Also, the whole idea is not a threat to the existence of journals. It *is* a threat to expensive paper-based journals. There is no reason for these to exist any more, rather than converting to electronic distribution for printing at their end-destination.
>so maybe it'll be good for the existing BSDs too.
If you look at older coverage, you'll find that apple sent gaggles of bug fixes to the netbsd base they borrowed from.
That's too close to giving legal advice for comfort.
But as a generalization, all work automatically receives copyright protection in Berne convention countries. However, in the U.S., registration is required prior to instituting an action, and better remedies are available if the work was registered prior to the infringement.
Lubbock is, to the best of my knowledge, the only spot in the US that still has competing power companies. Not the California-style provider selection/deregulation, but two separate grids & sets of wires.
:)
Is it coincidence that they also have lower power rates than comparable areas? (supposedly, you can chart the increase in rates as a function of distance from Lubbock).
Similar things happen with cable. It is now illegal to grant a monopoly franchise. Guess who gets better prices & service, towns with multiple providers or towns with just one?
My father in law waited years for cable in a rural area. The county granted a second franchise, and the first cable company finally called, offering to install it the next week. For some reason, he said no, and called the second
The trademark does not apply to content, here or elsewhere.
The trademark *does* apply to LinuxHQ, just as "Slashdot" applies to this site.
Registration has very little to do with whether or not a trademark exists. Registration is nothing more than notice to the world of a claim of trademark, and extends the geographic range of the trademark; actual trademark is valid without registration in the market in which the trademark is used.
If I sell a product underthe name "Zpd" in the western states, and an eastern company files a trademark for "Zpd," its trademark will be valid in the east and those regions where I have no presence. If I'd filed a federal trademark, I could have blocked the eastern usage. Not having done so, the eastern folks get it where I don't use it. However, if they want to come into my market, they'll have to do it under antoher name, or offer me enough for my rights that I'm willing to sell.
And as a note to the other reponse, the GPL has nothing to do with it, nor with any other trademark. The license or copyright deals with the content, not the name. The name is a trademark difference.
hawk, esq.
before the wide-spread use of freon in a/c. There also seems to be a problem showing a mechanism that gets the freon up there. And to top it off, ozone is constantly created and *destroyed* by UV, so there's a furhter question of whether the freon would even make a difference in the quantity present.
And of course, these are all ignored by those rabbidly eager to ban freon, and taken as proof that there's no problem (rather than an unknown answer) by those against the ban.