Peter Julian's stand is a little odd consider the NDP supported ratification of the WIPO treaty that mandates a ban on anti-circumvention technology [cippic.ca].
He's a politician; it should be expected that he'd flip-flop to gain population support.
It's just up to us to support him when it works to our advantage, and support another when it doesn't.
Well, not the current leaders, but they're stuck between a rock and a hard place right now (the scandal), so they don't have much choice but to go with the flow if they want to maintain power.
Given the current scandal, there's the possibility of an election looming, so be sure to also pressure your MP, as well as signing that hand-written petition!
WTF? So now I'm "correcting" someone? BS. I never did that. Read the post again.
Did I state "No, these were fuckups"? Did I state "Correction: these were fuckups"? Did the parent reply with "I stand corrected."?
NO. I was clearly stating an opinion. You are trying to imply otherwise (ie. trying to put words in my mouth, yet again).
And since this was not a correcton or anything of the kind, I don't have to prove or justify anything, especially not to a troll like you that obviously has nothing better to do with its time than to try to pick fights for no reason.
I find it odd how microsoft tries to say it's innovative when they adopt methologies that have been in wide use already for several,several years, but only implement them several, several years later.
I guess what they'll have to be innovative at is implementing it in such a way that it'll be secure, without breaking old software, but breaking old user/developer habits which caused the mess that requires them to implement this now.
No I didn't. I said that I called these "failures" (oh, sorry, "serious failure") as "Fuckups". Then I proceeded to state facts (yes, *facts*) common to both events.
Then, you trollishly came along and tried to put words in my mouth.
"If you read both of these non-identified reports,"
Wow, you ARE a troll, aren't you? But I'll bite. As trolls like you don't bother looking things up, I'll give you the names of these (what you clueslessly call 'non-identified') reports:
"Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident" aka 'Rogers Commission Report' and
"The CAIB Report"
Clearly you haven't attended the fourth hearing
I didn't have to, *I* have read the report. Duh!!
do they combine to somehow conclude that Challenger and Columbia weren't "serious failures"?
I never said that, troll; but you trollishly try to imply that I did. Trolls are like that; they put words into people's mouth.
If I don't have control over it, I don't see why I should have to pay.
Kinda like movies now: why the hell should I pay...... to see commercials? I can do that at home.... for free! (well, almost, I do end up paying to see them on cable)
"Now, my employer is trying to lay claim to this software and has filed at least one patent on it that I know of"
I hope you're also planning on providing the PTO with the prior-art that obviously exists for this "patent" (not that those monkeys will look at it anyways, they'll just stamp it as they do everything else...)
Also, what is the project, or what source? The copyright owners of the source can file a lawsuit against your company for infringment.
We've talking about a government-imposed tax (levy, whatever...) here; I can get an Apple computer with no 'MS tax'; what's proposed in the article is for every computer AND internet service on top of that.
I stopped reading when I got to this sentence: "In addition, a 1 per cent sales tax would be placed on Internet services and new computers"
No, no and fucking no! I refuse to finance any industry which I don't have anything to do with.
When I buy computers for my business, I don't buy them for anything music-related, so I see NO reason to pay a tax, or levy or whatever the fuck they want to call it to support any music-related thing.
I'm tired of corporations and government thinking society exists for the sole purpose of ensure their profit.
First as someone here once said, software is developed, not invented.
Second, I see a computer as a tool that can be shaped (programmed) to do anything, much like clay can be shaped to be any form creating a work of art.
Now imagine if someone tried to patent the notion of forming clay to produce a physical form. Most artists would suddendly become criminals that infringe on a patent.
Apply the same thing for writing a book; imaging someone patenting a kind of story line; suddenly writers need a licence to write a specific kind of story. And seeing how the monkeys at the PTO stamp everything that is as vague as possible, that would mean anything.
Now, obviously there's plenty of prior art for both of these.... but my point is that patenting software is like patenting a type of story or photograph or type of art - is hardly promotes creativity or innovation
Oh,sure, break a California law stating you can't publish info when it is known to be trade secrets, and you're safe as long as you *pretend* it's not trade secrets. Oh yes, I'm sure that's *not* breaking a law!
'law-breaking' as is the case for the ThinkSecret affair.
And this isn't a free-speech issue, as most would like to disguise their defense as. Nowhere does it say you can break the law when reporting stuff.
The ThinkSecret stuff was nothing like whistle-blowing, or exposing a conspiracy or fraud for the public good; they took a trade-secret (which they are now pretending it wasn't which is total BS) and illegally published information on it. That's not journalism, or even good journalism if you want to degrade that profession and call ThinkSecret that.
Slashdot Mirror
He's a politician; it should be expected that he'd flip-flop to gain population support.
It's just up to us to support him when it works to our advantage, and support another when it doesn't.
Well, not the current leaders, but they're stuck between a rock and a hard place right now (the scandal), so they don't have much choice but to go with the flow if they want to maintain power.
WTF? So now I'm "correcting" someone? BS. I never did that. Read the post again.
Did I state "No, these were fuckups"?
Did I state "Correction: these were fuckups"?
Did the parent reply with "I stand corrected."?
NO. I was clearly stating an opinion. You are trying to imply otherwise (ie. trying to put words in my mouth, yet again ).
And since this was not a correcton or anything of the kind, I don't have to prove or justify anything, especially not to a troll like you that obviously has nothing better to do with its time than to try to pick fights for no reason.
I guess what they'll have to be innovative at is implementing it in such a way that it'll be secure, without breaking old software, but breaking old user/developer habits which caused the mess that requires them to implement this now.
No I didn't. I said that I called these "failures" (oh, sorry, "serious failure") as "Fuckups". Then I proceeded to state facts (yes, *facts*) common to both events.
Then, you trollishly came along and tried to put words in my mouth.
Wow, you ARE a troll, aren't you? But I'll bite. As trolls like you don't bother looking things up, I'll give you the names of these (what you clueslessly call 'non-identified') reports:
"Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident" aka 'Rogers Commission Report' and
"The CAIB Report"
Clearly you haven't attended the fourth hearing
I didn't have to, *I* have read the report. Duh!!
do they combine to somehow conclude that Challenger and Columbia weren't "serious failures"?
I never said that, troll; but you trollishly try to imply that I did. Trolls are like that; they put words into people's mouth.
What you call failures, I call fuck-ups.
Both times the tragedy was avoidable:
Both times the flaw was known, and had been observed on prior launches.
Both times the engineers asked management more time to evaluate the situtation.
Both times upper management overruled the engineers.
Oh, wait; then I'd be infriging by selling an infriging product, right?
That's why you can get pardons
DRM means I don't have control over it.
If I don't have control over it, I don't see why I should have to pay.
Kinda like movies now: why the hell should I pay...... to see commercials? I can do that at home.... for free! (well, almost, I do end up paying to see them on cable)
with the way MS products behave, it's obvious they've had acid before!
We need them to learn to read specs!
I hope you're also planning on providing the PTO with the prior-art that obviously exists for this "patent" (not that those monkeys will look at it anyways, they'll just stamp it as they do everything else...)
Also, what is the project, or what source? The copyright owners of the source can file a lawsuit against your company for infringment.
Quite right, and the original price is hardly 5 cents anyways, since you have this other 'tax' applied also.
No, no and fucking no! I refuse to finance any industry which I don't have anything to do with.
When I buy computers for my business, I don't buy them for anything music-related, so I see NO reason to pay a tax, or levy or whatever the fuck they want to call it to support any music-related thing.
I'm tired of corporations and government thinking society exists for the sole purpose of ensure their profit.
Second, I see a computer as a tool that can be shaped (programmed) to do anything, much like clay can be shaped to be any form creating a work of art.
Now imagine if someone tried to patent the notion of forming clay to produce a physical form. Most artists would suddendly become criminals that infringe on a patent.
Apply the same thing for writing a book; imaging someone patenting a kind of story line; suddenly writers need a licence to write a specific kind of story. And seeing how the monkeys at the PTO stamp everything that is as vague as possible, that would mean anything.
Now, obviously there's plenty of prior art for both of these.... but my point is that patenting software is like patenting a type of story or photograph or type of art - is hardly promotes creativity or innovation
And this isn't a free-speech issue, as most would like to disguise their defense as. Nowhere does it say you can break the law when reporting stuff.
The ThinkSecret stuff was nothing like whistle-blowing, or exposing a conspiracy or fraud for the public good; they took a trade-secret (which they are now pretending it wasn't which is total BS) and illegally published information on it. That's not journalism, or even good journalism if you want to degrade that profession and call ThinkSecret that.
P.O. Box 54670, North Point Post Office, Hong Kong.