Some guy helping the homeless is due to capitalism?
Where else did the guy get his money to help? Uh, oh that's right.. Capitalism!
You know... capitalism may not need any enemy to collapse. It already has one within. Since you love capitalism so much, I suggest that you get to work ASAP to avoid a debt default and a consequent collapse of the system...
Sorry chief, I'm 90% liquid. Capitalism isn't pushed from debt, either. What do you suggest? Communism? In case you failed to notice, communists tend to starve. Apparently history is lost on you. Capitalism means one thing: Working harder/smarter for more wealth. It works on the basic human nature and instinct for more comfortable survival. Your dislike for capitalism is irrational. Just because there is a high debt rate at the moment doesn't mean that's because of the nature of capitalism. Corrality and causality are very different things.
A pragmatist view... We didn't get to where we are by supporting the status quo and pretending it is the best system. With your attitude we will still be living under a monarchy... The problems are there; too bad you just ignore them:(
No, I don't ignore them. You just assume I do. I just accept the good and the bad, and weigh them together. Which system do you think works?
Just read the GPL again, it does mention specifically, in the section 0:
But they contradict themselves by limiting liability. Through the liability limitations, they are binding the end-user to an agreement. As you said, just because they pretend their car is blue, doesn't make it so.
The GPL doesn't even talk about these scenario. If you want to install Linux on your PC, you just don't need to be aware of any license.
There is a paper written by some Australian CEO detailing the differences between the GPL and the Windows XP EULA. I would suggest reading it. There are several cases which prove the GPL can be used as an EULA, even with Section 0 (Which just governs what can be done with use, but not the full scope of what the user can do.) Here is an exerpt of a summary:
The study found that while 45 percent of the EULA was concerned with limiting users' rights, only 27 percent of the GPL concentrated on this aspect. Over half (51 percent) of the GPL focused on extending users' rights while only 15 percent of the EULA was concerned with this aspect. And while 40 percent of the EULA limited remedies, the corresponding figure for the GPL was 22 percent.
Lackey is getting fucked, this is a raw deal. He's a great guy. He's already blown $250000 of his own fucking money on this, and used two years of his life. Give the guy a fucking break, will you.
Lackey isn't the king of Sealand. We are giving him a break, and we're saying the King of Sealand is the idiot.
Apparently you haven't been paying too much attention, and if you saw the talk why didn't you figure out how was actually speaking? I guess it's not as cool to say you watched Lackey, the CTO for the Principality of Sealand, huh?
Again, not true. You don't have to care about the GPL is you just use a piece of GPL code. See below.
In the case of Qt, it is entirely true. Download and install Qt. It will tell you to accept the GPL as an EULA. There are several other cases.
It is true that when you link a library to your code, you bound you own code with the GPL. But you don't have to care about it unless you distribute the said library. If you just use it for you own purposes, you don't care about it. Only if you distribute it.
The same could be said for any software EULA, though.
Please, I'm tired of saying it in all my posts, so just give me one example where a user of a piece of GPL code have to care about the GPL unless he distributes it. Then we will be settled (if the example is valid;-).
Qt. It satisfies all conditions of my argument. While I'm not saying the GPL is always an EULA, it can be used as a binding EULA. Such is the case with Qt.
It had issues when you were installing it at your own. But the VOBIS computers came preinstalled with OS/2, so the hardware issues were already solved. Once in time, OS/2 made up for 30% of all IBM-compatible PC-OS-sales in Germany.
In Germany were I live we had at one time (about 1991) more than 250 companies assembling their own IBM compatible computers. So "hundreds and thousands" is to be taken litterally.
Well, that's just utter bull-shit first off. I worked in a very small computer shop being the only person building computers. I produced on average 10 computers a day. This was because we had several business clients that sold computers we provided. Within a year, I produced over 3,000 computers. If there were 250 shops, that is 750,000 computers in a year. They would put themselves out of business in less than a year at that rate. So... uhm, you are full of shit.
And even though they were using software compatible to Microsoft products, many of them rather installed DR DOS. The market leader in Germany at the time, VOBIS, moved to OS/2 3.0 and Warp instead of Windows 3.1. And we students were busily trading MS Word 4.0, 5.0 and 5.5 because the university's computer for printing had MS Word installed. Most of the more experienced computer users used TeX and LaTeX instead though.
Congratulations, you have a limited selection. Let me tell you what life was like where even more computers were sold in the early 1990's. They all ran Windows.
OS/2 had issues running on non-IBM hardware, too. Remember that? I doubt it, because your whole post reeks of making shit up.
I'm anti-capitalist so we clearly have different value systems. To me, the vast majority of corporations are nothing but exploiters of society and MS is no diffrent. Many who have worked for the company have profitted immensely but that doesn't mean anything...
All the things the anti-capitalist folks living in the US have, wouldn't be there if it weren't for capitalism. You realize that the lower 80% of the population could effectively stop paying tax and the government wouldn't notice that much? This is because of the upper 20% and the corporations. Capitalism is a necessity for technological advancements.
Are you referring to income taxes? If yes, then you are right. But if you count all taxes, then the middle class probably pays more (on sales tax and property tax).
Read above. Upper class pays more than anything, because they still buy just as much (usually more) of anything that the middle class buys. They also own more land, typically, thus providing more property tax.
If the upper 20% of the population (in terms of wage/net worth) disappeared the economy would crumble. In the lower 80% of the population disappeared, there would be a hard time finding replacement for the work.
Being anti-capitalist means being anti-realist. The reality of life is that everything you have today is driven by capitalism.
I just need to get a driving license to run my car and need to accept the EULA to run whatever is on my CD.
Again, this is wrong. Lets stop using analogies. You don't need a drivers license to run your car (drive) -- you need it to drive on public roads. I was driving plenty before I actually had a license, but it wasn't on public roads.
So we agree that GPL is not an EULA, right?
I'm saying the GPL can be an EULA. It is entirely possible, and feasible, for it to be used as an EULA and is in many cases.
The key part is the one I put in bold. That is the user. He doesn't care about the GPL. The GPL just doesn't talk about him. In that sense the GPL is not an EULA.
The GPL does for some software. You can't just make a blanket statement, "The GPL is not an EULA." Any user of Qt or any other library must agree to the GPL as an end-user agreement. Using a GPL'd library means linking it into your code, right? So the GPL is, under all circumstances, an EULA.
BTW, the next time you put some milk in your cereals, think about the unicorn;-)
Thankfully I don't eat cereal, too much sugar in it:)
Granted. You don't need a PC to accept M$ EULA either. What's your point?
Uhm, if the EULA is only available on the CD-ROM, how do you not need a PC?
I don't need to accept M$ EULA in order to own Windows XP. I just need it to run it.
When did you ever own XP? Microsoft didn't sell you XP, they sold you a license.
I buy a RH CD, I don't give a shit about the GPL. I can use it for free. Unless RH writes an EULA (for me to accept) I don't actually have to read or accept anything while installing my Linux.
Hence, Mandrake has a EULA. Red Hat (I think) has a EULA. Some software (Qt) has a EULA.
What part of that are you not understanding?
Here's how it breaks down:
By using (the source), running the application, or distributing it, your rights (with the possible exception of running the application, which doesn't require implied consent to the GPL) are governed by what the GPL allows. You have no rights in addition to what the GPL allows. You have no claim for liability as an end-user.
Those conditions are enough to satisfy the conditions for an end-user license. Even just removing liability does that.
I have no doubt he's jerk. But does that mean he doesn't deserve to be protected by the law?
What law was violated? What right was violated? I'm not seeing anything.
He committed an established crime. He was sentenced to what the judge decided was a fair sentence. That's what judges do, they judge people.
No thats incorrect. Being Black I have no love for the KKK but I was still pissed when our then hated and now seemingly beloved ex-Mayor Rudolf Guilliani did some highly suspect manuveuring to deny them a permit to march down Wall Street in NY.
I don't blame him. The implications of such an act would have grave repercussions, as well as possible sentiments of condoning hate crimes. Also, the sheer possibility of a violent outbreak would deem it to be a poor political and municipal decision.
Either way, I'll rally behind someone who is innocent and treated unfairly. Not a 2-bit jerk-off who got a year in prison.
So we should only choose the winners? The upstanding citizens of the U.S. of A? My question to you is: Who will be left to stand up for you when your "rights" have been trampled on?
Someone who doesn't abuse the system, advocate violence against the system, perpetrates violence against the system.
I would never chose for someone to support me if I didn't respect them and thought they understood the cause. How many people here can advocate terrorism? If you don't, don't support this guy.
To push the analogy a little further, the EULA for a car is the "Driver's Handbook". When you agree with it and the DMV made sure you did and understood it, they give you a driving license.
Retarded analogy, as most of them are on here.
You don't need a car to have a drivers license. You don't need a drivers license to own a car.
Ok, that must be the difference you were looking for.
Not quite.
1. In order to use a DVD, you need a RIAA approved device/program that will play the movie Wrong.
2. In order to distribute a DVD, you just need a way to clone it, like with a DVD press (in theory, those big commercial ones), you...
Wrong again. What stops me from exporting the DVD signal from S-Video out and distributing it on VHS? I'm "using" the DVD on my computer and distributing it while using (running) it.
What did you smoke this morning ?
Keep the argument on what it is. Do you really need analogies? When you put milk in your cereal do you say, "This is like fucking a white unicorn in the ass?"
You fucking people are astounding... you can't attempt to make a point without using an analogy.
I thought conspiracy to commit a serious crime was an offence whether or not the crime actually took place. Serious question here, if someone who appears part of an organised group should be arrested for conspiracy after a crime takes place, why not before?
Conspiracy to commit a crime means a crime will take place, even if it is thwarted. Keep in mind, too, that many things are now crimes just be thinking about committing them. I think distribution of bomb making material is a horribly stupid crime, but it still is one.
Anyway, had he fought the case, this guy might have won. The case was not tested, he (understandably) backed down in the face of a possible 20 years prison sentence.
I seriously doubt he would have won. Just the protesting charges alone would have probably put him at 4 months. The judge deciding one year was a better sentence is a normal thing, though. I know of one case where he got 2 years on a parole violation for very minor things when prosecution suggested community service. It just happens.
Only when it involves "online freedom" does it get headlined at Slashdot and people rally.
Let's say for argument's sake that the source code really and truly didn't get included in the liquidation, and wasn't included in some blanket "..and all other assets of value or works produced thereof.." statement.
This contradicts itself a bit. Since software authored by members of a corporate entity is automatically copyrighted by that entity it becomes an asset. Instantly. Just because they don't know about it, doesn't mean it isn't there. Just because they don't know, doesn't mean it's not theirs.
Does ANYBODY own it at that point? Is it considered public domain? Can it be re-copyrighted?
If the company simply stops operation, than yes. It will revert back to the original author (I believe, I'm not 100% sure on this) -- if there are any creditors or any other interested party that has control of the assets it will always belong to them.
But no, if something goes into the public domain you can't re-copyright it. You can do a dirty-room re-write of it, and copyright that but the public domain will stay in the public domain.
I'd guess that most liquidations do include a statement like that above, just to prevent stuff from slipping through the cracks -- name all the nameable stuff, and then have a catch-all for everything else.
They don't even name the nameable stuff. What happens (usually) is creditors for company XYZ hire liquidation firm ABC, and the liquidation firm values everything then tells the creditors the assessed value and they get to split up the money or the equivalent in goods (if they want them.)
This stuff has been going on for way too long for there to be things falling through the cracks. I'm sitting on tons of source code that is owned by a liquidation firm that has no clue what the hell they have.
I beleive his website was advocating violent action against innocent people.
He was also a violent protestor, and that was what he was originally arrested for.
If his site said "Kill all racial group X" and linked to pages telling people how to make and deliver bombs, I'd want it shut down and the owner in jail, too.
I wouldn't. People can spout of everything they want to. If someone uses the knowledge from him, he should be tried as an acomplice and also part of conspiracy to commit a crime.
This kid is a dumbass suburbanite whose parents didn't love him enough so he rebelled against the gubbmint. If we're going to rally behind someone whose rights are trampled on, lets pick a better candidate.
Personal computing was pushed by the Commodore PET, by Apple's II and successors and by the hundreds and thousands of companies building IBM compatible personal computers.
And why were the "hundreds and thousands of companies" (nice exaggeration, btw) building all of them? To run Microsoft software.
And by Microsoft when they looked away when students used their pirated version of MS Works or MS Word.
Nice way of discounting reality! I wish I had that power, too.
In Colombia very often the drug barons, that make a fortune out of the misery of many other people, regularly give to good causes in their towns of origin: public services, schools, even help building the local church.
Comparing Microsoft to a Columbian drug lord? Right, and you think I need help with my logic.
Draw your own analogies, it is not difficult (keep a sense of proportion, there are degrees of black here), but to say that somebody does not behave like a truly bastard in one field because he behaves like a saint in another is absolutely naive, childish and frankly stupid.
I don't need analogies. I look at facts. Bill Gates acts in the best interest of his stock holders and for the longevity of his company. He made Microsoft what it was before there was any issues with monopolies or illegal practices. Making Windows run on MS-Dos was a good business move.
Almost every programmer in the world should thank Microsoft for pushing personal computing, because we wouldn't have a job otherwise.
And I'm a unix programmer. I've only produced one windows application, written in Qt and developed under Linux.
Think of it this way... If I cut down all the forests and eliminate all the endangered species, enriching myself by $2.7billion in the process, and then turn around and donate $700million, am I really being charitable and fair? Well, considering Microsoft didn't kill off any endangered species the analogy is incredibly flawed.
Microsoft destroyed it's competitors by using very shrewd (and in the case of Netscape, illegal) business tactics. They guaranteed their place in the world by making software that people buy.
I'm not understanding how that is evil.
Absolute actions mean nothing when it comes to morality... a poor person giving half his bread is far more admirable than a rich person giving a full loaf of bread!!!
Yes, but the rich support the poor. So, you are biting the hand that feeds you.
And therein lies the fatal flaw in pushing a Microsoft-controlled (and possibly patented) standard on a free platform...
You mean ECMA. Not Microsoft controlled. Guaranteed royalty free.
Indeed, were the GNU/Linux desktop and server implimentations to fully embrace it, Linux servers and desktops could well put themselves in the position of existing solely at the pleasure of Microsoft... which would be a fleeting thing at best.
Indeed, my ass. Does that mean that Bjarne Stroustrup can call to term the existence of every C++ application? Didn't think so.
Microsoft may or may not be inherently evil, but that they are an enemy of free software is indisputable
Do you even know what evil means? You do realize that Bill Gates contributes more to charities every year than 90% of the population makes in their life times?
That sounds really evil to me.
We dismiss such concerns at our own, rather substantial, risk.
I'm surprised that some overly sensitive person hasn't complained about using drug paraphernalia to promote slashdot. Not that there's any kind of positive public image to be upheld, but still.:P
Someone did in another comment. Someone else pointed out that it's funny the first thing people think of us illegal drug usage, and not a doctor giving a vitamin or booster shot.
I don't think I've ever seen a webpage yet that uses HTTP to determine which locale a user is from.
Look around, I know off the top of my head that Nissan does. It just changes the language, however.
Stateful connections with HTTP would break the whole design behind HTTP. It wouldn't be able to handle the load that it does now with connection systems like FTP, it was a smart move to get rid of it.
What needs to be done (and I'm too busy to try authoring it right now) is a strong session tracking module (similar to mod_session) that is built into the server. It's still hard to do, because you never know what the client is coming from (and certian proxies can break it.) If that can get in there, than HTTP will be great.
I'd love to see a combination content delivery system operating with signed sessions, with message envelopes so email and websites can all be taken care of in the same package. (cheers jwz)
I may know the source of this problem. There was an English "lesson" dealing with the proper usage of apostraphe's and they 'said that it's can only be used with apostraphe's because it i's always "it is". I've found easier 'solution's a's to when to u'se them, though.
A syringe with an RJ11... It just makes no sense...
At first I thought it was a vacuum cleaner, Apple style (kinda like the iBrator.) It was funny then, because it was like, "Slashdot: Still sucking", but then I realized it was a syringe and was just confused.
Slashdot Mirror
Some guy helping the homeless is due to capitalism?
:(
Where else did the guy get his money to help? Uh, oh that's right.. Capitalism!
You know... capitalism may not need any enemy to collapse. It already has one within. Since you love capitalism so much, I suggest that you get to work ASAP to avoid a debt default and a consequent collapse of the system...
Sorry chief, I'm 90% liquid. Capitalism isn't pushed from debt, either. What do you suggest? Communism? In case you failed to notice, communists tend to starve. Apparently history is lost on you. Capitalism means one thing: Working harder/smarter for more wealth. It works on the basic human nature and instinct for more comfortable survival. Your dislike for capitalism is irrational. Just because there is a high debt rate at the moment doesn't mean that's because of the nature of capitalism. Corrality and causality are very different things.
A pragmatist view... We didn't get to where we are by supporting the status quo and pretending it is the best system. With your attitude we will still be living under a monarchy... The problems are there; too bad you just ignore them
No, I don't ignore them. You just assume I do. I just accept the good and the bad, and weigh them together. Which system do you think works?
But they contradict themselves by limiting liability. Through the liability limitations, they are binding the end-user to an agreement. As you said, just because they pretend their car is blue, doesn't make it so.
The GPL doesn't even talk about these scenario. If you want to install Linux on your PC, you just don't need to be aware of any license.
There is a paper written by some Australian CEO detailing the differences between the GPL and the Windows XP EULA. I would suggest reading it. There are several cases which prove the GPL can be used as an EULA, even with Section 0 (Which just governs what can be done with use, but not the full scope of what the user can do.) Here is an exerpt of a summary:
Here's the paper.
If the GPL could not be used as an EULA, those percentages would be much different.
Lackey is getting fucked, this is a raw deal. He's a great guy. He's already blown $250000 of his own fucking money on this, and used two years of his life. Give the guy a fucking break, will you.
Lackey isn't the king of Sealand. We are giving him a break, and we're saying the King of Sealand is the idiot.
Apparently you haven't been paying too much attention, and if you saw the talk why didn't you figure out how was actually speaking? I guess it's not as cool to say you watched Lackey, the CTO for the Principality of Sealand, huh?
Again, not true. You don't have to care about the GPL is you just use a piece of GPL code. See below.
;-).
In the case of Qt, it is entirely true. Download and install Qt. It will tell you to accept the GPL as an EULA. There are several other cases.
It is true that when you link a library to your code, you bound you own code with the GPL. But you don't have to care about it unless you distribute the said library. If you just use it for you own purposes, you don't care about it. Only if you distribute it.
The same could be said for any software EULA, though.
Please, I'm tired of saying it in all my posts, so just give me one example where a user of a piece of GPL code have to care about the GPL unless he distributes it. Then we will be settled (if the example is valid
Qt. It satisfies all conditions of my argument. While I'm not saying the GPL is always an EULA, it can be used as a binding EULA. Such is the case with Qt.
Just for stating facts?
Back up your facts, and lets talk some more.
It had issues when you were installing it at your own. But the VOBIS computers came preinstalled with OS/2, so the hardware issues were already solved. Once in time, OS/2 made up for 30% of all IBM-compatible PC-OS-sales in Germany.
30%, and so the other 70% was Microsoft then?
In Germany were I live we had at one time (about 1991) more than 250 companies assembling their own IBM compatible computers. So "hundreds and thousands" is to be taken litterally.
Well, that's just utter bull-shit first off. I worked in a very small computer shop being the only person building computers. I produced on average 10 computers a day. This was because we had several business clients that sold computers we provided. Within a year, I produced over 3,000 computers. If there were 250 shops, that is 750,000 computers in a year. They would put themselves out of business in less than a year at that rate. So... uhm, you are full of shit.
And even though they were using software compatible to Microsoft products, many of them rather installed DR DOS. The market leader in Germany at the time, VOBIS, moved to OS/2 3.0 and Warp instead of Windows 3.1. And we students were busily trading MS Word 4.0, 5.0 and 5.5 because the university's computer for printing had MS Word installed. Most of the more experienced computer users used TeX and LaTeX instead though.
Congratulations, you have a limited selection. Let me tell you what life was like where even more computers were sold in the early 1990's. They all ran Windows.
OS/2 had issues running on non-IBM hardware, too. Remember that? I doubt it, because your whole post reeks of making shit up.
I'm anti-capitalist so we clearly have different value systems. To me, the vast majority of corporations are nothing but exploiters of society and MS is no diffrent. Many who have worked for the company have profitted immensely but that doesn't mean anything...
All the things the anti-capitalist folks living in the US have, wouldn't be there if it weren't for capitalism. You realize that the lower 80% of the population could effectively stop paying tax and the government wouldn't notice that much? This is because of the upper 20% and the corporations. Capitalism is a necessity for technological advancements.
Are you referring to income taxes? If yes, then you are right. But if you count all taxes, then the middle class probably pays more (on sales tax and property tax).
Read above. Upper class pays more than anything, because they still buy just as much (usually more) of anything that the middle class buys. They also own more land, typically, thus providing more property tax.
If the upper 20% of the population (in terms of wage/net worth) disappeared the economy would crumble. In the lower 80% of the population disappeared, there would be a hard time finding replacement for the work.
Being anti-capitalist means being anti-realist. The reality of life is that everything you have today is driven by capitalism.
I just need to get a driving license to run my car and need to accept the EULA to run whatever is on my CD.
;-)
:)
Again, this is wrong. Lets stop using analogies. You don't need a drivers license to run your car (drive) -- you need it to drive on public roads. I was driving plenty before I actually had a license, but it wasn't on public roads.
So we agree that GPL is not an EULA, right?
I'm saying the GPL can be an EULA. It is entirely possible, and feasible, for it to be used as an EULA and is in many cases.
The key part is the one I put in bold. That is the user. He doesn't care about the GPL. The GPL just doesn't talk about him. In that sense the GPL is not an EULA.
The GPL does for some software. You can't just make a blanket statement, "The GPL is not an EULA." Any user of Qt or any other library must agree to the GPL as an end-user agreement. Using a GPL'd library means linking it into your code, right? So the GPL is, under all circumstances, an EULA.
BTW, the next time you put some milk in your cereals, think about the unicorn
Thankfully I don't eat cereal, too much sugar in it
Granted. You don't need a PC to accept M$ EULA either. What's your point?
Uhm, if the EULA is only available on the CD-ROM, how do you not need a PC?
I don't need to accept M$ EULA in order to own Windows XP. I just need it to run it.
When did you ever own XP? Microsoft didn't sell you XP, they sold you a license.
I buy a RH CD, I don't give a shit about the GPL. I can use it for free. Unless RH writes an EULA (for me to accept) I don't actually have to read or accept anything while installing my Linux.
Hence, Mandrake has a EULA. Red Hat (I think) has a EULA. Some software (Qt) has a EULA.
What part of that are you not understanding?
Here's how it breaks down:
By using (the source), running the application, or distributing it, your rights (with the possible exception of running the application, which doesn't require implied consent to the GPL) are governed by what the GPL allows. You have no rights in addition to what the GPL allows. You have no claim for liability as an end-user.
Those conditions are enough to satisfy the conditions for an end-user license. Even just removing liability does that.
I have no doubt he's jerk. But does that mean he doesn't deserve to be protected by the law?
What law was violated? What right was violated? I'm not seeing anything.
He committed an established crime. He was sentenced to what the judge decided was a fair sentence. That's what judges do, they judge people.
No thats incorrect. Being Black I have no love for the KKK but I was still pissed when our then hated and now seemingly beloved ex-Mayor Rudolf Guilliani did some highly suspect manuveuring to deny them a permit to march down Wall Street in NY.
I don't blame him. The implications of such an act would have grave repercussions, as well as possible sentiments of condoning hate crimes. Also, the sheer possibility of a violent outbreak would deem it to be a poor political and municipal decision.
Either way, I'll rally behind someone who is innocent and treated unfairly. Not a 2-bit jerk-off who got a year in prison.
So we should only choose the winners? The upstanding citizens of the U.S. of A? My question to you is: Who will be left to stand up for you when your "rights" have been trampled on?
Someone who doesn't abuse the system, advocate violence against the system, perpetrates violence against the system.
I would never chose for someone to support me if I didn't respect them and thought they understood the cause. How many people here can advocate terrorism? If you don't, don't support this guy.
To push the analogy a little further, the EULA for a car is the "Driver's Handbook". When you agree with it and the DMV made sure you did and understood it, they give you a driving license.
Retarded analogy, as most of them are on here.
You don't need a car to have a drivers license. You don't need a drivers license to own a car.
Ok, that must be the difference you were looking for.
Not quite.
1. In order to use a DVD, you need a RIAA approved device/program that will play the movie
Wrong.
2. In order to distribute a DVD, you just need a way to clone it, like with a DVD press (in theory, those big commercial ones), you...
Wrong again. What stops me from exporting the DVD signal from S-Video out and distributing it on VHS? I'm "using" the DVD on my computer and distributing it while using (running) it.
What did you smoke this morning ?
Keep the argument on what it is. Do you really need analogies? When you put milk in your cereal do you say, "This is like fucking a white unicorn in the ass?"
You fucking people are astounding... you can't attempt to make a point without using an analogy.
I thought conspiracy to commit a serious crime was an offence whether or not the crime actually took place. Serious question here, if someone who appears part of an organised group should be arrested for conspiracy after a crime takes place, why not before?
Conspiracy to commit a crime means a crime will take place, even if it is thwarted. Keep in mind, too, that many things are now crimes just be thinking about committing them. I think distribution of bomb making material is a horribly stupid crime, but it still is one.
Anyway, had he fought the case, this guy might have won. The case was not tested, he (understandably) backed down in the face of a possible 20 years prison sentence.
I seriously doubt he would have won. Just the protesting charges alone would have probably put him at 4 months. The judge deciding one year was a better sentence is a normal thing, though. I know of one case where he got 2 years on a parole violation for very minor things when prosecution suggested community service. It just happens.
Only when it involves "online freedom" does it get headlined at Slashdot and people rally.
Let's say for argument's sake that the source code really and truly didn't get included in the liquidation, and wasn't included in some blanket "..and all other assets of value or works produced thereof.." statement.
This contradicts itself a bit. Since software authored by members of a corporate entity is automatically copyrighted by that entity it becomes an asset. Instantly. Just because they don't know about it, doesn't mean it isn't there. Just because they don't know, doesn't mean it's not theirs.
Does ANYBODY own it at that point? Is it considered public domain? Can it be re-copyrighted?
If the company simply stops operation, than yes. It will revert back to the original author (I believe, I'm not 100% sure on this) -- if there are any creditors or any other interested party that has control of the assets it will always belong to them.
But no, if something goes into the public domain you can't re-copyright it. You can do a dirty-room re-write of it, and copyright that but the public domain will stay in the public domain.
I'd guess that most liquidations do include a statement like that above, just to prevent stuff from slipping through the cracks -- name all the nameable stuff, and then have a catch-all for everything else.
They don't even name the nameable stuff. What happens (usually) is creditors for company XYZ hire liquidation firm ABC, and the liquidation firm values everything then tells the creditors the assessed value and they get to split up the money or the equivalent in goods (if they want them.)
This stuff has been going on for way too long for there to be things falling through the cracks. I'm sitting on tons of source code that is owned by a liquidation firm that has no clue what the hell they have.
I beleive his website was advocating violent action against innocent people.
He was also a violent protestor, and that was what he was originally arrested for.
If his site said "Kill all racial group X" and linked to pages telling people how to make and deliver bombs, I'd want it shut down and the owner in jail, too.
I wouldn't. People can spout of everything they want to. If someone uses the knowledge from him, he should be tried as an acomplice and also part of conspiracy to commit a crime.
This kid is a dumbass suburbanite whose parents didn't love him enough so he rebelled against the gubbmint. If we're going to rally behind someone whose rights are trampled on, lets pick a better candidate.
Personal computing was pushed by the Commodore PET, by Apple's II and successors and by the hundreds and thousands of companies building IBM compatible personal computers.
And why were the "hundreds and thousands of companies" (nice exaggeration, btw) building all of them? To run Microsoft software.
And by Microsoft when they looked away when students used their pirated version of MS Works or MS Word.
Nice way of discounting reality! I wish I had that power, too.
In Colombia very often the drug barons, that make a fortune out of the misery of many other people, regularly give to good causes in their towns of origin: public services, schools, even help building the local church.
Comparing Microsoft to a Columbian drug lord? Right, and you think I need help with my logic.
Draw your own analogies, it is not difficult (keep a sense of proportion, there are degrees of black here), but to say that somebody does not behave like a truly bastard in one field because he behaves like a saint in another is absolutely naive, childish and frankly stupid.
I don't need analogies. I look at facts. Bill Gates acts in the best interest of his stock holders and for the longevity of his company. He made Microsoft what it was before there was any issues with monopolies or illegal practices. Making Windows run on MS-Dos was a good business move.
Almost every programmer in the world should thank Microsoft for pushing personal computing, because we wouldn't have a job otherwise.
And I'm a unix programmer. I've only produced one windows application, written in Qt and developed under Linux.
Think of it this way... If I cut down all the forests and eliminate all the endangered species, enriching myself by $2.7billion in the process, and then turn around and donate $700million, am I really being charitable and fair?
Well, considering Microsoft didn't kill off any endangered species the analogy is incredibly flawed.
Microsoft destroyed it's competitors by using very shrewd (and in the case of Netscape, illegal) business tactics. They guaranteed their place in the world by making software that people buy.
I'm not understanding how that is evil.
Absolute actions mean nothing when it comes to morality... a poor person giving half his bread is far more admirable than a rich person giving a full loaf of bread!!!
Yes, but the rich support the poor. So, you are biting the hand that feeds you.
"How dare you counter our frivolous claims with an honest-to-goodness lawsuit based on real facts!?!?!"
And if you add the "good faith dialog" bit, "without telling us first and we're going to counter-sue you for using our sudden-lawsuit tactics!"
And therein lies the fatal flaw in pushing a Microsoft-controlled (and possibly patented) standard on a free platform ...
... which would be a fleeting thing at best.
You mean ECMA. Not Microsoft controlled. Guaranteed royalty free.
Indeed, were the GNU/Linux desktop and server implimentations to fully embrace it, Linux servers and desktops could well put themselves in the position of existing solely at the pleasure of Microsoft
Indeed, my ass. Does that mean that Bjarne Stroustrup can call to term the existence of every C++ application? Didn't think so.
Microsoft may or may not be inherently evil, but that they are an enemy of free software is indisputable
Do you even know what evil means? You do realize that Bill Gates contributes more to charities every year than 90% of the population makes in their life times?
That sounds really evil to me.
We dismiss such concerns at our own, rather substantial, risk.
Get a clue. Stop spreading FUD. Go work at SCO.
I'm surprised that some overly sensitive person hasn't complained about using drug paraphernalia to promote slashdot. Not that there's any kind of positive public image to be upheld, but still. :P
Someone did in another comment. Someone else pointed out that it's funny the first thing people think of us illegal drug usage, and not a doctor giving a vitamin or booster shot.
I don't think I've ever seen a webpage yet that uses HTTP to determine which locale a user is from.
Look around, I know off the top of my head that Nissan does. It just changes the language, however.
Stateful connections with HTTP would break the whole design behind HTTP. It wouldn't be able to handle the load that it does now with connection systems like FTP, it was a smart move to get rid of it.
What needs to be done (and I'm too busy to try authoring it right now) is a strong session tracking module (similar to mod_session) that is built into the server. It's still hard to do, because you never know what the client is coming from (and certian proxies can break it.) If that can get in there, than HTTP will be great.
I'd love to see a combination content delivery system operating with signed sessions, with message envelopes so email and websites can all be taken care of in the same package. (cheers jwz)
I may know the source of this problem. There was an English "lesson" dealing with the proper usage of apostraphe's and they 'said that it's can only be used with apostraphe's because it i's always "it is". I've found easier 'solution's a's to when to u'se them, though.
A syringe with an RJ11... It just makes no sense...
At first I thought it was a vacuum cleaner, Apple style (kinda like the iBrator.) It was funny then, because it was like, "Slashdot: Still sucking", but then I realized it was a syringe and was just confused.
...are there any shirts available for those of us who don't want to look like a complete dork?
I think you are looking in the wrong place.