Verizon did want to hand over names and IPs, and I can assure you they have much more legal firepower than a college...
Uhh, no. MIT's endowment is in the billions; not sure about BC, but I would be stunned if it wasn't at least in the hundreds of millions.
Once you're in this kind of league money doesn't matter much. Seriously. Both sides can hire as much legal help as they need. Both can afford to support this legal team for as many years as it takes.
If both sides have $400 an hour lawyers, then in terms of legal firepower it's pretty much an even fight. It then, finally, comes down to law.
More than simply the temporary blockade for the army of RIAA lawyers which that organization will refer to them as
Considering MIT has a 5 billion dollar endowment, I doubt very much that the RIAA will be able to outspend them. Besides which, after a while you start getting diminishing returns when hiring lawyers; once you have a large legal team working fulltime on a case, throwing money at them doesn't do anything.
I guess if I had an unlimited amount of money to spend, the Powerbook would be worth considering. But then if I had an unlimited amount of money I would get an IBM PPC based laptop to run AIX and/or NetBSD on.
If I had an unlimited amount of money I would be too busy being fed grapes by supermodels on my 500 foot yacht to worry about laptops.
Yeah great a Mac user says that Sony is "following" apple, and someone refutes him and gets modded down as a "troll". Mac Zealots are the most annoying people on the planet.
We're heading for the stars. Obviously we still have to manufacture it, but let's be honest, after looking at those schematics does anyone doubt that we'll get there soon? BTW, that @ is me looking out a porthole, wearing a spacesuit.
True. Considering how expensive it is to live in much of Japan because of that overcrowding, I wouldn't envy them their broadband; in general they more than make up for it with the rent payments...
Face it. What the USA do, you do because it benefits you. You're not shining white knights. You are cutthroat egomaniacs, willing to go to any length just to keep your average 3.5 SUVs per household.
Yeah, we do what we do because it benefits us. The same as every other country, only we get flack for doing the same things everyone else does.
You think I could get a job in India? Hell, do you think I could even get a work visa?
If you think the trade barriers in the US are anything compared to those of say, Japan, you're delusional. But we're expected to be selfless.
You think we spread "venom" over the world? Look how other world powers have acted over the centuries--what we do is pretty damn tame.
because normally there are large time spans between releases of DVDs and Sequels (although LotR had a special edition released only a few weeks before TTT).
For something to be noteworthy people have to care about it. Does anyone really care that a release date is slightly earlier than the mean? Especially for a so-so movie?
Income to the Federal government actually INCREASED during Reagan's administration. The large debt was caused by the social-democrats in Congress spending more than came in. As usual.
Yeah, and the massive military had absolutely nothing to do with it, right?
Stupid != unconstitutional. What is so hard to understand about this?
My point is that a few of the amendments to the Constitution are stupid, ill-conceived, and are passed even though they make no sense. In the case of the 16th amendment, it was passed even though it contradicted Article I, section 9, clause 4.
Alright, you still don't quite get the point. It's called an amendment because it amends--it's an amendment precisely because an amendment is what's required to change some aspect of Constitutional law. Wherever did you get the idea that amendments aren't allowed to contradict anything in the main body of the document?
Re:Was this a joke?
on
Open Source Law
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
No. The situation is this:
A private organization creates some specifications for building. They hold the copyright on this, as they are the creators.
The organization offers the codes to municipal governments for adoption into law.
The private organization wants to keep the copyright over the material itself. They don't want to lose control of these specifications; if that happened then another individual or private organization could freely use the specifications in their own work (such as in building handbook).
The court decided that since the private organization in question had offered the specifications to governments for use, they didn't retain ownership over what was adopted into law.
Now I think the courts made a wise decision. But, you know, it's not a cut-and-dried issue; you can make arguments for both sides. The plaintiffs in this aren't trying to copyright laws--their copyright existed BEFORE the laws were enacted. The question is whether their copyright survives the process of being adopted by governmental entities, and I know this is heresy on slashdot, but not every legal case is a matter of common sense--these are complicated issues.
Another half-wit joins the thread. Did you just skip ahead to where I corrected his spelling? You must have if you missed my rebuttals.
Or are you going to also claim that the examples he gave refer, as he claimed, simply to nonpayment when the page itself mentions the many cases of fraudulent behavior on the part of the people he brought up.
You must also have missed where I corrected his misinterpretation of the Constitution. Or do you think that something is part of the Constitution isn't necessarily Constitutional?
ANY addition to the Constitution has to be approved by the legislature. The Legislature is SUPPOSED to review an Amendment to make sure it's Constitutional in its direct, and indirect consequences. I could almost understand if it was an addition that had indirect contradictions, but it has glaring ones. It was Unconstitutional when it was proposed, it was Unconstitutional when it was approved, and it remains Unconstitutional today.
Oh ye of little understanding. The section on Constitutional amendments is clear. Here it is, QUOTED IN ITS ENTIRETY:
Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
Doesn't say anything about Constitutionality, does it? It's very vague, and intentionally so, so as to give the federal and state legislatures a degree of freedom. Damned inconvenient how many times I've disproved your contentions, isn't it?
You're pathetic whining about Constitutional Amendments not being Constitutional proves only that you're the idiot that doesn't know any history.
First of all, that's "your", not "you're". Secondly I'm the one who argued that Constitutional amendments ARE Constitutional. You're the one who said otherwise. Sure you want to throw words like "idiot" around when you make so many mistakes in one sentence?
Slashdot Mirror
Armed resistance so they can keep stealing music. Someone needs some fucking priorities.
It's typical libertarian internet muscle flexing. Best thing to do is call them on it.
Verizon did want to hand over names and IPs, and I can assure you they have much more legal firepower than a college...
Uhh, no. MIT's endowment is in the billions; not sure about BC, but I would be stunned if it wasn't at least in the hundreds of millions.
Once you're in this kind of league money doesn't matter much. Seriously. Both sides can hire as much legal help as they need. Both can afford to support this legal team for as many years as it takes.
If both sides have $400 an hour lawyers, then in terms of legal firepower it's pretty much an even fight. It then, finally, comes down to law.
It looks like sheep have arisen. I for one...
So you're telling us you're prepared to offer armed resistance? No, I didn't think so.
More than simply the temporary blockade for the army of RIAA lawyers which that organization will refer to them as
Considering MIT has a 5 billion dollar endowment, I doubt very much that the RIAA will be able to outspend them. Besides which, after a while you start getting diminishing returns when hiring lawyers; once you have a large legal team working fulltime on a case, throwing money at them doesn't do anything.
The feasibility for DirectFB to replace XFree86 just a little stronger thanks Maurizio Monge
I'm not going to hold my breath I think.
I guess if I had an unlimited amount of money to spend, the Powerbook would be worth considering. But then if I had an unlimited amount of money I would get an IBM PPC based laptop to run AIX and/or NetBSD on.
If I had an unlimited amount of money I would be too busy being fed grapes by supermodels on my 500 foot yacht to worry about laptops.
Yeah, they're not like that godawful amazon search engine. EVERYTIME I try to search for something it tries to sell me stuff.
but I'm merely trying to say that there really is no niche for Transmeta anymore.
There never really was. The lowered power use just wasn't worth the weaker performance.
Yeah great a Mac user says that Sony is "following" apple, and someone refutes him and gets modded down as a "troll". Mac Zealots are the most annoying people on the planet.
They were until linux zealots appeared...
mmmmmmmmmmmmmm, nuts and gum.....
They're "chicken" nuggets, not chicken nuggets.
Huh? Snopes is right wing? I never thought so, and I'm about as bleeding heart as they come...
But if you were to add up all the features, server-side and GUI, I think OS X would handily win.
BTW, that's the greatest email address I've ever seen.
Seems to me the chip is not a reality. A design for it is.
::: \
Nonsense, the design's the hard part.
For example, check out my design of an intergalactic starship:
***/\_____________
***|............... 0 0 0 @ \___
***|
***|__________________/
We're heading for the stars. Obviously we still have to manufacture it, but let's be honest, after looking at those schematics does anyone doubt that we'll get there soon? BTW, that @ is me looking out a porthole, wearing a spacesuit.
Or you could just not buy a lexmark printer. Let the market descide, don't legislate to death.
Yeah, worked so well in curtailing Microsoft's behavior...
Define "best"
In terms of BSD? MacOS X.
True. Considering how expensive it is to live in much of Japan because of that overcrowding, I wouldn't envy them their broadband; in general they more than make up for it with the rent payments...
Face it. What the USA do, you do because it benefits you. You're not shining white knights. You are cutthroat egomaniacs, willing to go to any length just to keep your average 3.5 SUVs per household.
Yeah, we do what we do because it benefits us. The same as every other country, only we get flack for doing the same things everyone else does.
You think I could get a job in India? Hell, do you think I could even get a work visa?
If you think the trade barriers in the US are anything compared to those of say, Japan, you're delusional. But we're expected to be selfless.
You think we spread "venom" over the world? Look how other world powers have acted over the centuries--what we do is pretty damn tame.
This is noteworthy
Not really.
because normally there are large time spans between releases of DVDs and Sequels (although LotR had a special edition released only a few weeks before TTT).
For something to be noteworthy people have to care about it. Does anyone really care that a release date is slightly earlier than the mean? Especially for a so-so movie?
Income to the Federal government actually INCREASED during Reagan's administration. The large debt was caused by the social-democrats in Congress spending more than came in. As usual.
Yeah, and the massive military had absolutely nothing to do with it, right?
It CAN equal a revision. Good God, read the freaking amendments, some of them DO contradict things that are in the main body of the Constitution.
But I guess all those lawyers and supreme court justices and presidents and legislators and law professors are wrong, and you're right.
Stupid != unconstitutional. What is so hard to understand about this?
My point is that a few of the amendments to the Constitution are stupid, ill-conceived, and are passed even though they make no sense. In the case of the 16th amendment, it was passed even though it contradicted Article I, section 9, clause 4.
Alright, you still don't quite get the point. It's called an amendment because it amends--it's an amendment precisely because an amendment is what's required to change some aspect of Constitutional law. Wherever did you get the idea that amendments aren't allowed to contradict anything in the main body of the document?
No. The situation is this:
A private organization creates some specifications for building. They hold the copyright on this, as they are the creators.
The organization offers the codes to municipal governments for adoption into law.
The private organization wants to keep the copyright over the material itself. They don't want to lose control of these specifications; if that happened then another individual or private organization could freely use the specifications in their own work (such as in building handbook).
The court decided that since the private organization in question had offered the specifications to governments for use, they didn't retain ownership over what was adopted into law.
Now I think the courts made a wise decision. But, you know, it's not a cut-and-dried issue; you can make arguments for both sides. The plaintiffs in this aren't trying to copyright laws--their copyright existed BEFORE the laws were enacted. The question is whether their copyright survives the process of being adopted by governmental entities, and I know this is heresy on slashdot, but not every legal case is a matter of common sense--these are complicated issues.
Another half-wit joins the thread. Did you just skip ahead to where I corrected his spelling? You must have if you missed my rebuttals.
Or are you going to also claim that the examples he gave refer, as he claimed, simply to nonpayment when the page itself mentions the many cases of fraudulent behavior on the part of the people he brought up.
You must also have missed where I corrected his misinterpretation of the Constitution. Or do you think that something is part of the Constitution isn't necessarily Constitutional?
Try again, son.
ANY addition to the Constitution has to be approved by the legislature. The Legislature is SUPPOSED to review an Amendment to make sure it's Constitutional in its direct, and indirect consequences. I could almost understand if it was an addition that had indirect contradictions, but it has glaring ones. It was Unconstitutional when it was proposed, it was Unconstitutional when it was approved, and it remains Unconstitutional today.
Oh ye of little understanding. The section on Constitutional amendments is clear. Here it is, QUOTED IN ITS ENTIRETY:
Article V The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
Doesn't say anything about Constitutionality, does it? It's very vague, and intentionally so, so as to give the federal and state legislatures a degree of freedom. Damned inconvenient how many times I've disproved your contentions, isn't it?
You're pathetic whining about Constitutional Amendments not being Constitutional proves only that you're the idiot that doesn't know any history.
First of all, that's "your", not "you're". Secondly I'm the one who argued that Constitutional amendments ARE Constitutional. You're the one who said otherwise. Sure you want to throw words like "idiot" around when you make so many mistakes in one sentence?