Google wasn't the only one using this widely publicized bug in Safari? According to the original WSJ article:
The coding also has a role in some Facebook games and "apps"---particularly if the app wants to store a user's login information or game scores. In fact, a corporate Facebook page for app developers called "Best Practices" includes a link to Mr. Garg's blog post.
I typed the offending sentence into Word, which pointed out that there was a problem with the word "be." I right-clicked the offending word and it suggested "are". So, according to MS Word, the correct sentence should have read: "There also we are some other great keynotes beginning at 10am on the same page."
Your nearest GPS satellite is over 10,000 miles away (and had to travel around the planet to get into orbit). I'm not sure the distance or the journey have much to do with accuracy, but I dunno, maybe you know more about this than Matt Blaze.
I guess I wasn't completely clear. Yes, you can appeal most anything. And, in fact, a judge can even overrule a jury and say no, they got the facts wrong (SCO asked the judge to do just that in their case, but of course the judge turned them down). Let's just say that if the jury finds that Google did not violate the hypothetical copyright (fair use, not copied as a whole, etc), Oracle's routes for appeal are much more limited. A higher court could say that there was something wrong in the jury instructions or something else that lead the jury down the wrong path, but at worst, an appellate court will just require a new jury. The appellate court won't say "the jury was wrong, Google did violate the copyright."
And also realize that the judge has clearly telegraphed his intentions here. IF the jury says Google violated the copyright of the API, he will almost certainly then rule that the API is not copyrightable (at which point Oracle will most likely appeal and argue that the judge was wrong).
First, if the jury finds that google did NOT violate the hypothetical API copyright, Oracle's case ends there. You can't appeal the finding of the jury, so that matter could be settled immediately and completely and saving the appeal court's resources.
If, instead, the judge immediately declares that the API is not copyrightable, that decision can (and will) be appealed. If he is later overturned (no matter how unlikely), that would then require a NEW jury trial to then decide if google actually violated the copyright. Since the jury has already heard the evidence and has other things to decide, why not let them make that decision right now.
So yes, this seriously saves resources and this judge really seems to understand things.
Anyways, the issue is protecting the common good. The argument for compelling vaccinations is not because it protects you, but because it protects the herd. You could drop dead for all I care, but please don't take me and thousands of others out with you. (And I don't mean that as a personal attack, despite your repeated ad hominems directed at me, but as an honest expression of my belief that you should be perfectly free to kill yourself).
This is all very weird, too, because you're not really arguing for YOUR right to refuse vaccinations, but rather for your right to prevent OTHERS (i.e. your children) from getting vaccinations. And all because of "perceived" (not real) harms. You don't mind someone forcing or preventing children from getting vaccines, you just want the right to prevent your children from getting them, despite the fact that it will cause real and measurable (not perceived) harm to everyone else's children.
Of course, your original point was that it was somehow "not the duty" of the government to compel behavior "expense of perceived harm." This notion of "perceived" harm is crazy enough, but I just wanted to point out that governments can clearly compel citizens to pay the ultimate price.
Whether or not the government chooses to use one of its tools is a matter of policy, but there's no question that the government has the right to compel behavior that will serve the common good. Or are you saying that the Constitution does not allow the government to "provide for the common defence [sic]" or "promote the general Welfare"?
Also, some towns do have mandatory gun laws. The fact that most don't is not because "it's not the government's duty" but simply because the government did not choose to make it a requirement. The fact that the government has not taken some action so far does not mean that it is forever prohibited from said action.
How would this be any different from any of the other Good Samaritan laws?
This case was about a man who was suspected of having unpaid fines. He had, in fact, already paid the fines and had the documentation to prove it with him at the time of his arrest.
And he didn't just lurk, he participated in discussions. But he also had his 5-year plan from the start and I don't believe he was relying on feedback to guide the series, he was just connecting with the fans.
Isn't this the only reason everyone everywhere has ever filed an Amicus brief? I mean, how many lawyers are spending their time and money telling making arguments to courts on cases that they DON'T care about?
> It's "incredibly stupid" to think that a Bush speech in 2003 caused all this.
No, I think the parent post is correct. Bush's State of the Union speech on Jan 29, 2003, is exactly the reason that North Korea withdrew from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty on January 10, 2003.
The 2010 research paper "discovered that Microsoft's support website recommends the use of invalid CPs (codes) as a work-around for a problem in IE." This recommendation was a major reason that many of the 11,176 websites provided different code to the one requested by Microsoft.
What makes you think you need to leave the house to borrow ebooks from the library (other than once every three years to renew your library card): http://overdrive.dclibrary.org/
The label/retailer distinction is important, and it looks like the labels are wrong on both sides.
They claim that they are selling copies to the retailer, and the retailer is then licensing them to the consumer. That seems like an untenable position. Clearly, if they are selling to the retailer, the retailer must be passing the item "sold" to the consumer.
However, the reverse situation seems far more logical. They are giving a license to the retailer to make as many copies as needed. Each copy is then sold to the consumer.
If they win against the artists, I don't see how they could possibly win ReDigi. But if they lose to the artists, there's a chance that they could still lose to ReDigi.
> Can't people just use whatever software fits their needs?
Um, isn't that why he quit? They decided to go "100%" MS, which means they are no longer going to evaluate the software and find the right solution, they will just pick MS. He didn't say they replaced Postgres with Access, or that they want people to use IE instead of Chrome. He said that they just BANNED all non-Microsoft software.
So no, at his current job, he cannot use whatever software fits his needs. That's why he wants a new job.
Yeah, but google doesn't just shut things down overnight. They usually announce a date where it will be read-only, and then keep it up for much longer. Wave, for example, is RO now and won't be shut down until April 30.
Slashdot Mirror
> The thing was, Google was already under an FCC settlement because of violating privacy policies in the past
Uh huh. And so is Facebook:
http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/0923184/111129facebookagree.pdf
So, how large of a fine is Facebook going to pay?
I typed the offending sentence into Word, which pointed out that there was a problem with the word "be." I right-clicked the offending word and it suggested "are". So, according to MS Word, the correct sentence should have read: "There also we are some other great keynotes beginning at 10am on the same page."
But please, god, skip the prequel ("When the Tripods Came"), written 20 years after the original trilogy.
> Am I a bad person to experience a Schadenfreude rush everytime Miguel, Facebook, Zynga or Groupon fails?
There's a whole online support group for people like us.
Your nearest GPS satellite is over 10,000 miles away (and had to travel around the planet to get into orbit). I'm not sure the distance or the journey have much to do with accuracy, but I dunno, maybe you know more about this than Matt Blaze.
Didn't the Beatles move to the US to avoid The Taxman? I guess it's ok to come to the US to avoid taxes, but you shan't dare leave...
I guess I wasn't completely clear. Yes, you can appeal most anything. And, in fact, a judge can even overrule a jury and say no, they got the facts wrong (SCO asked the judge to do just that in their case, but of course the judge turned them down). Let's just say that if the jury finds that Google did not violate the hypothetical copyright (fair use, not copied as a whole, etc), Oracle's routes for appeal are much more limited. A higher court could say that there was something wrong in the jury instructions or something else that lead the jury down the wrong path, but at worst, an appellate court will just require a new jury. The appellate court won't say "the jury was wrong, Google did violate the copyright."
And also realize that the judge has clearly telegraphed his intentions here. IF the jury says Google violated the copyright of the API, he will almost certainly then rule that the API is not copyrightable (at which point Oracle will most likely appeal and argue that the judge was wrong).
First, if the jury finds that google did NOT violate the hypothetical API copyright, Oracle's case ends there. You can't appeal the finding of the jury, so that matter could be settled immediately and completely and saving the appeal court's resources.
If, instead, the judge immediately declares that the API is not copyrightable, that decision can (and will) be appealed. If he is later overturned (no matter how unlikely), that would then require a NEW jury trial to then decide if google actually violated the copyright. Since the jury has already heard the evidence and has other things to decide, why not let them make that decision right now.
So yes, this seriously saves resources and this judge really seems to understand things.
I suppose you're against universal education too?
Anyways, the issue is protecting the common good. The argument for compelling vaccinations is not because it protects you, but because it protects the herd. You could drop dead for all I care, but please don't take me and thousands of others out with you. (And I don't mean that as a personal attack, despite your repeated ad hominems directed at me, but as an honest expression of my belief that you should be perfectly free to kill yourself).
This is all very weird, too, because you're not really arguing for YOUR right to refuse vaccinations, but rather for your right to prevent OTHERS (i.e. your children) from getting vaccinations. And all because of "perceived" (not real) harms. You don't mind someone forcing or preventing children from getting vaccines, you just want the right to prevent your children from getting them, despite the fact that it will cause real and measurable (not perceived) harm to everyone else's children.
Really?
The draft was also used in WW II. In fact, the country was founded with conscription.
Of course, your original point was that it was somehow "not the duty" of the government to compel behavior "expense of perceived harm." This notion of "perceived" harm is crazy enough, but I just wanted to point out that governments can clearly compel citizens to pay the ultimate price.
Whether or not the government chooses to use one of its tools is a matter of policy, but there's no question that the government has the right to compel behavior that will serve the common good. Or are you saying that the Constitution does not allow the government to "provide for the common defence [sic]" or "promote the general Welfare"?
Yes, there is no way that the government could ever compel someone to risk their lives to save others.
Also, some towns do have mandatory gun laws. The fact that most don't is not because "it's not the government's duty" but simply because the government did not choose to make it a requirement. The fact that the government has not taken some action so far does not mean that it is forever prohibited from said action.
How would this be any different from any of the other Good Samaritan laws?
This case was about a man who was suspected of having unpaid fines. He had, in fact, already paid the fines and had the documentation to prove it with him at the time of his arrest.
People don't go to prison for petty offenses, they go to jail.
And he didn't just lurk, he participated in discussions. But he also had his 5-year plan from the start and I don't believe he was relying on feedback to guide the series, he was just connecting with the fans.
Isn't this the only reason everyone everywhere has ever filed an Amicus brief? I mean, how many lawyers are spending their time and money telling making arguments to courts on cases that they DON'T care about?
Erp, typo. Bush's speech was 2002, a year BEFORE they withdrew, not a few weeks AFTER.
PS: Y'know slashdot, either let us edit or don't make us wait to reply to our own comments.
> It's "incredibly stupid" to think that a Bush speech in 2003 caused all this.
No, I think the parent post is correct. Bush's State of the Union speech on Jan 29, 2003, is exactly the reason that North Korea withdrew from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty on January 10, 2003.
What makes you think you need to leave the house to borrow ebooks from the library (other than once every three years to renew your library card): http://overdrive.dclibrary.org/
The label/retailer distinction is important, and it looks like the labels are wrong on both sides.
They claim that they are selling copies to the retailer, and the retailer is then licensing them to the consumer. That seems like an untenable position. Clearly, if they are selling to the retailer, the retailer must be passing the item "sold" to the consumer.
However, the reverse situation seems far more logical. They are giving a license to the retailer to make as many copies as needed. Each copy is then sold to the consumer.
If they win against the artists, I don't see how they could possibly win ReDigi. But if they lose to the artists, there's a chance that they could still lose to ReDigi.
> Can't people just use whatever software fits their needs?
Um, isn't that why he quit? They decided to go "100%" MS, which means they are no longer going to evaluate the software and find the right solution, they will just pick MS. He didn't say they replaced Postgres with Access, or that they want people to use IE instead of Chrome. He said that they just BANNED all non-Microsoft software.
So no, at his current job, he cannot use whatever software fits his needs. That's why he wants a new job.
Yeah, but google doesn't just shut things down overnight. They usually announce a date where it will be read-only, and then keep it up for much longer. Wave, for example, is RO now and won't be shut down until April 30.
Yes, a great case, except for the fact that the new policy doesn't apply to them at all.