Come on, Roddenberry ruined Star Trek on his own plenty of times, you don't need to blame Berman for everything. Star Trek's success was always that they managed to get decent writers to write the episodes. The stuff Roddenberry was responsible for was occasionally good but frequently bad too.
I read in the comments of the page that such a motion is only granted if it is shown that it will not make SCO bankrupt. I'm not a lawyer, and I don't understand why these motions exist then?
If you're talking about the motion for an injunction, they're not intended as any sort of final resolution, but are just a way to prevent one or more sides from suffering harm while an issue is settled. A judge generally won't grant an injunction that will destroy a company before they get their day in court, as that would violate due process, so Novell has to convince the judge that any injunction wouldn't prevent the issue from being decided in a trial later on.
t is the player's choice to kill, or rob, or rape, or maim. Just like in real life. I can ask you to do something vile and reprehensible, but it is always your choice as to whether or not you will comply.
Very good point. Honestly I find the people here who claim that going around slaughtering innocent people in a game is "cathartic" pretty damn creepy, and while I'm no psychologist I find it somewhat telling that some people enjoy fantasizing about killing defenseless human beings. I mean, game violence can be cathartic, but I think that mentally there's a big difference between pretending to be a warrior, killing other warriors, and pretending to be a thug killing pedestrians.
This reminds me of a woman I met a few weeks back. She told me she plays WoW but that she doesn't get too far in the game because she refuses to kill anything with a humanoid shape. In essense if it walks on two legs, has two arms and a head centered on the upright torso she will not kill it.
She still enjoys the game, but she realises that she will never get too far. It's the same thing with GTA.
I don't go as far as her, but I certainly can sympathize. I stopped playing GTA: San Andreas mostly because I really didn't enjoy playing a complete psychopath. The beginning of the game was alright, and I really enjoyed just driving around and having fun, but when they start making you kill national guardsmen it just got too distasteful to play.
3. Our legal system, and what it has done to our society. Dispicable. It has tainted people to the point where nobody is willing to admit any fault with anything, for fear of being sued. The maker of these games can't say "yeah, ok, it is a pretty ruthless and violent game. But we certainly aren't responsible for this kid's actions."
I guarantee you that's what they're going to say. THEN they'll say:
They have to say "We have a sticker on it! He shouldn't have been playing it anyway. It has no influence on people... Where were his PARENTS! It is their fault, not ours."
THEN they'll throw in a couple of other defenses. Because in the end they just need one to stick.
Its only real failing was that it was bloody expensive due to its cartridge format. Nintendo still had a solid base going into the Gamecube. It's just too bad they pissed it away with a poor launch lineup, loss of third party support, and a rather small library of *good* games.
Nintendo deserved their loss of dominance, and it has less to do with the games and more to do with Nintendo's bizarre reluctance to develop new systems. Nintendo execs dragged their feet in every console generation; SNES, N64, GameCube--if they had their way everyone would still be using the original NES. Nintendo execs would even complain publicly that they shouldn't have to make new hardware: they preemptively marketed the GC as something that wouldn't need to be upgraded for a very long time.
are they gonna make like difficult for the Voodoo purchasers as much as the made life difficult for the Compaq purchasers, who now have to deal with HorrablyPathetic tech support?
Hey if you buy a Compaq you're just asking for trouble. HP has made some lousy computers in their day (desktops at least, I think their laptops are actually decent), but Compaq has churned out even worse stuff for years.
Privately owned airports are private property. They may be guarded by the government but on my property if you say I'm an idiot I'm kicking you off. If you walked into a wal-mart with a shirt that said wal-mart sucks you would get kicked out. Feel free to wear that crap out on the street. People aren't let into restaraunts and clubs all the tim because of attire. Why the hell would an airport be any different?
...
That post is so wrong that I don't even know where to begin. First of all, where do you get the idea that the airport in question is privately-owned? It's not. Why would you make a statement like that without spending 5 seconds on a google search?
Secondly even if it had been, he wasn't denied access by the owners of the airport, but by agents of the federal government. Since TSA agents are required there by law and answer to the federal government, they're not agents of any theoretical owner of the airport and are not the owner's agents. They have no right to make decisions like that.
Thirdly, even if it had been a privately-owned airport and he was denied access by the owners of the airport, airports are places of public accomodation where your first amendment rights receive some protection.
Think about that the next time you're about to pay $14 for a trade paperback, or $9 for a normal one. Hell, I saw a shitty, mass-market paperback of Thucycides "History of the Pelleponesian War" that was selling for $14. Not even a trade, printed on awful paper, and with print so tiny as to be headache inducing. But it's a new(ish) translation, so they charge that much.
By the very nature of the system it's selective enforcement, because in civil cases the copyright holder decides whether to enforce his or her right. And there's no hard and fast rule, so a judge will have to look at:
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
In the RIAA case the RIAA has an argument based on 1,2, 3 and 4. The use is the same in both P2P and legitimate distribution: providing entertainment value to users. There is an effect on the market: some people who get music from P2P will refrain from buying music legitimately, because they have the P2P option.
Of course it matters, copyrighted materials can be used in certain situations legally. This may be one of those situations, in which case the students' IP argument fails.
You can easily make a fair use argument, it's being used purely for educational, non-profit purposes. And let's be honest, none of these students is actually producing anything that's inherently valuable, we're talking high school level papers here. Their proprietary attitude towards the utterly useless things they're writing is kind of amusing.
Awww, little fringie's getting defensive. How about this: I will give you the explanation you're asking for if you tell me where exactly in my post I actually you know, indicate support for employer-provided healthcare.
Because you know, my reply wasn't especially long, so you would think such a statement of support would be easy to find, but I looked and looked and I couldn't find it.
You have a bizarre obsession with employers providing health insurance -- but not car insurance, interior decorating, or groceries.
From Merriam-Webster's dictionary:
strikingly out of the ordinary: as a : odd, extravagant, or eccentric in style or mode b : involving sensational contrasts or incongruities
You have strangely decided to paint people's attachment of importance to employer-provided healthcare as something unusual. Considering a large percentage of businesses provide such healthcare (and not the other services you mention), and society expects this to be something typical, how does this qualify as "bizarre"?
Huh? Overrated by who? It was widely predicted to be a train wreck, but what happened is it ended up being a reasonably ok scifi action film. "Underrated" doesn't mean good, it just means better than what a lot of people thought.
That is not a restriction that GPL adds: you never were allowed to do that in the first place. Suppose the code is not under any license, then standard copyright law applies. And copyright law does not let you copy that code to your code AT ALL.
Of course it does. If YOU hold the copyright to that code, you could merge the code if you wanted--EXCEPT for the GPL. Same thing if you got permission from the copyright holder to do it. Software licensing is very, very common.
Slashdot Mirror
Come on, Roddenberry ruined Star Trek on his own plenty of times, you don't need to blame Berman for everything. Star Trek's success was always that they managed to get decent writers to write the episodes. The stuff Roddenberry was responsible for was occasionally good but frequently bad too.
But instead of sending him money, I'd rather send him a letter advising him on how to live a better life throw a steady income job.
You don't get invited to too many parties, do you...
Don't be sorry. This was never about SCO's business interests.
I disagree. This has always been about the money, and threatening linux was just a means to that end.
I read in the comments of the page that such a motion is only granted if it is shown that it will not make SCO bankrupt. I'm not a lawyer, and I don't understand why these motions exist then?
If you're talking about the motion for an injunction, they're not intended as any sort of final resolution, but are just a way to prevent one or more sides from suffering harm while an issue is settled. A judge generally won't grant an injunction that will destroy a company before they get their day in court, as that would violate due process, so Novell has to convince the judge that any injunction wouldn't prevent the issue from being decided in a trial later on.
t is the player's choice to kill, or rob, or rape, or maim. Just like in real life. I can ask you to do something vile and reprehensible, but it is always your choice as to whether or not you will comply.
Very good point. Honestly I find the people here who claim that going around slaughtering innocent people in a game is "cathartic" pretty damn creepy, and while I'm no psychologist I find it somewhat telling that some people enjoy fantasizing about killing defenseless human beings. I mean, game violence can be cathartic, but I think that mentally there's a big difference between pretending to be a warrior, killing other warriors, and pretending to be a thug killing pedestrians.
This reminds me of a woman I met a few weeks back. She told me she plays WoW but that she doesn't get too far in the game because she refuses to kill anything with a humanoid shape. In essense if it walks on two legs, has two arms and a head centered on the upright torso she will not kill it. She still enjoys the game, but she realises that she will never get too far. It's the same thing with GTA.
I don't go as far as her, but I certainly can sympathize. I stopped playing GTA: San Andreas mostly because I really didn't enjoy playing a complete psychopath. The beginning of the game was alright, and I really enjoyed just driving around and having fun, but when they start making you kill national guardsmen it just got too distasteful to play.
3. Our legal system, and what it has done to our society. Dispicable. It has tainted people to the point where nobody is willing to admit any fault with anything, for fear of being sued. The maker of these games can't say "yeah, ok, it is a pretty ruthless and violent game. But we certainly aren't responsible for this kid's actions."
I guarantee you that's what they're going to say. THEN they'll say:
They have to say "We have a sticker on it! He shouldn't have been playing it anyway. It has no influence on people... Where were his PARENTS! It is their fault, not ours."
THEN they'll throw in a couple of other defenses. Because in the end they just need one to stick.
Pointless editorializing? On Slashdot? I find that highly dubious.
Its only real failing was that it was bloody expensive due to its cartridge format. Nintendo still had a solid base going into the Gamecube. It's just too bad they pissed it away with a poor launch lineup, loss of third party support, and a rather small library of *good* games.
Nintendo deserved their loss of dominance, and it has less to do with the games and more to do with Nintendo's bizarre reluctance to develop new systems. Nintendo execs dragged their feet in every console generation; SNES, N64, GameCube--if they had their way everyone would still be using the original NES. Nintendo execs would even complain publicly that they shouldn't have to make new hardware: they preemptively marketed the GC as something that wouldn't need to be upgraded for a very long time.
are they gonna make like difficult for the Voodoo purchasers as much as the made life difficult for the Compaq purchasers, who now have to deal with HorrablyPathetic tech support?
Hey if you buy a Compaq you're just asking for trouble. HP has made some lousy computers in their day (desktops at least, I think their laptops are actually decent), but Compaq has churned out even worse stuff for years.
$5,000, but you have to use CA software? Not worth it...
Privately owned airports are private property. They may be guarded by the government but on my property if you say I'm an idiot I'm kicking you off. If you walked into a wal-mart with a shirt that said wal-mart sucks you would get kicked out. Feel free to wear that crap out on the street. People aren't let into restaraunts and clubs all the tim because of attire. Why the hell would an airport be any different?
...
That post is so wrong that I don't even know where to begin. First of all, where do you get the idea that the airport in question is privately-owned? It's not. Why would you make a statement like that without spending 5 seconds on a google search?
Secondly even if it had been, he wasn't denied access by the owners of the airport, but by agents of the federal government. Since TSA agents are required there by law and answer to the federal government, they're not agents of any theoretical owner of the airport and are not the owner's agents. They have no right to make decisions like that.
Thirdly, even if it had been a privately-owned airport and he was denied access by the owners of the airport, airports are places of public accomodation where your first amendment rights receive some protection.
This is the wrong crowd to preach that to ("isn't linux awesomely innovative and new? UNIX? no, never heard of it")
Think about that the next time you're about to pay $14 for a trade paperback, or $9 for a normal one. Hell, I saw a shitty, mass-market paperback of Thucycides "History of the Pelleponesian War" that was selling for $14. Not even a trade, printed on awful paper, and with print so tiny as to be headache inducing. But it's a new(ish) translation, so they charge that much.
Thucydides needs money to live on, man.
By the very nature of the system it's selective enforcement, because in civil cases the copyright holder decides whether to enforce his or her right. And there's no hard and fast rule, so a judge will have to look at:
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
In the RIAA case the RIAA has an argument based on 1,2, 3 and 4. The use is the same in both P2P and legitimate distribution: providing entertainment value to users. There is an effect on the market: some people who get music from P2P will refrain from buying music legitimately, because they have the P2P option.
In the student's case only 3 seems to apply.
Of course it matters, copyrighted materials can be used in certain situations legally. This may be one of those situations, in which case the students' IP argument fails.
You can easily make a fair use argument, it's being used purely for educational, non-profit purposes. And let's be honest, none of these students is actually producing anything that's inherently valuable, we're talking high school level papers here. Their proprietary attitude towards the utterly useless things they're writing is kind of amusing.
Tangential point, but there are some circumstances in which a minor can be bound by a contract, though none of them apply in this situation.
People make fun of him for stuff like this, but ESR has accounted for this possibility.
It's a perfectly appropriate and responsible thing to do. Making fun of ESR I mean.
Awww, little fringie's getting defensive. How about this: I will give you the explanation you're asking for if you tell me where exactly in my post I actually you know, indicate support for employer-provided healthcare.
Because you know, my reply wasn't especially long, so you would think such a statement of support would be easy to find, but I looked and looked and I couldn't find it.
Now that's bizarre.
You have a bizarre obsession with employers providing health insurance -- but not car insurance, interior decorating, or groceries.
From Merriam-Webster's dictionary:
strikingly out of the ordinary: as a : odd, extravagant, or eccentric in style or mode b : involving sensational contrasts or incongruities
You have strangely decided to paint people's attachment of importance to employer-provided healthcare as something unusual. Considering a large percentage of businesses provide such healthcare (and not the other services you mention), and society expects this to be something typical, how does this qualify as "bizarre"?
I'm a woman. Yes, we exist
Such nonsense. Next thing you'll be telling me is you're a sasquatch or a unicorn.
I thought I was at a fencing match.
How appropriate, you fight like a cow!
T3 was an HIGHLY overrated piece of shit.
Huh? Overrated by who? It was widely predicted to be a train wreck, but what happened is it ended up being a reasonably ok scifi action film. "Underrated" doesn't mean good, it just means better than what a lot of people thought.
They did it in the flashback shown in LotR. They've already done it, why would they not be able to now?
That is not a restriction that GPL adds: you never were allowed to do that in the first place. Suppose the code is not under any license, then standard copyright law applies. And copyright law does not let you copy that code to your code AT ALL.
Of course it does. If YOU hold the copyright to that code, you could merge the code if you wanted--EXCEPT for the GPL. Same thing if you got permission from the copyright holder to do it. Software licensing is very, very common.