We have hunger, diseases, war... and all these people want to do is to get everybody to stop eating animals. Considering that it was likely the consumption of large amounts of animal protein that allowed humanity to evolve rather rapidly in the last stage of our evolution, I find PETA's goals rather ironic.
First of all I believe one of PETA's tenets is the actually very convincing belief that by stopping people from eating meat you'll solve a lot of world hunger problems. Secondly I'm not sure about your consumption of large amount of animal protein thesis; do you have a citation?
Thirdly, I don't think it's fair to say that just because more important problems exist PETA shouldn't work on what they consider a problem. I mean, hunger, diseases and war are infinitely more important issues than open source, but there are plenty of people and organizations who focus on open source, and I don't think most people would find that this is somehow the wrong thing to do.
sure, it might have been higher, but everyone else's GPA would have gone up too, and so it didn't make a difference in terms of class rank, which is basically all that matters in law school
It would probably also up bar passage rates a bit, which definitely matters to law schools as well.
I could have been a lot clearer I guess, my comment about "how little it actually takes to be a CEO" meant that I think, like you, CEOs aren't really especially "productive" members of society.
Oh shut up. "The most productive people?" Are you fucking kidding me?
Standard libertarian/objectivist/idiot viewpoint. The funny thing is the overwhelming majority of people who espouse that view tend to have had no experience working with CEOs and other executives of large companies, so have no idea of how little it actually takes to be a CEO.
Just curious, what other licensed profession is fingerprinted and compared to a national criminal database annually? Doctors? Childcare Providers? Lawyers?
I was fingerprinted in order to join my state's Bar, and I would not be especially shocked if they checked it against a national criminal database while doing my background check.
CEOs should know better anyway. Start of process is with your registered agent, not your email address.
If it's a subpoena sent to them in their personal capacity it goes straight to them (or their attorney if he/she has accepted service on their behalf).
It was inevitable that I'd get modded flamebait. Putting someone's precious tax revenues at risk rarely gets an emotion-free consideration. More often it results in the stamping of little feet.
Alright, I wasn't going to post to this story but this is the most bizarre statement I've seen today. "Inevitable" that you'd get modded down? Have you ever read slashdot? Have you read the other posts on this story? Do you honestly maintain that attacking taxes is somehow a bold move that goes against the status quo on slashdot? You're in the majority here. You're espousing a viewpoint that most of the people here agree with. I don't know why you were modded down but it's ridiculous for you to maintain it was somehow inevitable, or that defenders of taxation aren't outnumbered 20 to 1 here.
One problem that I've noticed is that muckity-mucks often feel that they're "above" being targeted by such menial things as malware.
If you're an experienced executive you should at least realize that you need to be served with a subpoena, and e-mail isn't a valid method of service (yet). Oh well, business majors aren't known for their intellectual sharpness...
And if he sets aside a little bit of money, he can save up, and in the mean time he's building experience. As long as he pays attention, he will move up in society. But if he spends all his paychecks on toys, and just does enough to keep his job, of course he will never move up. You don't move up by doing the same thing you've always done.
That is just flat out wrong. Janitorial work does not move you up in society, it doesn't give you enough money to buy toys, and it certainly does not reward good work. I'm guessing you came from a very privileged background.
So a lot of the people who it actually occurred to are probably dead?
You're joking, right? You think your grandparents' economic and educational opportunities have no effect on where you are now? Poverty is usually multigenerational.
And this was how many hundreds of years ago exactly?
Since the vast majority of American blacks were systematically and institutionally prevented from achieving any real measure of success? About 60 years.
Since when are Cease and Desist orders, especially ones issues by the state police, "petty technicalities"? If I was to violate such an order, I can guarantee you that the judge wouldn't just shrug his shoulders and call it a technicality. Media Sentry violating the law is not acceptable even if doing so results in them getting evidence of other illegal activity. First of all, such evidence would be thrown out in any trial. Secondly, companies can't just violate the law when it's convenient for them without consequence. (Queue the cynic in me saying "Of course they don't violate the law. They pay some congressman to change it for them.")
The state police do not have the authority to adjudicate criminal charges; they may have decided that MediaSentry is violating the law, but if they want to hold MediaSentry accountable the state will have to prosecute them.
I understand your point. I just don't feel it's important, because until the start of the campaign the phrase was not particularly important. So, you can stop now. Also, please do me a favor and don't try to remind Richard Stallman that the two words "free software" were said in combination before his campaign, and meant something else. Of course they were. But you'd just be annoying him for no reason and he might not be as nice about it as me:-)
First of all, the phrase "open" in software terms was an important phrase with a definite meaning.
Secondly, it's not an academic point; this article shows that by making it seem like open source is only 10 years old, which is patently ridiculous. The GPL is almost 20 years old, and by the time 1998 rolled around there was a tremendous number of open source projects already in existence using it. Open source software is decades old; open source as a movement began in the 1980s with the GPL, and was accelerated greatly by the growth of the internet in the early 90s. The OSI may have created a formal "campaign" but I was around in 1998 and remember quite clearly the open source community both before OSI and afterwards--and there wasn't much difference in terms of the development model. Now obviously the OSI's main goal of that campaign was to make open source mainstream, which is a worthy goal which I think they did a good job on promoting, but it seems to me that while doing that they tried taking too much credit for what had happened before. You can sell the cake without insisting you baked it, too, all the while telling other bakers they can only call it cake if it follows your recipe.
Does anybody remember back when computer magazines used to print programs in source code form for you to type in? That was certainly one way of making the code available.
I always wondered, did anyone ever actually type in those enormously long C64 machine language programs in Compute?
I know the usual kneejerk reaction here to any government act taken in regards to children is to immediately stick one's fingers in one's ears and shout NANNY STATE until one is hoarse, but I really don't see anything especially forbidding about teaching some basic internet safety skills in school.
No part of this paragraph is true. The OSI had existed for two months when this summit convened. The term Open Source was concieved in a meeting at VA Linux Systems by Christine Petersen.
Bruce, as people have repeatedly pointed out to you on slashdot, the term "open source" predates the OSI by several years. I know that people have repeatedly pointed out to you that the term "open source" in terms of available, distributable source code was used years before OSI purportedly came up with it. A search on usenet shows repeated use of this phrase back to at least 1991.
Considering the BSD license was published about 8 years before that, I think the only thing the summit marked was the politicisation of the Open Source Software movement, not it's creation.
Yep, the only thing it marked was when OSS started getting hijacked by political flacks.
The only court that can eliminate RIAA suits across the country is the Supreme Court. This case is in a trial court. The powers of a trial court are MUCH more limited.
A trial-level court can only make decisions that are binding in the case that it is hearing. Right now the case is in the federal court for the District of Massachusetts. The RIAA could just as easily file a suit against different college students in a different federal court and get a different outcome.
But precedent is really important where you want to bind other future litigants. When the litigant is the same you can get an order in one court that will bind them no matter where they operate. In this case the same entities are commencing the various lawsuits in the different jurisdictions. The court could enter, for example, an anti-suit injunction against the RIAA to prevent further similar lawsuits if they wanted, and if the RIAA filed the same suit in a different federal court they'd get slapped with contempt in the court issuing the anti-suit injunction.
Slashdot Mirror
We have hunger, diseases, war... and all these people want to do is to get everybody to stop eating animals. Considering that it was likely the consumption of large amounts of animal protein that allowed humanity to evolve rather rapidly in the last stage of our evolution, I find PETA's goals rather ironic.
First of all I believe one of PETA's tenets is the actually very convincing belief that by stopping people from eating meat you'll solve a lot of world hunger problems. Secondly I'm not sure about your consumption of large amount of animal protein thesis; do you have a citation?
Thirdly, I don't think it's fair to say that just because more important problems exist PETA shouldn't work on what they consider a problem. I mean, hunger, diseases and war are infinitely more important issues than open source, but there are plenty of people and organizations who focus on open source, and I don't think most people would find that this is somehow the wrong thing to do.
sure, it might have been higher, but everyone else's GPA would have gone up too, and so it didn't make a difference in terms of class rank, which is basically all that matters in law school
It would probably also up bar passage rates a bit, which definitely matters to law schools as well.
I think if I didn't have internet access in my law school classes my GPA would have definitely been a little higher.
I could have been a lot clearer I guess, my comment about "how little it actually takes to be a CEO" meant that I think, like you, CEOs aren't really especially "productive" members of society.
So tell me, since you claim to know, what do CEOs do that is worth $1 million? Stop trying to dodge the question.
Ummm, not much. My post was agreeing with you. The viewpoint I was attacking was the same one you were, I was just being flamier about it.
Oh shut up. "The most productive people?" Are you fucking kidding me?
Standard libertarian/objectivist/idiot viewpoint. The funny thing is the overwhelming majority of people who espouse that view tend to have had no experience working with CEOs and other executives of large companies, so have no idea of how little it actually takes to be a CEO.
Just curious, what other licensed profession is fingerprinted and compared to a national criminal database annually? Doctors? Childcare Providers? Lawyers?
I was fingerprinted in order to join my state's Bar, and I would not be especially shocked if they checked it against a national criminal database while doing my background check.
CEOs should know better anyway. Start of process is with your registered agent, not your email address.
If it's a subpoena sent to them in their personal capacity it goes straight to them (or their attorney if he/she has accepted service on their behalf).
It was inevitable that I'd get modded flamebait. Putting someone's precious tax revenues at risk rarely gets an emotion-free consideration. More often it results in the stamping of little feet.
Alright, I wasn't going to post to this story but this is the most bizarre statement I've seen today. "Inevitable" that you'd get modded down? Have you ever read slashdot? Have you read the other posts on this story? Do you honestly maintain that attacking taxes is somehow a bold move that goes against the status quo on slashdot? You're in the majority here. You're espousing a viewpoint that most of the people here agree with. I don't know why you were modded down but it's ridiculous for you to maintain it was somehow inevitable, or that defenders of taxation aren't outnumbered 20 to 1 here.
One problem that I've noticed is that muckity-mucks often feel that they're "above" being targeted by such menial things as malware.
If you're an experienced executive you should at least realize that you need to be served with a subpoena, and e-mail isn't a valid method of service (yet). Oh well, business majors aren't known for their intellectual sharpness...
And if he sets aside a little bit of money, he can save up, and in the mean time he's building experience. As long as he pays attention, he will move up in society. But if he spends all his paychecks on toys, and just does enough to keep his job, of course he will never move up. You don't move up by doing the same thing you've always done.
That is just flat out wrong. Janitorial work does not move you up in society, it doesn't give you enough money to buy toys, and it certainly does not reward good work. I'm guessing you came from a very privileged background.
So a lot of the people who it actually occurred to are probably dead?
You're joking, right? You think your grandparents' economic and educational opportunities have no effect on where you are now? Poverty is usually multigenerational.
In Australia we really dont care too much.
Would we get that same viewpoint from an aboriginal?
And this was how many hundreds of years ago exactly?
Since the vast majority of American blacks were systematically and institutionally prevented from achieving any real measure of success? About 60 years.
It's called contempt of court, and it can get you into all sorts of trouble.
They're not violating a court order though (or at least in this instance). It's a letter from the police.
Since when are Cease and Desist orders, especially ones issues by the state police, "petty technicalities"? If I was to violate such an order, I can guarantee you that the judge wouldn't just shrug his shoulders and call it a technicality. Media Sentry violating the law is not acceptable even if doing so results in them getting evidence of other illegal activity. First of all, such evidence would be thrown out in any trial. Secondly, companies can't just violate the law when it's convenient for them without consequence. (Queue the cynic in me saying "Of course they don't violate the law. They pay some congressman to change it for them.")
The state police do not have the authority to adjudicate criminal charges; they may have decided that MediaSentry is violating the law, but if they want to hold MediaSentry accountable the state will have to prosecute them.
I understand your point. I just don't feel it's important, because until the start of the campaign the phrase was not particularly important. So, you can stop now. Also, please do me a favor and don't try to remind Richard Stallman that the two words "free software" were said in combination before his campaign, and meant something else. Of course they were. But you'd just be annoying him for no reason and he might not be as nice about it as me :-)
First of all, the phrase "open" in software terms was an important phrase with a definite meaning.
Secondly, it's not an academic point; this article shows that by making it seem like open source is only 10 years old, which is patently ridiculous. The GPL is almost 20 years old, and by the time 1998 rolled around there was a tremendous number of open source projects already in existence using it. Open source software is decades old; open source as a movement began in the 1980s with the GPL, and was accelerated greatly by the growth of the internet in the early 90s. The OSI may have created a formal "campaign" but I was around in 1998 and remember quite clearly the open source community both before OSI and afterwards--and there wasn't much difference in terms of the development model. Now obviously the OSI's main goal of that campaign was to make open source mainstream, which is a worthy goal which I think they did a good job on promoting, but it seems to me that while doing that they tried taking too much credit for what had happened before. You can sell the cake without insisting you baked it, too, all the while telling other bakers they can only call it cake if it follows your recipe.
Does anybody remember back when computer magazines used to print programs in source code form for you to type in? That was certainly one way of making the code available.
I always wondered, did anyone ever actually type in those enormously long C64 machine language programs in Compute?
from the nanny-state dept.
I know the usual kneejerk reaction here to any government act taken in regards to children is to immediately stick one's fingers in one's ears and shout NANNY STATE until one is hoarse, but I really don't see anything especially forbidding about teaching some basic internet safety skills in school.
No part of this paragraph is true. The OSI had existed for two months when this summit convened. The term Open Source was concieved in a meeting at VA Linux Systems by Christine Petersen.
Bruce, as people have repeatedly pointed out to you on slashdot, the term "open source" predates the OSI by several years. I know that people have repeatedly pointed out to you that the term "open source" in terms of available, distributable source code was used years before OSI purportedly came up with it. A search on usenet shows repeated use of this phrase back to at least 1991.
Considering the BSD license was published about 8 years before that, I think the only thing the summit marked was the politicisation of the Open Source Software movement, not it's creation.
Yep, the only thing it marked was when OSS started getting hijacked by political flacks.
a very brief fair use parody snippet of the Village People song YMCA as performed by a puppet.
Isn't "fair use" for a court to decide?
Next up: Apple sues every gay pride organization and person wearing a rainbow
Their customers, in other words?
The only court that can eliminate RIAA suits across the country is the Supreme Court. This case is in a trial court. The powers of a trial court are MUCH more limited.
A trial-level court can only make decisions that are binding in the case that it is hearing. Right now the case is in the federal court for the District of Massachusetts. The RIAA could just as easily file a suit against different college students in a different federal court and get a different outcome.
But precedent is really important where you want to bind other future litigants. When the litigant is the same you can get an order in one court that will bind them no matter where they operate. In this case the same entities are commencing the various lawsuits in the different jurisdictions. The court could enter, for example, an anti-suit injunction against the RIAA to prevent further similar lawsuits if they wanted, and if the RIAA filed the same suit in a different federal court they'd get slapped with contempt in the court issuing the anti-suit injunction.
POD operations aimed at self-publishers tend to be flaky and unreliable about issues like quality control
Well, the authors tend to be flaky and unreliable about quality too, so I guess it fits...