Yeah. You'd never catch republics or democracies losing millions and millions of dollars. And do you really think the Federal Reserve wanted to cut lending rates to bail out all those NINJA mortgages? That cost them a load of money they're never getting back. Similarly for the European Central Bank, which spent billions artificially propping up share markets.
Oh, and socialism is not communism. Communism is totalitarian, socialism is not necessarily.
When a techie and a lawyer argue about technology, the techie is almost certainly right. When a techie and a lawyer argue about technology, the lawyer is almost certainly right.
Given that Theo's post is i) barely coherent ii) makes broad legal-sounding principles, without citing precedence or statute I'll bet dollars to donuts he's talking absolute bollocks.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, but I know enough techies to know they love feigning knowledge on issues on which they are, in fact, almost totally ignorant.
Yeah, but many of these background checks aren't to find out if you're a dick. They're to find out which gender you like to touch your dick. Which is of no business of your employer, or the federal government.
My sense is that Google means the latter (as most of us would expect), but the wording is ambiguous, and it might well serve them better to revise the agreement to eliminate that ambiguity.
There is a legal principal that in the case of ambiguously worded contracts, the interpretation used is that of the party who did not draw up the contract (as long as thats one of the ambiguous readings). So if you think somethings worded ambiguously, it means whatever favours you the most: in this case, the google is granted a licence for content intended for public distribution. (Which, let's be honest is 99.99% likely to be Google's intention, I don't buy the "don't be evil" hype, but to attempt a landgrab like that would be ridiculously bad PR.)
The GPL3 sues its own definitions for purposes of construing the contract. To quote the GPL3:
A "User Product" is either (1) a "consumer product", which means any tangible personal property which is normally used for personal, family, or household purposes, or (2) anything designed or sold for incorporation into a dwelling
Right. And here's the text from Magnusson-Moss, which has been interpreted by judges to mean exactly what I just said:
"For the purposes of this chapter: (1) The term "consumer product" means any tangible personal property which is distributed in commerce and which is normally used for personal, family, or household purposes (including any such property intended to be attached to or installed in any real property without regard to whether it is so attached or installed). [USC 15, ch 50, sec 2301.]
So, that's identical. Did you think they made that wording up? Did it not occur to you that the GPL3 was written by lawyers, and lawyers know how to get previous case law to apply to their new contracts/licenses.
Strewth, so people think they're so smart that they can't learn anything from a bit of research.
Actually, in the US at lease, case law has already ruled that this won't cut it. In interpretations on Magnusson-Moss "Consumer product" is not a label that can be designated at manufacture, but one that is determined by common use. If Dell sold any of its "business" machines to householders, it would become a consumer product.
You do pay for your library card, whether it's directly or through local municipal taxes or student fees etc, but i doubt any of it is passed on to the publishers beyond buying the books.
I can't speak for the US, but in the UK they have "Public Lending Right." Every time a book is borrowed from a public library the author gets a (really, really) small amount of money.
The difference is that Welles used deep focus because of his overarching artistic vision for Kane. The Wachowskis use it because they're talentless hacks who really, really like visual gimmicks. (Note how bad the Matrix sequels got once the original gimmick had got a bit repetitive).
Read the AUP: You shall ensure that your use of the Service does not restrict, inhibit, interfere with, or degrade any other user's use of the Service, nor represent (in the sole judgment of Comcast) an overly large burden on the network.
It's not only not breach of contract, but the terms are clearly spelled out. If the users wanted a hard cap, rather than these terms, they should've found a different service provider.
If you are going to privatize, you have to OPEN up the market rather than create a quasi-governmental monopoly.
Not necessarily. You can have a state monopoly, as long as its extremely heavily regulated. Bell was run in the US like this for 100 years, and it was only at the latter end, once the vast majority of cable had been laid, that that system became inefficient. For commodities like telecoms, competing providers just don't work at the beginning of the market, or if they do, its because one protocol/service kills all the rest to become a de facto monopoly (and that's much harder to regulate, post facto.)
There's plenty of secular violence, but consider this: you'll never find a atheist suicide bomber. It's pretty hard to convince an atheist of the benefits of their impending martyrdom.
Really? The "vast majority" of men will build, or consider building, their own computers. You really believe that? The vast majority?
You really, really need to widen your social circle. The vast majority of men, and a vaster majority of women, are about as likely to build their own PCs as they are to build their own houses.
This article doesn't read so much as "hey guys, it's possible for a girl to put together a PC"
And even if it did, how patronising is THAT? This isn't 1870. In the past 150 years, women have discovered elements, invented whole new areas of mathematics, unravelled DNA, walked in space, become Prime Ministers and Presidents, run multinational companies, fought and died in wars, raced stock cars, and... well, pretty much everything men can do except a very narrowly defined range of elite athletic performance.
And the only reason it took so long is that we men did everything in our power not to let them.
Now, we're supposed to wonder that a woman used a screwdriver without impaling herself through the hand?
The Linux Community was quite capable of indulging in ridiculously petty schisms, flamewars, arguments and bickering before Microsoft got involved. Ever since someone noticed the GPL and BSD licenses were different, there's been 3000GW of heat produced by zealots and pragmatists alike (and almost no light).
This is nothing new. Haven't you ever read debian-legal?
If Company A cuts a deal with Company B to split the costs on something and share the resource, does that mean they've ceased to be capitalists?
That's not sharing. That's commercial co-operation. Sharing is when someone gives something to someone without getting anything in return. Everything else is just commerce.
And no, you don't get kicked out of the US for not being a capitalist, no-one ever said you would. There are plenty of altruistic charities and non-profits to prove that. Same as you won't get kicked out of Sweden for not being on the centre-left.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, I did kinda screw that up...
Damn copy/paste
Yeah. You'd never catch republics or democracies losing millions and millions of dollars. And do you really think the Federal Reserve wanted to cut lending rates to bail out all those NINJA mortgages? That cost them a load of money they're never getting back. Similarly for the European Central Bank, which spent billions artificially propping up share markets.
Oh, and socialism is not communism. Communism is totalitarian, socialism is not necessarily.
When a techie and a lawyer argue about technology, the techie is almost certainly right.
When a techie and a lawyer argue about technology, the lawyer is almost certainly right.
Given that Theo's post is
i) barely coherent
ii) makes broad legal-sounding principles, without citing precedence or statute
I'll bet dollars to donuts he's talking absolute bollocks.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, but I know enough techies to know they love feigning knowledge on issues on which they are, in fact, almost totally ignorant.
How did they pass up the chance to name this algorithm "Truthiness"?
Yeah, but many of these background checks aren't to find out if you're a dick. They're to find out which gender you like to touch your dick. Which is of no business of your employer, or the federal government.
Right. And here's the text from Magnusson-Moss, which has been interpreted by judges to mean exactly what I just said:
So, that's identical. Did you think they made that wording up? Did it not occur to you that the GPL3 was written by lawyers, and lawyers know how to get previous case law to apply to their new contracts/licenses.
Strewth, so people think they're so smart that they can't learn anything from a bit of research.
Actually, in the US at lease, case law has already ruled that this won't cut it. In interpretations on Magnusson-Moss "Consumer product" is not a label that can be designated at manufacture, but one that is determined by common use. If Dell sold any of its "business" machines to householders, it would become a consumer product.
[Big Snip]Admission that you're actually just making this stuff up.
The perfect slashdot post. Well played, sir.
Ahh, but what about aol.co.uk? And yes, I know that makes no sense, but it is what it is.
The difference is that Welles used deep focus because of his overarching artistic vision for Kane. The Wachowskis use it because they're talentless hacks who really, really like visual gimmicks. (Note how bad the Matrix sequels got once the original gimmick had got a bit repetitive).
Read the AUP: You shall ensure that your use of the Service does not restrict, inhibit, interfere with, or degrade any other user's use of the Service, nor represent (in the sole judgment of Comcast) an overly large burden on the network.
It's not only not breach of contract, but the terms are clearly spelled out. If the users wanted a hard cap, rather than these terms, they should've found a different service provider.
There's plenty of secular violence, but consider this: you'll never find a atheist suicide bomber. It's pretty hard to convince an atheist of the benefits of their impending martyrdom.
You really, really need to widen your social circle. The vast majority of men, and a vaster majority of women, are about as likely to build their own PCs as they are to build their own houses.
And the only reason it took so long is that we men did everything in our power not to let them.
Now, we're supposed to wonder that a woman used a screwdriver without impaling herself through the hand?
Pass.
Geek has girlfriend. Film at 11.
Look, I'm sure this was fun, and all, but seriously... When did "Stuff that matters" become "Some guy's holiday snaps."
The Linux Community was quite capable of indulging in ridiculously petty schisms, flamewars, arguments and
bickering before Microsoft got involved. Ever since someone noticed the GPL and BSD licenses were different, there's been 3000GW of heat produced by zealots and pragmatists alike (and almost no light).
This is nothing new. Haven't you ever read debian-legal?
Yes, yes it is. Unlike computer programming languages, human languages frequently have many words for the same concept.
And no, you don't get kicked out of the US for not being a capitalist, no-one ever said you would. There are plenty of altruistic charities and non-profits to prove that. Same as you won't get kicked out of Sweden for not being on the centre-left.