When people get together and say NO MORE. (Just look at the immigrants, with their marchs they're making the whitehouse sweat, aren't they?)
Why would the demostrators make the Whitehouse sweat? President Bush is in favor of the kinds of reforms (some would say amnesty) that the protestors are asking for. He's also opposed to the reforms that the counterprotestors are in favor of. Of course if the protestors themselves can't be bothered to understand this, why would I expect any more from a/. commenter?
You seem to have mischaracterized, or misunderstood, how the "Gates" got to be in "Preston Gates". Preston didn't merge with Gates, Preston Thorgrimson Ellis & Holman merged with Shidler McBroom Gates & Lucas, a 70 year old firm.
Really? Abramoff was working for which Gates? I see only that Abramoff worked for a firm in which a Gates is a partner. Even the conspiracy theory that you linked to earlier suggests that Abramoff was brought into the firm so that they would have some clients other than MS and the BSA.
Why are you mad at Microsoft instead of the bozo's suing for infringement of the stupid patent? I thought software patents were teh bad. I guess that's only until they are used against M$.
As far as the law is concerned, your are wrong. And silly, too. Why would you expect any privacy whatsoever in personal information that you've entrusted to someone else who has no legal duty to keep it private? If you have secrets, don't share them with strangers. If there's data in your POP mail box that couls cause you harm if released, they surely you have an agreement with your ISP that they are responsible for its security, right?
Two people can keep a secret if one of them is dead.
I tried to RTFA, but I couldn't get past the second sentence. I'm not sure how to parse, "In fact they're so paranoid about it that they're considering a mechanism called ICT (Image Constraint Token) that punishes law-abiding customers for content that they legally purchased," in english. I think that the author is misusing punish and leaving out some important words, but I can't be sure. Is he trying to say that hollywood is punishing consumers with lousy movies? Or maybe it's that consumers are being punished for buying those lousy movies?
What's up with all the poorly written articles being posted to/. lately? The one about Lenovo being investigated is almost unintelligible.
The EFF and moveon are barking up the wrong tree (that's not really news). They complain that the market won't correct this, because it's "invisible" to the users. But they've pierced the veil, they've made it visible, they've alerted their members and the media, and this is still going to happen. Oops. It looks like the market heard about it and didn't care. Yeah, it sucks when you throw a party and no one comes. If it makes you feel better to believe that the invitaions got lost in the mail, fine. But it's more likely that people just don't like you.
You're conveniently forgetting that the point of a competitive car industry is supposed to be the benefit of drivers, not manufacturers.
One reason to make price fixing illegal is to prevent firms from colluding to charge more than fair market price. Another reason is to prevent firms from colluding to charge less than market price in an effort to put other firms out of business, or prevent newcomers from entering the market.
Any firm can charge whatever they want for whatever they want. They just can't agree with their "competitors" on pricing. The fact that Sprint a Verizon both give away free phones is a coincidental decision driven by the same market forces. OTOH, if Sprint and Verizon had gotten together and agreed to give away phones in an effort to deprive Cingular of market share, then it would be illegal.
Releasing something under the GPL drives the retail price to essentially zero. Yes, someone else could come along and charge for it, but your argument is similar to GM and Ford agreeing to fix the prices at which they sell cars to dealers in order to freeze out Honda. Yeah, the dealers could turn around and charge whatever retail price they choose, but that doesn't change the fact that GM and Ford are probably guilty of prce fixing.
Yes, that is what the GPL does. But that doesn't mean that the GPL can't be used as an anticompetitive tool. If Microsoft and IBM had gotten together and agreed to give away OS/2 and Windows, Apple would have sued them. I think that is essentially what Wallace thinks is happening. His deficiency is not that the software in question was sold under the GPL, but that the alleged agreement is the GPL itself. If IBM and Red Hat had collusively agreed to release their software under the GPL, he might actually have a case. But he has to prove (at this point, alledge) that there was an actual agreement, and not simple seperate conincidental business decisions. If Judge Tinder were really that astute, he would have made this more clear in his order, and left out the dicta about the GPL.
He's not necessarily wrong. It's not that there is anything wrong with the GPL, but if competitors got together and agreed that they would all GPL their stuff, it's no different than if they got together and agreed to sell their stuff for $x. Whether that would constitute a crime is a different question that has nothing to do with the validity of the GPL.
There's nothing here that serves as any vindication for the GPL.
The real irony is that immediately following her use of legal latin, PJ writes,
People think that because the law is in English, that they get it. I keep explaining that it's English up to a point, but it's really code -- words in the law don't always have exactly the same meaning as the same word in normal use.
The law is only hard to understand because lawyers and paralegals puff themselves up by using legalisms like pro se when writing for a lay audience. PJ could have just written, "Lawsuits where the plaintff represents himself." Along with the joy of knowing that her writing was accessible to lawyers and lay people alike, she wouldn't have been contributing to the problem she was complaining about.
It doesn't take any balls at all to march into heaven, and that's exactly what the terrorist cowards on 9/11 believed they were doing. They are cowards because they didn't have balls to do it by attacking anyone who could fight back.
Given the legal knowledge of the average slashdotter, having conversations about patents, copyright, Constitutional rights, or anything else that is largely a legal topic but on which most people have uninformed opinions is worthless. Unless you really want to read a bunch pithy comments like, "Patents are bad d00d!!!1111!!!one." Because that is what most of the comments to this article distil to. The people who understand the law write informed comments about how the above posters are wrong, and they are promptly ignored.
In the US, the merchant and the issuer incur all of the liability for stolen card numbers. As long as the card holder reports unauthorized charges to the issuer within a reasonable time of becoming aware of it, his liability is zero. Credit card fraud costs the issuers abotu $10 Billion annually. Sure, they'd like to reduce that number, but they know that ever dollar of fraud they prevent costs them $/x. When they reach a point of diminishing returns, there will still be some fraud.
As the submission states, the patents were preliminarily found invalid, and NTP still had several appeals. There is always uncertainty in litigation, in addition to the beating in the marketplace that RIM was getting, settling is a form of risk management. RIM decided that the risk-weighted value of the suit was more than $600 million.
Because it's the Republicans. The linked to blog is run by a bunch of prgressives (read, looneys) who I garundamtee you wouldn't bat an eye if this "scandal" was about moveon.org.
You're an artist. You're probably good at what you do. But, why don't you hire someone who knows something about networking and security to help you out? Wouldn't that make a lot more sense than asking/.?
Try deploying a VPN between the sites. The technology to secure communications between several different locations has been around for a while. There's no good reason why these servers should be freely accesible to the Internet. That's just stupid.
How much googling did you have to do to find an quote that's been posted to this article 80 times already?
There's a sea of difference between finding someone not guilty of a corrupt law, and find someone not guilty of a perfectly reasonable law because you find the person sympathetic.
BTW, did you happen to notice the date on the Adams quote?
So how do I get to sit in judgment of the law, if I'm not picked because I spoke my mind?
Juries don't sit in judgement of the law, judges do. Juries sit in judgement of the defendant. Have you ever wondered why there are no juries in appellate courts or the Supreme Court? Now you know.
Someone says this everytime this discussion comes up. But, unless you are going to compile your own voting booth, how do you know the code you audited is in the machine?
Slashdot Mirror
When people get together and say NO MORE. (Just look at the immigrants, with their marchs they're making the whitehouse sweat, aren't they?)
/. commenter?
Why would the demostrators make the Whitehouse sweat? President Bush is in favor of the kinds of reforms (some would say amnesty) that the protestors are asking for. He's also opposed to the reforms that the counterprotestors are in favor of. Of course if the protestors themselves can't be bothered to understand this, why would I expect any more from a
You seem to have mischaracterized, or misunderstood, how the "Gates" got to be in "Preston Gates". Preston didn't merge with Gates, Preston Thorgrimson Ellis & Holman merged with Shidler McBroom Gates & Lucas, a 70 year old firm.
Abramoff was working as a lobbyist for Gates.
Really? Abramoff was working for which Gates? I see only that Abramoff worked for a firm in which a Gates is a partner. Even the conspiracy theory that you linked to earlier suggests that Abramoff was brought into the firm so that they would have some clients other than MS and the BSA.
Why are you mad at Microsoft instead of the bozo's suing for infringement of the stupid patent? I thought software patents were teh bad. I guess that's only until they are used against M$.
As far as the law is concerned, your are wrong. And silly, too. Why would you expect any privacy whatsoever in personal information that you've entrusted to someone else who has no legal duty to keep it private? If you have secrets, don't share them with strangers. If there's data in your POP mail box that couls cause you harm if released, they surely you have an agreement with your ISP that they are responsible for its security, right?
Two people can keep a secret if one of them is dead.
I tried to RTFA, but I couldn't get past the second sentence. I'm not sure how to parse, "In fact they're so paranoid about it that they're considering a mechanism called ICT (Image Constraint Token) that punishes law-abiding customers for content that they legally purchased," in english. I think that the author is misusing punish and leaving out some important words, but I can't be sure. Is he trying to say that hollywood is punishing consumers with lousy movies? Or maybe it's that consumers are being punished for buying those lousy movies?
/. lately? The one about Lenovo being investigated is almost unintelligible.
What's up with all the poorly written articles being posted to
The EFF and moveon are barking up the wrong tree (that's not really news). They complain that the market won't correct this, because it's "invisible" to the users. But they've pierced the veil, they've made it visible, they've alerted their members and the media, and this is still going to happen. Oops. It looks like the market heard about it and didn't care. Yeah, it sucks when you throw a party and no one comes. If it makes you feel better to believe that the invitaions got lost in the mail, fine. But it's more likely that people just don't like you.
You're conveniently forgetting that the point of a competitive car industry is supposed to be the benefit of drivers, not manufacturers.
One reason to make price fixing illegal is to prevent firms from colluding to charge more than fair market price. Another reason is to prevent firms from colluding to charge less than market price in an effort to put other firms out of business, or prevent newcomers from entering the market.
Any firm can charge whatever they want for whatever they want. They just can't agree with their "competitors" on pricing. The fact that Sprint a Verizon both give away free phones is a coincidental decision driven by the same market forces. OTOH, if Sprint and Verizon had gotten together and agreed to give away phones in an effort to deprive Cingular of market share, then it would be illegal.
Releasing something under the GPL drives the retail price to essentially zero. Yes, someone else could come along and charge for it, but your argument is similar to GM and Ford agreeing to fix the prices at which they sell cars to dealers in order to freeze out Honda. Yeah, the dealers could turn around and charge whatever retail price they choose, but that doesn't change the fact that GM and Ford are probably guilty of prce fixing.
I'd like to say that it must be cronyism at it worst, but sadly I cannot.
Because you haven't a clue that it is?
Yes, that is what the GPL does. But that doesn't mean that the GPL can't be used as an anticompetitive tool. If Microsoft and IBM had gotten together and agreed to give away OS/2 and Windows, Apple would have sued them. I think that is essentially what Wallace thinks is happening. His deficiency is not that the software in question was sold under the GPL, but that the alleged agreement is the GPL itself. If IBM and Red Hat had collusively agreed to release their software under the GPL, he might actually have a case. But he has to prove (at this point, alledge) that there was an actual agreement, and not simple seperate conincidental business decisions. If Judge Tinder were really that astute, he would have made this more clear in his order, and left out the dicta about the GPL.
He's not necessarily wrong. It's not that there is anything wrong with the GPL, but if competitors got together and agreed that they would all GPL their stuff, it's no different than if they got together and agreed to sell their stuff for $x. Whether that would constitute a crime is a different question that has nothing to do with the validity of the GPL.
There's nothing here that serves as any vindication for the GPL.
The law is only hard to understand because lawyers and paralegals puff themselves up by using legalisms like pro se when writing for a lay audience. PJ could have just written, "Lawsuits where the plaintff represents himself." Along with the joy of knowing that her writing was accessible to lawyers and lay people alike, she wouldn't have been contributing to the problem she was complaining about.
It doesn't take any balls at all to march into heaven, and that's exactly what the terrorist cowards on 9/11 believed they were doing. They are cowards because they didn't have balls to do it by attacking anyone who could fight back.
Given the legal knowledge of the average slashdotter, having conversations about patents, copyright, Constitutional rights, or anything else that is largely a legal topic but on which most people have uninformed opinions is worthless. Unless you really want to read a bunch pithy comments like, "Patents are bad d00d!!!1111!!!one." Because that is what most of the comments to this article distil to. The people who understand the law write informed comments about how the above posters are wrong, and they are promptly ignored.
In the US, the merchant and the issuer incur all of the liability for stolen card numbers. As long as the card holder reports unauthorized charges to the issuer within a reasonable time of becoming aware of it, his liability is zero. Credit card fraud costs the issuers abotu $10 Billion annually. Sure, they'd like to reduce that number, but they know that ever dollar of fraud they prevent costs them $/x. When they reach a point of diminishing returns, there will still be some fraud.
As the submission states, the patents were preliminarily found invalid, and NTP still had several appeals. There is always uncertainty in litigation, in addition to the beating in the marketplace that RIM was getting, settling is a form of risk management. RIM decided that the risk-weighted value of the suit was more than $600 million.
Because it's the Republicans. The linked to blog is run by a bunch of prgressives (read, looneys) who I garundamtee you wouldn't bat an eye if this "scandal" was about moveon.org.
Why do they need an excuse? Has this CD harmed you in some way? If not, then why do you care? Only one reason....
You're an artist. You're probably good at what you do. But, why don't you hire someone who knows something about networking and security to help you out? Wouldn't that make a lot more sense than asking /.?
Try deploying a VPN between the sites. The technology to secure communications between several different locations has been around for a while. There's no good reason why these servers should be freely accesible to the Internet. That's just stupid.
How much googling did you have to do to find an quote that's been posted to this article 80 times already?
There's a sea of difference between finding someone not guilty of a corrupt law, and find someone not guilty of a perfectly reasonable law because you find the person sympathetic.
BTW, did you happen to notice the date on the Adams quote?
So how do I get to sit in judgment of the law, if I'm not picked because I spoke my mind?
Juries don't sit in judgement of the law, judges do. Juries sit in judgement of the defendant. Have you ever wondered why there are no juries in appellate courts or the Supreme Court? Now you know.
Since the law was passed under Clinton, wouldn't we be talking about Chelsey? Keeping her out of porn forever is an idea I would certainly support.
OSS would be a nice touch.
Someone says this everytime this discussion comes up. But, unless you are going to compile your own voting booth, how do you know the code you audited is in the machine?