This is a good point. The definition of plagiarism is subjective and like all things settled by litigation, usually favors the people with the most expensive lawyers (i.e. the top media/communications companies). It's been that way in pop music forever (a few good examples can be found in the book, Confessions of a Record Producer) -- one only has to look at the R&B (Black) music scene in the 1950s-70s to see how many ideas were illegally swiped and resold by people like Pat Boone.
Removing intellectual property completely would mean this would become a lot more widespread. Popular musicians would have no problems in just stealing songs from lesser known ones, and local clubs and bars would be filled with roving agents with recorders.
I like what they did with it, they've managed to retain the humor of the comic strip (especially the dialogue and the facial expressions). Wish it was a lot less console RPGish and a lot more sandboxy, though. I won't complain for $20 though, though if it had been $40 I would complain.
This has always struck me as a really, really dumb way of handling 4th amendment violations. A better way, in my book, would be to allow the evidence (as long as chain of custody and all that was properly observed), but summarily fire everyone involved in collecting it, with no chance of working in the field again. Seems to me that would not only be a more effective deterrent to overzealous cops, but also ensure that people who are guilty, but had crucial evidence against them obtained illegally, still go to jail.
If lawyers and judges can honestly disagree over whether evidence was illegally obtained or not, it seems unfair to expect cops to have perfect judgment in such matters.
Additionally, the loyalty oath simply says the swearer affirms they will support the constitutions of Florida and the United States, language which is nearly identical to the Oath of Attorney:
Oath of Attorney in Florida (excerpt): I do hereby affirm:
I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution
of the State of Florida;
Loyalty Oath (full):
"I, _________, a citizen of the State of Florida and of the United States of America, and being employed by or an officer of ___________ and a recipient of public funds as such employee or officer, do hereby solemnly swear or affirm that I will support the Constitution of the United States and of the State of Florida."
Well, they do have a few convicted felons. G. Gordon Liddy, Ollie North...
North's conviction was overturned, so technically he's not a convicted felon. Of course he's an amoral, deceitful, arrogant swine who admitted under oath to breaking the law, but he's not technically a felon.
To clarify, he claims that the judge had someone forge her signature on the oath for some unknown reason, and the only evidence he has is the testimony of a discredited handwriting specialist.
...and, since the loyalty oath is identical in substance to a part of the oath of attorney for Florida lawyers, the judge has already sworn to what is contained in it.
They want to disbar him because he is an embarrassment and he's abusing the position of a law practitioner. He is also a menace to the society because of he is a lawyer, one of the several occupations whose words hold sway in courts of public opinion as well, and yet he has been saying stuff which clear does not represent the opinion(s) held by most of the other lawyers in Florida.
Exactly. I'm a member of the Florida Bar, and when I took my oath (presumably the same one Thompson took) I was consciously binding myself to a certain standard of behavior, and agreeing to limitations as to what I can say and how I can behave. If I ever find those limits too restrictive I can resign from the Bar. What Thompson wants is to be able to use the tools available to him as a licensed attorney, but not follow the restrictions he agreed to when being given those tools.
Let's see, this also means that the various shit-brained news media should stop having him offering commentary on anything, because "disbarred lawyer" doesn't have that same ring of confidence as "crazy old coot" does.
Just reading his letter, he certainly has enough dirt on the judge and knowledge of the legal loopholes that he just might snake through this.
I've looked over the statute he cites, it doesn't say what he says it does. It does NOT invalidate acts carried out by a judge who hasn't signed the loyalty oath. Furthermore, a disbarment referee is appointed by the chief judge, and their power flows from that appointment, not from their powers as a judge. His arguments are idiotic, and erratic personal beliefs and possible mental issues aside, the guy just isn't a very good lawyer.
Can anyone address the legality of an oath taken too long after the judge started practice?
The statute says you have to take the oath before you get paid, but despite Thompson's rants there's no clause that invalidates a judge's (or other state official's) authority. According to the statute it is incumbent upon the employee's supervisor, not the employee, to take action to discharge the employee for failure to sign the loyalty oath. Failure to do so (either intentionally or "carelessly") is only a midemeanor in the second degree. Thompson is just being off his rocker as usual, there's nothing here.
This should be blindingly obvious, but I'm always amazed at the number of people who make this exact mistake. Top two rules:
1. Do NOT Piss off the Judge.
2. Do not piss off your defense attorney.
In a jury trial the main thing you want to do is not alienate the jury. You can get by with a judge and a defense attorney angry at you, but if the jury hates you you're in trouble.
And don't ever tell a judge they "don't have the authority". You'll be in a higher court soon.
Appeal isn't a simple matter; it's a long and costly process that should be avoided if possible. There's nothing really wrong with respectfully pointing out in a pleading that the court you're before doesn't have the discretion to do something. Granted he didn't do that in this case, but in general judges have thicker skins than slashdotters give them credit for.
Though the big media companies would have you think differently, copyrights do expire.
Of course, but I wasn't talking about specific games being protected forever, but abandonware, which by definition is copyright protected software. Once the copyright runs out it becomes public domain, and is no longer abandonware. I was simply staying that it is unlikely that the government will ever create an "abandonware" exception to the copyright laws (though it wouldn't be a bad idea).
So they resell old games. Some of which are actually abandon ware and thus free. Yeah, go look it up while you're paying 10$ for a game that is legally free to download and 0$ goes to the actual creators of it.
First of all, abandonware is piracy. It's not legal to download, never has been, probably never will.
Secondly, if they're actively selling the games by definition they're not abandonware.
Thirdly, I am unaware of royalty agreements between the developers, the publishers, and gaemetap. I am, however, quite sure that a developer is far more likely to financially benefit by having their game on gametap than they are by having their game on an abandonware site.
So yes, $10 for a wide assortment of very good classic games, legally played, is worth it to me.
But editorial for a second-tier (if that) gamer web site? Who cares? Worst case, somebody spends a few bucks on a crap game and has a boring evening.
Second-tier? Are you on crack? They have old infocom games, Civilization, Deus Ex, Planescape Torment, Sam and Max, etc...have you actually looked at the catalog?
There's really no justification for "getting it for free" anymore when there are completely legal, easy, and geek-friendly ways to get the music that also puts some money in the artist's pocket.
Don't worry, they'll come up with some even more bizarre justification for getting it for free.
Maybe if Mike Gravel gains the Libertarian nod, I will vote for him.
Ahhh, the libertarian party. Where you can be a socialist like Mike Gravel, a right-wing republican like Bob Barr, or a conspiracy theorist cryptofascist like Michael Badnarik all have a place. I know you want to be inclusive, guys, but at a certain point it gets ridiculous.
I see the difference this way. I don't know when/if the NSA is listening to my calls so it makes absolutely 0% difference in my life.
Thank god not everyone's like you.
I DO KNOW when someone takes food off of my family's table, tells me what kind of car I can drive or I have to spend my child's college fund to fill up my car because someone thinks (incorrectly, I might add) that a fuckin' caribou might be badly affected if we do the same thing in ANWR that we do in every state in the union, including about 7 miles away in Prudhoe Bay.
You honestly think Obama's going to "take food" off your family's table? Wow, you'd better up dosage on your meds a bit there, bud.
And then you get guys like me. I could personally care LESS about Barack Obama's skin color. Really. His ancestry is of no interest to me.
While skin color is not anywhere near the top of my list for qualifiers, the fact that Obama is black is a non-negligible factor in my voting for him. No, it's not morally equivalent to the opposite situation, of voting against him because of his skin color.
Gary Kamiya wrote an interesting essay on the issue.
In any case, the issue with american car makers is not one of intelligence or creativity, but one of arrogance. It was basically assumed that chauvinism would prevail and that people, in a free market that uses competition to fuel innovation no less, choose an inferior more expensive product
Interestingly, Japan is one of the few countries where chauvinism does prevail, and people will choose inferior and/or more expensive products because they were made in Japan.
Slashdot Mirror
This is a good point. The definition of plagiarism is subjective and like all things settled by litigation, usually favors the people with the most expensive lawyers (i.e. the top media/communications companies). It's been that way in pop music forever (a few good examples can be found in the book, Confessions of a Record Producer) -- one only has to look at the R&B (Black) music scene in the 1950s-70s to see how many ideas were illegally swiped and resold by people like Pat Boone.
Removing intellectual property completely would mean this would become a lot more widespread. Popular musicians would have no problems in just stealing songs from lesser known ones, and local clubs and bars would be filled with roving agents with recorders.
I like what they did with it, they've managed to retain the humor of the comic strip (especially the dialogue and the facial expressions). Wish it was a lot less console RPGish and a lot more sandboxy, though. I won't complain for $20 though, though if it had been $40 I would complain.
This has always struck me as a really, really dumb way of handling 4th amendment violations. A better way, in my book, would be to allow the evidence (as long as chain of custody and all that was properly observed), but summarily fire everyone involved in collecting it, with no chance of working in the field again. Seems to me that would not only be a more effective deterrent to overzealous cops, but also ensure that people who are guilty, but had crucial evidence against them obtained illegally, still go to jail.
If lawyers and judges can honestly disagree over whether evidence was illegally obtained or not, it seems unfair to expect cops to have perfect judgment in such matters.
Additionally, the loyalty oath simply says the swearer affirms they will support the constitutions of Florida and the United States, language which is nearly identical to the Oath of Attorney:
Oath of Attorney in Florida (excerpt):
I do hereby affirm: I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Florida;
Loyalty Oath (full):
"I, _________, a citizen of the State of Florida and of the United States of America, and being employed by or an officer of ___________ and a recipient of public funds as such employee or officer, do hereby solemnly swear or affirm that I will support the Constitution of the United States and of the State of Florida."
Well, they do have a few convicted felons. G. Gordon Liddy, Ollie North...
North's conviction was overturned, so technically he's not a convicted felon. Of course he's an amoral, deceitful, arrogant swine who admitted under oath to breaking the law, but he's not technically a felon.
To clarify, he claims that the judge had someone forge her signature on the oath for some unknown reason, and the only evidence he has is the testimony of a discredited handwriting specialist.
...and, since the loyalty oath is identical in substance to a part of the oath of attorney for Florida lawyers, the judge has already sworn to what is contained in it.
They want to disbar him because he is an embarrassment and he's abusing the position of a law practitioner. He is also a menace to the society because of he is a lawyer, one of the several occupations whose words hold sway in courts of public opinion as well, and yet he has been saying stuff which clear does not represent the opinion(s) held by most of the other lawyers in Florida.
Exactly. I'm a member of the Florida Bar, and when I took my oath (presumably the same one Thompson took) I was consciously binding myself to a certain standard of behavior, and agreeing to limitations as to what I can say and how I can behave. If I ever find those limits too restrictive I can resign from the Bar. What Thompson wants is to be able to use the tools available to him as a licensed attorney, but not follow the restrictions he agreed to when being given those tools.
Hang on. This all sounds suspiciously familiar. Is he by any chance related to Fred Phelps?
Phelps makes Jack Thompson look like Gandhi. In terms of evil Phelps and Thompson aren't anywhere near each other.
Let's see, this also means that the various shit-brained news media should stop having him offering commentary on anything, because "disbarred lawyer" doesn't have that same ring of confidence as "crazy old coot" does.
On Fox news? They've hired convicted crooks and drug traffickers. Hell, disbarment will probably mean he's on Fox more often.
Just reading his letter, he certainly has enough dirt on the judge and knowledge of the legal loopholes that he just might snake through this.
I've looked over the statute he cites, it doesn't say what he says it does. It does NOT invalidate acts carried out by a judge who hasn't signed the loyalty oath. Furthermore, a disbarment referee is appointed by the chief judge, and their power flows from that appointment, not from their powers as a judge. His arguments are idiotic, and erratic personal beliefs and possible mental issues aside, the guy just isn't a very good lawyer.
Can anyone address the legality of an oath taken too long after the judge started practice?
The statute says you have to take the oath before you get paid, but despite Thompson's rants there's no clause that invalidates a judge's (or other state official's) authority. According to the statute it is incumbent upon the employee's supervisor, not the employee, to take action to discharge the employee for failure to sign the loyalty oath. Failure to do so (either intentionally or "carelessly") is only a midemeanor in the second degree. Thompson is just being off his rocker as usual, there's nothing here.
This should be blindingly obvious, but I'm always amazed at the number of people who make this exact mistake. Top two rules: 1. Do NOT Piss off the Judge. 2. Do not piss off your defense attorney.
In a jury trial the main thing you want to do is not alienate the jury. You can get by with a judge and a defense attorney angry at you, but if the jury hates you you're in trouble.
And don't ever tell a judge they "don't have the authority". You'll be in a higher court soon.
Appeal isn't a simple matter; it's a long and costly process that should be avoided if possible. There's nothing really wrong with respectfully pointing out in a pleading that the court you're before doesn't have the discretion to do something. Granted he didn't do that in this case, but in general judges have thicker skins than slashdotters give them credit for.
The union would say that they weren't convicted,
Those commie bastards, actually believing in that commie philosophy of "innocent until proven guilty."
Though the big media companies would have you think differently, copyrights do expire.
Of course, but I wasn't talking about specific games being protected forever, but abandonware, which by definition is copyright protected software. Once the copyright runs out it becomes public domain, and is no longer abandonware. I was simply staying that it is unlikely that the government will ever create an "abandonware" exception to the copyright laws (though it wouldn't be a bad idea).
So they resell old games. Some of which are actually abandon ware and thus free. Yeah, go look it up while you're paying 10$ for a game that is legally free to download and 0$ goes to the actual creators of it.
First of all, abandonware is piracy. It's not legal to download, never has been, probably never will.
Secondly, if they're actively selling the games by definition they're not abandonware.
Thirdly, I am unaware of royalty agreements between the developers, the publishers, and gaemetap. I am, however, quite sure that a developer is far more likely to financially benefit by having their game on gametap than they are by having their game on an abandonware site.
So yes, $10 for a wide assortment of very good classic games, legally played, is worth it to me.
But editorial for a second-tier (if that) gamer web site? Who cares? Worst case, somebody spends a few bucks on a crap game and has a boring evening.
Second-tier? Are you on crack? They have old infocom games, Civilization, Deus Ex, Planescape Torment, Sam and Max, etc...have you actually looked at the catalog?
So, short sell Apple because they will not perform up-to expectations? Or will Jobs pull one of his a** and somehow sell another 9 million units?
Don't underestimate Steve Jobs, you're talking about the mastermind who after 30 years has managed to dominate an entire 3% of the computer market.
"UNGH DECISION TOO HARD, USE IRRELEVANT FACTORS TO ADD WEIGHT RATHER THAN DOING MORE RESEARCH!"
Awww, are you weeping because I didn't swallow the usual slashdot groupthink? I'm sorry I made you so sad.
There's really no justification for "getting it for free" anymore when there are completely legal, easy, and geek-friendly ways to get the music that also puts some money in the artist's pocket.
Don't worry, they'll come up with some even more bizarre justification for getting it for free.
Maybe if Mike Gravel gains the Libertarian nod, I will vote for him.
Ahhh, the libertarian party. Where you can be a socialist like Mike Gravel, a right-wing republican like Bob Barr, or a conspiracy theorist cryptofascist like Michael Badnarik all have a place. I know you want to be inclusive, guys, but at a certain point it gets ridiculous.
I see the difference this way. I don't know when/if the NSA is listening to my calls so it makes absolutely 0% difference in my life.
Thank god not everyone's like you.
I DO KNOW when someone takes food off of my family's table, tells me what kind of car I can drive or I have to spend my child's college fund to fill up my car because someone thinks (incorrectly, I might add) that a fuckin' caribou might be badly affected if we do the same thing in ANWR that we do in every state in the union, including about 7 miles away in Prudhoe Bay.
You honestly think Obama's going to "take food" off your family's table? Wow, you'd better up dosage on your meds a bit there, bud.
And then you get guys like me. I could personally care LESS about Barack Obama's skin color. Really. His ancestry is of no interest to me.
While skin color is not anywhere near the top of my list for qualifiers, the fact that Obama is black is a non-negligible factor in my voting for him. No, it's not morally equivalent to the opposite situation, of voting against him because of his skin color.
Gary Kamiya wrote an interesting essay on the issue.
In any case, the issue with american car makers is not one of intelligence or creativity, but one of arrogance. It was basically assumed that chauvinism would prevail and that people, in a free market that uses competition to fuel innovation no less, choose an inferior more expensive product
Interestingly, Japan is one of the few countries where chauvinism does prevail, and people will choose inferior and/or more expensive products because they were made in Japan.
Philosophy kids don't actually DO anything, esp. on weekends, so whats all the outrage?
Umm, hello, they play the xbox. Without the "web server" they can't do that anymore.