The 13th amendment (slavery) is a limit on the power of the states to regulate slavery, and a requirement on congress to pass a law outlawing slavery, not a limit on individuals. The limit on individuals owning slaves comes from US Code Title 18 Chapter 77. If you own a slave you are not doing something unconstitutional, you are doing something illegal. However, if the congress were to do away with USC18-77 (and not replace it with something else), THAT would be unconstitutional. In the absence of such a law you could own a slave.
You can't sell yourself into slavery because of the laws in USC Title 18 Chapter 77. The Constitution authorized that law,but selling yourself into slavery isn't 'unconstitutional', it is illegal.
A contract can not make you do something illegal. There is nothing illegal about saying 'I won't talk about you.'
More importantly, the Constitution says only what the government may, may not, and must do. It says nothing about what individuals may, may not, or must do. You have no 'constitutional rights' when dealing with another non-governmental entity.
Eh? Frank Cary was the CEO of IBM during the initial development of the PC (1980), and John Opel was the CEO for it's release (1981). John Akers was not CEO until 1985.
And brilliant moves like that is why Sprint is #3 on the list of companies with the largest losses ($3.5B last year) and AT&T and Verizon are on the list with biggest profits.
The kind who wants to be able to hold the city hostage, which is exactly what this guy did. He set up the systems so that any attempt to reboot or power cycle the routers required loading the configuration from a file he had encrypted on his laptop.
A lot of people on here are claiming he did this stuff only for security, but in fact he did it for no reason but to make himself indispensable. It didn't work, and cost the city a lot of money trying to recover from it.
Gee, I wonder whose job it would have been to test for vulnerabilities? The guy had root access and has already demonstrated he couldn't be trusted, therefore EVERYTHING he touched must be considered suspect. For example, how did they know he didn't install any rootkits which would make normal vulnerability testing invalid?
Yeah, it costs nothing. Because of course the songwriter worked for free, the musicians worked for free, any support people (management, etc) worked for free, all the people involved were housed and fed for free, the building they recorded in was built and maintained for free, all the equipment (instruments and recording) was free, the utilities for the building were provided for free, the product was marketed for free, the hosting for distribution was provided for free, there were no taxes paid on any of the above, etc.
If you truly think it is 'free', why don't you start your own label? Pay the artists a fair price (unlike what they get paid by the RIAA, according to slashdot). Give them equipment and studio time. Get them to create songs that the public wants. Market the songs for them. Then, give away the result for free, because that is what you believe the real cost is. Let us know how long you can sustain that.
The patent was filed in 1966, and according to the abstract, the intended use was 'broadcast and closed-circuit' television. The 'raster video display' was a television, and had been 'practical' for several decades. Likewise, the need to get text on the screen was also well-known, and had been accomplished for decades with cards held in front of a camera and flying spot scanners. The target was the broadcast television industry, which was well familiar with expensive equipment, so 'affordable' was not a major criteria. Furthermore, it did not 'gather dust' for a decade. For instance, if you look around the 4:30 mark of this video (Super Bowl III) you can see it being used in 1969. So what were those 'great many' engineers doing if this was so obvious? What happened in 1966 that suddenly led RCA to this invention? Maybe it was that it was not obvious at all.
The essence of invention is 'find a problem and fix it'. That is what patents are promoting. You can't just strip off the first part (identifying a problem) and then claim the whole thing is 'obvious'.
Why is running a casino any more 'immoral' than any other form of entertainment? I could spend money on movies, going to a club, going to the theater, going skydiving, attending a concert, or going to a casino. Someone is going to make profit off each one of them, and (except for gambling) I am guaranteed to come away from each one of them with nothing but memories.
Your use of the term 'fools' is just snobbery. I know many people who enjoy gambling (I myself do not), including my wife. I would not call any one of them a fool. None of them actually expect to come home with more money than they went with, but it does happen sometimes. All of them just see gambling as an enjoyable way to spend a day.
Hmm. Let's see. Intuit's market cap is almost $17B, so you would need more than that for a hostile takeover. What kind of nut-job would spend $17B for a company for the sole purpose of destroying it's revenue stream?
Surely no company is stupid enough to allow 'technical leads' to make such decisions without management being made fully aware of the consequences through a review by legal.
So no, you can't 'force' companies to release something as open source like that. Either management is aware of the consequences (which means you didn't force them), or you did stuff without management approval and are at risk of being sued yourself.
Before MS had an operating system called Windows no-one ever said 'I am going to buy a copy of Windows', or 'How do I install Windows', or 'Windows crashed'. The term 'Windows' was never used to refer to an operating system until MS named theirs. The term is not generic when referring to an OS. People may have said 'How do I close a window', etc but that was always in reference to either a physical window, or the UI element called a window, never an OS.
What got him 'exonerated' was that they didn't find any evidence (ie he was innocent), not that he left his wifi open. If they HAD found evidence on his computer, having an open wifi would certainly not exonerate him. What the open wifi got him was he and his wife held at gunpoint after their house was broken into, and computers and phones to be taken and searched.
Where does it say the guy was arrested? Granted, their tactics were heavy-handed, but it sounds like all they did was execute a search warrant, based on the (correct) information that the IP address was assigned to that customer. The fact that he decided to extend 'his' IP address to other people does not negate the information LE had. When nothing was found (a couple days later) they gave the equipment back. Nowhere does it say anyone at that house was ever arrested or charged with anything.
And yes, this sort of thing certainly can and does happen with things that are not IP addresses. If a car with your license number is seen fleeing a crime scene, you can bet you will be getting a visit from the police, even if they don't (yet) know it was you driving the car.
And what should they do instead? The IP address is the only thing they have at that point - the rest of the evidence is collected AFTER they gain entry to the house. To understand why they use the 'break down the door' technique all you have to do is look at previous slashdot articles where people give such helpful advise as 'run truecrypt, and pull the plug when the cops knock at your door'.
If you are going to let others use your identity (and your IP address is one form of identification), you need to accept that others may do things that land you in hot water.
So buy another Kindle for yourself. You can read any of her books without buying another copy (you can use six devices on the same account). You can also read the same books at the same time, which is kind of hard to do with one copy of a physical book.
Gasp! The thought of all those poor people who can't afford to use their smart phones, tablets, and netbooks is almost too much to bear... Get a little perspective.
Well you just illustrated his point perfectly, didn't you? First, they are not 'promoted' to judge, they are either elected or appointed. Secondly, the reason they get elected or appointed is the very same reason the RIAA hired them - they are extremely good at the law. A lawyer's job (in fact , his legal duty) is to provide the best representation and case that he can for his client, regardless of his personal feelings for the client or the client's case. The very best lawyers could probably argue either side of a case with equal passion. That ability makes them good candidates for being judges.
It is completely unreasonable to claim that. Your car is not you. You indeed have the right to not provide documentation without suspicion. Your car, not being a person, has no such rights or privileges. If you don't want to provide documentation of who you are, don't drive around in something that plainly displays that information.
Egad. The whole point of license plates is to be readily and publicly visible - kind of hard to argue the whole expectation of privacy thing there. Also, the license plate is not yours, it is the state's.
Oh, and I forgot: IBM did NOT list patents that it said Hercules was in violation of. It listed patents it owns on the zArchitecture. It said nothing about Hercules violating those patents. Again, remember this list was sent in response to the stupid 'we didn't know you had any IP on zArchitecture, please tell us what IP' letter that was sent to THEM. The first letter IBM sent did NOT say patents, it said 'IP'. IP includes things like trade secrets and trademarks in addition to patents.
I am curious as to what you think IBM should have done. Here are the facts: IBM does in fact own many patents on their zArchitecture systems. These patents represent literally billions of dollars in investments. In the 12 years that the Hercules project has existed, IBM has neither sued nor threatened to sue anyone over violations in Hercules. TurboHercules (not IBM) asked IBM to enter into a business arrangement that is directly counter to IBMs business interests. IBM declined to enter this arrangement, and gave it's reasons. One of those reasons is in fact that IBM believes that the Hercules project infringes on their IP, and naturally they don't want to enter an arrangement where a) the other company is just trying to poach IBM customers, and b) IBM is not getting anything out of the deal (such as license fees). Do you think they just have simply said 'no' and not given any reasons? That would not be very professional, would it. Should they just pretend they didn't invest those billions of dollars that TurboHercules is trying to get a free ride on?
IBM has never made a single public statement about Hercules and patents. They have never sent any letters to any Hercules developer. They have never sent a letter to a Hercules user. They have made no court filings. All they did was REPLY (privately) to a private letter asking them to do something they did not want to do. Try as I might, I see no lawsuits or threats anywhere in there.
Suppose you (a nice, peaceful guy) suspect your wife is having an affair with some guy. This doesn't make you happy, but you take no action. Later, the guy has the nerve to come and ask if he can rent a room at your house. You say no. The guy feigns surprise and says 'why not'? You respond, 'because I think you are having an affair with my wife'. Have you made threats? Have you sued anyone? This is EXACTLY what is happening here (except here people are screaming 'this supposedly peaceful guy is threatening his life! He didn't need to do that! He is evil!')
Slashdot Mirror
The 13th amendment (slavery) is a limit on the power of the states to regulate slavery, and a requirement on congress to pass a law outlawing slavery, not a limit on individuals. The limit on individuals owning slaves comes from US Code Title 18 Chapter 77. If you own a slave you are not doing something unconstitutional, you are doing something illegal. However, if the congress were to do away with USC18-77 (and not replace it with something else), THAT would be unconstitutional. In the absence of such a law you could own a slave.
You can't sell yourself into slavery because of the laws in USC Title 18 Chapter 77. The Constitution authorized that law,but selling yourself into slavery isn't 'unconstitutional', it is illegal.
A contract can not make you do something illegal. There is nothing illegal about saying 'I won't talk about you.'
More importantly, the Constitution says only what the government may, may not, and must do. It says nothing about what individuals may, may not, or must do. You have no 'constitutional rights' when dealing with another non-governmental entity.
Eh? Frank Cary was the CEO of IBM during the initial development of the PC (1980), and John Opel was the CEO for it's release (1981). John Akers was not CEO until 1985.
And brilliant moves like that is why Sprint is #3 on the list of companies with the largest losses ($3.5B last year) and AT&T and Verizon are on the list with biggest profits.
The kind who wants to be able to hold the city hostage, which is exactly what this guy did. He set up the systems so that any attempt to reboot or power cycle the routers required loading the configuration from a file he had encrypted on his laptop.
A lot of people on here are claiming he did this stuff only for security, but in fact he did it for no reason but to make himself indispensable. It didn't work, and cost the city a lot of money trying to recover from it.
Gee, I wonder whose job it would have been to test for vulnerabilities? The guy had root access and has already demonstrated he couldn't be trusted, therefore EVERYTHING he touched must be considered suspect. For example, how did they know he didn't install any rootkits which would make normal vulnerability testing invalid?
Yeah, it costs nothing. Because of course the songwriter worked for free, the musicians worked for free, any support people (management, etc) worked for free, all the people involved were housed and fed for free, the building they recorded in was built and maintained for free, all the equipment (instruments and recording) was free, the utilities for the building were provided for free, the product was marketed for free, the hosting for distribution was provided for free, there were no taxes paid on any of the above, etc.
If you truly think it is 'free', why don't you start your own label? Pay the artists a fair price (unlike what they get paid by the RIAA, according to slashdot). Give them equipment and studio time. Get them to create songs that the public wants. Market the songs for them. Then, give away the result for free, because that is what you believe the real cost is. Let us know how long you can sustain that.
The patent was filed in 1966, and according to the abstract, the intended use was 'broadcast and closed-circuit' television. The 'raster video display' was a television, and had been 'practical' for several decades. Likewise, the need to get text on the screen was also well-known, and had been accomplished for decades with cards held in front of a camera and flying spot scanners. The target was the broadcast television industry, which was well familiar with expensive equipment, so 'affordable' was not a major criteria. Furthermore, it did not 'gather dust' for a decade. For instance, if you look around the 4:30 mark of this video (Super Bowl III) you can see it being used in 1969. So what were those 'great many' engineers doing if this was so obvious? What happened in 1966 that suddenly led RCA to this invention? Maybe it was that it was not obvious at all.
The essence of invention is 'find a problem and fix it'. That is what patents are promoting. You can't just strip off the first part (identifying a problem) and then claim the whole thing is 'obvious'.
Why is running a casino any more 'immoral' than any other form of entertainment? I could spend money on movies, going to a club, going to the theater, going skydiving, attending a concert, or going to a casino. Someone is going to make profit off each one of them, and (except for gambling) I am guaranteed to come away from each one of them with nothing but memories.
Your use of the term 'fools' is just snobbery. I know many people who enjoy gambling (I myself do not), including my wife. I would not call any one of them a fool. None of them actually expect to come home with more money than they went with, but it does happen sometimes. All of them just see gambling as an enjoyable way to spend a day.
Hmm. Let's see. Intuit's market cap is almost $17B, so you would need more than that for a hostile takeover. What kind of nut-job would spend $17B for a company for the sole purpose of destroying it's revenue stream?
Surely no company is stupid enough to allow 'technical leads' to make such decisions without management being made fully aware of the consequences through a review by legal.
So no, you can't 'force' companies to release something as open source like that. Either management is aware of the consequences (which means you didn't force them), or you did stuff without management approval and are at risk of being sued yourself.
Before MS had an operating system called Windows no-one ever said 'I am going to buy a copy of Windows', or 'How do I install Windows', or 'Windows crashed'. The term 'Windows' was never used to refer to an operating system until MS named theirs. The term is not generic when referring to an OS. People may have said 'How do I close a window', etc but that was always in reference to either a physical window, or the UI element called a window, never an OS.
What got him 'exonerated' was that they didn't find any evidence (ie he was innocent), not that he left his wifi open. If they HAD found evidence on his computer, having an open wifi would certainly not exonerate him. What the open wifi got him was he and his wife held at gunpoint after their house was broken into, and computers and phones to be taken and searched.
Where does it say the guy was arrested? Granted, their tactics were heavy-handed, but it sounds like all they did was execute a search warrant, based on the (correct) information that the IP address was assigned to that customer. The fact that he decided to extend 'his' IP address to other people does not negate the information LE had. When nothing was found (a couple days later) they gave the equipment back. Nowhere does it say anyone at that house was ever arrested or charged with anything.
And yes, this sort of thing certainly can and does happen with things that are not IP addresses. If a car with your license number is seen fleeing a crime scene, you can bet you will be getting a visit from the police, even if they don't (yet) know it was you driving the car.
And what should they do instead? The IP address is the only thing they have at that point - the rest of the evidence is collected AFTER they gain entry to the house. To understand why they use the 'break down the door' technique all you have to do is look at previous slashdot articles where people give such helpful advise as 'run truecrypt, and pull the plug when the cops knock at your door'.
If you are going to let others use your identity (and your IP address is one form of identification), you need to accept that others may do things that land you in hot water.
So buy another Kindle for yourself. You can read any of her books without buying another copy (you can use six devices on the same account). You can also read the same books at the same time, which is kind of hard to do with one copy of a physical book.
Gasp! The thought of all those poor people who can't afford to use their smart phones, tablets, and netbooks is almost too much to bear... Get a little perspective.
Well you just illustrated his point perfectly, didn't you? First, they are not 'promoted' to judge, they are either elected or appointed. Secondly, the reason they get elected or appointed is the very same reason the RIAA hired them - they are extremely good at the law. A lawyer's job (in fact , his legal duty) is to provide the best representation and case that he can for his client, regardless of his personal feelings for the client or the client's case. The very best lawyers could probably argue either side of a case with equal passion. That ability makes them good candidates for being judges.
It is completely unreasonable to claim that. Your car is not you. You indeed have the right to not provide documentation without suspicion. Your car, not being a person, has no such rights or privileges. If you don't want to provide documentation of who you are, don't drive around in something that plainly displays that information.
Egad. The whole point of license plates is to be readily and publicly visible - kind of hard to argue the whole expectation of privacy thing there. Also, the license plate is not yours, it is the state's.
Uh, these cameras are not searching your car. They are searching public streets FOR your car.
Oh, and I forgot: IBM did NOT list patents that it said Hercules was in violation of. It listed patents it owns on the zArchitecture. It said nothing about Hercules violating those patents. Again, remember this list was sent in response to the stupid 'we didn't know you had any IP on zArchitecture, please tell us what IP' letter that was sent to THEM. The first letter IBM sent did NOT say patents, it said 'IP'. IP includes things like trade secrets and trademarks in addition to patents.
I am curious as to what you think IBM should have done. Here are the facts: IBM does in fact own many patents on their zArchitecture systems. These patents represent literally billions of dollars in investments. In the 12 years that the Hercules project has existed, IBM has neither sued nor threatened to sue anyone over violations in Hercules. TurboHercules (not IBM) asked IBM to enter into a business arrangement that is directly counter to IBMs business interests. IBM declined to enter this arrangement, and gave it's reasons. One of those reasons is in fact that IBM believes that the Hercules project infringes on their IP, and naturally they don't want to enter an arrangement where a) the other company is just trying to poach IBM customers, and b) IBM is not getting anything out of the deal (such as license fees). Do you think they just have simply said 'no' and not given any reasons? That would not be very professional, would it. Should they just pretend they didn't invest those billions of dollars that TurboHercules is trying to get a free ride on?
IBM has never made a single public statement about Hercules and patents. They have never sent any letters to any Hercules developer. They have never sent a letter to a Hercules user. They have made no court filings. All they did was REPLY (privately) to a private letter asking them to do something they did not want to do. Try as I might, I see no lawsuits or threats anywhere in there.
Suppose you (a nice, peaceful guy) suspect your wife is having an affair with some guy. This doesn't make you happy, but you take no action. Later, the guy has the nerve to come and ask if he can rent a room at your house. You say no. The guy feigns surprise and says 'why not'? You respond, 'because I think you are having an affair with my wife'. Have you made threats? Have you sued anyone? This is EXACTLY what is happening here (except here people are screaming 'this supposedly peaceful guy is threatening his life! He didn't need to do that! He is evil!')