Your town may consider ownership of the physical network, but making it easy for local ISPs to use the network to provide services to residents. This way residents are not dependent on government monopoly, fixed rates, single "let's think of our children" policy, etc. Government gets compensated for the share of their deployment and maintenance of the physical network from ISP fees, and at the same time supports multiple local or regional businesses (ISPs), promotes competition, creates business opportunities, employment, and provides tech-friendly environment for future development.
What, are you crazy? Whoever reads the whole article before discussing? You must be some kind of weirdo spoiling the spirit of Slashdot. Seriously, the/. story:
"the US and Russia (and the Europeans are mentioned too) are planning for an eventual manned Mars trip. Suggested launch years are 2014 or 2018."
vs. the article:
"Russian space authorities have pencilled in 2018 for a Mars launch because that year would see a combination of optimum conditions"... "Last year, Russian space experts urged their U.S. and European colleagues to join them in launching a manned flight to Mars by 2014."... "NASA is engaged in small-scale studies on manned flight to Mars but has no plans for a mission."
Russia is planning for a manned Mars trip. NASA has no such plans.
Actually, I thought QuickTime format was very evil, but that was before mplayer started supporting it. Since then - it's exactly the same as DivX, mpeg, or any other format.
until about halfway through your download about 250,000 other geeks finally notice the new story on/. and start downloading.
Just as a note - the download (this being a WB movie) was through AOL servers - it was blazingly fast even during the heat of this article. I downloaded at max capped speed of my DSL - 150KB/sec. So yeah, in this case you don't need bittorrent.
I took it back and picked up a 16" Sony LCD. Zero defective pixels. Excellent res and definition. Zero regrets.
I've had a good experience with Sony too. I bought a 19 or 20 inch (can't remember) LCD as a present 3 years back at monitoroutlet.com (I neither work or represent these guys) - they were very helpful and made some suggestions and good recommendations. You can easily talk to a live person toll-free who knows what he's talking about too.
Anyway, couple of years later the monitor screen died, and it turned out we had lost the receipt. The monitor was still under Sony warranty, so after e-mailing Monitor outlet guys, they promptly looked up our record and re-issued the receipt; Sony also promptly fixed the monitor, also fixed the 2 or 3 dead pixels, and returned it in a timely fashion, no charge.
I have to say that monitor has clearest picture I've seen, is very easy on the eyes, and has been turned on every day at least 10 hours a day going on 4 years now. BTW, it hasn't gotten any more dead pixels since then.
So, my opinion - if you are looking for LCD, I would definitely recommend Sony, and monitoroutlet.com as a place to consider buying one.
Disclaimer (again): I am in no way associated with monitoroutlet.com other than what I stated above.
This ruling had nothing to due with the validity of the DMCA or the scope of reverse engineering exception.
The decision may be correct, but the reasoning may be questionable. If it had nothing to do with reverse-engineering the encryption scheme, then the judge should not have referred to it in the judgement. I think it's that simple. Oh yeah, and no need to scream either.
If they are actually concered about cencorship, they need to focus on regulating the implementation of these products by public organizations. As for businesses, they are free to censor all they want.
I don't think this case is (or was) as much about censorship as about the right to reverse-engineer an encryption technology or algorithm.
And if you read the Judge's opinion, then you would see that is the reason that the judge did not allow the Declaratory judgement to go forward.
True. The judge also went out of the way to base his reasoning (at least partly) on the said quote. It is important because future cases will be able to reference this.
The quote in the article is very misrepresentative of the opinion.
I'm not sure about "misrepresentative", but the judge's opinion is definitely important and has future implications, including the reasoning behind the judgement.
N2H2 claimed that providing such information to Edelman would compromise trade secrets, and that Edelman had no legal standing to be granted such permission because there was no imminent threat he would be sued.
Read the sentence again - that is what N2H2 *argued* in court. I find it more interesting what the judge said in the ruling and the implication that the judge's reasoning has.
"...I have suggested that any [proposed new law] must meet a four-part test:
It must be demonstrably necessary in order to meet some specific need.
It must be demonstrably likely to be effective in achieving its intended purpose. In other words, it must be likely to actually make us significantly safer, not just make us feel safer.
The intrusion on privacy must be proportional to the security benefit to be derived.
And it must be demonstrable that no other, less privacy-intrusive, measure would suffice to achieve the same purpose..."
Any law may be written to satisfy these parameters, and at the end you end up with communism or variation thereof.
I will describe some very useful hints to consider before submitting a story to Slashdot with a link to your own website:
- Do not run your website off of a Sharp Zaurus; - If you do run website off of a Zaurus, at least create a Beowulf clus... ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H scratch that - Just don't do it!
encoding: transcode, mainly because transcode seems to have a much better doc and logical buildup of the options to transcode and large modularity (for filters).
I thought transcode used mplayer's shared post proc library too. Did they finally implement this on their own?
Microsoft has a clear, proven, track record of providing additional media copies of their software to people who have legitimate copies.
Maybe, but in a bigger picture I wouldn't be too sure. Microsoft is known to restrict their software use to a particular hardware (i.e. PC), as evidenced by their consumer "product activation" scheme debuted with Office XP and WinXP. Can you imagine being able to play your DVDs only on your DVD player - the one that you registered your DVDs with? Tapes? CDs? Think of all distributed IP, not just software. This was not my original point though, just a reaction to your comment.
I had one company that refused to replace it, stating that there was no way for them to verify that i was sending back the original disc (umm, yeah, right), but for the most part, companies will let you do that either for free, charging for shipping, or a small fee for the media (a $10 media fee, as one of the other repliers put it). You usually don't even have to come up with a receipt, if you have the original media around to send back to them. However, if it's a copy protected game, and you lost it, then I wouldn't count on them sending you a new CD. If you scratched it badly and can send it back, yeah, but otherwise they'll often assume you want a free legitimate CD.
Well, this is actually my point. Not that some companies are good, and others are not as good. What is their responsibility legally? Are they licensing and leasing me content? Then they should be legally liable to providing access to that content even if some medium I possess gets damaged, stolen, lost, etc. (plus media fee). Try this logic also on music CDs and DVD movies, not just software.
Well, I have done exactly that. I *have* lost CD media, more than once. I wrote to more than one company, explained the problem, presented a copy of my purchase receipts, and asked nicely for a replacement CD.
Well, I used that vague example to try to make my point. I realize some companies will give you replacement media, others will not. That is not the issue. The issue is - what am I buying when I pay for someone's IP? What am I buying legally? And what are the sellers responsibilities? Try extending that example to movie and music content - I believe you will have less luck replacing your lost CDs and DVDs.
Then you're dealing with the wrong companies. I've had numerous cases, both as a personal individual and on behalf of my workplace, where I've gotten media for software replaced after something happened to the original.
I know I've gotten few replies stating this. I know some companies will replace your media with a fresh copy of their software, some won't. Still, it's unclear legally, do they have to? When I buy a game off the shelf in the store, some time later I lose the CD, and request another one from the manufacturer, are they legally liable to give it to me? This is not a question of some companies are "good" and some are "bad" and dealing with "good" ones. This is a question of what is being sold.
And, this would apply not only to software, but also CDs, tapes, DVDs, and other media that contains IP. Try calling Disney and asking for a copy of Lilo & Stitch because you've lost the DVD or scratched it and it's unplayable.
The point is, the software/CD is worth nothing. The license is worth something. And you need the license to use the CD. Anything else could be a little bit of unintentional BSA-enforced entrapment.
Well, that's good - next time I am going to use that logic every time I lose a CD of a software package I bought (and I have lost quite a few). I am going to call up the software maker, inform them of my loss, and demand another copy of their product and present them with my license number and purchase receipt. Somehow, I don't think this is going to fly with anyone. They'll just tell me to go to hell or buy another license AND media.
IP making companies (software, entertainment, etc.) need to make tough choices - are they selling media? or are they selling, no wait... renting or licensing their IP for limited use? In case of the former their IP cannot carry any conditions; in the case of the latter, my lease or license should also give me the right to the content that I am entitled to, even if original medium is damaged, or lost, or stolen, etc. (maybe after a small media fee). It's like saying if you lease an apartment and lose a key, then - tough shit - you gotta find another place to live while still satisfying the existing lease. And no - you can't replace the key or the lock.
So, which is it? It seems like they want to stay unclear on this, and invent new legal, technological, and other schemes to trap the consumer into an unfair practice.
What I believe should be patentable are Algorithms and Scientific Ideas
Great - corporations patent every new/old/used algorithm and idea in sight and use it as a part of their portfolio to scare off competitors. How is this helping innovation? If anything it is preventing anyone to actually act on the idea to innovate.
Patent system is flawed - on top of what has already been said about it such as patents are too broad, many things should not be patentable, etc. - it is flawed in that USPTO receives money for every patent granted; it is to USPTO's advantage to grant more and more patents to get more funding. It is so ridiculous, I don't know that anything I do isn't patented already. The argument that patent database is open is not helpful - there's so many of them, you can't be expected to go through it next time you want to do something obvious.
Can I raise my hand to pull over a cab without violating a patent? I don't know - I certainly can't swing on a swing.
If you want to sample an artist's music before buying a disc, why not listen to the radio, MTV, or the short samples available on Amazon.com (or wherever) to get an idea of what the artist is like?
You've gotten quite a few responses to this comment. Let me add that this is the same as saying - "why doesn't everybody just go out and get top 20 mainstream albums?" Because that's all they play on most radio stations and MTV. And Amazon's 20-second lowest possible quality clips are not really sampling anything.
So, all that would be left for everyone is to eat what's being spoonfed by RIAA. I am sure RIAA is dreaming of such a day. While this would be great for the RIAA, it would decrease their business risk, increase ROI, extinguish local bands and small labels, let RIAA define what's good and what's bad, etc., this is not what people want and demand. This is not the nature of the market at all.
RIAA companies, short of acting illegally by price-fixing and engaging in other non-competitive practices, have every right to market and advertize their music. I just don't see how music culture will subdue to that kind of spoonfeeding. Your comment, however, definitely assumes that.
When no one buys their copy-protected law-breaking titles, they'll stop issuing them that way.
I hope RIAA is able to demonstrate, after these titles go on sale, how the sales numbers of copy-protected CDs surged because they "could not be copied" on P2P, while non copy-protected CD sales kept declining. I'd like to see that question asked to and answered by RIAA. I am willing to bet it will turn out to be the opposite.
But then again, they can manipulate those numbers any way they want.
Actually, many have. I have heard of some rulings that make this evidence inadmissible or inconclusive in courts. Many have successfully argued that technology is not accurate all the time (i.e. camera may take a picture after a delay, or even in error). Also, in many areas these cameras are regarded as unreasonable and as an invasion of privacy, and thus are not allowed.
Also, most of the places I've seen such cameras, only take one picture of a violation; and that's the picture of a license plate of the car. I wonder how they can prove or allege a violation by the owner of that vehicle. It could have been anybody driving the car. And burden of proof is on prosecution.
To link this to the Chinese lazy government spamming the cell phones, how can they be sure who actually put up those cell phone ads and stickers? A company could have hired an advertizing agency or a person to distribute their ads and otherwise advertize their business. Then the advertizer, without the knowledge of the client, could have engaged in illegal practices such as sticking the ads in places where they are not allowed. Also, another variation is, what has been mentioned by other posters already, that a malicious competitor could hire a person to put up the stickers of their competitors phone numbers close to police and government offices so they get noticed by the law enforcement. I am not aware how they, or any "senior official", can verify who put up the stickers.
I say, if the act of putting up these ads is illegal, then catch these people *in the act*. Otherwise, you'd be like communists - everybody is guilty by default. But again, that's China - they are communists, and everybody is guilty by default.
But you're point is entirely correct. If the US wanted Iraqi oil, then Bush could have just puches the UN into dropping sacntions in place since 1991. Then we;d have had lots of cheap oil.
And so would everybody else. What would be the point of that? And oil for food is not cheap? Better provide some numbers to back that up.
People who argue that this war is being fought for oil are, to be charitable, gravely misinformed.
People who argue that oil is not part of the equation are even more gravely misinformed. The issue is not cheap(er) oil. But oil itself, and control thereof is definitely part of the equation.
Though technically true, you seem to be wording this in a way to make it sound worse than it is.
But that's what licenses are about - being technically and legally accurate. You can't leave out or ommit the stuff.
In the real world, and not in Microsoft's and your straw-man fantasy...
Heh, some perception of "real world" doesn't cut it when analyzing a legal document. It has to be specific, explicit, etc., etc.
Programmers who are really fixing things like to see their changes incorporated into the real thing, and will license their changes as required.
First of all, if they will license their work "as required" then they do not need to license it under GPL.
Second, you are claiming that if MS allows the GPL link in its license, none of the developers, not only individuals but also companies, will actually use GPLed code to modify or to link to MS-licensed code. Instead, they will keep (on honor system) using MS license. Well, that's your point of view.
If all companies and developers shared that same view and practiced it we wouldn't need licenses then, including GPL.
As for patents, the GPL does not force you to give up patents. Such a requirement without a signed contract is not legal. You are certainly allowed to copyright an expression of an idea that is patented. I think the GPL license goes into it's own FUD in an attempt to obfuscate this fact.
Well, I am not sure what the legal implications are of the patent clause in GPL. As far as I am aware, the patent clause hasn't been tested in courts and, much less in a way that will set a precedent. I am merely pointing out that these licenses are incompatible in that sense, whether some of the clauses in the end are found enforceable or not.
Wrong! They would not lose anything. What they have done is make it impossible to make a program using both their code and GPL code. Allowing this would have absolutely no effect on what you can do with a program that does not use GPL code.
Well, I am no Microsoft defender, but I don't see it that way. You are right about the software that does not use the GPLed code. The issue is with the software that does, or would. If they did allow a link to GPL *and* people started using GPLed code with MS code that would eliminate one of the options of the license - which is the ability to distribute binary-only (read sell) the code that's covered under the license. So, for example, if software package X was put on the market with this new MS license, then developers improved X and bundled or linked to GPLed Y and Z packages and redistributed the improved version under GPL, then nobody, including MS, would have the ability to even further modify and sell the new and improved X (not lined to Y and Z) software without giving out the source. Now, you may say you don't agree with the philosophy but this license and GPL have this fundamental difference. MS believes and wants to have that right to sell, under their license, and without restriction of giving out the source.
Look at it this way: GPL imposes the requirement to provide source when (re)distributing, the MS license imposes the requirement that anyone have the right to sell the software without the restriction of providing the source.
There is yet another difference between this new MS license and GPL - patents. By (re)distributing under GPL you effectively give up on your patent claims. This license makes it a bit unclear but definitely does not make a similar claim.
Slashdot Mirror
Your town may consider ownership of the physical network, but making it easy for local ISPs to use the network to provide services to residents. This way residents are not dependent on government monopoly, fixed rates, single "let's think of our children" policy, etc. Government gets compensated for the share of their deployment and maintenance of the physical network from ISP fees, and at the same time supports multiple local or regional businesses (ISPs), promotes competition, creates business opportunities, employment, and provides tech-friendly environment for future development.
last line of the article:
/. story:
... ...
What, are you crazy? Whoever reads the whole article before discussing? You must be some kind of weirdo spoiling the spirit of Slashdot. Seriously, the
"the US and Russia (and the Europeans are mentioned too) are planning for an eventual manned Mars trip. Suggested launch years are 2014 or 2018."
vs. the article:
"Russian space authorities have pencilled in 2018 for a Mars launch because that year would see a combination of optimum conditions"
"Last year, Russian space experts urged their U.S. and European colleagues to join them in launching a manned flight to Mars by 2014."
"NASA is engaged in small-scale studies on manned flight to Mars but has no plans for a mission."
Russia is planning for a manned Mars trip. NASA has no such plans.
Actually, I thought QuickTime format was very evil, but that was before mplayer started supporting it. Since then - it's exactly the same as DivX, mpeg, or any other format.
until about halfway through your download about 250,000 other geeks finally notice the new story on /. and start downloading.
Just as a note - the download (this being a WB movie) was through AOL servers - it was blazingly fast even during the heat of this article. I downloaded at max capped speed of my DSL - 150KB/sec. So yeah, in this case you don't need bittorrent.
I took it back and picked up a 16" Sony LCD. Zero defective pixels. Excellent res and definition. Zero regrets.
I've had a good experience with Sony too. I bought a 19 or 20 inch (can't remember) LCD as a present 3 years back at monitoroutlet.com (I neither work or represent these guys) - they were very helpful and made some suggestions and good recommendations. You can easily talk to a live person toll-free who knows what he's talking about too.
Anyway, couple of years later the monitor screen died, and it turned out we had lost the receipt. The monitor was still under Sony warranty, so after e-mailing Monitor outlet guys, they promptly looked up our record and re-issued the receipt; Sony also promptly fixed the monitor, also fixed the 2 or 3 dead pixels, and returned it in a timely fashion, no charge.
I have to say that monitor has clearest picture I've seen, is very easy on the eyes, and has been turned on every day at least 10 hours a day going on 4 years now. BTW, it hasn't gotten any more dead pixels since then.
So, my opinion - if you are looking for LCD, I would definitely recommend Sony, and monitoroutlet.com as a place to consider buying one.
Disclaimer (again): I am in no way associated with monitoroutlet.com other than what I stated above.
Beyond all that has been mentioned already, you have to have a passport account to download the source. Gimme a break!
This ruling had nothing to due with the validity of the DMCA or the scope of reverse engineering exception.
The decision may be correct, but the reasoning may be questionable. If it had nothing to do with reverse-engineering the encryption scheme, then the judge should not have referred to it in the judgement. I think it's that simple. Oh yeah, and no need to scream either.
If they are actually concered about cencorship, they need to focus on regulating the implementation of these products by public organizations. As for businesses, they are free to censor all they want.
I don't think this case is (or was) as much about censorship as about the right to reverse-engineer an encryption technology or algorithm.
And if you read the Judge's opinion, then you would see that is the reason that the judge did not allow the Declaratory judgement to go forward.
True. The judge also went out of the way to base his reasoning (at least partly) on the said quote. It is important because future cases will be able to reference this.
The quote in the article is very misrepresentative of the opinion.
I'm not sure about "misrepresentative", but the judge's opinion is definitely important and has future implications, including the reasoning behind the judgement.
Did the submitter read the article?
Yes.
N2H2 claimed that providing such information to Edelman would compromise trade secrets, and that Edelman had no legal standing to be granted such permission because there was no imminent threat he would be sued.
Read the sentence again - that is what N2H2 *argued* in court. I find it more interesting what the judge said in the ruling and the implication that the judge's reasoning has.
Any law may be written to satisfy these parameters, and at the end you end up with communism or variation thereof.
I will describe some very useful hints to consider before submitting a story to Slashdot with a link to your own website:
- Do not run your website off of a Sharp Zaurus;
- If you do run website off of a Zaurus, at least create a Beowulf clus... ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H scratch that
- Just don't do it!
encoding: transcode, mainly because transcode seems to have a much better doc and logical buildup of the options to transcode and large modularity (for filters).
I thought transcode used mplayer's shared post proc library too. Did they finally implement this on their own?
Microsoft has a clear, proven, track record of providing additional media copies of their software to people who have legitimate copies.
Maybe, but in a bigger picture I wouldn't be too sure. Microsoft is known to restrict their software use to a particular hardware (i.e. PC), as evidenced by their consumer "product activation" scheme debuted with Office XP and WinXP. Can you imagine being able to play your DVDs only on your DVD player - the one that you registered your DVDs with? Tapes? CDs? Think of all distributed IP, not just software. This was not my original point though, just a reaction to your comment.
I had one company that refused to replace it, stating that there was no way for them to verify that i was sending back the original disc (umm, yeah, right), but for the most part, companies will let you do that either for free, charging for shipping, or a small fee for the media (a $10 media fee, as one of the other repliers put it). You usually don't even have to come up with a receipt, if you have the original media around to send back to them. However, if it's a copy protected game, and you lost it, then I wouldn't count on them sending you a new CD. If you scratched it badly and can send it back, yeah, but otherwise they'll often assume you want a free legitimate CD.
Well, this is actually my point. Not that some companies are good, and others are not as good. What is their responsibility legally? Are they licensing and leasing me content? Then they should be legally liable to providing access to that content even if some medium I possess gets damaged, stolen, lost, etc. (plus media fee). Try this logic also on music CDs and DVD movies, not just software.
Well, I have done exactly that. I *have* lost CD media, more than once. I wrote to more than one company, explained the problem, presented a copy of my purchase receipts, and asked nicely for a replacement CD.
Well, I used that vague example to try to make my point. I realize some companies will give you replacement media, others will not. That is not the issue. The issue is - what am I buying when I pay for someone's IP? What am I buying legally? And what are the sellers responsibilities? Try extending that example to movie and music content - I believe you will have less luck replacing your lost CDs and DVDs.
Then you're dealing with the wrong companies. I've had numerous cases, both as a personal individual and on behalf of my workplace, where I've gotten media for software replaced after something happened to the original.
I know I've gotten few replies stating this. I know some companies will replace your media with a fresh copy of their software, some won't. Still, it's unclear legally, do they have to? When I buy a game off the shelf in the store, some time later I lose the CD, and request another one from the manufacturer, are they legally liable to give it to me? This is not a question of some companies are "good" and some are "bad" and dealing with "good" ones. This is a question of what is being sold.
And, this would apply not only to software, but also CDs, tapes, DVDs, and other media that contains IP. Try calling Disney and asking for a copy of Lilo & Stitch because you've lost the DVD or scratched it and it's unplayable.
The point is, the software/CD is worth nothing. The license is worth something. And you need the license to use the CD. Anything else could be a little bit of unintentional BSA-enforced entrapment.
Well, that's good - next time I am going to use that logic every time I lose a CD of a software package I bought (and I have lost quite a few). I am going to call up the software maker, inform them of my loss, and demand another copy of their product and present them with my license number and purchase receipt. Somehow, I don't think this is going to fly with anyone. They'll just tell me to go to hell or buy another license AND media.
IP making companies (software, entertainment, etc.) need to make tough choices - are they selling media? or are they selling, no wait... renting or licensing their IP for limited use? In case of the former their IP cannot carry any conditions; in the case of the latter, my lease or license should also give me the right to the content that I am entitled to, even if original medium is damaged, or lost, or stolen, etc. (maybe after a small media fee). It's like saying if you lease an apartment and lose a key, then - tough shit - you gotta find another place to live while still satisfying the existing lease. And no - you can't replace the key or the lock.
So, which is it? It seems like they want to stay unclear on this, and invent new legal, technological, and other schemes to trap the consumer into an unfair practice.
What I believe should be patentable are Algorithms and Scientific Ideas
Great - corporations patent every new/old/used algorithm and idea in sight and use it as a part of their portfolio to scare off competitors. How is this helping innovation? If anything it is preventing anyone to actually act on the idea to innovate.
Patent system is flawed - on top of what has already been said about it such as patents are too broad, many things should not be patentable, etc. - it is flawed in that USPTO receives money for every patent granted; it is to USPTO's advantage to grant more and more patents to get more funding. It is so ridiculous, I don't know that anything I do isn't patented already. The argument that patent database is open is not helpful - there's so many of them, you can't be expected to go through it next time you want to do something obvious.
Can I raise my hand to pull over a cab without violating a patent? I don't know - I certainly can't swing on a swing.
If you want to sample an artist's music before buying a disc, why not listen to the radio, MTV, or the short samples available on Amazon.com (or wherever) to get an idea of what the artist is like?
You've gotten quite a few responses to this comment. Let me add that this is the same as saying - "why doesn't everybody just go out and get top 20 mainstream albums?" Because that's all they play on most radio stations and MTV. And Amazon's 20-second lowest possible quality clips are not really sampling anything.
So, all that would be left for everyone is to eat what's being spoonfed by RIAA. I am sure RIAA is dreaming of such a day. While this would be great for the RIAA, it would decrease their business risk, increase ROI, extinguish local bands and small labels, let RIAA define what's good and what's bad, etc., this is not what people want and demand. This is not the nature of the market at all.
RIAA companies, short of acting illegally by price-fixing and engaging in other non-competitive practices, have every right to market and advertize their music. I just don't see how music culture will subdue to that kind of spoonfeeding. Your comment, however, definitely assumes that.
When no one buys their copy-protected law-breaking titles, they'll stop issuing them that way.
I hope RIAA is able to demonstrate, after these titles go on sale, how the sales numbers of copy-protected CDs surged because they "could not be copied" on P2P, while non copy-protected CD sales kept declining. I'd like to see that question asked to and answered by RIAA. I am willing to bet it will turn out to be the opposite.
But then again, they can manipulate those numbers any way they want.
Try and talk your way out of that ticket!
Actually, many have. I have heard of some rulings that make this evidence inadmissible or inconclusive in courts. Many have successfully argued that technology is not accurate all the time (i.e. camera may take a picture after a delay, or even in error). Also, in many areas these cameras are regarded as unreasonable and as an invasion of privacy, and thus are not allowed.
Also, most of the places I've seen such cameras, only take one picture of a violation; and that's the picture of a license plate of the car. I wonder how they can prove or allege a violation by the owner of that vehicle. It could have been anybody driving the car. And burden of proof is on prosecution.
To link this to the Chinese lazy government spamming the cell phones, how can they be sure who actually put up those cell phone ads and stickers? A company could have hired an advertizing agency or a person to distribute their ads and otherwise advertize their business. Then the advertizer, without the knowledge of the client, could have engaged in illegal practices such as sticking the ads in places where they are not allowed. Also, another variation is, what has been mentioned by other posters already, that a malicious competitor could hire a person to put up the stickers of their competitors phone numbers close to police and government offices so they get noticed by the law enforcement. I am not aware how they, or any "senior official", can verify who put up the stickers.
I say, if the act of putting up these ads is illegal, then catch these people *in the act*. Otherwise, you'd be like communists - everybody is guilty by default. But again, that's China - they are communists, and everybody is guilty by default.
But you're point is entirely correct. If the US wanted Iraqi oil, then Bush could have just puches the UN into dropping sacntions in place since 1991. Then we;d have had lots of cheap oil.
And so would everybody else. What would be the point of that? And oil for food is not cheap? Better provide some numbers to back that up.
People who argue that this war is being fought for oil are, to be charitable, gravely misinformed.
People who argue that oil is not part of the equation are even more gravely misinformed. The issue is not cheap(er) oil. But oil itself, and control thereof is definitely part of the equation.
Though technically true, you seem to be wording this in a way to make it sound worse than it is.
...
But that's what licenses are about - being technically and legally accurate. You can't leave out or ommit the stuff.
In the real world, and not in Microsoft's and your straw-man fantasy
Heh, some perception of "real world" doesn't cut it when analyzing a legal document. It has to be specific, explicit, etc., etc.
Programmers who are really fixing things like to see their changes incorporated into the real thing, and will license their changes as required.
First of all, if they will license their work "as required" then they do not need to license it under GPL.
Second, you are claiming that if MS allows the GPL link in its license, none of the developers, not only individuals but also companies, will actually use GPLed code to modify or to link to MS-licensed code. Instead, they will keep (on honor system) using MS license. Well, that's your point of view.
If all companies and developers shared that same view and practiced it we wouldn't need licenses then, including GPL.
As for patents, the GPL does not force you to give up patents. Such a requirement without a signed contract is not legal. You are certainly allowed to copyright an expression of an idea that is patented. I think the GPL license goes into it's own FUD in an attempt to obfuscate this fact.
Well, I am not sure what the legal implications are of the patent clause in GPL. As far as I am aware, the patent clause hasn't been tested in courts and, much less in a way that will set a precedent. I am merely pointing out that these licenses are incompatible in that sense, whether some of the clauses in the end are found enforceable or not.
Wrong! They would not lose anything. What they have done is make it impossible to make a program using both their code and GPL code. Allowing this would have absolutely no effect on what you can do with a program that does not use GPL code.
Well, I am no Microsoft defender, but I don't see it that way. You are right about the software that does not use the GPLed code. The issue is with the software that does, or would. If they did allow a link to GPL *and* people started using GPLed code with MS code that would eliminate one of the options of the license - which is the ability to distribute binary-only (read sell) the code that's covered under the license. So, for example, if software package X was put on the market with this new MS license, then developers improved X and bundled or linked to GPLed Y and Z packages and redistributed the improved version under GPL, then nobody, including MS, would have the ability to even further modify and sell the new and improved X (not lined to Y and Z) software without giving out the source. Now, you may say you don't agree with the philosophy but this license and GPL have this fundamental difference. MS believes and wants to have that right to sell, under their license, and without restriction of giving out the source.
Look at it this way: GPL imposes the requirement to provide source when (re)distributing, the MS license imposes the requirement that anyone have the right to sell the software without the restriction of providing the source.
There is yet another difference between this new MS license and GPL - patents. By (re)distributing under GPL you effectively give up on your patent claims. This license makes it a bit unclear but definitely does not make a similar claim.