"I don't think you understand. The Segway uses a network of processors, accelerometers, and gyroscopes to perform a continous inverse kinematics calculation involving many variables, such as passenger weight, differing wheel speeds, shifts in the center of gravity, wheel traction, and acceleration.
Yes, I have designed analogous systems for electric cars. ..and bicycles, since my research on their stability required such. Perhaps I simply wrote my software better.
"You get the same result if you were told to run in a direction and then slow down suddenly, and there was a patch of ice there too."
The same can happen on a bicycle even without the slowing down part. Again I can attest to this personally, since I ride year round in the northeast. Because a bicycle is inherently unstable, even at speed and with all the gyroscopic forces in place.
Yes, but that would be a trivial segment of the line that you own. Not a trivial segment of the file in which it appears.
That's one of the unique properties of the GPL. Unless ownership is otherwise assigned by the author ( such as to the FSF) each contributor retains full ownership rights to everything they contributed.
Rights are not subsumed into the overall work.
How few characters have already been held to be infringing? Three.
Sing along:
"My sweet Lord. . . "
When it comes to computer code you'd be unlikely to prevail over three characters, but precedent supports your right to make the argument.
We must make a distinction here between their legal claims and their press release claims.
Their press release claims have no legal standing ( although they may open them up to various legal complaints. See Red Hat vs. SCO). These are just FUD.Some of them though give hints to what their actual legal arguments must be if it comes to that.
Argument of in my original post does not rely on press release claims. Copyright claims are legal claims.If they release a distro under the GPL that is a legal claim of assignment of rights. If the GPL is a valid license then they are bound by its terms for every line of code in the distro.
If they release a distro (c)SCO they are making legal claim to ownership of the distro and all the code contained therein.
Their filing against IBM is an actual legal claim. This claim makes a fairly tortuous definition of derivitive works that is highly unlikely to prevail.
IBM has also pointed out that since SCO distributed the code themselves under the GPL they have released it for use under the GPL, so any other legal argument is moot.
SCO has responded in a press release ( but this must be their legal argument if it ever goes to court, because there is simply no other counter against IBM's defense here) that the entire GPL is invalid and thus all works released under the GPL either A)belong to them as derivitive works, or B) have passed into the public domain so they are able to use them as they please.
This argument relies on A) that their definition of a derivative work is correct, which it isn't, AND B) that if the GPL is invalid all GPLed works inherently become public domain, which they don't.I'd hazard a guess here that RMS will fight this one tooth and nail. He owns what he wrote.
They also have to be very careful about that argument since it would also likely result in a ruling that all UNIX code up to 32V is public domain as well. A judicial ruling has already been made that such is likely to be the case if anyone wants to push the issue.
So SCO's claims against IBM inherently attack the GPL, by necessity, or their legal claims fail prima facie.
This is very important. They must destroy the GPL itself to prevail over IBM (because SCO having released the claimed infringing code under the GPL is an affirmative prima facie defense). This effects every piece of GPLed code in existence.
Any way you cut it this is not simply an IBM/SCO issue.
Keep your stick on the ice, because we're all in this together now. Like it or not.
Sorry for the Google link, but I refuse to actually vist their site.
These weasels aren't domesticated and haven't had their scent glands removed. They stink like a skunk.
They claim the right to charge a license fee for your code, but then refuse anyone attempting to purchase such a license, thus retaining the right to argue that they haven't misappropriated your code because they haven't distributed it.
It all fits neatly into their FUD campaign though, since most people don't know this is what's going on. If they get to court the judge will damn well find out though. He's not likely to be pleased with SCO's tactics.
SCO is actually making what amount to superhuman legal efforts to avoid going to court. Hence the counter-suits to force the issue.
Note that Red Hat has not sued them for copyright violation. Only for making false statements harmful to their business. Because SCO has not actually sold a copy of their Linux distro under propriatary license.
IBM is taking the artillery to the fore.IBM is the only one SCO is actually taking action against. The rest is just talk. It's almost enough to make me join the Union Army. Ah, wait, the Colonial forces dressed in blue as well.
I think I'll retain my position in the Green Mountain boys though and just run supporting harassing actions.
Imagine a "unicycle" with side by side wheels. Such have actually been built. Anyone who can ride a unicycle can learn to ride one of these in an afternoon.The Segway has a good deal of stability in its mechanical design, it's just that that stability is side to side rather than fore and aft. Gyroscopic effects aid in the side to side stability since the Segway has wheels. It gains stability fore and aft because to rotate around its axles it must overcome the resistive force of its drive train. Apply and equal and opposite force with your body weight and it remains upright.
People can balance. It is one of their defining properties as bipeds.
Stand on one leg if you don't believe me.
There are people who can stand on one leg on a bowling ball which has even less inherent stability than a Segway.
When the batteries begin to go flat on a Segway everything doesn't just grind to a sudden halt. It slows down.Drive an electic R/C car for a practical example of this phenomenon. Nor does the Segway as whole, or its gyroscope as an individual componant, suddenly lose all of its momentum. Each coast to a halt ( although against resisitive forces, such as you might generate on a coasting bicycle by "riding" the brakes a bit).
One of the advantages of the standing riding position of the Segway and its lack of fore/aft stability is that when it slows down and/or stops one can simply step off, like from a skateboard. This is aided by the fact that the Segway travels at a pitifully slow speed to begin with compared to a bicycle. Flat out it's going at a jog. It's low speed is actually one of its selling points.
You can't just step off of a bicycle when it falls. I know. I have the scar tissue and broken bones to prove it.
I step off of skateboards all the time. Not a scratch. But then I don't do stupid tricks on a skateboard and never ride one faster than I could. . . a Segway, which is going at less than walking speed when it loses stability due it's batteries going flat.
And at walking speed a bicycle gains no significant righting forces from anything other than a human being's innate ability to remain upright.
If you continue to ride a Segway after its low battery light comes on and fail to simply step off when it slows and somehow fail to simply remain standing up somehow when it finally loses stability, this isn't because of something inherent in the Segway.
It's something inherent in you.
To wit, you're a dumbass with no sense of balance.
A client who is a dumbass without the basic skills of survival, like being able to stand up unassisted on a device which requires such, has never been a deterent to a lawyer filing a suit, however, hence the recall.
The question boils down, at least in part, to what copyright they claim to be distributing their distro under.
The distro has a license that may be unique and apart from the licenses of each individual file.
If they distribute their distro under a blanket GPL license then yes, they are effectively charging a license fee for code they have no rights to even if a single line of that code does not belong to them and are thus in violation of the GPL for their entire distro. Every individual who has contributed code to that distro may sue them for license violation.
How many people have contributed code to their distro? Richard Stallman, Bill Joy and Linus Torvalds, for starters, since it is a BSD/GNU/Linux distro. The entire KDE/Gnome teams as well.
If they have not claimed GPL over the entire distro than they must enummerate those files which are under a different license and take care that all linking and derivitive works therein comply with any GPL licensed code.
If they have not they are in violation of the GPL for each instantiation.
If you right a VB app Microsoft may own the VB runtime, but they do not own your code as a derivitave work. You own that.
SCO has effectively declared legal war on anyone who has contributed code to their entire distro.
Indeed, one wonders how SCO acquired the rights to distribute any code I may have contributed to their Linux distro (note that this is a broader field than just "Linux")when I have no contractual obligations to transfer rights to SCO.
One wonders exactly which files they claim ownership of, and even if they refuse to identify specific lines of code that they believe are theirs they should be required to at least identify the files they are charging a license fee for before they can collect any money. That's basic contract law.
"Give us some money."
"What do I get?"
"We can't tell you. Ha, ha, ha!"
Right Sparky. Blow me.
If you have written a single line of code that is being distributed in a file that SCO is charging a license fee for and are under no contractual obligation to transfer rights of derivitive works to SCO, even if they do own the core operating system code they are still violating your license on your IP.
By law derivitive works belong to the actual author.
I wonder what would happen if everyone who has contributed legitimate code under the GPL to SCO's distro were to each file a suit for violation of their license terms?
More than wonder, I highly recommend it.
If you represent yourself pro se it will cost you some time, some stationary and the filing fee.
It will cost them a lawyer to respond, for each individual case.
Make the bastards bleed from one thousand little legal cuts. Even the expense of that many band-aids and bactine will hurt.
To be fair to the parent poster at the point the bicycle falls over from lack of speed it too has no gyroscopic forces to aid the rider.
That's one of the reasons it falls over, because it is inherently unstable.
His point stands.
(Of course there are courses of action a cyclist can take to prevent falling over. I can stay essentially motionless on a bicycle for an arbitrary amount of time. It's easier on a track bike which has direct drive like a child's tricycle. Rider skill can be substituted for gyroscopic effect, which on a bicycle is really minimal even at speed. The castor effect is far stronger, as is just plain "body English" since the rider's weight exerts much greater force than the gyroscopic forces. Thinking of a unicycle can give a better intuitive idea of this, as they never operate at enough speed for gyroscopic effects to have any import, and if you stop pedaling they fall right over, because they are inherently unstable. Yes, I'm a bit of an expert in the field, a frame building, racing physicist who's first real research project was on the stability of bicycles and currently works on human powered machinery)
But I'm workin' on her. I sat her down at a Mandrake/KDE box ( she uses Mac OS8 ) and she took right to it. No problemo.
I'm breaking her in to the terminal. She's pretty adaptable for a 70 year old.
KFG
Re:Surprisingly little is said of XFce's use of Ja
on
XFce Desktop 4 Released
·
· Score: 1, Troll
Oh, I don't know. I think all too much is said about KDE's use of C++ and Gnome's use of C ( even though I'm a KDE user who dislikes coding in C++).
I'm not sure why saying much about XFce's use of Java should get even more mention.
What Sun's Java Desktop has to do with it I'm not sure. Since it's a Linux distro it goes pretty much without saying that any Linux pacakage you download and build on it will run.
More to the point, since the only real reason to run Sun's Java Desktop (tm -- Don't call it Linux) is to use their version of Gnome I'm clueless as to why anyone would want to build XFCe for it, since you can also build it on any other Linux (sorry Sun, call my lawyer) distro.
Unless maybe you've popped the C note for Sun's Java Desktop (See? I've repented already), realized you've made a terrible mistake, but are too obstinate in your investment to download Red Hat, Mandrake, Debian or Slack for free?
Please note that according to @stake Dr. Greer was not employed by them at the time he made his opinions public.
Therefore:
A)He was not actually fired for his public statement B)At the time of the statement he clearly could not have been speaking for his employer, because he was unemployed and in much the same position as Ms. Welles
If @stake's position in this matter has certain legal implications, well, that's their problem I guess. They chose their actions and statements.
As for Dr. Geer's termination I covered that in my original post. I don't know the terms of his contract or their legality in his legal jurisdiction.
And neither do you.
Unless, of course, you're posting as an AC because you are an officer of @stake.
As for his collegues most of them probably share his opinion but keep private about it. Virtually every government is quite vocal about sharing the same opinion so it's not like it's a big secret or something.
It can be equally applied to nearly any other industry as well. A nearly universal reliance on Boeing for nearly all of our military aircraft would be a tragic mistake for national security.
I'd hazard a guess you could find a Boeing executive who would even be willing to state that for the record -- and not even get fired for it.
Terri Welles was, in fact, a Playmate. Playboy cannot restrict her from saying so, even by attempting to apply trademark law against Ms. Welle's use of the trademarked word "Playboy" in for commercial gain.
The fact that being able to claim to have been a Playboy Playmate gives her a certain professional standing in her field (tits) and she is free to use that standing for her own benefit even over the objections of Playboy.
Dr. Geer is (ok, was) the Chief Technical Officer of @Stake. This is a position of authority in a particular field and stating that one has that authority gives one's opinion in that field certain standing. It is a factual statement and does not imply endorsement by his employer. It only imlies that one has recognized special skills.
If people misconstrue that that is a problem of their understanding, just as it is if people believe that Ms. Welles' personal site is an official Playboy site because she lists her employment by Playboy.
That doesn't make her an infringer. It makes them morons.
If the guy down the street who works for a Ford dealership tells me that he thinks Fords suck I too would have to be a moron to believe that was the official position of his employer.
Whether or not that might be legal grounds for firing said employee is another issue. I'd have to review the relevant law in his jurisdiction and make an examination of his contract to have an opinion on that.
I'd think his employer was an asshole for doing it though, if he was otherwise performing his duites satisfactorally. That's just my opinion of course, which is colored by knowing many people who worked for companies they don't like. I've even worked for a few myself. Hell, I even owned one of those companies.
". ..it will just result in the death of the DNC overall."
Only because of Congressional refusal to make the law comply with the Constitution. I don't know about you but I'm not willing to accept the premise that Congress has the right to pass and enforce uncontitutional laws simply because it affords me some personal advantage. The personal advantage I gain is a far poorer thing than the advantage that I loose.
Let me take your own argument and just change the players.
Let us posit that the do not call list allowed you to opt out of calls from Republicans, but exluded you from opting out of calls from Democrats. Make it vice versa if you wish. Makes no nevermind to me.
So, this would be legal because the Republicans have gained no benefit because they only retain a right they already have?
How about a law forbiding only certain speech rights to Jews/Niggers/Kikes/Micks and Catholics?
Perfectly Constitutional because it doesn't create a favored class because that favored class only retains rights they already have?
I think not.
You are allowing your wish to not recieve unwanted phone solicitations to color your thinking.
I think free speech rights are to damned important to allow any cracks in the ediface, particularly when they allow the government and churchs to drive wedges into those cracks.
The DNC is a sugar coated poison pill that tastes yummy going down, but will ultimately lead to death if swallowed.
The judge has placed a big skull and crossbones on the bottle. I think if you ignore it you will end up sorry.
". . . while not changing the current status of you vis-a-vis political or charitable calls."
No. Because there is currently no law regulating such the current status of unsolicited calls is equal.
This bill changes that by giving prefered status to commercial calls that are for non profit purposes.
The relative status of the two forms of speech is changed dramtically. Now both may do something. By this law one may do something, but the other may not do the same thing only based on what they're going to do with the money, not on how it effects my rights not to be called if I don't want to.
When I say I don't want to be solicited I mean that I don't want to be solicited.
Rewrite the law so that's how it works and I just might reinstall my phone.
I wish protection from them just as much as I want protection from MCI.
Why should the corporation of Sun Myung Moon have the right to ignore my "No Trespassing" sign?
This bill gives them explicit right to do so.
It is vile.
I am a human. My rights exceed those of any church, particularly those to which I do not belong. Make my "No Trespassing" sign mean "No Trespassing," instead of "No Trespassing unless you're selling The Watchtower" and I'll be all for it.
"Nottingham agreed with the telemarketers' claims that allowing charitable solicitations but banning commercial calls "borrows from the reasoning of the pigs in George Orwell's 'Animal Farm.'... 'Some animals are more equal than others.'"
The judge granted a summary judgment to the telemarketing firms, and barred the FTC from launching the registry next week.
"The Federal Trade Commission has chosen to entangle itself too much in the consumers' decision by manipulating consumer choice and favoring speech by charitable (organizations) over commercial speech," the judge wrote."
From the article, quoting the judge.
I think you'll find it line with my original post.
Slashdot Mirror
"I don't think you understand. The Segway uses a network of processors, accelerometers, and gyroscopes to perform a continous inverse kinematics calculation involving many variables, such as passenger weight, differing wheel speeds, shifts in the center of gravity, wheel traction, and acceleration.
.and bicycles, since my research on their stability required such. Perhaps I simply wrote my software better.
:)
Yes, I have designed analogous systems for electric cars. .
"You get the same result if you were told to run in a direction and then slow down suddenly, and there was a patch of ice there too."
The same can happen on a bicycle even without the slowing down part. Again I can attest to this personally, since I ride year round in the northeast. Because a bicycle is inherently unstable, even at speed and with all the gyroscopic forces in place.
Which is where I came in to this movie.
KFG
Yes, but that would be a trivial segment of the line that you own. Not a trivial segment of the file in which it appears.
That's one of the unique properties of the GPL. Unless ownership is otherwise assigned by the author ( such as to the FSF) each contributor retains full ownership rights to everything they contributed.
Rights are not subsumed into the overall work.
How few characters have already been held to be infringing? Three.
Sing along:
"My sweet Lord. . . "
When it comes to computer code you'd be unlikely to prevail over three characters, but precedent supports your right to make the argument.
And making the argument would cost SCO.
KFG
We must make a distinction here between their legal claims and their press release claims.
Their press release claims have no legal standing ( although they may open them up to various legal complaints. See Red Hat vs. SCO). These are just FUD.Some of them though give hints to what their actual legal arguments must be if it comes to that.
Argument of in my original post does not rely on press release claims. Copyright claims are legal claims.If they release a distro under the GPL that is a legal claim of assignment of rights. If the GPL is a valid license then they are bound by its terms for every line of code in the distro.
If they release a distro (c)SCO they are making legal claim to ownership of the distro and all the code contained therein.
Their filing against IBM is an actual legal claim. This claim makes a fairly tortuous definition of derivitive works that is highly unlikely to prevail.
IBM has also pointed out that since SCO distributed the code themselves under the GPL they have released it for use under the GPL, so any other legal argument is moot.
SCO has responded in a press release ( but this must be their legal argument if it ever goes to court, because there is simply no other counter against IBM's defense here) that the entire GPL is invalid and thus all works released under the GPL either A)belong to them as derivitive works, or B) have passed into the public domain so they are able to use them as they please.
This argument relies on A) that their definition of a derivative work is correct, which it isn't, AND B) that if the GPL is invalid all GPLed works inherently become public domain, which they don't.I'd hazard a guess here that RMS will fight this one tooth and nail. He owns what he wrote.
They also have to be very careful about that argument since it would also likely result in a ruling that all UNIX code up to 32V is public domain as well. A judicial ruling has already been made that such is likely to be the case if anyone wants to push the issue.
So SCO's claims against IBM inherently attack the GPL, by necessity, or their legal claims fail prima facie.
This is very important. They must destroy the GPL itself to prevail over IBM (because SCO having released the claimed infringing code under the GPL is an affirmative prima facie defense). This effects every piece of GPLed code in existence.
Any way you cut it this is not simply an IBM/SCO issue.
Keep your stick on the ice, because we're all in this together now. Like it or not.
KFG
Ah, but therein lies the rub. They refuse to sell you a copy.
I J: www.caldera.com/products/scolinuxserver/+SCO+linux &hl=en&start=2&ie=UTF-8
http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:Gl8qNivqh7
Sorry for the Google link, but I refuse to actually vist their site.
These weasels aren't domesticated and haven't had their scent glands removed. They stink like a skunk.
They claim the right to charge a license fee for your code, but then refuse anyone attempting to purchase such a license, thus retaining the right to argue that they haven't misappropriated your code because they haven't distributed it.
It all fits neatly into their FUD campaign though, since most people don't know this is what's going on. If they get to court the judge will damn well find out though. He's not likely to be pleased with SCO's tactics.
SCO is actually making what amount to superhuman legal efforts to avoid going to court. Hence the counter-suits to force the issue.
Note that Red Hat has not sued them for copyright violation. Only for making false statements harmful to their business. Because SCO has not actually sold a copy of their Linux distro under propriatary license.
IBM is taking the artillery to the fore.IBM is the only one SCO is actually taking action against. The rest is just talk. It's almost enough to make me join the Union Army. Ah, wait, the Colonial forces dressed in blue as well.
I think I'll retain my position in the Green Mountain boys though and just run supporting harassing actions.
KFG
As you sow, so shall you reap.
Sorry about that. Live and learn.
Just hope maintenence doesn't extend unto the third generation. Users are jealous.
KFG
Imagine a "unicycle" with side by side wheels. Such have actually been built. Anyone who can ride a unicycle can learn to ride one of these in an afternoon.The Segway has a good deal of stability in its mechanical design, it's just that that stability is side to side rather than fore and aft. Gyroscopic effects aid in the side to side stability since the Segway has wheels. It gains stability fore and aft because to rotate around its axles it must overcome the resistive force of its drive train. Apply and equal and opposite force with your body weight and it remains upright.
People can balance. It is one of their defining properties as bipeds.
Stand on one leg if you don't believe me.
There are people who can stand on one leg on a bowling ball which has even less inherent stability than a Segway.
When the batteries begin to go flat on a Segway everything doesn't just grind to a sudden halt. It slows down.Drive an electic R/C car for a practical example of this phenomenon. Nor does the Segway as whole, or its gyroscope as an individual componant, suddenly lose all of its momentum. Each coast to a halt ( although against resisitive forces, such as you might generate on a coasting bicycle by "riding" the brakes a bit).
One of the advantages of the standing riding position of the Segway and its lack of fore/aft stability is that when it slows down and/or stops one can simply step off, like from a skateboard. This is aided by the fact that the Segway travels at a pitifully slow speed to begin with compared to a bicycle. Flat out it's going at a jog. It's low speed is actually one of its selling points.
You can't just step off of a bicycle when it falls. I know. I have the scar tissue and broken bones to prove it.
I step off of skateboards all the time. Not a scratch. But then I don't do stupid tricks on a skateboard and never ride one faster than I could. . . a Segway, which is going at less than walking speed when it loses stability due it's batteries going flat.
And at walking speed a bicycle gains no significant righting forces from anything other than a human being's innate ability to remain upright.
If you continue to ride a Segway after its low battery light comes on and fail to simply step off when it slows and somehow fail to simply remain standing up somehow when it finally loses stability, this isn't because of something inherent in the Segway.
It's something inherent in you.
To wit, you're a dumbass with no sense of balance.
A client who is a dumbass without the basic skills of survival, like being able to stand up unassisted on a device which requires such, has never been a deterent to a lawyer filing a suit, however, hence the recall.
KFG
The question boils down, at least in part, to what copyright they claim to be distributing their distro under.
The distro has a license that may be unique and apart from the licenses of each individual file.
If they distribute their distro under a blanket GPL license then yes, they are effectively charging a license fee for code they have no rights to even if a single line of that code does not belong to them and are thus in violation of the GPL for their entire distro. Every individual who has contributed code to that distro may sue them for license violation.
How many people have contributed code to their distro? Richard Stallman, Bill Joy and Linus Torvalds, for starters, since it is a BSD/GNU/Linux distro. The entire KDE/Gnome teams as well.
If they have not claimed GPL over the entire distro than they must enummerate those files which are under a different license and take care that all linking and derivitive works therein comply with any GPL licensed code.
If they have not they are in violation of the GPL for each instantiation.
If you right a VB app Microsoft may own the VB runtime, but they do not own your code as a derivitave work. You own that.
SCO has effectively declared legal war on anyone who has contributed code to their entire distro.
Fight back.
KFG
Indeed, one wonders how SCO acquired the rights to distribute any code I may have contributed to their Linux distro (note that this is a broader field than just "Linux")when I have no contractual obligations to transfer rights to SCO.
One wonders exactly which files they claim ownership of, and even if they refuse to identify specific lines of code that they believe are theirs they should be required to at least identify the files they are charging a license fee for before they can collect any money. That's basic contract law.
"Give us some money."
"What do I get?"
"We can't tell you. Ha, ha, ha!"
Right Sparky. Blow me.
If you have written a single line of code that is being distributed in a file that SCO is charging a license fee for and are under no contractual obligation to transfer rights of derivitive works to SCO, even if they do own the core operating system code they are still violating your license on your IP.
By law derivitive works belong to the actual author.
I wonder what would happen if everyone who has contributed legitimate code under the GPL to SCO's distro were to each file a suit for violation of their license terms?
More than wonder, I highly recommend it.
If you represent yourself pro se it will cost you some time, some stationary and the filing fee.
It will cost them a lawyer to respond, for each individual case.
Make the bastards bleed from one thousand little legal cuts. Even the expense of that many band-aids and bactine will hurt.
KFG
Works for us.
KFG
"There goes your karma."
Q.E.D.
KFG
To be fair to the parent poster at the point the bicycle falls over from lack of speed it too has no gyroscopic forces to aid the rider.
That's one of the reasons it falls over, because it is inherently unstable.
His point stands.
(Of course there are courses of action a cyclist can take to prevent falling over. I can stay essentially motionless on a bicycle for an arbitrary amount of time. It's easier on a track bike which has direct drive like a child's tricycle. Rider skill can be substituted for gyroscopic effect, which on a bicycle is really minimal even at speed. The castor effect is far stronger, as is just plain "body English" since the rider's weight exerts much greater force than the gyroscopic forces. Thinking of a unicycle can give a better intuitive idea of this, as they never operate at enough speed for gyroscopic effects to have any import, and if you stop pedaling they fall right over, because they are inherently unstable. Yes, I'm a bit of an expert in the field, a frame building, racing physicist who's first real research project was on the stability of bicycles and currently works on human powered machinery)
KFG
". . . no new cars will be produced "untill people stop being so fucking stupid!"."
So they're having a going out of business sale?
KFG
So my ants and roaches can feel at home in their native enviroment.
KFG
My cat and I post collaboratively.
.
She thinks people ought to be able to moderate our posts +1 Transcend.
If you don't think that's funny. .
Q.E.D.
KFG
"Then "not being an idiot" was against the social norm, and *poof* they lost the initiative.
Let's not repeat that debacle in our age, shall we?"
Too late.
KFG
". . .icons (wtf are they for???)"
My mom. Got a problem with that?
Doan'chew go talkin' 'bout mah Mama.
But I'm workin' on her. I sat her down at a Mandrake/KDE box ( she uses Mac OS8 ) and she took right to it. No problemo.
I'm breaking her in to the terminal. She's pretty adaptable for a 70 year old.
KFG
Oh, I don't know. I think all too much is said about KDE's use of C++ and Gnome's use of C ( even though I'm a KDE user who dislikes coding in C++).
I'm not sure why saying much about XFce's use of Java should get even more mention.
What Sun's Java Desktop has to do with it I'm not sure. Since it's a Linux distro it goes pretty much without saying that any Linux pacakage you download and build on it will run.
More to the point, since the only real reason to run Sun's Java Desktop (tm -- Don't call it Linux) is to use their version of Gnome I'm clueless as to why anyone would want to build XFCe for it, since you can also build it on any other Linux (sorry Sun, call my lawyer) distro.
Unless maybe you've popped the C note for Sun's Java Desktop (See? I've repented already), realized you've made a terrible mistake, but are too obstinate in your investment to download Red Hat, Mandrake, Debian or Slack for free?
KFG
Please note that according to @stake Dr. Greer was not employed by them at the time he made his opinions public.
Therefore:
A)He was not actually fired for his public statement
B)At the time of the statement he clearly could not have been speaking for his employer, because he was unemployed and in much the same position as Ms. Welles
If @stake's position in this matter has certain legal implications, well, that's their problem I guess. They chose their actions and statements.
As for Dr. Geer's termination I covered that in my original post. I don't know the terms of his contract or their legality in his legal jurisdiction.
And neither do you.
Unless, of course, you're posting as an AC because you are an officer of @stake.
As for his collegues most of them probably share his opinion but keep private about it. Virtually every government is quite vocal about sharing the same opinion so it's not like it's a big secret or something.
It can be equally applied to nearly any other industry as well. A nearly universal reliance on Boeing for nearly all of our military aircraft would be a tragic mistake for national security.
I'd hazard a guess you could find a Boeing executive who would even be willing to state that for the record -- and not even get fired for it.
KFG
See Playboy vs. Terri Welles.
Statements of fact do not imply endorsement.
Terri Welles was, in fact, a Playmate. Playboy cannot restrict her from saying so, even by attempting to apply trademark law against Ms. Welle's use of the trademarked word "Playboy" in for commercial gain.
The fact that being able to claim to have been a Playboy Playmate gives her a certain professional standing in her field (tits) and she is free to use that standing for her own benefit even over the objections of Playboy.
Dr. Geer is (ok, was) the Chief Technical Officer of @Stake. This is a position of authority in a particular field and stating that one has that authority gives one's opinion in that field certain standing. It is a factual statement and does not imply endorsement by his employer. It only imlies that one has recognized special skills.
If people misconstrue that that is a problem of their understanding, just as it is if people believe that Ms. Welles' personal site is an official Playboy site because she lists her employment by Playboy.
That doesn't make her an infringer. It makes them morons.
If the guy down the street who works for a Ford dealership tells me that he thinks Fords suck I too would have to be a moron to believe that was the official position of his employer.
Whether or not that might be legal grounds for firing said employee is another issue. I'd have to review the relevant law in his jurisdiction and make an examination of his contract to have an opinion on that.
I'd think his employer was an asshole for doing it though, if he was otherwise performing his duites satisfactorally. That's just my opinion of course, which is colored by knowing many people who worked for companies they don't like. I've even worked for a few myself. Hell, I even owned one of those companies.
But I didn't fire myself.
KFG
"Making a phone call is not a speech right, anymore than knocking on someone's door is a speech right."
Exactly. That's the point.
And by the way, Judaism and Catholocism are choices, as are all religions.
That's in the Bill of Rights.
KFG
Not in my home they are not.
KFG
". . .it will just result in the death of the DNC overall."
Only because of Congressional refusal to make the law comply with the Constitution. I don't know about you but I'm not willing to accept the premise that Congress has the right to pass and enforce uncontitutional laws simply because it affords me some personal advantage. The personal advantage I gain is a far poorer thing than the advantage that I loose.
Let me take your own argument and just change the players.
Let us posit that the do not call list allowed you to opt out of calls from Republicans, but exluded you from opting out of calls from Democrats. Make it vice versa if you wish. Makes no nevermind to me.
So, this would be legal because the Republicans have gained no benefit because they only retain a right they already have?
How about a law forbiding only certain speech rights to Jews/Niggers/Kikes/Micks and Catholics?
Perfectly Constitutional because it doesn't create a favored class because that favored class only retains rights they already have?
I think not.
You are allowing your wish to not recieve unwanted phone solicitations to color your thinking.
I think free speech rights are to damned important to allow any cracks in the ediface, particularly when they allow the government and churchs to drive wedges into those cracks.
The DNC is a sugar coated poison pill that tastes yummy going down, but will ultimately lead to death if swallowed.
The judge has placed a big skull and crossbones on the bottle. I think if you ignore it you will end up sorry.
KFG
". . . while not changing the current status of you vis-a-vis political or charitable calls."
No. Because there is currently no law regulating such the current status of unsolicited calls is equal.
This bill changes that by giving prefered status to commercial calls that are for non profit purposes.
The relative status of the two forms of speech is changed dramtically. Now both may do something. By this law one may do something, but the other may not do the same thing only based on what they're going to do with the money, not on how it effects my rights not to be called if I don't want to.
When I say I don't want to be solicited I mean that I don't want to be solicited.
Rewrite the law so that's how it works and I just might reinstall my phone.
KFG
Churchs and governments are corporations.
I wish protection from them just as much as I want protection from MCI.
Why should the corporation of Sun Myung Moon have the right to ignore my "No Trespassing" sign?
This bill gives them explicit right to do so.
It is vile.
I am a human. My rights exceed those of any church, particularly those to which I do not belong. Make my "No Trespassing" sign mean "No Trespassing," instead of "No Trespassing unless you're selling The Watchtower" and I'll be all for it.
KFG
"Nottingham agreed with the telemarketers' claims that allowing charitable solicitations but banning commercial calls "borrows from the reasoning of the pigs in George Orwell's 'Animal Farm.'
The judge granted a summary judgment to the telemarketing firms, and barred the FTC from launching the registry next week.
"The Federal Trade Commission has chosen to entangle itself too much in the consumers' decision by manipulating consumer choice and favoring speech by charitable (organizations) over commercial speech," the judge wrote."
From the article, quoting the judge.
I think you'll find it line with my original post.
KFG