> The synopsis above is misleading. Its is GPL violators, not simply GPL users who are at risk. From the article:
"Linux is a powerful operating system," says Jay Michaelson, an author of the study and Wasabi Systems' General Counsel. "But if companies violate the license, the consequences can be more severe than they think. If companies are violating the GPL, they don't have the right to use that software. And if they don't have the right to use the software, they're violating federal law if they claim that they do."
Which, if correct, means they're also in violation of the act if they have any unlicensed software of any type. (Which, I suspect, means every company on the planet.)
Also, the text of the act doesn't seem to contain the phrase "intellectual property".
Do companies know who all the IP owners for other operating systems are? And application software? And computer and communications hardware? All this stuff includes components licensed from third (or higher) parties.
> I'm watching the movie tomorrow night, after devouring the entire series in the last couple of weeks. The whole Mal/Inara thing still being left hanging is going to be painful, frankly.
I wanted to learn Book's back story. Also, I was hoping there would be more to River's story than that she was just a Spacebuffy.
> The acting was fairly decent (except for the guy who wanted to be Kurt Russel)
If you're talking about Jayne, you really missed the point.
Probably not your fault though; the movie just didn't have time to introduce the characters properly. There were 5-6 scenes in the series that you had to see in order to understand Jayne, the most lovable moronic asshole of a villan who ever graced the screen.
> As far as I can tell, its because it was created by the same d00d who did Buffy: The Vampire Slayer and Angel. And if you know how that particular rabid fanbase works...
I never watched those before I got hooked on Firefly. Then I started tuning in the re-runs to see what they were all about.
I loved the series, but was a bit disappointed with the movie. (Well done, but tried to wrap up / kill off too much stuff that should have been used to tittilate us for a couple of years.) In principle it could go on, but I can't see the magic ever being recaptured at this date.
I wish Joss would give up on the dead horse and turn his attention to something new - on a different network.
> Why does the story use the words "claiming"? It is illegal based on every law there is, the only problem is that citizens can't walk into the white house and arrest the President for violating Constitutional Rights. Congress, as it stands, is a GOP majority who will not press for an independant investigation nor will our President be impeached. What this lawsuit is doing is declaring his acts illegal through the final word of a court. If this works, and I'm hoping it does, then the media and general public can pressure punishment based on criminal charges.
I suspect the courts will dismiss the suit because the plaintiffs won't be able to demonstrate "standing" to sue. Until someone comes up with evidence that some specific person has been spied upon without a warrant, we're probably screwed.
The DoJ could investigate, but their decision makers were appointed by the person that needs to be invistigated. (Some may have CYA at stake, too.)
So I suspect we're left with Congress. As you say, it's run by the GOP right now, but some of the GOPers are showing a bit of independence now that the DeLay arm-twisting machine has fallen apart. Also, every member of the House and IIRC 1/3 of the members of the Senate have their asses on the line in November, so they've got to keep an eye on what their constituents feel about the situation.
Also, some legislators may feel a personal stake in it, since it's a power struggle between their branch of government and the executive branch. After all, it's a law from Congress that's being ignored.
So there's a slight chance that Congress will do something about it. Especially if we rubes back home raise enough hell about it. Probably not impeach, but if they show signs of moving in that direction then Gonzales might appoint a special prosecutor in hope of keeping Congress from taking direct action.
> The only entity with the power to bring criminal charges against Bush and Gonzales is, you guessed it, run by Bush and Gonzales.
In principle a special prosecutor could do it, but AIUI Gonzales gets to decide whether a special prosecutor is needed.
And after Gore demanded one yesterday, Gonzales said he disagrees, because he doesn't see any conflict of interests.
The other question is, even if the courts rule against the administration, who is going to compel them to abide by the ruling? If they think their mission from God is important enough to ignore the law, they'll probably also think it important enough to ignore the courts. (IIRC, Abraham Lincoln did precisely that at the beginning of the American Civil War.)
It seems that even if he's right it would only require one cosmological constant to be non-constant.
Or maybe not even that. Maybe the effect he's observing is dependent on something that changes with times, such as the temperature or density of the universe. Most cosmologists already believe the universe underwent a sort of "phase change" during the inflationary period, and it hasn't exactly destroyed the idea of cosmological constants.
> I personally hate this whole dark energy thing. Its always this and that, here and there. It seems to me to be a poor attempt at a unified theory.
Perhaps you should write your favorite physicist or science journal about it. I'm sure they'd love to hear your views on it.
> is this really any better than the Greeks accounting for oddities in terms of gods and goddesses?
Yes, because even the most far-out cosmology doesn't invoke the unpredictable whims of powerful beings.
> It seems to me that we are only adding increased complexity into an already complex system
No, we're adding complexity to our description of a complex system, which is pretty much what we have to do when it turns out to be more conplex than our previous description could account for.
> Often, the most simple answer is the correct answer.
> There's already a few comments openly questioning and in some cases deriding the concept of dark energy. I think this could well be fallout from String Theory's current fall from grace.
Fall from grace among scientists, or just among Slashdotters?
> The whole debate about Intelligent Design may also be playing a part. There's been a very public question about "what is science".
No, there have just been some high profile attempts to redefine science to include ID, never mind the fact that the new definitions import astrology as well.
The pathetic thing is that they had the story up with the "notify the on-duty editor if you see any problems with this article" for a while before opening it up for comments, and it still got posted.
> They can replace it with OSX computers, thus spending a lot more money in the process, or they can use some Linux variety which will not support most of the software they need, requiring custom solutions and ports, thus spending a lot more money in the process. So which one will it be?
The real question is, do they want to save a lot of money in the short run or a hell of a lot in the long run?
Slashdot Mirror
You forgot to mention that your expert's name is 'babblefish'.
Likely as not Wasabi Systems (creator of the report) is doing it for their own benefit.War^w Competition is Hell.
Also, the text of the act doesn't seem to contain the phrase "intellectual property".
Do companies know who all the IP owners for other operating systems are? And application software? And computer and communications hardware? All this stuff includes components licensed from third (or higher) parties.
> I'm watching the movie tomorrow night, after devouring the entire series in the last couple of weeks. The whole Mal/Inara thing still being left hanging is going to be painful, frankly.
I wanted to learn Book's back story. Also, I was hoping there would be more to River's story than that she was just a Spacebuffy.
> The acting was fairly decent (except for the guy who wanted to be Kurt Russel)
If you're talking about Jayne, you really missed the point.
Probably not your fault though; the movie just didn't have time to introduce the characters properly. There were 5-6 scenes in the series that you had to see in order to understand Jayne, the most lovable moronic asshole of a villan who ever graced the screen.
> As far as I can tell, its because it was created by the same d00d who did Buffy: The Vampire Slayer and Angel. And if you know how that particular rabid fanbase works...
I never watched those before I got hooked on Firefly. Then I started tuning in the re-runs to see what they were all about.
> It's the characters. After a while, you don't even care what they're doing or where they are, you care about them.
And their guns, which also have names!
> I'd like someone to tell me what's good about that show. Maybe I'm missing the show's point or something?
"Good" is just a matter of opinion. If it doesn't push your buttons, don't worry about it.
As Misty Beethoven said, "some like it and some don't".
I loved the series, but was a bit disappointed with the movie. (Well done, but tried to wrap up / kill off too much stuff that should have been used to tittilate us for a couple of years.) In principle it could go on, but I can't see the magic ever being recaptured at this date.
I wish Joss would give up on the dead horse and turn his attention to something new - on a different network.
> Why does the story use the words "claiming"? It is illegal based on every law there is, the only problem is that citizens can't walk into the white house and arrest the President for violating Constitutional Rights. Congress, as it stands, is a GOP majority who will not press for an independant investigation nor will our President be impeached. What this lawsuit is doing is declaring his acts illegal through the final word of a court. If this works, and I'm hoping it does, then the media and general public can pressure punishment based on criminal charges.
I suspect the courts will dismiss the suit because the plaintiffs won't be able to demonstrate "standing" to sue. Until someone comes up with evidence that some specific person has been spied upon without a warrant, we're probably screwed.
The DoJ could investigate, but their decision makers were appointed by the person that needs to be invistigated. (Some may have CYA at stake, too.)
So I suspect we're left with Congress. As you say, it's run by the GOP right now, but some of the GOPers are showing a bit of independence now that the DeLay arm-twisting machine has fallen apart. Also, every member of the House and IIRC 1/3 of the members of the Senate have their asses on the line in November, so they've got to keep an eye on what their constituents feel about the situation.
Also, some legislators may feel a personal stake in it, since it's a power struggle between their branch of government and the executive branch. After all, it's a law from Congress that's being ignored.
So there's a slight chance that Congress will do something about it. Especially if we rubes back home raise enough hell about it. Probably not impeach, but if they show signs of moving in that direction then Gonzales might appoint a special prosecutor in hope of keeping Congress from taking direct action.
We can always hope.
> Would a police state allow groups like The Center for Constitutional Rights and the ACLU to file such suits, much less exist?
I think "police state" is a matter of degree, and such groups are trying to keep us from sliding further in.
We've already gotten "free speech zones" in the past few years. How much further must things go before the CCR and ACLU are suppressed?
> The only entity with the power to bring criminal charges against Bush and Gonzales is, you guessed it, run by Bush and Gonzales.
In principle a special prosecutor could do it, but AIUI Gonzales gets to decide whether a special prosecutor is needed.
And after Gore demanded one yesterday, Gonzales said he disagrees, because he doesn't see any conflict of interests.
The other question is, even if the courts rule against the administration, who is going to compel them to abide by the ruling? If they think their mission from God is important enough to ignore the law, they'll probably also think it important enough to ignore the courts. (IIRC, Abraham Lincoln did precisely that at the beginning of the American Civil War.)
> They give spankings in the Air Force?
Yeah, and they have a "don't ask, don't tell" policy regarding whether you like it, too.
> This is the actual press release from Dr. Schaefer.
http://www.phys.lsu.edu/GRBHD/pressrelease/ It seems that the results are very damning to cosmological constants.
It seems that even if he's right it would only require one cosmological constant to be non-constant.
Or maybe not even that. Maybe the effect he's observing is dependent on something that changes with times, such as the temperature or density of the universe. Most cosmologists already believe the universe underwent a sort of "phase change" during the inflationary period, and it hasn't exactly destroyed the idea of cosmological constants.
> I personally hate this whole dark energy thing. Its always this and that, here and there. It seems to me to be a poor attempt at a unified theory.
Perhaps you should write your favorite physicist or science journal about it. I'm sure they'd love to hear your views on it.
> is this really any better than the Greeks accounting for oddities in terms of gods and goddesses?
Yes, because even the most far-out cosmology doesn't invoke the unpredictable whims of powerful beings.
> It seems to me that we are only adding increased complexity into an already complex system
No, we're adding complexity to our description of a complex system, which is pretty much what we have to do when it turns out to be more conplex than our previous description could account for.
> Often, the most simple answer is the correct answer.
And often it's the wrong one.
> There's already a few comments openly questioning and in some cases deriding the concept of dark energy. I think this could well be fallout from String Theory's current fall from grace.
Fall from grace among scientists, or just among Slashdotters?
> The whole debate about Intelligent Design may also be playing a part. There's been a very public question about "what is science".
No, there have just been some high profile attempts to redefine science to include ID, never mind the fact that the new definitions import astrology as well.
The pathetic thing is that they had the story up with the "notify the on-duty editor if you see any problems with this article" for a while before opening it up for comments, and it still got posted.
> Maybe we should organize a "Million Geek March".
Geeks don't exercise; no one would show up.
> i could probably patent my ass if i tried to
But would anyone pay you royalties for it?
The tide is never going to turn in countries that let themselves be ruled by lobbyists.
> - First thing you do is install latest security patches, or else some kid in San Jose, California is going to take control of your missile.
Probably will anyway, before you can download and install the patches.
> - Restart whole prodecure after missile crashes in the blue ocean of death well short of its target.
And blame the rocket driver.
Hmmm. Ballmer... monkey... flying...
Taiwan might give up Microsoft, and monkies might come flying out of Bill Gates' butt?
> They can replace it with OSX computers, thus spending a lot more money in the process, or they can use some Linux variety which will not support most of the software they need, requiring custom solutions and ports, thus spending a lot more money in the process. So which one will it be?
The real question is, do they want to save a lot of money in the short run or a hell of a lot in the long run?
> Microsoft offers China software for their missile guiding systems and naval fleet.
And, along with a number of other big name US companies, helps China censor the internet.