I press d. I expect a d to come up on the screen. I press it again. I expect the same thing to happen. It should not depend on what happened previously. People don't think in terms of branched trees.
Surely the problem with US patents isn't that they're software based but because there's a lack of novelty. This is a problem in all areas of inniovation, not just software.
Why was the RSA public key encryption patent such a terrible thing, whereas a patent for a hardware encrytion device is a good thing?
Certain types of software inventions can be patented in Europe, as long as the have a "technological effect". The rules differ between countries (which is presumably why this bill is seen as needed), but what would this legislation permit that isn't already allowable in most countries?
If they weren't wanton lawbreakers, they wouldn't have been shot,
And they wouldn't have been if Tony Martin hadn't broken the law! I don't see the difference. He has a personal responsibility not to kill. Does being the victim of a crime put you above the law?
I will NEVER support the 'right' of someone to break into my house and steal my things.
Neither will I. This is not about the right to do that. It's about the right not to get shot.
I just don't accept that these kids presented any credible danger to his life or his family. Lethal force is excessive for protecting property.
Bullshit. There's a very good reason: they shouldn't have been there in the first place.
And Tony Martin shouldn't have been shooting at them. Tit for tat. Burglary is a crime. Shooting someone in the back is a much greater crime. If Mr. Martin didn't understand this, he's a psycho who deserves to be locked up.
Why are the Americans always so critical of British food? Surely the country that gave thew world the big mac and the hot dog, and where cheese comes in a tube has no right to criticise.
I was thinking in terms of shooting at them against shooting to miss as a warning. But, yes, I dare say it would be difficult for a trained marksman to deliberately wound someone with a shotgun.
Just a clarification. As for the rest of your post, you make some interesting points.
He also knew they were frightened off and running away.
He shot with deliberate intention to kill, or at least to seriously injure without caring whether he killed.
If he genuinely believed they were there to harm him, and were off to arm themselves, I'd quike likely agree with you, but I don't believe that for a second.
Whether the criminals were wrong is not relevent. Just because what they were doing was wrong, doesn't give the victim tit-for-tat right to do what's wrong.
One could even argue that if he felt that it was wrong for them to break the law, it should also be wrong for him to break the law. Otherwise, it seems both parties had opted out of the law (because the criminals felt it was more profitable and Tony Martin felt it was inadequate), and there's no reason that the criminals shouldn't up the ante a little further, and come back fully armed and possibly with a bulldozer to protect themselves.
Oh, quite. I'd have had a lot more sympathy for him if he'd shouted a warning, or they were attacking or something. The Tony Martin case just sounded like an act of revenge.
. If the burglar didn't enter Tony Martin's house illegally, he wouldn't have been shot, period. How hard is it to *not* break in to someone else's house?
About as hard as not shooting to kill.
If you decide burglary is the life for you, you must prepare for the possibility of being killed. Breaking and entering is a serious crime, and a serious violation of the homeowner,
Killed perhaps. Bur murdered in retribution? I think we're more civilised than this.
because they have NO IDEA whether the burglar is there to kill or simply steal.
They'd brokwn in several times before to steal. It's reasonable to assume this was their plan. Even if it wasn't, they had been prevented from doing this.
Maybe he's running to get his gun, how the hell do you know?
Is this likely? A burglar has access to weapons, commits a crime, but doesn't actually think perhaps the weapon may be useful. Having been shot at, rather than retreating, why would he go back?
Either way, that person shouldn't be there. Trespassers will be shot, survivors will be shot again. Period.
So is it up to private individuals to convict and punish criminals?
Last year, Kenneth Faulkner shot and wounded a burglar. He assumed - incorrectly - that the burglar was armed since he had previously stolen guns from Mr Faulkner.
The CPS decided not to prosecute since the assumption that his life was in danger was reasonable.
Tony Martin shot and killed a burglar who was running away! His life was not in danger.
The whole confusiopn started when a farmer shot a burglar in the back (after repeated break-ins, and the police doing nothing). He got a lot of public sympathy, but the court found him guilty of murder. Presumably they felt that no matter how pissed off you get with burglars, shooting one of them dead, when firing a warning shot would have been sufficient, was excessive.
Yeah, but if the guy who set up the webcam had actually been in the house and tried to stop the burglar, he'd be the one in jail, at least until recently.
Only if he'd, say, tied him up and set fire to him, or shot him dead when he was running away.
You are allowed to use reasonable force to repel intruders, and always have been.
I agree with your points, but MS are treading on dangerous ground if they actually plan to enforce the EULA clause that prevent you from using MS apps on non-MS operating systems.
Indeed. These analogies irritate me. When you try to fix them, so that they're actually the same situation you start to overcomplicate.
Such an analogy should be used to illustrate the point. Not prove the point. Milk and software are very different things. What applies to one may not, in fact, apply to another.
If the US Small claims court is anything like the English Small Claims track, you can't get compensation for time spent.
It's not too bad though. These things tend to be fairly informal, and typically rule against the party who's acting unfairly rather than the one with the biggest pockets. If you explain that you legally buy a product, try to act in a reasonable manner, and the company is making it impossible for you to use this product, the court is quite likely to see your side of it.
I heard Microsoft bullied Apple into sharing a lot of their GUI technology by threatening to withold Word. Presumably they would have done the same for the patents.
Slashdot Mirror
Multi function buttons are not intuitive.
I press d. I expect a d to come up on the screen. I press it again. I expect the same thing to happen. It should not depend on what happened previously. People don't think in terms of branched trees.
Surely the problem with US patents isn't that they're software based but because there's a lack of novelty. This is a problem in all areas of inniovation, not just software.
Why was the RSA public key encryption patent such a terrible thing, whereas a patent for a hardware encrytion device is a good thing?
Certain types of software inventions can be patented in Europe, as long as the have a "technological effect". The rules differ between countries (which is presumably why this bill is seen as needed), but what would this legislation permit that isn't already allowable in most countries?
So why is this such a bad thing?
If they weren't wanton lawbreakers, they wouldn't have been shot,
And they wouldn't have been if Tony Martin hadn't broken the law! I don't see the difference. He has a personal responsibility not to kill. Does being the victim of a crime put you above the law?
I will NEVER support the 'right' of someone to break into my house and steal my things.
Neither will I. This is not about the right to do that. It's about the right not to get shot.
I just don't accept that these kids presented any credible danger to his life or his family. Lethal force is excessive for protecting property.
Bullshit. There's a very good reason: they shouldn't have been there in the first place.
And Tony Martin shouldn't have been shooting at them. Tit for tat. Burglary is a crime. Shooting someone in the back is a much greater crime. If Mr. Martin didn't understand this, he's a psycho who deserves to be locked up.
Why are the Americans always so critical of British food? Surely the country that gave thew world the big mac and the hot dog, and where cheese comes in a tube has no right to criticise.
Shooting/Not shooting to kill is for the movies.
I was thinking in terms of shooting at them against shooting to miss as a warning. But, yes, I dare say it would be difficult for a trained marksman to deliberately wound someone with a shotgun.
Just a clarification. As for the rest of your post, you make some interesting points.
You don't pull a gun on someone unless you mean to kill them.
Why not? Guns are very effective for frightening people.
Okay, but here's what I believe.
Tony Martin knew they only wanted to steal.
He also knew they were frightened off and running away.
He shot with deliberate intention to kill, or at least to seriously injure without caring whether he killed.
If he genuinely believed they were there to harm him, and were off to arm themselves, I'd quike likely agree with you, but I don't believe that for a second.
Whether the criminals were wrong is not relevent. Just because what they were doing was wrong, doesn't give the victim tit-for-tat right to do what's wrong.
One could even argue that if he felt that it was wrong for them to break the law, it should also be wrong for him to break the law. Otherwise, it seems both parties had opted out of the law (because the criminals felt it was more profitable and Tony Martin felt it was inadequate), and there's no reason that the criminals shouldn't up the ante a little further, and come back fully armed and possibly with a bulldozer to protect themselves.
Oh, quite. I'd have had a lot more sympathy for him if he'd shouted a warning, or they were attacking or something. The Tony Martin case just sounded like an act of revenge.
. If the burglar didn't enter Tony Martin's house illegally, he wouldn't have been shot, period. How hard is it to *not* break in to someone else's house?
About as hard as not shooting to kill.
If you decide burglary is the life for you, you must prepare for the possibility of being killed. Breaking and entering is a serious crime, and a serious violation of the homeowner,
Killed perhaps. Bur murdered in retribution? I think we're more civilised than this.
because they have NO IDEA whether the burglar is there to kill or simply steal.
They'd brokwn in several times before to steal. It's reasonable to assume this was their plan. Even if it wasn't, they had been prevented from doing this.
Maybe he's running to get his gun, how the hell do you know?
Is this likely? A burglar has access to weapons, commits a crime, but doesn't actually think perhaps the weapon may be useful. Having been shot at, rather than retreating, why would he go back?
Either way, that person shouldn't be there. Trespassers will be shot, survivors will be shot again. Period.
So is it up to private individuals to convict and punish criminals?
That which a reasonable man considers reasonable. It's a deliberate legal grey area.
Last year, Kenneth Faulkner shot and wounded a burglar. He assumed - incorrectly - that the burglar was armed since he had previously stolen guns from Mr Faulkner.
The CPS decided not to prosecute since the assumption that his life was in danger was reasonable.
Tony Martin shot and killed a burglar who was running away! His life was not in danger.
The whole confusiopn started when a farmer shot a burglar in the back (after repeated break-ins, and the police doing nothing). He got a lot of public sympathy, but the court found him guilty of murder. Presumably they felt that no matter how pissed off you get with burglars, shooting one of them dead, when firing a warning shot would have been sufficient, was excessive.
For more details, google for "Tony Martin"
Yeah, but if the guy who set up the webcam had actually been in the house and tried to stop the burglar, he'd be the one in jail, at least until recently.
Only if he'd, say, tied him up and set fire to him, or shot him dead when he was running away.
You are allowed to use reasonable force to repel intruders, and always have been.
Much as I hate it, burglarize is an accepted term in the US.
"The webcam made our job really easy," added DS Page. "It was a pleasure to show him the pictures and see his expression when we interviewed him."
If only they had a camera...
I agree with your points, but MS are treading on dangerous ground if they actually plan to enforce the EULA clause that prevent you from using MS apps on non-MS operating systems.
If Firefox is breaking all those downloads, then something must be wrong.
Indeed. These analogies irritate me. When you try to fix them, so that they're actually the same situation you start to overcomplicate.
Such an analogy should be used to illustrate the point. Not prove the point. Milk and software are very different things. What applies to one may not, in fact, apply to another.
If the US Small claims court is anything like the English Small Claims track, you can't get compensation for time spent.
It's not too bad though. These things tend to be fairly informal, and typically rule against the party who's acting unfairly rather than the one with the biggest pockets. If you explain that you legally buy a product, try to act in a reasonable manner, and the company is making it impossible for you to use this product, the court is quite likely to see your side of it.
Don't make it snazzy, make it *functional*, snazzy can come later.
Or not at all. Personally, I turn off just about any eye candy. Don't even need rendered window dragging.
I suspect it was a joke.
Who cares. It's not like the books didn't take any liberties with the original story. The TV series changed stuff as well.
I heard Microsoft bullied Apple into sharing a lot of their GUI technology by threatening to withold Word. Presumably they would have done the same for the patents.