But to clarify further, libraries are usually LGPLed and not GPLed (The L is for "Lesser"). That license allows you to link without having to GPL (or LGPL) your code.
But it is. Even with trunks, etc you can still report a caller id number. If fact, you can report any caller id you want (this is why I specifically said that I did not verify that the number reported was accurate).
For what it's worth, I believe it's now illegal for telemarketers to block caller id. Sure enough, the last few calls caller ID reported a 800 number. Of course, I never tried to validate that number or anything...
a kernel upgrade would require a reboot if you want the new kernel to be the one running the machine. Upgrading the kernel and not rebooting is pointless.
Aside as not upgrading the kernel when upgrading the distribution, I am sure you can. But you know, even the kernel has the occasional bug or security patch...
I would think the credit card company does have some liability since they processed an application without a signature. I don't know any legitimate credit card and loan company that would do that. Makes you wonder what the credit card company is. Probably something like "Third Federal Savings of Alaska" or some weird never heard of bank.
Oh wow, that's really clueless of you. The IP address is always available to the web APPLICATION (in a server variable). There is no need to look at the server logs to retreive the IP address. If they want to keep track of what IP submitted what phone number (as they should) it IS TRIVIAL and requires neither a web bug, or any parsing of the server's logs.
Humm... I hate to point this out to you, but the site requires you to enter you name, email and phone number. And the web server log already has your IP address. I think that if AT&T had some nefarious plan, I don't think a web bug gives them anything they don't already have.
Why start a fund? AOL, Yahoo, etc should (and probably will) take care of this for us. You're making it sound it MS versus Open Source. There are lots and lots of proprietary IM systems out there and they all have that feature it seems.
As the whole SCO vs Linux thing illustrate, some companies may be willing to go after users (corporations, etc). Not sure that such a case could be won, but the only threat of litigation scares people/corporation from using a product.
Being a free (and open source) product is no longer the magic shield against pesky matters like this.
I guess the distinction is between "physically" trespassing (walking on your property) or "virtually" trespassing (mail, phone, email, IM). You'd like to think they are the same, but they are not. At least not as far as the law is concerned.
PS: you might own your phone, but you don't own the line (up to the little box attached to your house, eventhough it's on your property) or the number (it's just been "assigned" to you).
Most ISPs provide a webmail interface. If for some reason that's not adequate, do what I do: I own my own domain through enom.com with an "email pak" which includes both secure SMTP and POP. The cost is not prohibitive.
Your comparison is flawed. The "no solicitation" sign has nothing to do with speech issues. The only reason that sign may have some bite to it, is that in order to solicit, someone has to physically enter your property. You can probably get them arrested for trespassing. All that sign means is that you're serious about it and might press charges.
I don't see how making the DNC configurable to the type of speech you're willing to tolerate is any less unconstitutional.
The DNC as a "please don't call me" list is OK. It's the enforcement of it that is problematic. Some of the telemarketers already said they follow the "wishes" of those consummers that signed up on it.
Like I said, I hope you're right. I am not a lawyer, but the only potential way I see this happening is that someone declares that "commercial speech" doesn't qualify as "free speech" in this case. U
They're not forcing you to listen, you're free to hangup at any time. You're also free to tell them not to call back (and I think you can sue them if they don't comply).
PS: I HATE telemarketing calls as much as everyone, and I am on the DNC list and hope it will happen somehow. But unfortunately, I DO think the free speech argument is valid (and yours invalid).
I think you are reading too much in his comment. Considering the current state of the economy, he (and I, by the way) feel that the US should take better care of its own citizen before others. The fact that US has spent billions for other causes (Russia, USSR, Africa, Asia, Israel, etc) may be flying low under the radar, perhaps because most of these programs have been there for a while, they don't get as much publicity, and it is over a longer time period. The Iraq thing is causing a lot of sticker shock. I would not read racism into any of this...
Having said all that, I do think the US needs to finish what it started in Iraq, and pay the bill for it. It's money we could use at home, but that's something te Bush administration should have thought about before starting this war.
Second, are you somehow suggesting that the social welfare of minorities like the Iraqis and muslims is somewhat less valuable than an unemployed person in the US? Which is worth more? Is one okay to be unemployed and the other not? Why? One the surface your statement belies a latent racism/nationalism that is offensive at best and abhorrent at worse.
I think he's suggesting that we should take care of our own citizen before other countries' citizen. It's a bit selfish perhaps, but I don't see how it is racist.
I've gone as far as I could with fake information.
Lindows' recourse in this case might be to sue Microsoft for denying claims because of a "technicality" - Lindows certainly has been willing to pick a fight. I don't think they will be able to go against the consummer...
Your right not listen means you have the right to hangup. I don't know how to translate into the right not to get a call.
Don't get me wrong, I want this law to win very badly. But I don't think your argument is the ticket. In my opinion, corporations are not people and therefore don't get free speech rights, and therefore don't have a right to call me. But the Nike case (and other) kind of muddied that a bit.
I appreciate your willingness to gamble your life's savings, but I see no mantion of any such fine prints anywhere. I've looked at all the FAQ and legalese on that website...
Well, if MS claims are valid then all it means is that Lindows will loose a truck load of money (not the consumer who has received a free PC from Lindows). I don't how that constitute a problem for MS or the consumer. It may constitute a problem for Lindows though (not getting their money back from MS).
Slashdot Mirror
But to clarify further, libraries are usually LGPLed and not GPLed (The L is for "Lesser"). That license allows you to link without having to GPL (or LGPL) your code.
But it is. Even with trunks, etc you can still report a caller id number. If fact, you can report any caller id you want (this is why I specifically said that I did not verify that the number reported was accurate).
FYI - pollsters, political, and non-profit calls are exempt from following the DNC.
For what it's worth, I believe it's now illegal for telemarketers to block caller id. Sure enough, the last few calls caller ID reported a 800 number. Of course, I never tried to validate that number or anything...
a kernel upgrade would require a reboot if you want the new kernel to be the one running the machine. Upgrading the kernel and not rebooting is pointless.
Aside as not upgrading the kernel when upgrading the distribution, I am sure you can. But you know, even the kernel has the occasional bug or security patch...
I would think it would if the kernel is upgraded...
There is a green card lottery held every year. If I recall, 60,000 green cards are issues that way yearly.
I would think the credit card company does have some liability since they processed an application without a signature. I don't know any legitimate credit card and loan company that would do that. Makes you wonder what the credit card company is. Probably something like "Third Federal Savings of Alaska" or some weird never heard of bank.
Weeks? What would take you weeks? Try hours!!!
Yeah, I sure hope it includes hosting, etc.
Oh wow, that's really clueless of you. The IP address is always available to the web APPLICATION (in a server variable). There is no need to look at the server logs to retreive the IP address. If they want to keep track of what IP submitted what phone number (as they should) it IS TRIVIAL and requires neither a web bug, or any parsing of the server's logs.
Humm... I hate to point this out to you, but the site requires you to enter you name, email and phone number. And the web server log already has your IP address. I think that if AT&T had some nefarious plan, I don't think a web bug gives them anything they don't already have.
Why start a fund? AOL, Yahoo, etc should (and probably will) take care of this for us. You're making it sound it MS versus Open Source. There are lots and lots of proprietary IM systems out there and they all have that feature it seems.
As the whole SCO vs Linux thing illustrate, some companies may be willing to go after users (corporations, etc). Not sure that such a case could be won, but the only threat of litigation scares people/corporation from using a product.
Being a free (and open source) product is no longer the magic shield against pesky matters like this.
I guess the distinction is between "physically" trespassing (walking on your property) or "virtually" trespassing (mail, phone, email, IM). You'd like to think they are the same, but they are not. At least not as far as the law is concerned.
PS: you might own your phone, but you don't own the line (up to the little box attached to your house, eventhough it's on your property) or the number (it's just been "assigned" to you).
Most ISPs provide a webmail interface. If for some reason that's not adequate, do what I do: I own my own domain through enom.com with an "email pak" which includes both secure SMTP and POP. The cost is not prohibitive.
Your comparison is flawed. The "no solicitation" sign has nothing to do with speech issues. The only reason that sign may have some bite to it, is that in order to solicit, someone has to physically enter your property. You can probably get them arrested for trespassing. All that sign means is that you're serious about it and might press charges.
I don't see how making the DNC configurable to the type of speech you're willing to tolerate is any less unconstitutional.
The DNC as a "please don't call me" list is OK. It's the enforcement of it that is problematic. Some of the telemarketers already said they follow the "wishes" of those consummers that signed up on it.
Like I said, I hope you're right. I am not a lawyer, but the only potential way I see this happening is that someone declares that "commercial speech" doesn't qualify as "free speech" in this case. U
They're not forcing you to listen, you're free to hangup at any time. You're also free to tell them not to call back (and I think you can sue them if they don't comply).
PS: I HATE telemarketing calls as much as everyone, and I am on the DNC list and hope it will happen somehow. But unfortunately, I DO think the free speech argument is valid (and yours invalid).
I think you are reading too much in his comment. Considering the current state of the economy, he (and I, by the way) feel that the US should take better care of its own citizen before others. The fact that US has spent billions for other causes (Russia, USSR, Africa, Asia, Israel, etc) may be flying low under the radar, perhaps because most of these programs have been there for a while, they don't get as much publicity, and it is over a longer time period. The Iraq thing is causing a lot of sticker shock. I would not read racism into any of this...
Having said all that, I do think the US needs to finish what it started in Iraq, and pay the bill for it. It's money we could use at home, but that's something te Bush administration should have thought about before starting this war.
Second, are you somehow suggesting that the social welfare of minorities like the Iraqis and muslims is somewhat less valuable than an unemployed person in the US? Which is worth more? Is one okay to be unemployed and the other not? Why? One the surface your statement belies a latent racism/nationalism that is offensive at best and abhorrent at worse.
I think he's suggesting that we should take care of our own citizen before other countries' citizen. It's a bit selfish perhaps, but I don't see how it is racist.
Someone found you informative, but I have no idea whatsoever what you are telling me.
I've gone as far as I could with fake information.
Lindows' recourse in this case might be to sue Microsoft for denying claims because of a "technicality" - Lindows certainly has been willing to pick a fight. I don't think they will be able to go against the consummer...
Your right not listen means you have the right to hangup. I don't know how to translate into the right not to get a call.
Don't get me wrong, I want this law to win very badly. But I don't think your argument is the ticket. In my opinion, corporations are not people and therefore don't get free speech rights, and therefore don't have a right to call me. But the Nike case (and other) kind of muddied that a bit.
I appreciate your willingness to gamble your life's savings, but I see no mantion of any such fine prints anywhere. I've looked at all the FAQ and legalese on that website...
Well, if MS claims are valid then all it means is that Lindows will loose a truck load of money (not the consumer who has received a free PC from Lindows). I don't how that constitute a problem for MS or the consumer. It may constitute a problem for Lindows though (not getting their money back from MS).
Yep. Kamen showed it to 20/20 (for those of you in the US).