2. Even if there were, there are no provisions for the FSF to disrupt your place of business while trying to prove or disprove your compliance for use of GPL'd software.
Well, there is one important difference: the GPL licensing really only deals with distribution, not use, but a Microsoft license is primarily concerned with your use of the product. That's why Bruce Perens (who seems to come to mind as someone likely to point out GPL violations, although my apologies to him if that is an unfair characterization) can't come into your place of business and audit your Linux boxes the way that Microsoft can come in and audit your Windows boxes.
What Microsoft is doing is entirely legal, but I think that overall they're creating more problems for themselves than they're solving.
When you've seen these concepts confused as often as users 2714, 11355, and myself have in this forum, you won't be so tolerant either:) I'm just glad they got to him before I did...
Not likely, since plants that can't reproduce correctly aren't going to be a big threat to the other members of the ecosystem that have figured out how to take that big next step:)
When I buy a DVD or a music CD, I'm not buying all rights--I'm just buying the right to play the content on the
DVD or CD. The media companies could (yeah, right) offer "any media" versions of the same content at a different price. Then if you
wanted to convert the content to MPEG or some other format you could.
I don't know where you're buying CDs and DVDs, but at the local stores around here we don't have to sign any sort of contract or license to buy them, which means the customer retains the full rights of Fair Use and First Sale. I have the right to do anything with my new DVD, whether it's playing it on a DVD player, ripping it off and watching it as an MPEG, or using it as an expensive coaster. I haven't bought rights to redistribute copies of it, of course, but everything else is fair game.
I found it more disturbing that they're distributing press releases in.doc format, which is pretty much worthless for distribution over the web. Would it have killed them to export to HTML first?
Re:The emperor looks great in those new clothes
on
FPGA Supercomputers
·
· Score: 1
OK, how exactly was that flamebait? Overrated, perhaps, but there was certainly no incitement to a flamewar. What color is the sky in your world, O Moderator? C'mon, meta-moderation!
Why are people obsessed with the fountain of youth.
I'm obsessed with a much more pragmatic question: why doesn't anyone on the Internet use apostrophes in their contractions any more? I've gotten used to seeing people totally confuse "your" and "you're" (not to mention "there" and "their"), but come on - "dont" and "Im" aren't even words! (Although I suppose you could partially blame "dont" on the automatic crosswalk signs that flash "WALK" and "DONT WALK" at you - would it really cost the city that much more to buy an appropriately-located apostrophe?)
Maybe I'm just grumpy today, but this article seems to have attracted more than its (note: not "it's") share of failed communicators. The parent post is a particularly egregious example. I remember when even trolls could communicate better than this!
But this information is public - anyone can get to it. The only iffy part would be the connection between the individual's occupation and their identity, but I bet you could determine this fairly easily from professional association memberships, etc. You can hardly complain if people publish information about you that's right out of the yellow pages...
I didn't say it was perfect yet, I'm just celebrating a step in what I perceive to be the right direction. There's plenty of work to be done. I would point out that an increasing number of states are considering moratoria on the death penalty after a number of widely publicized cases where death penalty inmates were exonerated in the light of new evidence. Even the state of Texas (motto from GW: "we kill 'em and we like it!") is considering such a moratorium.
I also think that you have to take into account some of the other rights enjoyed by citizens of the U.S. which are not available to the citizens of the rest of the world. Depending on what you consider a "human right" (for example, is discussing the history of the brutalities of WWII a human right? Is the availability of weapons to protect oneself a human right?) the U.S. even comes out ahead of some of the otherwise enlightened nations of Europe. YMMV, of course.
That makes a great slogan, but really that would be "free speech" in the technical sense.
A better question would be - is this more like shouting "fire" in a crowded theater (speech which creates an immediate danger and has little or no expressive purpose) or more like a civil rights speech (which also used to bring to a head a dangerous atmosphere (although that was not the intention of the speaker, I'm sure, but it still happened (and in fact the potential for violence has been used in the past as a reason not to allow the KKK to speak, for example) but has considerable political or social purpose).
Although it's fairly clear that a death threat has little or no political/social value (it's more of an ad hominem attack), I think it would be arguable on a case-by-case basis whether it really constitutes an immediate danger. A threat which clearly will not or cannot be carried out would be more trouble than it's worth to attempt to suppress.
In the case of the web site above, there is not a death threat per se (although I can see how this would be arguable, the court pointed out that there's no direct exhortation to kill a specific person, just a general feeling that if someone happened to do so, it would be all right), and there is a significant political and/or social commentary being made (namely, that the site creators vehemently disagree with the position taken by the doctors). This isn't commentary on the scale of "I Have A Dream", but the rights of the KKK to march and express even more inarticulate thoughts has been protected in the past. You could argue that the web site does create an immediate danger to the people whose names were posted, but I would say that if you're nuts enough to want to kill someone over this issue, you'd be motivated enough to track down their home address and telephone number anyway.
That's just from what I construe as the current legal considerations that can be made. I personally don't have a problem with anyone making death threats, as long as the citizenry can be sufficiently armed to defend themselves and murderers are sufficiently punished by the government. But I realize that this might be a more extreme position than some would agree with. I think I'm just used to ignoring what people really think of me:)
The people who are running this site are doing so as a direct attempt to scare people
away from offering legal reproductive services. Whether you are pro or anti choice, I should hope we can all agree that using gestapo
tactics to scare physicians by posting their addresses, names of spouses and children, phone numbers, children's schools and so on
is just plain wrong.
I'm unaware of any right to not be made afraid because of the things people say about you, especially if they're true. Should it be illegal for people to let on that you have a nice watch since you walk home through a bad neighborhood every day? I wouldn't be thrilled either if it was my name on that web site, but I can't complain too hard if the information could have been retrieved by anyone with a few hours to spare.
I'm not a rabid pro-life supporter, but I don't see why posting publicly-available information in any forum should be illegal. Information is a tool; it's neither good nor bad and just possessing knowledge neither hurts nor hinders anyone's life. It's what you do with the knowledge that counts, and I do agree that anyone who uses such info to harm abortion providers or their families should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. But muzzling information just because "someone might get hurt" is a bad justification IMHO.
Yup, over here you're welcome to think dangerous thoughts and say dangerous things, but we draw the line at doing dangerous things to other people. We are sadly lacking in government enforcement of thoughtcrime.
I would think it would suck to be otherwise, but then again why argue about crimes of belief against someone named "SpanishInquisition";)
If the defendant can reasonably claim that the film he watched incited him to commit the act, and that hence he is not responsible,
then he can reasonably claim to be innocent.
If incitement from a film to do violence were a reasonable claim of innocence from the effects of your actions, then how much more powerful would be the argument advanced at the other Nuremberg trial: "I was just following orders". I wasn't incited, I was in the SS and they ordered me to do it! If your conclusions about European governments are true (and in general I would say they are not, but just for argument's sake), then this is exactly the wrong standard to use to prevent future holocausts in Europe.
I believe in strict personal reponsibility - it's nobody's fault but yours if someone tells you to do something, you do it, and it was illegal. In some cases if you were given false information, you may be able to in turn go after whoever it was that convinced you to take your actions, but even then you are responsible for the actions you take. And I doubt that a defense of "but somebody on the Internet said it was OK to blow up abortion clinincs" would fly very far in court (at least I hope it wouldn't). You can't blame your mistakes on taking the advice of random untrusted strangers, on the 'net or anywhere else.
If you're on a government-provided road with the rest of us, you damn well better be driving an approved car! What you drive on your own private property is your own business, of course.
How is this different from the current system, where anybody can have any mp3 on their system and make it available to other Napster users? Anybody can put up any mp3 on a web server, just like they put them up on Napster. We already have enough traceability for the RIAA to go after everyone who they think is violating their copyrights, they're just too lazy to track down and litigate against millions of people worldwide.
All of the RIAA's attempts thus far have been efforts to dodge their responsibilities under the law, which requires them to inform ISPs of potential violations, and only then to go after individuals for copyright violations. The bottom line is that the recording industry got to make the laws and they still don't want to play by them.
CD's already have the best possible sound quality, which is mainly why they replaced casettes.
Do they really? There are plenty of folks who will tell you they can hear stuff missing on a CD recording versus an analog recording (although I'm not one of those folks). I agree that any increase in quality over the CD standard would be a tough sell to consumers at large, though.
The DataPlay standard mentioned in the article sounded interesting (sans copy protection, of course). Music discs the size of a quarter might be sturdier than CD-ROMs, although you would have more situations where you could loose them in your couch:)
Slashdot Mirror
1. What GPL crackdown?
2. Even if there were, there are no provisions for the FSF to disrupt your place of business while trying to prove or disprove your compliance for use of GPL'd software.
Is that anything like an indefinitely-extended "limited" copyright term?
Well, there is one important difference: the GPL licensing really only deals with distribution, not use, but a Microsoft license is primarily concerned with your use of the product. That's why Bruce Perens (who seems to come to mind as someone likely to point out GPL violations, although my apologies to him if that is an unfair characterization) can't come into your place of business and audit your Linux boxes the way that Microsoft can come in and audit your Windows boxes.
What Microsoft is doing is entirely legal, but I think that overall they're creating more problems for themselves than they're solving.
When you've seen these concepts confused as often as users 2714, 11355, and myself have in this forum, you won't be so tolerant either :) I'm just glad they got to him before I did...
You can't always just look at something and tell that it's GM, you know. Unlike in the movies, GM organisms don't glow an eerie green color :)
Not likely, since plants that can't reproduce correctly aren't going to be a big threat to the other members of the ecosystem that have figured out how to take that big next step :)
I don't know where you're buying CDs and DVDs, but at the local stores around here we don't have to sign any sort of contract or license to buy them, which means the customer retains the full rights of Fair Use and First Sale. I have the right to do anything with my new DVD, whether it's playing it on a DVD player, ripping it off and watching it as an MPEG, or using it as an expensive coaster. I haven't bought rights to redistribute copies of it, of course, but everything else is fair game.
You're right; consider me suitably chastened. I guess I am grumpy today...
I found it more disturbing that they're distributing press releases in .doc format, which is pretty much worthless for distribution over the web. Would it have killed them to export to HTML first?
HAL said it too near the end of the same movie.
OK, how exactly was that flamebait? Overrated, perhaps, but there was certainly no incitement to a flamewar. What color is the sky in your world, O Moderator? C'mon, meta-moderation!
I'm obsessed with a much more pragmatic question: why doesn't anyone on the Internet use apostrophes in their contractions any more? I've gotten used to seeing people totally confuse "your" and "you're" (not to mention "there" and "their"), but come on - "dont" and "Im" aren't even words! (Although I suppose you could partially blame "dont" on the automatic crosswalk signs that flash "WALK" and "DONT WALK" at you - would it really cost the city that much more to buy an appropriately-located apostrophe?)
Maybe I'm just grumpy today, but this article seems to have attracted more than its (note: not "it's") share of failed communicators. The parent post is a particularly egregious example. I remember when even trolls could communicate better than this!
I know, I know: flamebait. Still true, though.
nitpick:
Not exactly - your cells must die for you to remain healthy. Dead cells aren't very healthy themselves :)
But this information is public - anyone can get to it. The only iffy part would be the connection between the individual's occupation and their identity, but I bet you could determine this fairly easily from professional association memberships, etc. You can hardly complain if people publish information about you that's right out of the yellow pages...
I didn't say it was perfect yet, I'm just celebrating a step in what I perceive to be the right direction. There's plenty of work to be done. I would point out that an increasing number of states are considering moratoria on the death penalty after a number of widely publicized cases where death penalty inmates were exonerated in the light of new evidence. Even the state of Texas (motto from GW: "we kill 'em and we like it!") is considering such a moratorium.
I also think that you have to take into account some of the other rights enjoyed by citizens of the U.S. which are not available to the citizens of the rest of the world. Depending on what you consider a "human right" (for example, is discussing the history of the brutalities of WWII a human right? Is the availability of weapons to protect oneself a human right?) the U.S. even comes out ahead of some of the otherwise enlightened nations of Europe. YMMV, of course.
That makes a great slogan, but really that would be "free speech" in the technical sense.
A better question would be - is this more like shouting "fire" in a crowded theater (speech which creates an immediate danger and has little or no expressive purpose) or more like a civil rights speech (which also used to bring to a head a dangerous atmosphere (although that was not the intention of the speaker, I'm sure, but it still happened (and in fact the potential for violence has been used in the past as a reason not to allow the KKK to speak, for example) but has considerable political or social purpose).
Although it's fairly clear that a death threat has little or no political/social value (it's more of an ad hominem attack), I think it would be arguable on a case-by-case basis whether it really constitutes an immediate danger. A threat which clearly will not or cannot be carried out would be more trouble than it's worth to attempt to suppress.
In the case of the web site above, there is not a death threat per se (although I can see how this would be arguable, the court pointed out that there's no direct exhortation to kill a specific person, just a general feeling that if someone happened to do so, it would be all right), and there is a significant political and/or social commentary being made (namely, that the site creators vehemently disagree with the position taken by the doctors). This isn't commentary on the scale of "I Have A Dream", but the rights of the KKK to march and express even more inarticulate thoughts has been protected in the past. You could argue that the web site does create an immediate danger to the people whose names were posted, but I would say that if you're nuts enough to want to kill someone over this issue, you'd be motivated enough to track down their home address and telephone number anyway.
That's just from what I construe as the current legal considerations that can be made. I personally don't have a problem with anyone making death threats, as long as the citizenry can be sufficiently armed to defend themselves and murderers are sufficiently punished by the government. But I realize that this might be a more extreme position than some would agree with. I think I'm just used to ignoring what people really think of me :)
I'm unaware of any right to not be made afraid because of the things people say about you, especially if they're true. Should it be illegal for people to let on that you have a nice watch since you walk home through a bad neighborhood every day? I wouldn't be thrilled either if it was my name on that web site, but I can't complain too hard if the information could have been retrieved by anyone with a few hours to spare.
I'm not a rabid pro-life supporter, but I don't see why posting publicly-available information in any forum should be illegal. Information is a tool; it's neither good nor bad and just possessing knowledge neither hurts nor hinders anyone's life. It's what you do with the knowledge that counts, and I do agree that anyone who uses such info to harm abortion providers or their families should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. But muzzling information just because "someone might get hurt" is a bad justification IMHO.
Yup, over here you're welcome to think dangerous thoughts and say dangerous things, but we draw the line at doing dangerous things to other people. We are sadly lacking in government enforcement of thoughtcrime.
I would think it would suck to be otherwise, but then again why argue about crimes of belief against someone named "SpanishInquisition" ;)
Good question, maybe we would be able to measure whether U.S. society has a higher knee-jerk quotient for abortion rights versus school violence.
If incitement from a film to do violence were a reasonable claim of innocence from the effects of your actions, then how much more powerful would be the argument advanced at the other Nuremberg trial: "I was just following orders". I wasn't incited, I was in the SS and they ordered me to do it! If your conclusions about European governments are true (and in general I would say they are not, but just for argument's sake), then this is exactly the wrong standard to use to prevent future holocausts in Europe.
I believe in strict personal reponsibility - it's nobody's fault but yours if someone tells you to do something, you do it, and it was illegal. In some cases if you were given false information, you may be able to in turn go after whoever it was that convinced you to take your actions, but even then you are responsible for the actions you take. And I doubt that a defense of "but somebody on the Internet said it was OK to blow up abortion clinincs" would fly very far in court (at least I hope it wouldn't). You can't blame your mistakes on taking the advice of random untrusted strangers, on the 'net or anywhere else.
:s/^V^M$//g
If you're on a government-provided road with the rest of us, you damn well better be driving an approved car! What you drive on your own private property is your own business, of course.
How is this different from the current system, where anybody can have any mp3 on their system and make it available to other Napster users? Anybody can put up any mp3 on a web server, just like they put them up on Napster. We already have enough traceability for the RIAA to go after everyone who they think is violating their copyrights, they're just too lazy to track down and litigate against millions of people worldwide.
All of the RIAA's attempts thus far have been efforts to dodge their responsibilities under the law, which requires them to inform ISPs of potential violations, and only then to go after individuals for copyright violations. The bottom line is that the recording industry got to make the laws and they still don't want to play by them.
Well, stupid people you don't like :)
Do they really? There are plenty of folks who will tell you they can hear stuff missing on a CD recording versus an analog recording (although I'm not one of those folks). I agree that any increase in quality over the CD standard would be a tough sell to consumers at large, though.
The DataPlay standard mentioned in the article sounded interesting (sans copy protection, of course). Music discs the size of a quarter might be sturdier than CD-ROMs, although you would have more situations where you could loose them in your couch :)