And, if I meet your "reasonable force" with my idea of "reasonable force", my idea of "reasonable force" being whatever it takes to stop you completely the first time so you may never attempt to impose your will upon me again, what then?
You seek to take from other to satisfy your own selfish desires, regardless of those from whom you would take, under the guise of superior ideology. You make a wonderful Stalinist: "What we do to you is O.K. because it serves the needs of the People, who happen to be us. On your knees, shut up and do as you are told or we will use force to make you comply!"
You can dress your selfish greed up in fancy rhetoric, but it is still you wanting to get something for nothing.
Actually, one has freedom to copy one's own work or anything that's in the public domain. We have the freedom to copy anything that is not protected by a copyright.
Granted, and when combined with:
"Your work" is supposed to cease being "your work" after a reasonable term.
You get what (is supposed to) happens. After a reasonable time, my work ceases to be mine. And that is fine. But, while it is mine, I am the one that decides when, how, where, and who copies my work, not anyone else.
I think there is much evidence against the concept of "inalienable rights".
Many would argue that there is an "inalienable right" to life. I often suggest they argue the point with a large hungry carnevor, say a lion or tiger.
I find that "inalienable rights" are very often "granted by a consensus of society" and generally, that society is effectively global rather than local.
Well, I am not really comparing the poster to the Nazis or Hitler. I am giving examples of people who believed their self-ascribed rights outweighed the rights and freedoms of others.
Does Godwin's Law still apply? I thought I had to directly compare or call the poster a Nazi, Hitler, etc for it to apply
Here is where your argument breaks down. Neither you nor the original poster has a "freedom to copy", specifically because it is MY WORK. I have the right to say what is done with my work. You do not have a "freedom to copy" anything other than YOUR OWN WORK.
His copying may very well directly effect my ability to make a living from my own work. That is directly affecting me.
What you fail to see is that his freedom and yours ends where my freedom begins. The right of a person to swing his fist ends at the nose of another person. Your freedom to copy ends where my freedom, backed by legal right, to say how my work is used begins.
And, as you don't seem to understand a good portion of my previous post, let me enlighten you on a particular fact. All rights and freedoms flow from society. If you don't believe that, go debate your "right to life" with a hungry lion.
We believe that all the fruits of all human endeavour properly belong to all of humankind.
Work is a human endeavour. The money you make is the fruit of your work, which is a human endeavour. I demand that you share your paycheck with me because it "properly belong(s) to all of humankind". When will you be sending me my money?
The truth of the matter is a person or group of people only have the rights that society as a whole give them. No one has given you any of those "rights" you mention.
You do not have a right to something just because you believe you have a right to it. Hitler thought he had a right to take over the world and kill off all the Jews. Communists thought that their political phillosophy gave them the right to subjugate other nations through force. The Klan believed it had a the right to kill black people. Neo-nazis think they have the right to oppress anyone who is not white. My neighbor thinks he has a right to play his stereo so loud I can't hear my TV. All these groups have one thing in common. They are or were wrong.
And, you are wrong as well.
Just as the exsistance of money does not bestow upon you the right to have some, the mere exsistance of software bestows no rights upon you. If I create a piece of software, I owe you nothing and you have no rights to the software I created except the rights I give you, because it is MY software, not yours.
You do not have the right to make copies of books or movies and give those copies away. If someone creates software doesn't give you the right to make copies of and give them away, you do not have that right.
Your hubris is galling to say the least. I reject your manifesto and summarily deny you any rights to anything I create.
Once again, that is criminal and not civil court. In criminal court, either you are guilty or you are not. In civil court, one can be fractionally responsible. Thus, if someone does something stupid or clumsy (like holding hot coffee in her lap with her thighs), and sues you, you can be found partial responsible (to the tune of 9 million dollars).
Consider this: Not too many years ago, a man died when he crashed head on into a tractor trailer while speeding, drunk, driving the wrong way down the interstate. His family sued for wrongfull death because the driver was over his ours by 15 minutes, and won.
Consider the cases where people have done incredibly stupid things, sued manufacturers for tens and hundreds of millions dollars, and won a determiniation that the manufacturer was partially responsible because the manufacturer didn't put a warning label not to lick the heater coil while it was glowing red hot, or not eat the big white mint in the urinal. Granted they may not have gotten the 10 million asked for, but the may have won 1 or 3 or 5 million.
Civil court rules are very different from criminal court rules.
What you say is true, but there is a difference here. The products you mention are, presumably, closed source products. MrJB is talking about releasing an open source product. The closed source product did not reveal the "trade secrets" of Roland and other companies.
Releasing an open source product could be considered revealing the trade secrets of the company and MrJB could quite easily be sued for it.
Now, a possible solution for MrJB MIGHT BE(IANAL) to release a binary only kernel module, assuming he can do that without running afoul of the GPL. But, even then, he may have legal exposure.
In criminal proceedings, yes. In civil proceedings, no.
Mr.JB can be sued in civil court for any number of reasons. In civil court, there is no presumption of innocence and no "beyond a reasonable doubt". It is basically a contest to see who can sway the judge and/or jury the farthest.
You mean like almost EVERY expert that says there is no security concern? Check it out. By far the majority of experts on the Middle East, international relations, and security say there is no reason to be concerned about the deal.
At least with the Dubai deal there were some legitimate concerns (other than blatant xenophobia) that the public wanted addressed.
Actually, there are no legitimate concerns other than blatant racism against arabs. The UAE is a good friend to and a partner and supporter of the US. Have been for years. I have been there with the US Navy. Everyone was friendly. The port guards let us examine their FN-FAL rifles, took pictures with us, etc. I never had a single problem while I was there with ANYONE.
The UAE has NEVER done anything that is anti-American. So a few bad guys came from the UAE. A few also came from the US. And, we have plenty of home grown bad guys.
The UAE, it's government, and it's people are good people.
Israel on the other hand has a nasty habit of spying on the US, stealing technology, dealing with our enemies, acting like they own the U.S. Government (which they might as well) and acting like they are entitled to whatever they want from the U.S. government.
This article is a troll. And, the uproar over the UAE port deal is worse than a tempest in a teacup. The UAE happens to be one of the most U.S. friendly countries in the Middle East. They are concerned with money, not politics and not religion. I should know. I have been there.
I would call the objection to the port deal racism if it were not so clearly political grandstanding.
And, they are ruining the relationship with the best friend the U.S. has in that region.
Considering we had the technology to do this since 1969, I don't see this as a major technological achievement. In fact, I would say this is actually a step back from the ever hoped-for quick-turn-around, low cost launch vehicles.
Want to show strength in science and technology, actually make a cheap, reusable, quick-turn-around launch vehicle. Choose a vehicle that has an actual working model, not one that requires new rocket engine technology be developed. Show some intelligence and innovation and quick taking the brute force approach.
Gee, he got rear ended and didn't get the damage fixed. WAH. Would he and you like some cheese with your whine.
As for the article, maybe he did turn on over stolen property to the State AG. But, he still turned over STOLEN property.
Here let me help you with this. You know your company is committing a crime, you go to the authorities, they get a supoena or a warrant, they come in and seize the evidence, and every one is happy, except the bad guy.
As it is, the documents this jackass stole did not indicate a crime. Oh, wait, I know what you are going to say, "They were talking about a crime!!" Um, no, they weren't. They were two lawyers in a law firm discussing whether a client, Diebold, would have legal exposure if something occured. The conclusion, as stated in the article is that there would be exposure. Nothing illegal there. In fact, that is what happens a lot in lawyer's offices
Client: If I did this, could bad legal type things happen? Lawyer 1: (to client) Let me confer with my partner.(to partner) If this client does this, I think he would be breaking the law. What do you think? Partner: I think so too Lawyer: (to client) Yep, we think you could have some legal problems.
Nothing illegal has occured, even if the client then goes out and does whatever act he asked his lawyers about.
Now that I have explained the way this little part of the legal system works, you can STFU.
The documents in question are from one lawyer to another talking about whether Diebold would have legal exposure if unvalidated machines were to be used in an election. The decision of the lawyers was "Yes, they would have legal exposure, because of the contract with the state of California". There is no talk of fixing an election. Also, the induhvidual in question didn't just violate an NDA. He took physical property.
The legal documents in question do not talk about a crime. You would know that if you RTFA.
Ergo, shut your piehole, who you hate doesn't matter, especially as Diebold is not apart of this, but rather a law office retained by Diebold.
Regardless of what he wanted to do, he broke the law. Now everyone is crying because he is getting prosecuted for it. Boohoo, cry me a river. He called the tune, now he gets to pay the piper.
Or it could be that no one ever told him it was wrong to do what he was doing.
The glory-seeking dumbass, I mean "whistle-blower", is only on trail because he stole documents from his employer. His employer was not Diebold, it was lawyers who represent Diebold. He did not inform the proper authorities of what he saw, he gave confidential business documents discussing legal stragety to a newspaper. Would you like a clerk in your lawyer's office sending memos about your defense to a newspaper?
Take your little tinfoil cap off and join the real world.
The solution to these concerns requires quick and effective treatment," the judge wrote. He also noted that Hulett tested at a borderline intelligence level, has the emotional maturity of a 12- to 14-year-old and did not understand why others were so upset by his actions.
Sentence a mentally retarded individual to jail for something he does not even understand is a crime. Yep, that is a good idea. Why don't we just string him up and save the cost of jail and treatment.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you have any idea how hard it is to goofy off properly with people walking by?
It bothers me even when I actually doing work.
And here comes someone now.....
It is create, not crate.
It is thief, not theif.
Your argument shows a lack of basic understanding of, well, pretty much everything. To put your argument in context:
- Because sound exsists, writing a song is not creative.
- Because wood exsists, building a boat is not creative.
- Because metal exsists, making a knife is not creative.
- Because words exsist, writing is not creative.
I could go on with that, but I am sure you get the idea. Not that I actually expect you to understand it.And, if I meet your "reasonable force" with my idea of "reasonable force", my idea of "reasonable force" being whatever it takes to stop you completely the first time so you may never attempt to impose your will upon me again, what then?
You seek to take from other to satisfy your own selfish desires, regardless of those from whom you would take, under the guise of superior ideology. You make a wonderful Stalinist: "What we do to you is O.K. because it serves the needs of the People, who happen to be us. On your knees, shut up and do as you are told or we will use force to make you comply!"
You can dress your selfish greed up in fancy rhetoric, but it is still you wanting to get something for nothing.
Granted, and when combined with:
You get what (is supposed to) happens. After a reasonable time, my work ceases to be mine. And that is fine. But, while it is mine, I am the one that decides when, how, where, and who copies my work, not anyone else.
I think there is much evidence against the concept of "inalienable rights".
Many would argue that there is an "inalienable right" to life. I often suggest they argue the point with a large hungry carnevor, say a lion or tiger.
I find that "inalienable rights" are very often "granted by a consensus of society" and generally, that society is effectively global rather than local.
Well, I am not really comparing the poster to the Nazis or Hitler. I am giving examples of people who believed their self-ascribed rights outweighed the rights and freedoms of others.
Does Godwin's Law still apply? I thought I had to directly compare or call the poster a Nazi, Hitler, etc for it to apply
Here is where your argument breaks down. Neither you nor the original poster has a "freedom to copy", specifically because it is MY WORK. I have the right to say what is done with my work. You do not have a "freedom to copy" anything other than YOUR OWN WORK.
His copying may very well directly effect my ability to make a living from my own work. That is directly affecting me.
What you fail to see is that his freedom and yours ends where my freedom begins. The right of a person to swing his fist ends at the nose of another person. Your freedom to copy ends where my freedom, backed by legal right, to say how my work is used begins.
And, as you don't seem to understand a good portion of my previous post, let me enlighten you on a particular fact. All rights and freedoms flow from society. If you don't believe that, go debate your "right to life" with a hungry lion.
Work is a human endeavour. The money you make is the fruit of your work, which is a human endeavour. I demand that you share your paycheck with me because it "properly belong(s) to all of humankind". When will you be sending me my money?
The truth of the matter is a person or group of people only have the rights that society as a whole give them. No one has given you any of those "rights" you mention.
You do not have a right to something just because you believe you have a right to it. Hitler thought he had a right to take over the world and kill off all the Jews. Communists thought that their political phillosophy gave them the right to subjugate other nations through force. The Klan believed it had a the right to kill black people. Neo-nazis think they have the right to oppress anyone who is not white. My neighbor thinks he has a right to play his stereo so loud I can't hear my TV. All these groups have one thing in common. They are or were wrong.
And, you are wrong as well.
Just as the exsistance of money does not bestow upon you the right to have some, the mere exsistance of software bestows no rights upon you. If I create a piece of software, I owe you nothing and you have no rights to the software I created except the rights I give you, because it is MY software, not yours.
You do not have the right to make copies of books or movies and give those copies away. If someone creates software doesn't give you the right to make copies of and give them away, you do not have that right.
Your hubris is galling to say the least. I reject your manifesto and summarily deny you any rights to anything I create.
So, if someone were to say "My favorite is VB because it lets me bang out a proto-type quickly" you would not hire them?
There are ways of dealing with this sort of things.
Once again, that is criminal and not civil court. In criminal court, either you are guilty or you are not. In civil court, one can be fractionally responsible. Thus, if someone does something stupid or clumsy (like holding hot coffee in her lap with her thighs), and sues you, you can be found partial responsible (to the tune of 9 million dollars).
Consider this: Not too many years ago, a man died when he crashed head on into a tractor trailer while speeding, drunk, driving the wrong way down the interstate. His family sued for wrongfull death because the driver was over his ours by 15 minutes, and won.
Consider the cases where people have done incredibly stupid things, sued manufacturers for tens and hundreds of millions dollars, and won a determiniation that the manufacturer was partially responsible because the manufacturer didn't put a warning label not to lick the heater coil while it was glowing red hot, or not eat the big white mint in the urinal. Granted they may not have gotten the 10 million asked for, but the may have won 1 or 3 or 5 million.
Civil court rules are very different from criminal court rules.
Politics and ignorance.
What you say is true, but there is a difference here. The products you mention are, presumably, closed source products. MrJB is talking about releasing an open source product. The closed source product did not reveal the "trade secrets" of Roland and other companies.
Releasing an open source product could be considered revealing the trade secrets of the company and MrJB could quite easily be sued for it.
Now, a possible solution for MrJB MIGHT BE(IANAL) to release a binary only kernel module, assuming he can do that without running afoul of the GPL. But, even then, he may have legal exposure.
In criminal proceedings, yes. In civil proceedings, no.
Mr.JB can be sued in civil court for any number of reasons. In civil court, there is no presumption of innocence and no "beyond a reasonable doubt". It is basically a contest to see who can sway the judge and/or jury the farthest.
You mean like almost EVERY expert that says there is no security concern? Check it out. By far the majority of experts on the Middle East, international relations, and security say there is no reason to be concerned about the deal.
Hmm. yeah, I guess my having been to the UAE means I know nothing about the place.
Actually, there are no legitimate concerns other than blatant racism against arabs. The UAE is a good friend to and a partner and supporter of the US. Have been for years. I have been there with the US Navy. Everyone was friendly. The port guards let us examine their FN-FAL rifles, took pictures with us, etc. I never had a single problem while I was there with ANYONE.
The UAE has NEVER done anything that is anti-American. So a few bad guys came from the UAE. A few also came from the US. And, we have plenty of home grown bad guys.
The UAE, it's government, and it's people are good people.
Israel on the other hand has a nasty habit of spying on the US, stealing technology, dealing with our enemies, acting like they own the U.S. Government (which they might as well) and acting like they are entitled to whatever they want from the U.S. government.
This article is a troll. And, the uproar over the UAE port deal is worse than a tempest in a teacup. The UAE happens to be one of the most U.S. friendly countries in the Middle East. They are concerned with money, not politics and not religion. I should know. I have been there.
I would call the objection to the port deal racism if it were not so clearly political grandstanding.
And, they are ruining the relationship with the best friend the U.S. has in that region.
It sickens me.
Well, that will teach me to post before breakfast. I even misread your post.
D'oh
Considering we had the technology to do this since 1969, I don't see this as a major technological achievement. In fact, I would say this is actually a step back from the ever hoped-for quick-turn-around, low cost launch vehicles.
Want to show strength in science and technology, actually make a cheap, reusable, quick-turn-around launch vehicle. Choose a vehicle that has an actual working model, not one that requires new rocket engine technology be developed. Show some intelligence and innovation and quick taking the brute force approach.
As for the article, maybe he did turn on over stolen property to the State AG. But, he still turned over STOLEN property.
Here let me help you with this. You know your company is committing a crime, you go to the authorities, they get a supoena or a warrant, they come in and seize the evidence, and every one is happy, except the bad guy.
As it is, the documents this jackass stole did not indicate a crime. Oh, wait, I know what you are going to say, "They were talking about a crime!!" Um, no, they weren't. They were two lawyers in a law firm discussing whether a client, Diebold, would have legal exposure if something occured. The conclusion, as stated in the article is that there would be exposure. Nothing illegal there. In fact, that is what happens a lot in lawyer's offices
Nothing illegal has occured, even if the client then goes out and does whatever act he asked his lawyers about.
Now that I have explained the way this little part of the legal system works, you can STFU.
The documents in question are from one lawyer to another talking about whether Diebold would have legal exposure if unvalidated machines were to be used in an election. The decision of the lawyers was "Yes, they would have legal exposure, because of the contract with the state of California". There is no talk of fixing an election. Also, the induhvidual in question didn't just violate an NDA. He took physical property.
The legal documents in question do not talk about a crime. You would know that if you RTFA.
Ergo, shut your piehole, who you hate doesn't matter, especially as Diebold is not apart of this, but rather a law office retained by Diebold.
Regardless of what he wanted to do, he broke the law. Now everyone is crying because he is getting prosecuted for it. Boohoo, cry me a river. He called the tune, now he gets to pay the piper.
Or it could be that no one ever told him it was wrong to do what he was doing.
The glory-seeking dumbass, I mean "whistle-blower", is only on trail because he stole documents from his employer. His employer was not Diebold, it was lawyers who represent Diebold. He did not inform the proper authorities of what he saw, he gave confidential business documents discussing legal stragety to a newspaper. Would you like a clerk in your lawyer's office sending memos about your defense to a newspaper?
Take your little tinfoil cap off and join the real world.
Sentence a mentally retarded individual to jail for something he does not even understand is a crime. Yep, that is a good idea. Why don't we just string him up and save the cost of jail and treatment.