The most important part of a lawyer's job is supposed to be to support the law. These guys didn't do that. They flagrantly thumbed their nose at the law multiple times.
OK, I'm labeling each lawyer with their cumulative action. Sorry, I don't know them as individuals. Perhaps Obama selected the only five ethical lawyers desperate enough to work for the RIAA. Perhaps. But that's not the way to bet.
No. I don't realize that. I realize that they now officially have a new client. But there's no evidence that they don't still have the old client unofficially. I'm sure they still have their old friends in the industry. Somehow I doubt that they won't pay attention to what those friends think should be official policy. Perhaps there won't be provable continued monetary considerations.
I'll admit that I could be wrong. I'll believe it when I see clear evidence that the new administration believes in acting ethically and with respect for the constitution. So far that's not what I see.
Lawyers are supposed to be officers of the court. That means that they aren't supposed to support knowingly illegal actions. And they aren't supposed to engage in illegal actions. And they aren't supposed to file frivolous claims just because it's in their clients interests.
Clients hire lawyers to support their views, but lawyers aren't supposed to support illegal actions. This gets tricky in criminal cases, because lawyers are supposed to defend cases even if they believe their client to be guilty. In launching a civil case against someone else, however, it's pretty clear. These lawyers were unethical and should be disbarred. (It won't happen, because lawyers, even nominally ethical lawyers, defend each other. But it should.)
And because nominally ethical lawyers defend unethical lawyers, it's fair to paint them with the same brush. There are exceptions, but they are quite rare.
The problem is, who else could you have voted for. Obama is probably better than his opposition was. The minor parties never have a realistic chance.
Basically, the election system is fixed...as in a horse race being fixed. Only two candidates have a realistic chance. Both are typically bought by groups that wish the citizenry ill...in various different ways.
This is a good example of why IRV and Condorcet voting schemes are preferable to the current "election" system. One would still need elimination rounds (primaries?) to narrow the candidates that need to be intensively studied, but current US elections can hardly be called fair, even when they happen to be honest.
Actually Whitewater probably was criminal fraud. But it wasn't anything major... It was enough that I wouldn't have voted for him at the top in a fair election (Instant Runoff or Condorcet), but it wasn't enough to make me prefer his opponent. Clinton generally seemed to want to make the country work, and for people to like him. That's better than many of the presidents that we've had recently. (Obama *MAY* be equally good, by that measure. It's not much, but it's something.)
You can trust that if you want to. I have noticed that when people can choose, they usually choose to work on jobs that they find agreeable to their ethics.
Either these guys were such lousy lawyers that they couldn't pick how to choose their clients, or the clients they chose were agreeable to their sense of ethics. Take your pick, and either way it's an indefensible choice. (Of course, instead of defending it, he'll probably just ignore the criticism.)
Remember, these weren't lawyers defending the RIAA. These were attack dogs.
So you're recommending either extensive regulation, of communal ownership of the "last mile". Either one could be made to work. Neither is what we've got right now.
Personally, I'm in favor of "extensive regulation" but with the proviso that nobody previously receiving compensation from the regulated industry can serve on the board of regulators, and nobody previously on the board of regulators can receive compensation from any of the companies that they regulated. (And, of course, nobody currently regulating can receive compensation from any of the companies that they are regulating.) I know that this will exclude technical specialists from being regulators (though some academics may qualify), but it's better than the otherwise inevitable corruption.
Unfortunately, they've bought legislation that means they *aren't* considered common carriers for purposes of regulation. They get all of the benefits with not of the costs.
No resource is unlimited. That's clear. But if they advertise unlimited service they shouldn't be able to sneak behind the customer's backs and slip on limitations. That's fraud. It's not even bait and switch, because they don't make the change until after they make the sale. (Or rather the customer has no reasonable way of knowing about the switch until after they've paid their money and gone through the effort of setting up the system. It's just basic fraud.)
Their being a monopoly just makes things worse. It means there's no feasible alternative. So people don't consider their options closely, because they don't seem to have any.
Actually, I suspect this lack of choice is fostered by the government, as it means fewer companies they need to browbeat when they want to tap the lines...but this is without any evidence. Historically it's generally because the local governments didn't want to go the the trouble of laying their own infrastructure, so they made a "deal with the devil" and granted a monopoly to whoever would lay the lines. Somebody did, and that somebody got bought up by a larger company which got bought up by a larger company...until there were monopolies over very large areas of the country. (Actually, from the point of internet service, it turned into a duopoly, as frequently the phone company and the cable company would each supply fast internet connection. Duopolies aren't quite as good at price fixing as monopolies, but they come close. I'm not counting the minor providers, like the satellite systems, as they control less than 40% of the market.) So one doesn't need to presume malice in the way the system was developed--stupidity and shortsightedness are quite sufficient. Only in how it continues to be supported does the suspicion of malice become difficult to avoid.
A definite point. Only thing is...I'm not certain a duopoly is that much better than a monopoly.
Still, ALL monopolies should be made to adhere to more stringent standards than ordinary businesses. (And I include in this every business with more than 40% of a market...with the stringency on a sliding scale.) The only problem with this is that regulating bodies have a tendency to become captive of those they ostensibly regulate. So there needs to be a regulation that no member of a board of regulators can, upon retirement from that board, receive any compensation from the companies that they have previously regulated. And possibly that no person who has previously received compensation from any regulated company may be appointed to a board regulating that company. (Also, it *should* go without saying, no member of a regulating body may receive ANY form of compensation from any company that they are regulating.)
Why do you repeat MS marketing PR? Those who studied the return rate claimed that this was a lie.
(Yeah, I'm not one of them, so I'm not speaking from personal knowledge. But I have more faith in my sources than in MS PR. [All I know about this was linked from Slashdot...so saying I have more faith in it than in MS PR isn't high praise.])
If you've got a reliable source, I'd be interesting in a link.
As I recall the excess return rate story was quickly debunked. And yet it's difficult to get a netbook with Linux pre-installed. Something sleazy is going on here. I may not be certain as to just what, but that doesn't mean that something isn't going on.
Remember Microsoft is quite willing to lie for even a small advantage. So you can't trust anything they say, and you can't trust anyone who believes what Microsoft tells them.
There ARE problems with Linux for MSWind users. It *is* unfamiliar. But that doesn't seem to be what's going on. (It could have been, but too many lies are circulating for me to believe that that's the real story. E.g. "MS has a 96% share of Netbooks!". That story didn't surface by accident. It was also quickly proven to be a lie, but it keeps spreading. And people tend to believe it. But it was a lie from the start. [It may be based on some true figure about something. I didn't bother to dig enough to find out.])
I'm not convinced that nuclear is a good alternative. *Some* nuclear might be a good choice, but so many designs seem to have major hidden costs associated with them that aren't being counted.
When the builders of the plants don't demand a government subsidy to cover their insurance costs (or relieve them of the necessity for carrying insurance) then I'll consider them seriously. Until then I won't believe that the people building and running the plants believe that they are safe.
It's not pointless. It's a genuine problem. It's just one that won't get here for a very long time. So other, more immediate, things are more significant...in the short term.
It's probably really too early to give it much attention, or to try to solve it...but it is a genuine problem.
Well, the OSI already accepted MicroSoft's license, which had nothing special going for it except that it had the Microsoft name on it. This right after saying that they were trying to reduce the number of licenses that they considered valid, because of excessive duplication.
The OSI has long stopped being a touchstone, and is now only an indicator. If the OSI rejects it, you don't need to even consider it, but their acceptance doesn't mean anything. You've got to either consider each license separately, or only use licenses that you have already verified.
If that's what they want, they need to come right out and say it. I could see a version of the GPL modified to exclude licenses to commercial distribution. (Yeah, they'd need to call it something different, and it wouldnt' be considered Open Source. But it wouldn't get people mad at them.)
Or they could even go the route of the NPL...where the publisher kept special rights to incorporate into the release version anything it liked about any version that was released. With a special statement saying that this only applied to non-commercial distribution.
If they go this route, though, they'd better include in the license a definition of what "commercial" means. Some meanings of it I've seen imply that if you pay for your web service, it's a commercial transaction.
But what they're offering ISN'T an Open Source license. And it would be blatantly unreasonable to call it such.
In that case why are they asking for an Open Source license? Won't wash. They are being deceptive. I may not be certain who they are being deceptive towards, but I can be reasonably certain that they are being deceptive.
Slashdot Mirror
The most important part of a lawyer's job is supposed to be to support the law. These guys didn't do that. They flagrantly thumbed their nose at the law multiple times.
OK, I'm labeling each lawyer with their cumulative action. Sorry, I don't know them as individuals. Perhaps Obama selected the only five ethical lawyers desperate enough to work for the RIAA. Perhaps. But that's not the way to bet.
No. I don't realize that. I realize that they now officially have a new client. But there's no evidence that they don't still have the old client unofficially. I'm sure they still have their old friends in the industry. Somehow I doubt that they won't pay attention to what those friends think should be official policy. Perhaps there won't be provable continued monetary considerations.
I'll admit that I could be wrong. I'll believe it when I see clear evidence that the new administration believes in acting ethically and with respect for the constitution. So far that's not what I see.
Lawyers are supposed to be officers of the court. That means that they aren't supposed to support knowingly illegal actions. And they aren't supposed to engage in illegal actions. And they aren't supposed to file frivolous claims just because it's in their clients interests.
Clients hire lawyers to support their views, but lawyers aren't supposed to support illegal actions. This gets tricky in criminal cases, because lawyers are supposed to defend cases even if they believe their client to be guilty. In launching a civil case against someone else, however, it's pretty clear. These lawyers were unethical and should be disbarred. (It won't happen, because lawyers, even nominally ethical lawyers, defend each other. But it should.)
And because nominally ethical lawyers defend unethical lawyers, it's fair to paint them with the same brush. There are exceptions, but they are quite rare.
The problem is, who else could you have voted for. Obama is probably better than his opposition was. The minor parties never have a realistic chance.
Basically, the election system is fixed...as in a horse race being fixed. Only two candidates have a realistic chance. Both are typically bought by groups that wish the citizenry ill...in various different ways.
This is a good example of why IRV and Condorcet voting schemes are preferable to the current "election" system. One would still need elimination rounds (primaries?) to narrow the candidates that need to be intensively studied, but current US elections can hardly be called fair, even when they happen to be honest.
I was wondering about that.
Actually Whitewater probably was criminal fraud. But it wasn't anything major... It was enough that I wouldn't have voted for him at the top in a fair election (Instant Runoff or Condorcet), but it wasn't enough to make me prefer his opponent. Clinton generally seemed to want to make the country work, and for people to like him. That's better than many of the presidents that we've had recently. (Obama *MAY* be equally good, by that measure. It's not much, but it's something.)
Actually Obama is better than Bush. It's just that he isn't *much* better. That's known as damning with faint praise. In this case *very* faint.
You can trust that if you want to. I have noticed that when people can choose, they usually choose to work on jobs that they find agreeable to their ethics.
Either these guys were such lousy lawyers that they couldn't pick how to choose their clients, or the clients they chose were agreeable to their sense of ethics. Take your pick, and either way it's an indefensible choice. (Of course, instead of defending it, he'll probably just ignore the criticism.)
Remember, these weren't lawyers defending the RIAA. These were attack dogs.
I don't know that it's massively unpopular. I know that I don't want my book vendor implementing a censorship policy.
Perhaps Amazon has gotten too big.
And I noticed that the Mormons were very publicly backing the measure. It fits right in with that church's traditional bigotry.
OK. Maybe that's a good reason to deal with somebody else. I'd prefer my book dealer not implement a censorship system.
So you're recommending either extensive regulation, of communal ownership of the "last mile". Either one could be made to work. Neither is what we've got right now.
Personally, I'm in favor of "extensive regulation" but with the proviso that nobody previously receiving compensation from the regulated industry can serve on the board of regulators, and nobody previously on the board of regulators can receive compensation from any of the companies that they regulated. (And, of course, nobody currently regulating can receive compensation from any of the companies that they are regulating.) I know that this will exclude technical specialists from being regulators (though some academics may qualify), but it's better than the otherwise inevitable corruption.
Unfortunately, they've bought legislation that means they *aren't* considered common carriers for purposes of regulation. They get all of the benefits with not of the costs.
No resource is unlimited. That's clear. But if they advertise unlimited service they shouldn't be able to sneak behind the customer's backs and slip on limitations. That's fraud. It's not even bait and switch, because they don't make the change until after they make the sale. (Or rather the customer has no reasonable way of knowing about the switch until after they've paid their money and gone through the effort of setting up the system. It's just basic fraud.)
Their being a monopoly just makes things worse. It means there's no feasible alternative. So people don't consider their options closely, because they don't seem to have any.
Actually, I suspect this lack of choice is fostered by the government, as it means fewer companies they need to browbeat when they want to tap the lines...but this is without any evidence. Historically it's generally because the local governments didn't want to go the the trouble of laying their own infrastructure, so they made a "deal with the devil" and granted a monopoly to whoever would lay the lines. Somebody did, and that somebody got bought up by a larger company which got bought up by a larger company...until there were monopolies over very large areas of the country. (Actually, from the point of internet service, it turned into a duopoly, as frequently the phone company and the cable company would each supply fast internet connection. Duopolies aren't quite as good at price fixing as monopolies, but they come close. I'm not counting the minor providers, like the satellite systems, as they control less than 40% of the market.) So one doesn't need to presume malice in the way the system was developed--stupidity and shortsightedness are quite sufficient. Only in how it continues to be supported does the suspicion of malice become difficult to avoid.
A definite point. Only thing is...I'm not certain a duopoly is that much better than a monopoly.
Still, ALL monopolies should be made to adhere to more stringent standards than ordinary businesses. (And I include in this every business with more than 40% of a market...with the stringency on a sliding scale.) The only problem with this is that regulating bodies have a tendency to become captive of those they ostensibly regulate. So there needs to be a regulation that no member of a board of regulators can, upon retirement from that board, receive any compensation from the companies that they have previously regulated. And possibly that no person who has previously received compensation from any regulated company may be appointed to a board regulating that company.
(Also, it *should* go without saying, no member of a regulating body may receive ANY form of compensation from any company that they are regulating.)
Well...they *act* the way vampires are reputed to act...
Why do you repeat MS marketing PR? Those who studied the return rate claimed that this was a lie.
(Yeah, I'm not one of them, so I'm not speaking from personal knowledge. But I have more faith in my sources than in MS PR. [All I know about this was linked from Slashdot...so saying I have more faith in it than in MS PR isn't high praise.])
If you've got a reliable source, I'd be interesting in a link.
Are you sure?
As I recall the excess return rate story was quickly debunked. And yet it's difficult to get a netbook with Linux pre-installed. Something sleazy is going on here. I may not be certain as to just what, but that doesn't mean that something isn't going on.
Remember Microsoft is quite willing to lie for even a small advantage. So you can't trust anything they say, and you can't trust anyone who believes what Microsoft tells them.
There ARE problems with Linux for MSWind users. It *is* unfamiliar. But that doesn't seem to be what's going on. (It could have been, but too many lies are circulating for me to believe that that's the real story. E.g. "MS has a 96% share of Netbooks!". That story didn't surface by accident. It was also quickly proven to be a lie, but it keeps spreading. And people tend to believe it. But it was a lie from the start. [It may be based on some true figure about something. I didn't bother to dig enough to find out.])
Actually, I'd be more likely to expect Monsanto to add that requirement....and an expensive way to get around it.
I'm not convinced that nuclear is a good alternative. *Some* nuclear might be a good choice, but so many designs seem to have major hidden costs associated with them that aren't being counted.
When the builders of the plants don't demand a government subsidy to cover their insurance costs (or relieve them of the necessity for carrying insurance) then I'll consider them seriously. Until then I won't believe that the people building and running the plants believe that they are safe.
It's not pointless. It's a genuine problem. It's just one that won't get here for a very long time. So other, more immediate, things are more significant...in the short term.
It's probably really too early to give it much attention, or to try to solve it...but it is a genuine problem.
I've never heard of that before, and I live in California. Obviously they need to do a better job of publicizing it.
Having a government department devoted to offering information doesn't do any good if nobody knows about it.
Well, the OSI already accepted MicroSoft's license, which had nothing special going for it except that it had the Microsoft name on it. This right after saying that they were trying to reduce the number of licenses that they considered valid, because of excessive duplication.
The OSI has long stopped being a touchstone, and is now only an indicator. If the OSI rejects it, you don't need to even consider it, but their acceptance doesn't mean anything. You've got to either consider each license separately, or only use licenses that you have already verified.
If that's what they want, they need to come right out and say it. I could see a version of the GPL modified to exclude licenses to commercial distribution. (Yeah, they'd need to call it something different, and it wouldnt' be considered Open Source. But it wouldn't get people mad at them.)
Or they could even go the route of the NPL...where the publisher kept special rights to incorporate into the release version anything it liked about any version that was released. With a special statement saying that this only applied to non-commercial distribution.
If they go this route, though, they'd better include in the license a definition of what "commercial" means. Some meanings of it I've seen imply that if you pay for your web service, it's a commercial transaction.
But what they're offering ISN'T an Open Source license. And it would be blatantly unreasonable to call it such.
In that case why are they asking for an Open Source license? Won't wash. They are being deceptive. I may not be certain who they are being deceptive towards, but I can be reasonably certain that they are being deceptive.