Go ahead and disagree with my religion. I won't disagree with them, but I won't automatically attack them, either.
I *have* seen every FSF (not Linux or OSS, just GPL/FSF) zealot on/. I've had the pleasre to converse with has insulted me personally and directly. I don't remember the last time I was in a religious discussion and I purposefully insulted someone (not just accidently offend--and even that's not easily recallable.)
Truth be told, I think the FSF has a lot going for it, and that if they do succeed in changing the world they'll make it a better place. But I'm not about to waste my time helping them when they've got nothing but insulting zealots advocating for them. *sigh*
Although this might sound like a joke, it would be interesting to back-trace whether someone or some organisation started marketing this standard actively some time in the recent history. Or is just an accident?
I blame Microsoft. Or maybe Creative.
The first GUI PC I saw (A late-Windows 3.11 machine) had audio settings for "CD-Quality," "Radio Quality," and "Telephone Quality."
Er, you CAN copy off the iPod. You just have to do it yourself, you can't have it automatically happen.
Considering that most of us have a single PC that is our "main PC," their move makes sense. Plus it ensures that if you DO move an MP3 illegally, YOU'RE doing it, not Apple.
"The impact of free software (also known as open source software)"
They mean OSS, not necessarilly "free as in freedom."
"To underscore our commitment to this phenomenon, Red Hat is pleased to provide sources.redhat.com, a site aimed at providing first-rate hosting of open source projects for software developers"
The page you linked to isn't Red Hat's coproate page; it's a "community developer" page that they probably write up as a PR move, the same way MS writes up advertising.
The one where they not only reference "Free Software" MULTIPLE TIMES but include 3 links to the FSF in the space of about 2 paragraphs?
"Free Software" (capitalized) is used twice, "free software" (not capitalized) is used twice. "Open Source" is used four times, once capitalized and thrice not so.
Nothing on the text in that page denotes a belief in the "software freedoms" put forth by the FSF. Sharing of source code is a good thing that leads to a better infrastruture, but the moral argument isn't even mentioned. I suspect that the "Open Source" / "Free Software" equality was on purpose.
Lastly, though it's almost grapsing at straws, the three links to GNU on that page are the kind of links that might be sent to a standards body. RH is looking for PR, not furtherance of Stallman's FSF agenda.
Feel like a fool? You should. On the plus side, you could probably get a job as a Slashdot editor considering the skill you just showed in spouting off without doing any basic double checking to make sure you're right before you post
Why, thank you. I'm building an excellent anecdotal record of FSF advocates who are uncritical zealots who attack anyone who disagreess with them! Way to go!
The average reader appears to take the stance that "Redhat exists to make money, and if this is what they have to do, then so be it." I find this insulting coming from a movement which is supposedly all about freedom.
It appears that free software is merely all about not paying for software and the downfall of microsoft.
Jeff, kindly go to http://www.redhat.com/ and find me a link to the FSF. Or even a reference to "Free Software."
Not everyone who uses Linux thinks that Free Software is a viable moral argument; some of them just use it because it is free-as-in-no-cost, not free-as-in-freedom.
But, even if they were advocates and zealous supporters of the FSF, it wouldn't be at cross purposes to kotow to Chinesse bullying over Taiwan. Free Software is about software freedoms, not necessarilly any other freedoms. (Sure, they probably go hand in hand, but there's a difference between a Linux Users Group and a Free Tibet concert.)
understanding that unlimited extensions equal an unlimited time.
Nah. the SC just needs to decide what the absolute limit to "reasonable time" is, and state that as their interpretation.
And when they decide in Disney's favor, that will be a big flashing green light for Congress to sell out all other IP-related protections for the citizens without a second thought.
Come again? (are you saying that IP protections are good or that they're bad? Hard to grammatically determine your meaning, even if I can guess it.)
Let's look at the various forms of IP law:
Trademarks: Allready long-term, with required renewal and defense. No real problems there.
Patents: Limited term, no extension, and it makes "trade secrets" a matter of the public record after 20 (or so) years.
Copyright: Good side -> artists and authors don't have to be paranoid about their work being stolen by shady producers. (Bad contracts, yes, but not simple theft.) Bad side -> it lasts so darn long...
Personally, I predict that Disney et all will win, but the SC will render an opinion with language that implies or outright states that the current setup is the extreme maximum that should be permitted to copyright--or at least that it's approaching a constitionally breaching overextension.
I asked my lawyer.... There is no breach of contact if I refuse to give you source code in this situation.
Are you telling me that your lawyer told you that, if you were to release a program "under the GPL", the FSF wouldn't have standing to take you to court for not releasing source code?
So, by your statement, MS could allow anyone to release IE "under the GPL", while keeping the source code closed and secret and NDA'd...
IANAL, but I think you're missing something. Then again, IANAL.
As for what is more free.. where did that come from? Do you think I'm arguing about which one is better of more free? I'm not, I'm simply correcting your grossly inaccurate analysis of what the GPL means.
(why oh why are GPL advocates so mean?)
The original thread, which you apparantly jumped into at the last moment, was discussing BSD. Specifically, someone asked how the BSD license could be consrtured as "more free" than the GPL.
As for "grossly inaccurate." Maybe about some fiddling detail about the GPL, but as for the basic purpose of it (to create a sticky copyleft license so as to advance the agenda of the FSF) and the basic meaning of it (the essential copyleft exchange)--well, I've hardly said anything on the subject, so how can I be "grossly inaccurate?"
The fact that the text of the GPL is copyright the FSF does not in any way equate to the FSF being able to sue anyone who violates the GPL
Yes, it does. If the FSF wanted to, they could (and likely would) go to court with someone flagrantly violating the GPL. Copyright infringement, breach of contract, and quite a few others that a lawyer could spell out for you.
Second: if I am the original author of the work, and I license it to YOU under the terms of the GPL, *I* am in NO WAY bound by the GPL.
You are, actually. You can re-distrubite and re-license your work with a differnet license, but you still have to follow the GPL--you have to give me source code, for example--or there's a breach of contract.
Finally, the original poster is correct that the GPL suggests a default.
The GPL creates a new "default" at the intended expense of the old. FSF / GNU has an agenda, and the GPL was designed to push that agenda.
Getting back to the original discussion, the BSD license folk don't have much of a unified agenda other than "make software," so it's emminently understandable to make the claim that BSD licenses are "more free" than the GPL.
The rates are, IIRC, 10% of revenues or 7% of expenses, whichever is greater. Non-profit orgs will still pay the 7% of expenses; not sure how "revenue" is defined for this.
Those are really basic buisness terms. Non-profit orgs still have "revenue" (money they take in) and "expenses" (money they pay out.)
A non-profit org who does more than just webcast would be well served to seperate the webcasting, though, unless there's allready a provision for that.
That's right. One has a place in society, the other is a rebellion against societal norms.
"Science" doesn't give a rat's ass if this is a planet or a cumquot; it's a stellar body, and what we call it doesn't matter.
This is a discussion of semantics & language, not "science." Finding a "catagory" to put it in matters only marginally more than deciding what name to call it.
Which logic led you from the 1) to 2) - the fact that you believe that one clever mind makes the best design - do you mean like Hitle, Mussolini or Stalin ? It would seem more logical to go into the conclusion that a larger open mass evolves and fixes problems, instead of getting stuck into one fixed way of thinking.
Creating something new takes one person. Greatness comes from single-minded authoirty reaching for the stars. Single people (or the rare closely knit small group) are ideal for this.
Committees, on the other hand, are great for catching mistakes and keeping horrible errors (Hitler/Mussolini/Stalin) from happening.
In OSS, we've got the committee in the form of the userbase / hobbyist coder. What a successful project needs is a dictator, to get the impressive ideas down.
"God", used singularly as a name (like "John") is a name, and means a particular being. An appeal to "God" is an unambiguous claim, just like an appeal to "the pope." (There is only one in the sphere of human knowledge, and no question that this being is the same being for all.)
'A God' or "one of your gods" means a finite being worthy of worship. This grammatical usage is almost never used.
'your God' means that thing that you worshiped, and is often only used when confronting someone with hypocricy in their own religion.
God, the name, is not ambiguous. "Do it that way because God says so" is a very clear statement--follow the prior-stated proceeding becasue the Supreme Infinite Being says so.
The reasont that appeals to God (or 'the gods') are not used in scientific (or merely rational) discourse outside of intra-religion dialogues is that the true nature of God (or the gods) is a rather extreme variable. He might be kind and loving and just--or She might be vengfeful and cruel and vindictive. We know that there's only one supreme all-mighty force, we just don't know (in a scientific "we know the Earth is roundish" way) what He's like.
(Within religion, of course, we do--but that has sadly become a subset of standard dialogue, not a common assumption.)
The third usage, 'your god' or 'that thing you worship' is not used in a common discussion because it's rude.
To say it again: don't make an appeal to God, but don't do it becuase it's beyond the scope of defined terms for most discussions, not because there's any real doubt that the Supreme Being isn't the same one that someone else is thinking of.
I am COMPLETELY against automated traffic control (red-light monitors and the like). If the cop isn't there to see it then tough noogies for them. I got away w/a minor violation.
The laws don't mean "unless you get caught." It means "all the time."
What problem, exactly, do you have with machines used for checking traffic violations? You can still go to trial if you want.
And as for your pocketbook/record--follow the rules of the road, and you'll be fine on both cases.
Either it's the Allmighty Supreme Being, or its a non-infinite creature of far-beyond-human power, or it's "a thing deserving of worship."
God, used as a name and always capitalized, always means the first thing. The grammatical usage of the second two meanings are identical.
'course, there's a heck of a lot of argument as to what God / the gods are like (/what is and is not a god), so it's not good to use in an argument with people who might disagree with you.
(So you're right, just not for the reason you said.;) )
After all, the kid can't legally enter into a contract at that age
IANAL, but I took a freshman law class. According to that, children can enter into legally binding contracts. The big differnce is that, except for necessities, they can end the contract at any time, causing a reversal.
Finally, there is patently illegal language in those contracts that violate both the first amendment (the no benchmarking clauses) and the doctrine of first sale (the no resale clauses)
The first amendment only applies to the government. Ever hear of an NDA?
As for the doctrine of first sale... that's a copyright ruling for selling a copy. MS doesn't sell copies, they sell licenses that happen to include a copy--at least, they do until a judge find that their "licenses" really are sales, which has happened.
Also, AFAIK, contract clauses like those are just unenforceable, not "illegal" in the discrimination / criminal intent kind of way.
Write your idea up, date it and mail it to yourself and dont open it. That way you have it in writing that you did it first.
Sheesh.
Nothing at all stops you from mailing an empty envelope (or many) to yourself and using this for the purposes of fraud.
If you want the gov't to legally prove the date on something, do it directly. Find a notary and get them to stamp it.
If you must us the USPS, fold up your piece of paper into an envelope shape and send it to someone else. That way you'll have a stamp on the idea, AND you'll have a witness you can call to testify.
* Clicking the double-arrow on the extreme of a menu (toolbar, drop down menu, start menu) will expand it, with the rarely used items "lowered" so you can tell what will be there normally.
* Items don't re-arrange their order, they stay where you put them, just hiding . (For the most part--file folders in the start menu being the obvious exception)
* Holding a menu open for 10-20 seconds will cause it to expand, just as if you had cliked the double-arrow.
* You can turn the feature off if you really don't like it.
The abilty to "pin" an item chiefly used for graphical feedback (like toolbars) would be nice; maybe that's part of their (un)planned obselecense.
I feel compelled to point out that saying "monopolize a marketplace" is a bit redudant (what else does a company monopolize?) and not what got MS into trouble. (That's a bit pedantic I realize and I apologize in advance for pointing that out as I have. I don't mean to be insulting)
No harm done. See my parent post.
Apple has a "monopoly" on Apple Computers, but not in the legal/antitrust meaning of the word, like MS.
hey believe that there is a God who is relevant to what goes on in the world; deists believe there was a God who created stuff in the beginning, but that he's no longer active; they don't see a connection between any deity and morality, and any morality they have is based on human society.)
Those sound more like divisions within the same religion over what God does, not if He exists.
I think the question never was "Is Jesus Christ the son of God, who will judge the dead etc etc?" But rather "what does God do in day-to-day life?"
Sort of like arguing over whether or not the President is a liar / a philanderer / an idiot. You don't argue who he IS, just what kind of a person he is.
Then again, Franklin (if alive today) very well might become an atheist--or he might be devoutly religious. Never met the man.
The term is so generic that Muslims, Jews, and Christians all fall under the heading of "theist".
Those aren't disparate religions. They all proclaim to follow the same deity, who revealed Himself to Abraham, albiet with different ways.
A better scattering would be "Christians, Hindus, Cherokee Shamans, and Wiccans." (Who can then be broken down into "Monotheists" and "polytheists" and "pantheists"--"one god", "many gods," and "all is god", IIRC.)
Seems that Apple has a 100% monopoly on the Macintosh operating system
Of course they do. And Microsoft has a 100% monopoly on the MS-Windows operating system, and Disney has a 100% monopoly on Mickey Mouse, and Linus Torvalds has a 100% monopoly on what is or isn't Linux.
Copyright grants a limited-scope monopoly for a product; this is not a bad thing, legally speaking (morality aside for the moment, 'lest we get a flame war going.)
What MS got in trouble for was monpolizing a marketplace. They used relativly shady business practices to get to a monopoly position in the PC industry, and then continued to use those practicies to maintain a monopoly.
If MS adjusted the market so that Linux and Be were commonly shipping OS options for PCs, they wouldn't have a monopoly and could go back to their shady tricks without reproach, happilly ruling windows-land while people who didn't like MS could simply play nicely in one of the other OS-lands without feeling like a metalhead in graceland.
There is no mechanism that means that print-on-demand will be lower quality than a traditional print run. In fact, doing so would ensure the thing to failure.
There's nothing in the manufacuring process that cannot be done on a small scale. From what I've seen in print runs, it's not uncommon for professional bookbinding to be done one at a time by a binding machine--perhaps in rapid succession, but still one-at-a-time.
Plus, there's the simple fact that shoddy book covers are caused by poor materials, not sloppy application of said materials.
Heck, considering that there'd be total Quality Checking right at the "printer," quality would improve if anything. And
I just generally dislike the "fantasy" genre, because we're forced to suspend all rational belief through the whole thing. Unlike sci-fi, where it's easy to say "Well, all of this simply happened on another planet we haven't discovered yet." - they have us believe that this world existed on *our own planet*, yet humans never realized it was there.
You're familiar with the concept of multiple realities, yes?
Most good fantasies take place in realms that can only be alternate realities--as far away from Earth as the worlds of Star Wars. The rules are different, but there are rules, and it's fairly simple to say "all of this is happening in a reality very different from our own" if you must.
Two rules that should be legally enforced for fantasy: (1) Do not set it on Earth unless it's really set on a well-researched Earth. (2) set your rules, abide by them, and never let "it's magic!" or "it's just fantasy" form in your thoughts.
Dragons and gargoyles are cool-looking creatures, and make good children's stories, but beyond that - you just need a little more "substance" to keep us believing in them.
Are you a fan of science fiction? I've seen some things (2001, Contact, etc.) that are far less believeable than even most bad fantasy.
Slashdot Mirror
LOL.
/. I've had the pleasre to converse with has insulted me personally and directly. I don't remember the last time I was in a religious discussion and I purposefully insulted someone (not just accidently offend--and even that's not easily recallable.)
Go ahead and disagree with my religion. I won't disagree with them, but I won't automatically attack them, either.
I *have* seen every FSF (not Linux or OSS, just GPL/FSF) zealot on
Truth be told, I think the FSF has a lot going for it, and that if they do succeed in changing the world they'll make it a better place. But I'm not about to waste my time helping them when they've got nothing but insulting zealots advocating for them. *sigh*
Although this might sound like a joke, it would be interesting to back-trace whether someone or some organisation started marketing this standard actively some time in the recent history. Or is just an accident?
I blame Microsoft. Or maybe Creative.
The first GUI PC I saw (A late-Windows 3.11 machine) had audio settings for "CD-Quality," "Radio Quality," and "Telephone Quality."
Forcing a "no copy off the iPod"
Er, you CAN copy off the iPod. You just have to do it yourself, you can't have it automatically happen.
Considering that most of us have a single PC that is our "main PC," their move makes sense. Plus it ensures that if you DO move an MP3 illegally, YOU'RE doing it, not Apple.
How about right on their MISSION STATEMENT
Did you even read that page?
"The impact of free software (also known as open source software)"
They mean OSS, not necessarilly "free as in freedom."
"To underscore our commitment to this phenomenon, Red Hat is pleased to provide sources.redhat.com, a site aimed at providing first-rate hosting of open source projects for software developers"
The page you linked to isn't Red Hat's coproate page; it's a "community developer" page that they probably write up as a PR move, the same way MS writes up advertising.
The one where they not only reference "Free Software" MULTIPLE TIMES but include 3 links to the FSF in the space of about 2 paragraphs?
"Free Software" (capitalized) is used twice, "free software" (not capitalized) is used twice. "Open Source" is used four times, once capitalized and thrice not so.
Nothing on the text in that page denotes a belief in the "software freedoms" put forth by the FSF. Sharing of source code is a good thing that leads to a better infrastruture, but the moral argument isn't even mentioned. I suspect that the "Open Source" / "Free Software" equality was on purpose.
Lastly, though it's almost grapsing at straws, the three links to GNU on that page are the kind of links that might be sent to a standards body. RH is looking for PR, not furtherance of Stallman's FSF agenda.
Feel like a fool? You should. On the plus side, you could probably get a job as a Slashdot editor considering the skill you just showed in spouting off without doing any basic double checking to make sure you're right before you post
Why, thank you. I'm building an excellent anecdotal record of FSF advocates who are uncritical zealots who attack anyone who disagreess with them! Way to go!
The average reader appears to take the stance that "Redhat exists to make money, and if this is what they have to do, then so be it." I find this insulting coming from a movement which is supposedly all about freedom.
It appears that free software is merely all about not paying for software and the downfall of microsoft.
Jeff, kindly go to http://www.redhat.com/ and find me a link to the FSF. Or even a reference to "Free Software."
Not everyone who uses Linux thinks that Free Software is a viable moral argument; some of them just use it because it is free-as-in-no-cost, not free-as-in-freedom.
But, even if they were advocates and zealous supporters of the FSF, it wouldn't be at cross purposes to kotow to Chinesse bullying over Taiwan. Free Software is about software freedoms, not necessarilly any other freedoms. (Sure, they probably go hand in hand, but there's a difference between a Linux Users Group and a Free Tibet concert.)
IANAL, but...
Mickey Mouse is a trademark. If someone does something with P.D. Steamboat willie that dilutes the MM trademark, Disney can take them to court.
understanding that unlimited extensions equal an unlimited time.
Nah. the SC just needs to decide what the absolute limit to "reasonable time" is, and state that as their interpretation.
And when they decide in Disney's favor, that will be a big flashing green light for Congress to sell out all other IP-related protections for the citizens without a second thought.
Come again? (are you saying that IP protections are good or that they're bad? Hard to grammatically determine your meaning, even if I can guess it.)
Let's look at the various forms of IP law:
Trademarks: Allready long-term, with required renewal and defense. No real problems there.
Patents: Limited term, no extension, and it makes "trade secrets" a matter of the public record after 20 (or so) years.
Copyright: Good side -> artists and authors don't have to be paranoid about their work being stolen by shady producers. (Bad contracts, yes, but not simple theft.) Bad side -> it lasts so darn long...
Personally, I predict that Disney et all will win, but the SC will render an opinion with language that implies or outright states that the current setup is the extreme maximum that should be permitted to copyright--or at least that it's approaching a constitionally breaching overextension.
I asked my lawyer....
There is no breach of contact if I refuse to give you source code in this situation.
Are you telling me that your lawyer told you that, if you were to release a program "under the GPL", the FSF wouldn't have standing to take you to court for not releasing source code?
So, by your statement, MS could allow anyone to release IE "under the GPL", while keeping the source code closed and secret and NDA'd...
IANAL, but I think you're missing something. Then again, IANAL.
As for what is more free.. where did that come from? Do you think I'm arguing about which one is better of more free? I'm not, I'm simply correcting your grossly inaccurate analysis of what the GPL means.
(why oh why are GPL advocates so mean?)
The original thread, which you apparantly jumped into at the last moment, was discussing BSD. Specifically, someone asked how the BSD license could be consrtured as "more free" than the GPL.
As for "grossly inaccurate." Maybe about some fiddling detail about the GPL, but as for the basic purpose of it (to create a sticky copyleft license so as to advance the agenda of the FSF) and the basic meaning of it (the essential copyleft exchange)--well, I've hardly said anything on the subject, so how can I be "grossly inaccurate?"
*sigh*
The fact that the text of the GPL is copyright the FSF does not in any way equate to the FSF being able to sue anyone who violates the GPL
Yes, it does. If the FSF wanted to, they could (and likely would) go to court with someone flagrantly violating the GPL. Copyright infringement, breach of contract, and quite a few others that a lawyer could spell out for you.
Second: if I am the original author of the work, and I license it to YOU under the terms of the GPL, *I* am in NO WAY bound by the GPL.
You are, actually. You can re-distrubite and re-license your work with a differnet license, but you still have to follow the GPL--you have to give me source code, for example--or there's a breach of contract.
Finally, the original poster is correct that the GPL suggests a default.
The GPL creates a new "default" at the intended expense of the old. FSF / GNU has an agenda, and the GPL was designed to push that agenda.
Getting back to the original discussion, the BSD license folk don't have much of a unified agenda other than "make software," so it's emminently understandable to make the claim that BSD licenses are "more free" than the GPL.
The rates are, IIRC, 10% of revenues or 7% of expenses, whichever is greater. Non-profit orgs will still pay the 7% of expenses; not sure how "revenue" is defined for this.
Those are really basic buisness terms. Non-profit orgs still have "revenue" (money they take in) and "expenses" (money they pay out.)
A non-profit org who does more than just webcast would be well served to seperate the webcasting, though, unless there's allready a provision for that.
Prostitution just isn't the same as free love.
That's right. One has a place in society, the other is a rebellion against societal norms.
"Science" doesn't give a rat's ass if this is a planet or a cumquot; it's a stellar body, and what we call it doesn't matter.
This is a discussion of semantics & language, not "science." Finding a "catagory" to put it in matters only marginally more than deciding what name to call it.
Which logic led you from the 1) to 2) - the fact that you believe that one clever mind makes the best design - do you mean like Hitle, Mussolini or Stalin ? It would seem more logical to go into the conclusion that a larger open mass evolves and fixes problems, instead of getting stuck into one fixed way of thinking.
Creating something new takes one person. Greatness comes from single-minded authoirty reaching for the stars. Single people (or the rare closely knit small group) are ideal for this.
Committees, on the other hand, are great for catching mistakes and keeping horrible errors (Hitler/Mussolini/Stalin) from happening.
In OSS, we've got the committee in the form of the userbase / hobbyist coder. What a successful project needs is a dictator, to get the impressive ideas down.
"God", used singularly as a name (like "John") is a name, and means a particular being. An appeal to "God" is an unambiguous claim, just like an appeal to "the pope." (There is only one in the sphere of human knowledge, and no question that this being is the same being for all.)
'A God' or "one of your gods" means a finite being worthy of worship. This grammatical usage is almost never used.
'your God' means that thing that you worshiped, and is often only used when confronting someone with hypocricy in their own religion.
God, the name, is not ambiguous. "Do it that way because God says so" is a very clear statement--follow the prior-stated proceeding becasue the Supreme Infinite Being says so.
The reasont that appeals to God (or 'the gods') are not used in scientific (or merely rational) discourse outside of intra-religion dialogues is that the true nature of God (or the gods) is a rather extreme variable. He might be kind and loving and just--or She might be vengfeful and cruel and vindictive. We know that there's only one supreme all-mighty force, we just don't know (in a scientific "we know the Earth is roundish" way) what He's like.
(Within religion, of course, we do--but that has sadly become a subset of standard dialogue, not a common assumption.)
The third usage, 'your god' or 'that thing you worship' is not used in a common discussion because it's rude.
To say it again: don't make an appeal to God, but don't do it becuase it's beyond the scope of defined terms for most discussions, not because there's any real doubt that the Supreme Being isn't the same one that someone else is thinking of.
I am COMPLETELY against automated traffic control (red-light monitors and the like). If the cop isn't there to see it then tough noogies for them. I got away w/a minor violation.
The laws don't mean "unless you get caught." It means "all the time."
What problem, exactly, do you have with machines used for checking traffic violations? You can still go to trial if you want.
And as for your pocketbook/record--follow the rules of the road, and you'll be fine on both cases.
"God" means three things.
;) )
Either it's the Allmighty Supreme Being, or its a non-infinite creature of far-beyond-human power, or it's "a thing deserving of worship."
God, used as a name and always capitalized, always means the first thing. The grammatical usage of the second two meanings are identical.
'course, there's a heck of a lot of argument as to what God / the gods are like (/what is and is not a god), so it's not good to use in an argument with people who might disagree with you.
(So you're right, just not for the reason you said.
After all, the kid can't legally enter into a contract at that age
IANAL, but I took a freshman law class. According to that, children can enter into legally binding contracts. The big differnce is that, except for necessities, they can end the contract at any time, causing a reversal.
Finally, there is patently illegal language in those contracts that violate both the first amendment (the no benchmarking clauses) and the doctrine of first sale (the no resale clauses)
The first amendment only applies to the government. Ever hear of an NDA?
As for the doctrine of first sale... that's a copyright ruling for selling a copy. MS doesn't sell copies, they sell licenses that happen to include a copy--at least, they do until a judge find that their "licenses" really are sales, which has happened.
Also, AFAIK, contract clauses like those are just unenforceable, not "illegal" in the discrimination / criminal intent kind of way.
Write your idea up, date it and mail it to yourself and dont open it. That way you have it in writing that you did it first.
Sheesh.
Nothing at all stops you from mailing an empty envelope (or many) to yourself and using this for the purposes of fraud.
If you want the gov't to legally prove the date on something, do it directly. Find a notary and get them to stamp it.
If you must us the USPS, fold up your piece of paper into an envelope shape and send it to someone else. That way you'll have a stamp on the idea, AND you'll have a witness you can call to testify.
It's actually done pretty well, for what it is.
* Clicking the double-arrow on the extreme of a menu (toolbar, drop down menu, start menu) will expand it, with the rarely used items "lowered" so you can tell what will be there normally.
* Items don't re-arrange their order, they stay where you put them, just hiding . (For the most part--file folders in the start menu being the obvious exception)
* Holding a menu open for 10-20 seconds will cause it to expand, just as if you had cliked the double-arrow.
* You can turn the feature off if you really don't like it.
The abilty to "pin" an item chiefly used for graphical feedback (like toolbars) would be nice; maybe that's part of their (un)planned obselecense.
I feel compelled to point out that saying "monopolize a marketplace" is a bit redudant (what else does a company monopolize?) and not what got MS into trouble. (That's a bit pedantic I realize and I apologize in advance for pointing that out as I have. I don't mean to be insulting)
No harm done. See my parent post.
Apple has a "monopoly" on Apple Computers, but not in the legal/antitrust meaning of the word, like MS.
hey believe that there is a God who is
relevant to what goes on in the world; deists believe there was a God
who created stuff in the beginning, but that he's no longer active;
they don't see a connection between any deity and morality, and any
morality they have is based on human society.)
Those sound more like divisions within the same religion over what God does, not if He exists.
I think the question never was "Is Jesus Christ the son of God, who will judge the dead etc etc?" But rather "what does God do in day-to-day life?"
Sort of like arguing over whether or not the President is a liar / a philanderer / an idiot. You don't argue who he IS, just what kind of a person he is.
Then again, Franklin (if alive today) very well might become an atheist--or he might be devoutly religious. Never met the man.
The term is so generic that Muslims, Jews, and Christians all fall under the heading of "theist".
Those aren't disparate religions. They all proclaim to follow the same deity, who revealed Himself to Abraham, albiet with different ways.
A better scattering would be "Christians, Hindus, Cherokee Shamans, and Wiccans." (Who can then be broken down into "Monotheists" and "polytheists" and "pantheists"--"one god", "many gods," and "all is god", IIRC.)
Seems that Apple has a 100% monopoly on the Macintosh operating system
Of course they do. And Microsoft has a 100% monopoly on the MS-Windows operating system, and Disney has a 100% monopoly on Mickey Mouse, and Linus Torvalds has a 100% monopoly on what is or isn't Linux.
Copyright grants a limited-scope monopoly for a product; this is not a bad thing, legally speaking (morality aside for the moment, 'lest we get a flame war going.)
What MS got in trouble for was monpolizing a marketplace. They used relativly shady business practices to get to a monopoly position in the PC industry, and then continued to use those practicies to maintain a monopoly.
If MS adjusted the market so that Linux and Be were commonly shipping OS options for PCs, they wouldn't have a monopoly and could go back to their shady tricks without reproach, happilly ruling windows-land while people who didn't like MS could simply play nicely in one of the other OS-lands without feeling like a metalhead in graceland.
There is no mechanism that means that print-on-demand will be lower quality than a traditional print run. In fact, doing so would ensure the thing to failure.
There's nothing in the manufacuring process that cannot be done on a small scale. From what I've seen in print runs, it's not uncommon for professional bookbinding to be done one at a time by a binding machine--perhaps in rapid succession, but still one-at-a-time.
Plus, there's the simple fact that shoddy book covers are caused by poor materials, not sloppy application of said materials.
Heck, considering that there'd be total Quality Checking right at the "printer," quality would improve if anything. And
I just generally dislike the "fantasy" genre, because we're forced to suspend all rational belief through the whole thing. Unlike sci-fi, where it's easy to say "Well, all of this simply happened on another planet we haven't discovered yet." - they have us believe that this world existed on *our own planet*, yet humans never realized it was there.
You're familiar with the concept of multiple realities, yes?
Most good fantasies take place in realms that can only be alternate realities--as far away from Earth as the worlds of Star Wars. The rules are different, but there are rules, and it's fairly simple to say "all of this is happening in a reality very different from our own" if you must.
Two rules that should be legally enforced for fantasy: (1) Do not set it on Earth unless it's really set on a well-researched Earth. (2) set your rules, abide by them, and never let "it's magic!" or "it's just fantasy" form in your thoughts.
Dragons and gargoyles are cool-looking creatures, and make good children's stories, but beyond that - you just need a little more "substance" to keep us believing in them.
Are you a fan of science fiction? I've seen some things (2001, Contact, etc.) that are far less believeable than even most bad fantasy.
inspired this line:
"Only exhibitionists live in glass houses."