Screwing up a case, or not advocating for the client's position IN THE COURTROOM or PROCEEDINGS AND MOTIONS OF THE CASE, would count.
The attorney doesn't have a legal duty to advocate or even not oppose the views of clients of firm ON HER BLOG or in PRIVATE life.
That is nothing like breaking medical confidentiality.
You want it to be illegal for eople to advocate in their private life anything that opposes the positions of the clients at work?!
Why not just add an exception to the First Amendment making it illegal to engage in speech which could harm your employer's interests.
The employer can be argued to have a right to fire someone for their views (although this is controversial too). The government doesn't have the right to make it illegal for someone to practice in a profession for their views. Don't say it is the bar and not the government, if you are disbarred or not accepted and practice law anyway, that is illegal and often a felony - the government would punish you. The government can't use a 3rd party to circumvent the First Amendment - else they could pass a law saying if you oppose George Bush, it is illegal for a bank to do business with you - would that be fair?
You believe both the GPL v3 and the DMCA are both wrong, because they use the force of law to restrict technology.
How about having instead of a prohibition on DRM use, the following type of requirement:
"Any user of this code in a DRM system, grants an unrestricted authorization under 17 USC 1201, et seq to circumvent any DRM implemented by this code or which controls access to this code or restricts use of any modified version of this code.". Yes, I know that legalese needs to be cleaned up.
They'll still be able to use the technical power of DRM and not be violating the license. They will however, not be allowed to use the DMCA granted legal powers of DRM, as they have granted "authorization".
People could use technical measures to both support and attack DRM legally. No GPL v3 outlawing of DRM, and no DMCA outlawing of anti-DRM attacks.
The pre-1988, pre-DMCA situation would be in effect, a cat-and-mouse game between technology being used to support and attack DRM. Unlike the current situation which is a cat-and-mouse game where it is illegal for the mouse to hide or run.
All computer makers everywhere are going to stop letting independent developers write software for there hardware? I'm not too woried about that businaess model taking over.
As long as the DMCA stands, all DRM must be considered bad, because it is legislative power in the hands of DRM programmers and the content control cartels.
DMCA + DRM is so bad, that as long as the DMCA exists, DRM must be fought vigorously.
The manufacturer has every right to try to make it tough for you to change the software. He can embed the chips in epoxy. He can put tripwires inside the chip cases that will erase the chips if the case is broken. He can even add another epoxied-shut crypto chip that verifies the signature of the ROM chip.
He can even have you convicted of a felony, put in jail for 5 years, and/or fined up to a half million dollars. (BTW, it is likely that as a term of probation or parole that you be prohibited from using computers - this is quite standard in "hacking" cases.)
He has that right "legally" (the DMCA is unconstitutional - but that doesn't help you if the courts ignore that fact), but do you think he has THAT right morally/ethically?!?
Being able to get the government after you is far more dangerous and evil than putting epoxy on a chip, etc.
The content and control cartels attacked us with the DMCA, making it illegal to exercise our rights to use and modify our hardware and software as we see fit.
We must fight back - if you are in a fight, are being attacked, and don't fight back, you will lose.
The GPL v3 fights back - it is illegal to use GPL code in a product where it would be illegal for one to replace that GPL code with a modification.
The GPL v3 only makes it illegal to have DRM because it is illegal to bypass DRM.
Without the DMCA, these provisions would have never come about in GPL v3. If people could bypass DRM without breaking the law, people would use code to circumvent code. You can't use code to circumvent law (or code protected by law) or you are breaking the law. Therefore we use law to circumvent law - stop them from using the DMCA and our code at the same time - they can't use our code against us and make it illegal for us to use and modify our code as we see fit.
DRM and the GPL v3 may not be incompatible 100%, I believe the language says it can not be part of an "effective protection" system under the DMCA. If the GPL allowed use of DRM, but only on condition that such DRM would not be illegal to circumvent under the DMCA (e.g. the DRM writer automatically gives a license where any circumvention is authorized with respect to the DMCA) there would be no argument one could make against that. Breakig such DRM and infringing copyright would still be a copyright infringement.
What kind of legal bills are you expecting other than "normal" (?) ones?
Do you actually expect them to be sued and have to pay damages?
I'd hope that would be exceedingly unlikely.
1. They have a lot of money to defend themselves 2. As a search engine, they're not responsible.
If someone downloads information on a website that they found via Google and does something harmful, Google is too far removed from the harm to be at fault.
That is 2 degrees removed from the harm. Google didn't do it, and the website didn't do it either.
If anyone who is at all responsible for a harm was considered at fault, why not sue the power company which supplies Google, the people who supply coal to the power company, etc. Where would it end?
in a nutshell, in the US you gotta have one person reverse engineer and write documentation, and another write the code.
There is no such law.
The advamtage of clean room engineering is that there can be no allegations of it being a derived work because code was duplicated.
Even without clean room engineering, the plaintiff must prove infringement.
Clean room engineering makes infringement impossible, so it reduces the risk of it even getting to trial or past the summary judgement stage (the defense will get granted summary judgement if as a matter of law the facts require finding for the defendant - which will be the case if there wasn't even a possibility of the code being copied).
Also a virus makes some of what are thought to be direct consequences of obesity make sense.
Fat is said to cause: Insulin resistance and Inflamation
Why would the body be designed to do that? It doesn't seem to make sense. But both conditions are adaptive in some cases of infection - insulin resistance -> more glucose -> more energy to fight an infection and inflamation is obviously part of almost all infections. Infections raise cortisol which causes insulin resistance. Notice how infections can make diabetics decompensate, even driving Type 2's into ketoacidosis (type 2's almost never get that unless they are end stage with little/no endogenous insulin or ARE SUFFERING AN INFECTION). If you've got a type 2 in DKA, look for an infection and you'll likely find one, if they don't have an obvious one, they will likely have a hidden one.
Name a "consequence of obesity" that can't be caused or made more by an infection Insulin resistance? (see above) Inflammation? (see above) Arthritis? (inflammation) Heart Disease? (a bacteria is already know to make that worse) Ulcers/heartburn (H. pylori, cortisol can weaken the lower esophagial sphincter, etc).
There will be a LOT of money to be made if the obesity - infection link is proved and the caustive agents found.
Likely in the trillions of dollars over the next few decades.
He/she who invests in the right company WILL get rich.
People behaving like computers would be very exciting.
People would be randomly passing out every few days, sometimes forgetting their whole life history when it happens and/or having to have the head removed and reattached to come back to life, insanity would spread faster than the common cold (look at how fast computer viruses and worms spread) and if someone is exposed to a novel stimuli, they could do anything from ignore it to going totally berserk.
Stating the fact that the power of lawsuits is ultimately enforced by government is not an appeal to anarchy.
It is simply stating the government power and edicts are involved - and can, if in excess of what is just and proper, can amount to oppression (in this case, censorship).
I'm not arguing that all government or even all civil court powers be abolished, just that they are ultimately government imposed and enforced. This can be a good thing or a bad thing - but in any event to imply that government isn't involved in civil lawsuits is wrong - its not just between plaintiff and defendant - look at who owns the (usually rather impressive and awe-inspiring) building and pays the judges, sherrifs that enforce attachments, garnishees, forced sales, etc.
I don't support making it so the only recourse is violence, I believe in the rule of law - but know it ultimately stems from the barrel of a gun. That's why I vote, to make sure the gun is pointed AWAY from me. Yes I know government does a lot of other things, public services, etc but that's not what we are talking about here.
Slashdot Mirror
In Nevada, you can get a driver's license if you only have one eye.
(You can't get a CDL though).
Do a Google search for "search engine" (no quotes).
Google isn't even on the first page.
Yahoo is, and Search Engine watch is link #1.
!
No, if it was it might read like this:
"Saugst ein Ei gehen du fettes Bumsen - Du bist 136 Kilogramm Schaumgummiringöl.",
there is an informal social contract against being an asshole.
Tell that to the people who I have to share the road with on Nevada's freeways!
Blizzard is the same company which sued in the bnetd fiasco; Blizzard WON that suit.
So going elsewhere to a private server is illegal.
Prior Art doesn't seem to stop the Patent Office from granting patents anymore.
Screwing up a case, or not advocating for the client's position IN THE COURTROOM or PROCEEDINGS AND MOTIONS OF THE CASE, would count.
The attorney doesn't have a legal duty to advocate or even not oppose the views of clients of firm ON HER BLOG or in PRIVATE life.
That is nothing like breaking medical confidentiality.
You want it to be illegal for eople to advocate in their private life anything that opposes the positions of the clients at work?!
Why not just add an exception to the First Amendment making it illegal to engage in speech which could harm your employer's interests.
The employer can be argued to have a right to fire someone for their views (although this is controversial too). The government doesn't have the right to make it illegal for someone to practice in a profession for their views. Don't say it is the bar and not the government, if you are disbarred or not accepted and practice law anyway, that is illegal and often a felony - the government would punish you. The government can't use a 3rd party to circumvent the First Amendment - else they could pass a law saying if you oppose George Bush, it is illegal for a bank to do business with you - would that be fair?
You believe both the GPL v3 and the DMCA are both wrong, because they use the force of law to restrict technology.
How about having instead of a prohibition on DRM use, the following type of requirement:
"Any user of this code in a DRM system, grants an unrestricted authorization under 17 USC 1201, et seq to circumvent any DRM implemented by this code or which controls access to this code or restricts use of any modified version of this code.". Yes, I know that legalese needs to be cleaned up.
They'll still be able to use the technical power of DRM and not be violating the license. They will however, not be allowed to use the DMCA granted legal powers of DRM, as they have granted "authorization".
People could use technical measures to both support and attack DRM legally. No GPL v3 outlawing of DRM, and no DMCA outlawing of anti-DRM attacks.
The pre-1988, pre-DMCA situation would be in effect, a cat-and-mouse game between technology being used to support and attack DRM. Unlike the current situation which is a cat-and-mouse game where it is illegal for the mouse to hide or run.
All computer makers everywhere are going to stop letting independent developers write software for there hardware? I'm not too woried about that businaess model taking over.
It will be illegal for them not to do that.
Look at the CBDTPA/SSSCA bills.
As long as the DMCA stands, all DRM must be considered bad, because it is legislative power in the hands of DRM programmers and the content control cartels.
DMCA + DRM is so bad, that as long as the DMCA exists, DRM must be fought vigorously.
The manufacturer has every right to try to make it tough for you to change the software. He can embed the chips in epoxy. He can put tripwires inside the chip cases that will erase the chips if the case is broken. He can even add another epoxied-shut crypto chip that verifies the signature of the ROM chip.
He can even have you convicted of a felony, put in jail for 5 years, and/or fined up to a half million dollars. (BTW, it is likely that as a term of probation or parole that you be prohibited from using computers - this is quite standard in "hacking" cases.)
He has that right "legally" (the DMCA is unconstitutional - but that doesn't help you if the courts ignore that fact), but do you think he has THAT right morally/ethically?!?
Being able to get the government after you is far more dangerous and evil than putting epoxy on a chip, etc.
The content and control cartels attacked us with the DMCA, making it illegal to exercise our rights to use and modify our hardware and software as we see fit.
We must fight back - if you are in a fight, are being attacked, and don't fight back, you will lose.
The GPL v3 fights back - it is illegal to use GPL code in a product where it would be illegal for one to replace that GPL code with a modification.
The GPL v3 only makes it illegal to have DRM because it is illegal to bypass DRM.
Without the DMCA, these provisions would have never come about in GPL v3. If people could bypass DRM without breaking the law, people would use code to circumvent code. You can't use code to circumvent law (or code protected by law) or you are breaking the law. Therefore we use law to circumvent law - stop them from using the DMCA and our code at the same time - they can't use our code against us and make it illegal for us to use and modify our code as we see fit.
DRM and the GPL v3 may not be incompatible 100%, I believe the language says it can not be part of an "effective protection" system under the DMCA. If the GPL allowed use of DRM, but only on condition that such DRM would not be illegal to circumvent under the DMCA (e.g. the DRM writer automatically gives a license where any circumvention is authorized with respect to the DMCA) there would be no argument one could make against that. Breakig such DRM and infringing copyright would still be a copyright infringement.
What kind of legal bills are you expecting other than "normal" (?) ones?
Do you actually expect them to be sued and have to pay damages?
I'd hope that would be exceedingly unlikely.
1. They have a lot of money to defend themselves
2. As a search engine, they're not responsible.
If someone downloads information on a website that they found via Google and does something harmful, Google is too far removed from the harm to be at fault.
That is 2 degrees removed from the harm. Google didn't do it, and the website didn't do it either.
If anyone who is at all responsible for a harm was considered at fault, why not sue the power company which supplies Google, the people who supply coal to the power company, etc. Where would it end?
"promximate cause" is the legal term I believe.
Isn't the point of a blog becuse you WANT to make your private life as public as possible?
If you don't want everyone reading it, why have it?
First Amendment
The bar can't make it illegal for her to become a lawyer for free speech.
The First Amendment doesn't cover "at will" employment in most cases (public policy and other exemptions notwithstanding).
Making it illegal for her to be a lawyer for her views is a clear violation of the First Amendment.
You are allowed to express any opinion you want - political speech is absolutely protected.
in a nutshell, in the US you gotta have one person reverse engineer and write documentation, and another write the code.
There is no such law.
The advamtage of clean room engineering is that there can be no allegations of it being a derived work because code was duplicated.
Even without clean room engineering, the plaintiff must prove infringement.
Clean room engineering makes infringement impossible, so it reduces the risk of it even getting to trial or past the summary judgement stage (the defense will get granted summary judgement if as a matter of law the facts require finding for the defendant - which will be the case if there wasn't even a possibility of the code being copied).
I don't see the trend where more advanced world => more unemployment, do you?
Not UNemployment as much as UNDERemployment.
As in going from building cars to asking "Do you want fries with that?"
A number?
I assume you mean zero.
How about i and multiples thereof?
Without the DOD there would be no Internet!
Also a virus makes some of what are thought to be direct consequences of obesity make sense.
Fat is said to cause:
Insulin resistance
and Inflamation
Why would the body be designed to do that? It doesn't seem to make sense. But both conditions are adaptive in some cases of infection - insulin resistance -> more glucose -> more energy to fight an infection and inflamation is obviously part of almost all infections. Infections raise cortisol which causes insulin resistance. Notice how infections can make diabetics decompensate, even driving Type 2's into ketoacidosis (type 2's almost never get that unless they are end stage with little/no endogenous insulin or ARE SUFFERING AN INFECTION). If you've got a type 2 in DKA, look for an infection and you'll likely find one, if they don't have an obvious one, they will likely have a hidden one.
Name a "consequence of obesity" that can't be caused or made more by an infection
Insulin resistance? (see above)
Inflammation? (see above)
Arthritis? (inflammation)
Heart Disease? (a bacteria is already know to make that worse)
Ulcers/heartburn (H. pylori, cortisol can weaken the lower esophagial sphincter, etc).
There will be a LOT of money to be made if the obesity - infection link is proved and the caustive agents found.
Likely in the trillions of dollars over the next few decades.
He/she who invests in the right company WILL get rich.
That has been backported into 1.0.
People behaving like computers would be very exciting.
People would be randomly passing out every few days, sometimes forgetting their whole life history when it happens and/or having to have the head removed and reattached to come back to life, insanity would spread faster than the common cold (look at how fast computer viruses and worms spread) and if someone is exposed to a novel stimuli, they could do anything from ignore it to going totally berserk.
Would you actually trust this thing not to burn down your house?
i cle.asp?ID=193
People trust AMD processors not to burn down their house either, but check these out:
http://www.tomshardware.com/2001/09/17/hot_spot/
http://pubs.logicalexpressions.com/Pub0009/LPMArt
Stating the fact that the power of lawsuits is ultimately enforced by government is not an appeal to anarchy.
It is simply stating the government power and edicts are involved - and can, if in excess of what is just and proper, can amount to oppression (in this case, censorship).
I'm not arguing that all government or even all civil court powers be abolished, just that they are ultimately government imposed and enforced. This can be a good thing or a bad thing - but in any event to imply that government isn't involved in civil lawsuits is wrong - its not just between plaintiff and defendant - look at who owns the (usually rather impressive and awe-inspiring) building and pays the judges, sherrifs that enforce attachments, garnishees, forced sales, etc.
I don't support making it so the only recourse is violence, I believe in the rule of law - but know it ultimately stems from the barrel of a gun. That's why I vote, to make sure the gun is pointed AWAY from me. Yes I know government does a lot of other things, public services, etc but that's not what we are talking about here.