Fischer is the greatest chess player who ever lived, and several pegs above the likes of Kramnick and Kasparov. The idea that he's a Russian spy is absurd. Fischer hates the Russians. He accused them of conspiring to keep the chess champion a Russian. He said the games between Kramnick and Kasparov were pre-determined. He is certainly not a Russian spy.
The other ridiculous thing that the US gov't has done to Fischer is threatned to arrest him should he ever return to the US, because he played a chess tournament in a nation which was under "sanctions" by the US. Fischer tore up a letter from the US gov't demanding that he not play in that nation. He has the right to play chess where-ever the fuck he wants to. He shouldn't face punishment for carrying out his livelihood in a nation the US "doesn't approve of". He could play fucking Chess in Iraq and make millions for the Iraq government. That's his fucking right.
Yes, Fischer has some obnoxious views, and has said some cruel and hateful things about the Jews, and has said some outrageous things about 9/11. Again, that's his right. He has the right to say whatever the fuck he wants to. Quite frankly, I can understand him for hating the US. He is the only US citizen who has brought honor to the US in the chess arena -- the only American who's ever been anything in chess. And not only was/is he good, he was/is the best. The US government repaid him by threatening to arrest him because he played Chess in a "sanctioned nation". That doesn't mean its right to say that the 9,000 people who died at 9/11 deserved it, but he still has the right to say that.
As for his hatred of the Jews, though I'm not saying its good, he still has the right to hold whatever opinions he wants. Though it would make more sense if he hated Christians, as he was scammed by the "Worldwide Church of God". But from his perspective, he's been wronged by Jews. He's particularly enraged about all of the profiteering that has been going on around his name, while he hasn't received a dime. Movies like "Searching for Bobby Fischer" and biographies of him were made, yet he's received no compensation. In short, other people are making billions of dollars off of his name, and he attributes this mainly to the Jews. That doesn't justify hating all Jews, but its still his right to do so.
They added their proprietary code to a GPL'ed program and distributed it. The only legal way to do that is by GPL'ing their proprietary code, which they didn't.
Thus, you need not heed their meritless threats. Anything distribute along with your GPL'ed code should also be GPL'ed, and if it isn't, you can force it to be so (and you have the right to simply distribute it under the GPL).
The impact this has on their business is not your concern. Its their fault for incorporating their add-ons onto GPL'ed code. There should be no compromise here: you should force anything that was distributed with your GPL'ed code to be GPL'ed as well. Simply distribute the entire thing under the GPL, as is your right to do so. If they try to sue you, they don't have a leg to stand on because the GPL demands that any modification/add-ons to GPL'ed code be GPL'ed.
MS has many divisions within it. They sell games, hardware, gaming platforms, palm-top software, Office software, and OS', and much more. This story proves that the Office and OS divisions are making all of the money, financing MS' raids into other areas. All other departments are losing money out the wazoo.
What this proves is that every other MS product is so crappy and so poor selling, that they're losing brickloads of money on it.
In other words, the only reason they can venture into other markets is because they're using their MONOPOLY in one market to finance their ventures elsewhere, which otherwise would fail on their own crappy merits.
This is just on piece of the picture of MS abusing its monopoly powers.
I can see it now, people walking down the street having orgasms from the shockwaves of their vibrating shoes.
LOL, that's fuckin' hillarious
on
ALICE vs. ALICE
·
· Score: 1
Not to knock on the guy who made ALICE, its the best we've got so far.
But its obvious that its pretty stupid. I was ROTFLOLing while reading this stupid conversation. It seems like the sort of thing monkeys would say to eachother if they could talk.
Yes, I'm indeed very fearful that artificial intelligence will, in the near future, be a threat to my job and the jobs of other human beings. Its pretty obvious I have a lot to wory about.
I agree with you, and was in error when speaking of X and enforcing UI standards. The main thing, though, is that somewhere UI standards need to be enforced. The best way to do it is to allow the user to decide what various key combinations do, and have those key combinations work for every app, where possible. I agree that it is a little unfortunate that we have two major widget toolkits, but only when people decide to mix them. People should stick with one toolkit if they want consistency. Also, the toolkits need to do a better job of enforcing (for example) keyboard combination standards.
As many other people have pointed out, X is fine. Problems people have with "X" are really problems with either the implementation of X, or problems with their widget set. People complain X is slow. Now, X isn't slow: you're using a crappy implementation, or crappy drivers. Its not X's fault. Get better drivers, get a better or update implementation. Go to XFree86.org or try out Accelerated X. If you want a certain feature that's not there, its probably your widget set.
In short, before you say X sucks, identify your problems with it, and ask some experts about how to resolve them.
One thing that I will criticize X for, however, is that they don't enforce some kind of standard for interfaces. One thing Linux does need is standardized interfaces and key combinations between applications. There doesn't need to be one standard, but apps installed on a user's computer should all obey the user-defined standards. CTRL-V should always past...it shouldn't be CTRL-V or ALT-V or CTRL-P depending on the app. Same thing with menu's and stuff. Why should every developer have to reinvent the wheel? And why should the user have to reorient himself for basic key combinations for every program?
I hope you got paid for your time; if you didn't, then that's messed up.
If you accept temporary quick-fix jobs from old employers, you should demand a higher salary per hour than you would normally get.
If she's not willing to pay you a reasonable salary for your time, then you shouldn't do it. Imagine if it were vica-versa, and you called up your old company sand said, "I don't work for you any more, but just for old time's sake, could you please send me a pay check?"
WRONG, the EULA would not be enforcible because they never had the right to license the software under a EULA in the first place, as they based their software around GPL'ed code.
Ignoring someone else's GPL'ed license and slapping a EULA around a mod/addition to a GPL'ed program is not legit, and is completely null and void. The people who EULA'ed it would be lying; the code is actually licensed under the GPL.
Stealing something that belongs to someone else and putting your name on it doesn't make it your's.
Just use a handle for the work, and always attach to it something that only YOU can decode (i.e., it's been gPGP'ed), so that if you ever want to prove you're the author, you can do so.
Post it to a geocities home page from a public terminal using a Yahoo login name you created from a public terminal. This way, its completely anonymous and there's no way it can be traced to you.
Copyrights still apply if the author is anonymous. Look at the many publishers in ages ago who published under a pseudoname. You may not be able to enforce you're copyleft if you want to remain anonymous, however.
But, I don't see how that matters. Lets say that you GPL a program which functions as a 3D rendering engine, but is just the core -- not the actual UI. Then some greedy company comes along and builds a user-friendly program around you're GPL'ed program, but releases it under a EULA. That EULA is automatically void, and anyone who gets that program can reverse engineer it to get the source, and may be on legal standing to demand that the company give them the source.
Alternatively, you can submit it anonymously to the FSF, then they'll enforce it for you.
Its really that simple. They don't contribute ANYTHING to the process, and they get tons of money from it.
The vast majority of scientists who did the research did so using government grants; the vast majority of scientists who did the reviews either did so for free or were being paid by government money (i.e., the government gives money to universities, as well as tax breaks).
Then, after all this is done with public money, they privitize the information, making US the taxpayers pay again for what we've already paid for.
Taxpayers pay alot of money to contribute to scientific research; they should be able to access the results, research papers, review papers, and abstracts free of charge.
Anything else is just crooked and unconstitutionally forces the taxpayer to pay again for what which (s)he already owns.
If ANY of the TAXPAYER's MONEY is used for the research or reviews, it should ALL be available to the taxpayers for free, in the public domain. If you don't want to make it available free, then you shouldn't use ANY government money.
In other news, McDonnell, world-renowned maker of fighter jets including the F-15, has decided to sue McDonalds, world-renown maker of fried heart-attack hamburgers.
McDonnell is apparently worried that the US Government, intending to go to McDonnell.com and buy an airplane, will instead go to McDonalds.com and buy a Happy Meal.
"Naturally," a McDonnell representative said, "We don't want McDonalds taking advantage of our good name and making 15 million dollars on a Happy Meal because the US Government got confused."
McDonald's has filed counter-suite, claiming that a family wanting to buy a happy-meal for $4.50 will become confused, walk into McDonnell Corp and buy a F-15 for $4.5 Million.
"Obviously," a McDonald's spokesperson said, "there is a great potential for consumer-confusion here. We just want to make sure that consumers intending to buy a Happy Meal will buy a Happy Meal and not an air-plane."
The law also used to say that women were walking incubators and didn't have the right to choose. It also used to say that African American's were "2/3rds humans" and that they were "property". When the law is wrong, it deserves no heed nor respect, but should outrightly be ignored as crap.
You stupid idiot fuckwit, I have just as much to use my name for any venture in life I choose as does anyone else, whether they're already well known in an area or not.
This isn't even about that. Bill Wyman is an intelligent writer, Bill Wyman a coked-up crackhead bassist idiot.
If my name was Calvin Klein, it'd be perfectly fine for me to open a retail clothing store with something like "Calvin Klein's" on top of it. I, Calvin Klein, would have just as much right to use my name to further my endeavers as some rich snob named Calvin Klein.
If Calvin Klein Co. doesn't like it, they're welcome to try to work it out with me, or try to clarify matters. They, however, have no right to force me to rename my store.
Might does not make right. Just because they have a well-established name doesn't mean they can prevent other's who happen to have that name from birth from using their own name to further their endeavers.
Sorry, but if I were named Calvin Klein, me using Calvin Klein to further my endeaver's doesn't violate Calvin Klein Co's rights. In fact, companies should have no rights; only individuals -- actual real people -- should have rights. Giving companies rights was as unconstitutional as allowing people to avoid personal responsibility for crimes by incorporating themselves.
Sorry, but I'm not going to include a disclaimer on everything I write if some jerk-off decides to change his name to mine and gets famous.
If Rolling Stone Bill has a problem with possible confusion, its HIS responsibility to clear it up, since he's the one who has the problem.
Sorry, but the right to use your name is as much a birth-right as the right to freedom of speech. Besides, the author Bill was named Bill long before stoned-out Bill decided to change his name to Bill.
Sorry, but might doesn't make right. Just because two people have the same name (or one person and a company has the same name) doesn't mean that the one which is more successful should trump. If there's confusion, its up to whichever Bill has a problem with that confusion to clear it up.
Sorry, but fucking intellectual property isn't going to stop me from using my own damn name.
Some dumb-as-shit fuck-wit who used to be called something else renames himself to a name which happens to be my name, makes a fortune selling worthless crap to mindless zombies, and now I'm supposed to stop using my name or change my name because of said fuck-wit?
You are completely full of shit, and I'm amazed that the idiots who moderated you could possibly moderate your comment as being insightful, when its hogwash.
This article and many others convince me that Lindows is just what we need to bring GNU/Linux to the masses.
They're engaging in very aggressive, very smart business.
Firstly, naming it Lindows. Sounds like Windows, but doesn't violate the trademark, as a US Court found; partially because, to the dismay of the fuckwits at MS, they don't have rights over everything that sounds like Windows; partially because, as the court also found, Windows is a generic name. This move makes it more likely that Windows users will convert over.
Secondly, making their website look like Apple's Web site, and making their default desktop setup looking like a mix between WinXP and OSX. This helps to bring over Mac and Windows users.
Thirdly, aggressively pursuing OEMs and third parties to sell PC's with Lindows pre-installed. The partnership with Walmart is particularly brilliant. Millions of people shop at Walmart to get a value, and Lindows can capitalize on that by allowing people to get tons of software and a good OS on a $500 dollar PC with the monitor included. Most people already have printers, so it isn't necessary to include the cost of a printer.
Fourthly, by implying this relationship with AOL. Yes, its sneaky, but the only way a company can beat MS and Apple is to play by their game. It doesn't matter that they use sly tactics; what matters is that they're our natural allies.
Fifthly, by basing their distribution around Debian GNU/Linux. Couldn't have picked a more solid distro to base it off of. Also, being true to the GNU ideal will please the faithful.
Sixthly, for, while obeying the GPL, not offering the source code for download over the web free of charge, nor offering their binaries for download free of charge. The GNU GPL does not require that you give away the source for free, it only requires that you mail people the source if requested at no more than what it costs you to mail it to them. GNU GPL also doesn't require that you offer binaries for download over the web. Lindows is taking advantage of that, and employing a real business model. As dot.bomb taught us, its not a viable business model to plan your business around giving something away for free but hoping people will pay for it anyways.
Yes, Lindows is a serious business. Yes, they're aggressive. Yes, they're SOB's. But because their software is based off of the GPL'ed Debian, they're our SOB's. Lindows is a GNU/Linux distribution that will appeal to the masses by offering easy setup and configuration at a very cheap price. PC's sold with Lindows are definately much cheaper than the equivalent PC's sold with Windows. I see it gaining ground. I'd even suggest investing in Lindows as a stockholder.
The Congress has approved the new jerk-off tax. For every 10 jerks, one jerk must go to the government (you're governor). This bill was suggested by Bill Clinton. Additionally, for every 10 squirts, one squirt must go to the government.
If you're penis is 10 inches long, you owe one of those inches to the government.
The article you link to and your thoughts on the US Libertarian party are mis-informed half-truths. I've read their party platforms, and while there are things on there which I disagree with, there is certainly nothing on the platform which would (for example) allow one to conract one's self into slavery.
Yes, the point of trademark laws is to protect the name consumers have come to know a product by. Thus, it should protect Phoenix (Mozilla) before Phoenix Technologies, as most consumers know of Phoenix (Mozilla) but have never heard of Phoenix Technologies.
Well, its a start, recognizing he edges in simple images.
Yes, this only works well for relatively simple images -- you won't be able to zoom in on complex images with edge-retention.
But at least its a start. The way to go about these things is to try to figure out how people can look at a wallet-sized picture and turn it into a poster without introducing blurs or pixelation. Yes, our eyes can see at a very high level of resolution, but we're not capable of consciously discerning the entirity of that resolution in a conscious manner.
We are, in short, capable of recognizing (in a portrait) where the person's head ends, what lines define their eyes, nose, ears, hair, etc. We're also able to recognize what gradiated things (such as the increasing darkness as you approach the side of the face) should remain smooth and continuous. The idea is to allow computers to also recognize that, thus expand a wallet-sized picture into something the size of the entire screen.
Obviously, you can't add detail where it wasn't present before. If the picture is too small to make out the freckles on the girl's face, they won't show up in the magnification. But you can at least have a realistic blow-up function.
Guessing edges and smoothing them out -- impressive. That's basically what a human artist does when (s)he takes a miniature picture and uses it to make a painting.
When we draw a larger version of something, we don't have pixelated or blurred edges. Its great that algorithms can finally realize what an edge is and not blur it.
Your idea of how the law should work is based around the misconceptions of the ignorant, which is absurd.
You think that two companies shouldn't be allowed to have names that sound alike, such as "Widget" and "Blodget"? This is nonsense.
Trademark laws are supposed to exist for the benefit of consumers. More often than not, they work against consumers, and allow big corporate interests to split up the language among them. Coca Cola once threatened to sue a book-seller for putting the quote, "It's the real thing" on back of the book, as a promotion for it. Yes, I'm sure that the average consumer would go out meaning to buy a Coke and buy a book instead. This type of non-sense is all too typical.
With regards to this specific case, no one has ever heard of Phoenix Technologies. I'm from NY and I've never heard of that company in my life. I doubt there are many other net-goers who had heard of it prior to this/. story. Yet, many of us had heard of the Phoenix, the Mozilla-based web browser. Perhaps Phoenix Technologies should change its name, as it isn't as well known as Phoenix.
Why should we all have to change the way we refer to a software program because some company no-one's ever heard of before has a fit? If bothered with this trademark non-sense and tried to make sure that no-one had a trademark on a name before we named a software package something, we'd never have names for any software packages.
Like I said, trademarks should benefit the consumer. Many of us have come to know Phoenix (Mozilla) by that name. Now Phoenix Technologies wants them to rename it. That will only confuse people who want to download Phoenix (Mozilla). So, how is this helping the consumer?
Also off-topic. Whoever wrote that essay has obviously never paid any attention to what Libertarians are saying.
Here's the basic Libertarian philosophy, from which all other Libertarian principles can be derived: You should be free to do whatever you want, so long as you don't violate someone elses rights. Hence, the only thing which can be termed a crime is that which violates someone elses rights; prositution, drug-use, homosexual relations, abortion, and other victimless "crimes" as defined by today's laws are not in fact real crimes.
Libertarians seek to combine absolute economic freedom with absolute social freedom. Maybe they are extremists, but extremism in defense of Liberty is not a bad thing.
Libertarians do not support corporations mistreating people. They do not support the enslavement of others. Ihe basic tenants of their party forbit this. The author of this essay speaks of all the great corporate evils which Libertarians would allow, but that's simply not true. Libertarians don't support corporations as we commonly think of them. Libertarians belive that incorporation should not provide any protection from liability. In other words, they don't believe in "corporations rights". They only believe in the rights of people (which corporations aren't), not abstract organizations (which have no rights and have no right to exist). Thus, under the Libertarian scheme, those who make decisions in corporations aren't regulated by law; they're regulated by full liability for those decisions. If they order for toxins to be dumped into the water, they are liable for destruction of other people's property (as toxins in the water spread) and for any damage which that may cause (which may mean murder or assault, if people are injured or killed because of it).
Libertarians support more (namely all) social freedoms and economic freedoms than do the Democratic and Republican party put together. In short, they subscribe to the best views of the Democratic and Republican parties, and then some; they also support those economic and social freedoms which neither party supports. The economic freedom to, for example, keep the money you've earned; the economic freedom to, for example, engage in the profession of one's choice. They support the social freedoms to, for example, engage in any type of consentual sexual relationship with another adult capable of consent, including homosexual relations, incestual relations, & prostitution (something which neither party supports); they support the social freedom of speech, and mandate that there be no restriction on pornography except that it not be child-pornography.
Republicans and Democrats are really just milder versions of Nazis and Communists, neither of whom support freedom; they differ from the Nazi's and Communists only in magnitude, not type.
The Libertarian party is the only party which does not sell out your economic and social freedoms, and does not sell you out to special interests. They're the only party which supports all human rights, not just those that they find conveniant to support.
The general public has never even heard of Phoenix technologies. Before this article, most of us on/. have never heard of Phoenix technologies. For those who have, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to distinguish between an internet browser and whatever it is that Phoenix makes. The mozilla developers chose the name Phoenix for their browser, having never heard of Phoenix technologies. Why should they have to change it because Phoenix technologies is whining? The simple fact is that the Phoenix web browser is more commonly and widely known than Phoenix Technologies.
No, trademark law does not make sense in this case. Its just a way for corporations to divide up the dictionary amongst themselves. Goliath beating up on David.
Slashdot Mirror
Fischer is the greatest chess player who ever lived, and several pegs above the likes of Kramnick and Kasparov. The idea that he's a Russian spy is absurd. Fischer hates the Russians. He accused them of conspiring to keep the chess champion a Russian. He said the games between Kramnick and Kasparov were pre-determined. He is certainly not a Russian spy.
The other ridiculous thing that the US gov't has done to Fischer is threatned to arrest him should he ever return to the US, because he played a chess tournament in a nation which was under "sanctions" by the US. Fischer tore up a letter from the US gov't demanding that he not play in that nation. He has the right to play chess where-ever the fuck he wants to. He shouldn't face punishment for carrying out his livelihood in a nation the US "doesn't approve of". He could play fucking Chess in Iraq and make millions for the Iraq government. That's his fucking right.
Yes, Fischer has some obnoxious views, and has said some cruel and hateful things about the Jews, and has said some outrageous things about 9/11. Again, that's his right. He has the right to say whatever the fuck he wants to. Quite frankly, I can understand him for hating the US. He is the only US citizen who has brought honor to the US in the chess arena -- the only American who's ever been anything in chess. And not only was/is he good, he was/is the best. The US government repaid him by threatening to arrest him because he played Chess in a "sanctioned nation". That doesn't mean its right to say that the 9,000 people who died at 9/11 deserved it, but he still has the right to say that.
As for his hatred of the Jews, though I'm not saying its good, he still has the right to hold whatever opinions he wants. Though it would make more sense if he hated Christians, as he was scammed by the "Worldwide Church of God". But from his perspective, he's been wronged by Jews. He's particularly enraged about all of the profiteering that has been going on around his name, while he hasn't received a dime. Movies like "Searching for Bobby Fischer" and biographies of him were made, yet he's received no compensation. In short, other people are making billions of dollars off of his name, and he attributes this mainly to the Jews. That doesn't justify hating all Jews, but its still his right to do so.
They added their proprietary code to a GPL'ed program and distributed it. The only legal way to do that is by GPL'ing their proprietary code, which they didn't.
Thus, you need not heed their meritless threats. Anything distribute along with your GPL'ed code should also be GPL'ed, and if it isn't, you can force it to be so (and you have the right to simply distribute it under the GPL).
The impact this has on their business is not your concern. Its their fault for incorporating their add-ons onto GPL'ed code. There should be no compromise here: you should force anything that was distributed with your GPL'ed code to be GPL'ed as well. Simply distribute the entire thing under the GPL, as is your right to do so. If they try to sue you, they don't have a leg to stand on because the GPL demands that any modification/add-ons to GPL'ed code be GPL'ed.
MS has many divisions within it. They sell games, hardware, gaming platforms, palm-top software, Office software, and OS', and much more. This story proves that the Office and OS divisions are making all of the money, financing MS' raids into other areas. All other departments are losing money out the wazoo.
What this proves is that every other MS product is so crappy and so poor selling, that they're losing brickloads of money on it.
In other words, the only reason they can venture into other markets is because they're using their MONOPOLY in one market to finance their ventures elsewhere, which otherwise would fail on their own crappy merits.
This is just on piece of the picture of MS abusing its monopoly powers.
Ugghh, yesss...vibrating shoes. Mmmmmmmm!
I can see it now, people walking down the street having orgasms from the shockwaves of their vibrating shoes.
Not to knock on the guy who made ALICE, its the best we've got so far.
But its obvious that its pretty stupid. I was ROTFLOLing while reading this stupid conversation. It seems like the sort of thing monkeys would say to eachother if they could talk.
Yes, I'm indeed very fearful that artificial intelligence will, in the near future, be a threat to my job and the jobs of other human beings. Its pretty obvious I have a lot to wory about.
I agree with you, and was in error when speaking of X and enforcing UI standards. The main thing, though, is that somewhere UI standards need to be enforced. The best way to do it is to allow the user to decide what various key combinations do, and have those key combinations work for every app, where possible. I agree that it is a little unfortunate that we have two major widget toolkits, but only when people decide to mix them. People should stick with one toolkit if they want consistency. Also, the toolkits need to do a better job of enforcing (for example) keyboard combination standards.
As many other people have pointed out, X is fine. Problems people have with "X" are really problems with either the implementation of X, or problems with their widget set. People complain X is slow. Now, X isn't slow: you're using a crappy implementation, or crappy drivers. Its not X's fault. Get better drivers, get a better or update implementation. Go to XFree86.org or try out Accelerated X. If you want a certain feature that's not there, its probably your widget set.
In short, before you say X sucks, identify your problems with it, and ask some experts about how to resolve them.
One thing that I will criticize X for, however, is that they don't enforce some kind of standard for interfaces. One thing Linux does need is standardized interfaces and key combinations between applications. There doesn't need to be one standard, but apps installed on a user's computer should all obey the user-defined standards. CTRL-V should always past...it shouldn't be CTRL-V or ALT-V or CTRL-P depending on the app. Same thing with menu's and stuff. Why should every developer have to reinvent the wheel? And why should the user have to reorient himself for basic key combinations for every program?
I hope you got paid for your time; if you didn't, then that's messed up.
If you accept temporary quick-fix jobs from old employers, you should demand a higher salary per hour than you would normally get.
If she's not willing to pay you a reasonable salary for your time, then you shouldn't do it. Imagine if it were vica-versa, and you called up your old company sand said, "I don't work for you any more, but just for old time's sake, could you please send me a pay check?"
WRONG, the EULA would not be enforcible because they never had the right to license the software under a EULA in the first place, as they based their software around GPL'ed code.
Ignoring someone else's GPL'ed license and slapping a EULA around a mod/addition to a GPL'ed program is not legit, and is completely null and void. The people who EULA'ed it would be lying; the code is actually licensed under the GPL.
Stealing something that belongs to someone else and putting your name on it doesn't make it your's.
Just use a handle for the work, and always attach to it something that only YOU can decode (i.e., it's been gPGP'ed), so that if you ever want to prove you're the author, you can do so.
Post it to a geocities home page from a public terminal using a Yahoo login name you created from a public terminal. This way, its completely anonymous and there's no way it can be traced to you.
Copyrights still apply if the author is anonymous. Look at the many publishers in ages ago who published under a pseudoname. You may not be able to enforce you're copyleft if you want to remain anonymous, however.
But, I don't see how that matters. Lets say that you GPL a program which functions as a 3D rendering engine, but is just the core -- not the actual UI. Then some greedy company comes along and builds a user-friendly program around you're GPL'ed program, but releases it under a EULA. That EULA is automatically void, and anyone who gets that program can reverse engineer it to get the source, and may be on legal standing to demand that the company give them the source.
Alternatively, you can submit it anonymously to the FSF, then they'll enforce it for you.
Its really that simple. They don't contribute ANYTHING to the process, and they get tons of money from it.
The vast majority of scientists who did the research did so using government grants; the vast majority of scientists who did the reviews either did so for free or were being paid by government money (i.e., the government gives money to universities, as well as tax breaks).
Then, after all this is done with public money, they privitize the information, making US the taxpayers pay again for what we've already paid for.
Taxpayers pay alot of money to contribute to scientific research; they should be able to access the results, research papers, review papers, and abstracts free of charge.
Anything else is just crooked and unconstitutionally forces the taxpayer to pay again for what which (s)he already owns.
If ANY of the TAXPAYER's MONEY is used for the research or reviews, it should ALL be available to the taxpayers for free, in the public domain. If you don't want to make it available free, then you shouldn't use ANY government money.
In other news, McDonnell, world-renowned maker of fighter jets including the F-15, has decided to sue McDonalds, world-renown maker of fried heart-attack hamburgers.
McDonnell is apparently worried that the US Government, intending to go to McDonnell.com and buy an airplane, will instead go to McDonalds.com and buy a Happy Meal.
"Naturally," a McDonnell representative said, "We don't want McDonalds taking advantage of our good name and making 15 million dollars on a Happy Meal because the US Government got confused."
McDonald's has filed counter-suite, claiming that a family wanting to buy a happy-meal for $4.50 will become confused, walk into McDonnell Corp and buy a F-15 for $4.5 Million.
"Obviously," a McDonald's spokesperson said, "there is a great potential for consumer-confusion here. We just want to make sure that consumers intending to buy a Happy Meal will buy a Happy Meal and not an air-plane."
The law also used to say that women were walking incubators and didn't have the right to choose. It also used to say that African American's were "2/3rds humans" and that they were "property". When the law is wrong, it deserves no heed nor respect, but should outrightly be ignored as crap.
You stupid idiot fuckwit, I have just as much to use my name for any venture in life I choose as does anyone else, whether they're already well known in an area or not.
This isn't even about that. Bill Wyman is an intelligent writer, Bill Wyman a coked-up crackhead bassist idiot.
If my name was Calvin Klein, it'd be perfectly fine for me to open a retail clothing store with something like "Calvin Klein's" on top of it. I, Calvin Klein, would have just as much right to use my name to further my endeavers as some rich snob named Calvin Klein.
If Calvin Klein Co. doesn't like it, they're welcome to try to work it out with me, or try to clarify matters. They, however, have no right to force me to rename my store.
Might does not make right. Just because they have a well-established name doesn't mean they can prevent other's who happen to have that name from birth from using their own name to further their endeavers.
Sorry, but if I were named Calvin Klein, me using Calvin Klein to further my endeaver's doesn't violate Calvin Klein Co's rights. In fact, companies should have no rights; only individuals -- actual real people -- should have rights. Giving companies rights was as unconstitutional as allowing people to avoid personal responsibility for crimes by incorporating themselves.
What bullshit.
Sorry, but I'm not going to include a disclaimer on everything I write if some jerk-off decides to change his name to mine and gets famous.
If Rolling Stone Bill has a problem with possible confusion, its HIS responsibility to clear it up, since he's the one who has the problem.
Sorry, but the right to use your name is as much a birth-right as the right to freedom of speech. Besides, the author Bill was named Bill long before stoned-out Bill decided to change his name to Bill.
Sorry, but might doesn't make right. Just because two people have the same name (or one person and a company has the same name) doesn't mean that the one which is more successful should trump. If there's confusion, its up to whichever Bill has a problem with that confusion to clear it up.
Are you on fucking crack or something?
Sorry, but fucking intellectual property isn't going to stop me from using my own damn name.
Some dumb-as-shit fuck-wit who used to be called something else renames himself to a name which happens to be my name, makes a fortune selling worthless crap to mindless zombies, and now I'm supposed to stop using my name or change my name because of said fuck-wit?
You are completely full of shit, and I'm amazed that the idiots who moderated you could possibly moderate your comment as being insightful, when its hogwash.
This article and many others convince me that Lindows is just what we need to bring GNU/Linux to the masses.
They're engaging in very aggressive, very smart business.
Firstly, naming it Lindows. Sounds like Windows, but doesn't violate the trademark, as a US Court found; partially because, to the dismay of the fuckwits at MS, they don't have rights over everything that sounds like Windows; partially because, as the court also found, Windows is a generic name. This move makes it more likely that Windows users will convert over.
Secondly, making their website look like Apple's Web site, and making their default desktop setup looking like a mix between WinXP and OSX. This helps to bring over Mac and Windows users.
Thirdly, aggressively pursuing OEMs and third parties to sell PC's with Lindows pre-installed. The partnership with Walmart is particularly brilliant. Millions of people shop at Walmart to get a value, and Lindows can capitalize on that by allowing people to get tons of software and a good OS on a $500 dollar PC with the monitor included. Most people already have printers, so it isn't necessary to include the cost of a printer.
Fourthly, by implying this relationship with AOL. Yes, its sneaky, but the only way a company can beat MS and Apple is to play by their game. It doesn't matter that they use sly tactics; what matters is that they're our natural allies.
Fifthly, by basing their distribution around Debian GNU/Linux. Couldn't have picked a more solid distro to base it off of. Also, being true to the GNU ideal will please the faithful.
Sixthly, for, while obeying the GPL, not offering the source code for download over the web free of charge, nor offering their binaries for download free of charge. The GNU GPL does not require that you give away the source for free, it only requires that you mail people the source if requested at no more than what it costs you to mail it to them. GNU GPL also doesn't require that you offer binaries for download over the web. Lindows is taking advantage of that, and employing a real business model. As dot.bomb taught us, its not a viable business model to plan your business around giving something away for free but hoping people will pay for it anyways.
Yes, Lindows is a serious business. Yes, they're aggressive. Yes, they're SOB's. But because their software is based off of the GPL'ed Debian, they're our SOB's. Lindows is a GNU/Linux distribution that will appeal to the masses by offering easy setup and configuration at a very cheap price. PC's sold with Lindows are definately much cheaper than the equivalent PC's sold with Windows. I see it gaining ground. I'd even suggest investing in Lindows as a stockholder.
The Congress has approved the new jerk-off tax. For every 10 jerks, one jerk must go to the government (you're governor). This bill was suggested by Bill Clinton. Additionally, for every 10 squirts, one squirt must go to the government.
If you're penis is 10 inches long, you owe one of those inches to the government.
The article you link to and your thoughts on the US Libertarian party are mis-informed half-truths. I've read their party platforms, and while there are things on there which I disagree with, there is certainly nothing on the platform which would (for example) allow one to conract one's self into slavery.
Yes, the point of trademark laws is to protect the name consumers have come to know a product by. Thus, it should protect Phoenix (Mozilla) before Phoenix Technologies, as most consumers know of Phoenix (Mozilla) but have never heard of Phoenix Technologies.
Well, its a start, recognizing he edges in simple images.
Yes, this only works well for relatively simple images -- you won't be able to zoom in on complex images with edge-retention.
But at least its a start. The way to go about these things is to try to figure out how people can look at a wallet-sized picture and turn it into a poster without introducing blurs or pixelation. Yes, our eyes can see at a very high level of resolution, but we're not capable of consciously discerning the entirity of that resolution in a conscious manner.
We are, in short, capable of recognizing (in a portrait) where the person's head ends, what lines define their eyes, nose, ears, hair, etc. We're also able to recognize what gradiated things (such as the increasing darkness as you approach the side of the face) should remain smooth and continuous. The idea is to allow computers to also recognize that, thus expand a wallet-sized picture into something the size of the entire screen.
Obviously, you can't add detail where it wasn't present before. If the picture is too small to make out the freckles on the girl's face, they won't show up in the magnification. But you can at least have a realistic blow-up function.
Guessing edges and smoothing them out -- impressive. That's basically what a human artist does when (s)he takes a miniature picture and uses it to make a painting.
When we draw a larger version of something, we don't have pixelated or blurred edges. Its great that algorithms can finally realize what an edge is and not blur it.
Your idea of how the law should work is based around the misconceptions of the ignorant, which is absurd.
/. story. Yet, many of us had heard of the Phoenix, the Mozilla-based web browser. Perhaps Phoenix Technologies should change its name, as it isn't as well known as Phoenix.
You think that two companies shouldn't be allowed to have names that sound alike, such as "Widget" and "Blodget"? This is nonsense.
Trademark laws are supposed to exist for the benefit of consumers. More often than not, they work against consumers, and allow big corporate interests to split up the language among them. Coca Cola once threatened to sue a book-seller for putting the quote, "It's the real thing" on back of the book, as a promotion for it. Yes, I'm sure that the average consumer would go out meaning to buy a Coke and buy a book instead. This type of non-sense is all too typical.
With regards to this specific case, no one has ever heard of Phoenix Technologies. I'm from NY and I've never heard of that company in my life. I doubt there are many other net-goers who had heard of it prior to this
Why should we all have to change the way we refer to a software program because some company no-one's ever heard of before has a fit? If bothered with this trademark non-sense and tried to make sure that no-one had a trademark on a name before we named a software package something, we'd never have names for any software packages.
Like I said, trademarks should benefit the consumer. Many of us have come to know Phoenix (Mozilla) by that name. Now Phoenix Technologies wants them to rename it. That will only confuse people who want to download Phoenix (Mozilla). So, how is this helping the consumer?
Also off-topic. Whoever wrote that essay has obviously never paid any attention to what Libertarians are saying.
Here's the basic Libertarian philosophy, from which all other Libertarian principles can be derived: You should be free to do whatever you want, so long as you don't violate someone elses rights. Hence, the only thing which can be termed a crime is that which violates someone elses rights; prositution, drug-use, homosexual relations, abortion, and other victimless "crimes" as defined by today's laws are not in fact real crimes.
Libertarians seek to combine absolute economic freedom with absolute social freedom. Maybe they are extremists, but extremism in defense of Liberty is not a bad thing.
Libertarians do not support corporations mistreating people. They do not support the enslavement of others. Ihe basic tenants of their party forbit this. The author of this essay speaks of all the great corporate evils which Libertarians would allow, but that's simply not true. Libertarians don't support corporations as we commonly think of them. Libertarians belive that incorporation should not provide any protection from liability. In other words, they don't believe in "corporations rights". They only believe in the rights of people (which corporations aren't), not abstract organizations (which have no rights and have no right to exist). Thus, under the Libertarian scheme, those who make decisions in corporations aren't regulated by law; they're regulated by full liability for those decisions. If they order for toxins to be dumped into the water, they are liable for destruction of other people's property (as toxins in the water spread) and for any damage which that may cause (which may mean murder or assault, if people are injured or killed because of it).
Libertarians support more (namely all) social freedoms and economic freedoms than do the Democratic and Republican party put together. In short, they subscribe to the best views of the Democratic and Republican parties, and then some; they also support those economic and social freedoms which neither party supports. The economic freedom to, for example, keep the money you've earned; the economic freedom to, for example, engage in the profession of one's choice. They support the social freedoms to, for example, engage in any type of consentual sexual relationship with another adult capable of consent, including homosexual relations, incestual relations, & prostitution (something which neither party supports); they support the social freedom of speech, and mandate that there be no restriction on pornography except that it not be child-pornography.
Republicans and Democrats are really just milder versions of Nazis and Communists, neither of whom support freedom; they differ from the Nazi's and Communists only in magnitude, not type.
The Libertarian party is the only party which does not sell out your economic and social freedoms, and does not sell you out to special interests. They're the only party which supports all human rights, not just those that they find conveniant to support.
The general public has never even heard of Phoenix technologies. Before this article, most of us on /. have never heard of Phoenix technologies. For those who have, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to distinguish between an internet browser and whatever it is that Phoenix makes. The mozilla developers chose the name Phoenix for their browser, having never heard of Phoenix technologies. Why should they have to change it because Phoenix technologies is whining? The simple fact is that the Phoenix web browser is more commonly and widely known than Phoenix Technologies.
No, trademark law does not make sense in this case. Its just a way for corporations to divide up the dictionary amongst themselves. Goliath beating up on David.