BMD, while going forward, is just not as important as anybody makes it out to be. The military factions in Russia are not going to take over because of it, the U.S. is sufficiently deterred by the risk of military casulaties when it comes to interventions anyway, and the basic balance of power between Europe, Russia, China, and the U.S. won't be altered by BMD.
The only thing that will happen is that Russia and China will build more missiles and/or counter-counter-measures while countries without missiles will be slightly deterred from building them by the increased ineffectiveness. Oh, and the U.S. committment to NATO will be a bit stronger than it is today.
In short, is there any way someone could produce the first live specimen of a giant squid by sticking DNA from the next dead one found into "live" eggs of another squid variety?
Ylönen gave permission to use "ssh" to describe derivatives of his program that conformed to the RFC in the license that accompanied version from which OpenSSH is derived. Now, years later, he's decided he wants to retract it.
If his permission to use "ssh" is revocable, arguably so are any other parts of his license -- including the permission to use the code in derivative works. Rolling over on the name could be used in court as evidence that the OpenSSH crew agreed that the license is revocable -- in which case he can next eliminate the whole OpenSSH project, whatever its name. Ooops...
OpenSSH is doing nothing illegal; they have a non-revocable license to use the name.
According to the SSH version 1.2.12 license:
"As far as I am concerned, the code I have written for this software can be used freely for any purpose. Any derived versions of this software must be clearly marked as such, and if the derived work is incompatible with the protocol description in the RFC file, it must be called by a name other than 'ssh' or 'Secure Shell'."
OpenSSH is doing nothing illegal in using the term "ssh", because OpenSSH is a derivative work of ssh 1.2.12 and is compatible with the RFC.
Now, Mr. Ylönen may regret having given that permission. But the only argument he can make is that the OpenSSH name is not sufficient to mark that the software is a distinct derivative work of ssh. If so, he can object to the OpenSSH name itself, but not the use of "ssh" in the name.
BTW, Kleenex® and Xerox® (along with Velcro®) are still trademarked (at least in the U.S.) due to the extensive efforts of their legal departments. Partly because their founders had the sense to not issue a license allowing other people to call their products Kleenex, Xerox, and Velcro, unlike Mr. Ylönen.
Re:What about the anti-genetic backlash?
on
Genetic Stone Soup
·
· Score: 2
However, when people start arguing against any legislation that allows the consumer to be informed of what may turn out to be a dangerous product, I start to seriously distrust that person's motives.
That's right -- non-GM crops should be clearly labled as potentially dangerous. Modern non-GM strains of corn and wheat are crossbreeds descended from random mutants deliberately made by artifical irradiation and mutagenic chemicals, which were never tested for safety, envriomental impact, etc.
On the other hand, GM crops are carefully engineered for specific effects and reviewed by the EPA, FDA, and USDA for safety, enviromental impact, etc.
So what's the real motive of people who won't acknowledge that GM foods are by any objective standard safer than traditional crops?
Re:What about the anti-genetic backlash?
on
Genetic Stone Soup
·
· Score: 2
1) The Monsanto grain can reproduce; Monsanto has never added the suicide gene to any of its commercial seed products.
2) There are competing international producers of seed that the rich farmers in your scenario can turn to if Monsanto raises the price of grain. They would not have to "sell out to a large agricorp".
3) Most lesser-developed countries have laws restricting foreign ownership of land, so a sellout to a "large agricorp" is very often impossible.
4) It is in the financial interest of Monsanto to have a wide variety of independent farm producers to sell seed to. A company with a few big customers has its well-being hanging by a much thinner thread -- one dissatisfied customer can lead to a major loss of market share.
Finding a partner is only a "zero-sum" game if you assume every person has the same standards and the same criteria. For example, that computer model that used "attractiveness" levels had everyone value attractiveness and had everyone use the same criteria for valuing attractiveness.
However, that is absolutely not the case . As Jared Diamond mentions in "The Third Chimpanzee", studies have shown that among studied animals and humans, the object of desire is someone who resembles a person you were raised by/with but not someone you were actually raised by/with. In humans, that set of characteristics include belief systems (religious, political, etc.)
The result is that my ideal is highly unlikely to be ideal or even highly valued by someone raised by a tall, thin, dark-haired, religious Eastern Orthodox Russian-American Democrat with perfect vision.
The problem with zero-sum games is that they do not accurately reflect how market economies or personal relationships work. But this is not a cry to eliminate competition; obviously competition is an element of the non-zero-sum "games" of market economies and personal relationships. But a game where player 1 comes out 100% ahead of where he started and player 2 comes out only 50% ahead has both competition and isn't zero-sum.
Anything only has value in relation to sapient beings, as sapient beings are the only thing in the universe that can value anything.
Now that that's cleared up, you guys can debate what disposition of the crystals is of most value to the only known sapient beings in the universe, humans.
Oh, BTW, while they're busy doing this, Detroit (which is within Wayne County) has not only a higher murder rate than Chicago (or NYC, or LA), but more total murders per year than the much larger Chicago.
At least the rest of you in the country don't have to constantly hear about its damned "Internet Crime Task Force", which has 40-year-old deputies online pretending to be 14-year-old nymphomaniacs in order to lure people to Wayne County in order to arrest them.
Every single time they succeed, the TV news trumpets their efforts to "protect your children" to the rooftops, never pointing out how unlikely it is that there are real 14-year-olds out there making arrangments to meet 30 year old out-of-state men they've never seen and never have talked to at hotels for sex...
I suspect that some of the studies that the insurance companies conduct don't draw lines in the right places.
Maybe. But they have a profit incentive to draw them in the right places, because if their competitors can draw them better, the competitor will make more money. Why? With the more accurate groupings, the competitor can sell to the better-identified low-risk group for less and give the high-risk groups a choice of paying more or going elsewhere.
BTW, there are plenty of non-profit insurance companies -- they're called mutuals, in which every policyholder is a "shareholder" in the corporation. Since each policyholder's interest is in keeping his premiums down, the mutuals use the same risk analysis as the for-profit insurance companies to either discourage high-risk people from joining the mutual and raising costs, or charge them enough that the high-risk group pays for itself.
Biologically, bisexual means the species has two sexes, not that you will have sex with both males and females. From a biologist, "Humans are bisexual" merely means that there are male and female humans.
Besides, I don't really want to eat genetically altered corn, made by engineers.
You know that corn you buy in the supermarket or as part of another foodstuff? If it isn't labeled "organic", it's probably a product of genetic engineering. If it is labeled "organic", it's probably a human-created hybrid with ancestors that were randomly mutated by deliberate by use of mutagenic compounds and artificial radiation. And if it happens to be in the tiny percentage of worldwide corn production that is neither of those, it's a human created hybrid whose ancestors were randomly mutated by radiation from the largest nuclear reactor in the solar system.
Sure, Locke interpreted intellectual property as a subset of royal monopolies, but plenty of other natural rights theorists instead argue it's more properly interpreted in the light of his theories on physical property.
Locke's theory was that someone becomes the owner of an unowned resource by applying his labor to it. Which arguably applies even more firmly to intellectual property, because it is a pure product of work, instead of the transformation by work of a limited physical resource to which no one has an inherent right.
There's a reason most advocates of eliminating intellectual property use Hobbes-authoritarian (government has all power), Burke-conservative (common law tradition is right), Marx-socialist (property is theft), or FDR-progressive (property is merely necessary to society) theories to bolster their claims, instead of natural rights (classical) liberal theories.
Yeah, and the MPAA didn't have the courts inhibit 2600's freedom of the press.
One district court judge in the pocket of Time Warner made one ruling in the MPAA's favor. OTOH, Dow Corning was forced to settle for millions when sued over a product that had no harmful effects except in the overexcited imaginations of the scientifically illiterate.
And that Jon Johanson kid's house was never raided.
Er, he isn't in the U.S. The writer didn't say anything about Norway.
Various companies didn't get *sucks.com internet domains transferred to them due to "trademark infringement."
Let's see -- the revocations were by the UN's WIPO, under a resolution policy promulgated by a nonprofit corporation, affecting only root servers operated by one specific for-profit corporation.
Napster was never [temporarily] shut down due to consumers doing their own file sharing.
Lots of corporations are ordered to cease and desist from legal activities temporarily when there is a question of legality raised.
Microsoft rules the desktop due to fair licensing tactics.
So, if corporate power is so great, why couldn't they have been stomped out by the much larger blue-chip IBM?
The DCMA was institued into law for the protection of consumers and artists.
And the Americans with Disabilities Act wass instituted for the protection of corporate profits...
It was about 4 years ago that the blackdown project came out with ver 1.0 of the JDK. Unless I'm mistaken I don't think apple or OS/2 had a working JDK.
Maybe. I was pretty sure that IBM had released an IBM-created JDK for OS/2 sometime in '96; IBM was really pushing Java...
Major Premise: ICANN is incorporated in the United States and as such its decisions are to U.S. law
Minor Premise: The UDRP is an ICANN-issued policy.
Conclusion: The UDRP is subject to U.S. law
Major Premise: The Network Solutions root DNS servers are in the U.S.
Minor Premise: Items within the U.S. are subject to U.S. law.
Conclusion: The current DNS root servers for.com,.org, and.net are subject to U.S. law.
Now, if you want to build overseas root servers to replace the NSI ones, fine. Nobody's stopping you (although you might ask AlterNIC about your odds of getting people to use your servers). In the meantime, the U.S. Supreme Court has final jurisdiction over the core DNS root servers in operation today.
Let me start by saying that I believe that intellectual property right are the purest form of property rights, and that property rights are inherent, natural, human rights, necessary corollaries of the rights to life and liberty. And that by comparison, the "right" to vote is not a right, but merely a useful check on the tendency of administrators to become self-serving.
Despite that, I believe Apple is in the wrong here. I believe these skins were sufficiently different from Aqua to not violate Apple's IP, whether trade dress, copyright, or design patent. And I think Apple has historically shown itself to be overzealous, targeting any design that is inspired by but less than derivative of its designs.
Slashdot Mirror
BMD, while going forward, is just not as important as anybody makes it out to be. The military factions in Russia are not going to take over because of it, the U.S. is sufficiently deterred by the risk of military casulaties when it comes to interventions anyway, and the basic balance of power between Europe, Russia, China, and the U.S. won't be altered by BMD.
The only thing that will happen is that Russia and China will build more missiles and/or counter-counter-measures while countries without missiles will be slightly deterred from building them by the increased ineffectiveness. Oh, and the U.S. committment to NATO will be a bit stronger than it is today.
In short, is there any way someone could produce the first live specimen of a giant squid by sticking DNA from the next dead one found into "live" eggs of another squid variety?
Ylönen gave permission to use "ssh" to describe derivatives of his program that conformed to the RFC in the license that accompanied version from which OpenSSH is derived. Now, years later, he's decided he wants to retract it.
If his permission to use "ssh" is revocable, arguably so are any other parts of his license -- including the permission to use the code in derivative works. Rolling over on the name could be used in court as evidence that the OpenSSH crew agreed that the license is revocable -- in which case he can next eliminate the whole OpenSSH project, whatever its name. Ooops...
OpenSSH is doing nothing illegal; they have a non-revocable license to use the name.
According to the SSH version 1.2.12 license:
"As far as I am concerned, the code I have written for this software can be used freely for any purpose. Any derived versions of this software must be clearly marked as such, and if the derived work is incompatible with the protocol description in the RFC file, it must be called by a name other than 'ssh' or 'Secure Shell'."
OpenSSH is doing nothing illegal in using the term "ssh", because OpenSSH is a derivative work of ssh 1.2.12 and is compatible with the RFC.
Now, Mr. Ylönen may regret having given that permission. But the only argument he can make is that the OpenSSH name is not sufficient to mark that the software is a distinct derivative work of ssh. If so, he can object to the OpenSSH name itself, but not the use of "ssh" in the name.
BTW, Kleenex® and Xerox® (along with Velcro®) are still trademarked (at least in the U.S.) due to the extensive efforts of their legal departments. Partly because their founders had the sense to not issue a license allowing other people to call their products Kleenex, Xerox, and Velcro, unlike Mr. Ylönen.
However, when people start arguing against any legislation that allows the consumer to be informed of what may turn out to be a dangerous product, I start to seriously distrust that person's motives.
That's right -- non-GM crops should be clearly labled as potentially dangerous. Modern non-GM strains of corn and wheat are crossbreeds descended from random mutants deliberately made by artifical irradiation and mutagenic chemicals, which were never tested for safety, envriomental impact, etc.
On the other hand, GM crops are carefully engineered for specific effects and reviewed by the EPA, FDA, and USDA for safety, enviromental impact, etc.
So what's the real motive of people who won't acknowledge that GM foods are by any objective standard safer than traditional crops?
1) The Monsanto grain can reproduce; Monsanto has never added the suicide gene to any of its commercial seed products.
2) There are competing international producers of seed that the rich farmers in your scenario can turn to if Monsanto raises the price of grain. They would not have to "sell out to a large agricorp".
3) Most lesser-developed countries have laws restricting foreign ownership of land, so a sellout to a "large agricorp" is very often impossible.
4) It is in the financial interest of Monsanto to have a wide variety of independent farm producers to sell seed to. A company with a few big customers has its well-being hanging by a much thinner thread -- one dissatisfied customer can lead to a major loss of market share.
Actually, they started a linear search beginning with "YA" in their dictionary, because they wanted to name Yahoo in the "Yet Another" tradition.
So they started with two words of an acronym to give them their first two letters, looked for a word, then back-formed the rest of the acronym.
Finding a partner is only a "zero-sum" game if you assume every person has the same standards and the same criteria. For example, that computer model that used "attractiveness" levels had everyone value attractiveness and had everyone use the same criteria for valuing attractiveness.
However, that is absolutely not the case . As Jared Diamond mentions in "The Third Chimpanzee", studies have shown that among studied animals and humans, the object of desire is someone who resembles a person you were raised by/with but not someone you were actually raised by/with. In humans, that set of characteristics include belief systems (religious, political, etc.)
The result is that my ideal is highly unlikely to be ideal or even highly valued by someone raised by a tall, thin, dark-haired, religious Eastern Orthodox Russian-American Democrat with perfect vision.
The problem with zero-sum games is that they do not accurately reflect how market economies or personal relationships work. But this is not a cry to eliminate competition; obviously competition is an element of the non-zero-sum "games" of market economies and personal relationships. But a game where player 1 comes out 100% ahead of where he started and player 2 comes out only 50% ahead has both competition and isn't zero-sum.
Anything only has value in relation to sapient beings, as sapient beings are the only thing in the universe that can value anything.
Now that that's cleared up, you guys can debate what disposition of the crystals is of most value to the only known sapient beings in the universe, humans.
Oh, BTW, while they're busy doing this, Detroit (which is within Wayne County) has not only a higher murder rate than Chicago (or NYC, or LA), but more total murders per year than the much larger Chicago.
At least the rest of you in the country don't have to constantly hear about its damned "Internet Crime Task Force", which has 40-year-old deputies online pretending to be 14-year-old nymphomaniacs in order to lure people to Wayne County in order to arrest them.
Every single time they succeed, the TV news trumpets their efforts to "protect your children" to the rooftops, never pointing out how unlikely it is that there are real 14-year-olds out there making arrangments to meet 30 year old out-of-state men they've never seen and never have talked to at hotels for sex...
I suspect that some of the studies that the insurance companies conduct don't draw lines in the right places.
Maybe. But they have a profit incentive to draw them in the right places, because if their competitors can draw them better, the competitor will make more money. Why? With the more accurate groupings, the competitor can sell to the better-identified low-risk group for less and give the high-risk groups a choice of paying more or going elsewhere.
BTW, there are plenty of non-profit insurance companies -- they're called mutuals, in which every policyholder is a "shareholder" in the corporation. Since each policyholder's interest is in keeping his premiums down, the mutuals use the same risk analysis as the for-profit insurance companies to either discourage high-risk people from joining the mutual and raising costs, or charge them enough that the high-risk group pays for itself.
Biologically, bisexual means the species has two sexes, not that you will have sex with both males and females. From a biologist, "Humans are bisexual" merely means that there are male and female humans.
Besides, I don't really want to eat genetically altered corn, made by engineers.
You know that corn you buy in the supermarket or as part of another foodstuff? If it isn't labeled "organic", it's probably a product of genetic engineering. If it is labeled "organic", it's probably a human-created hybrid with ancestors that were randomly mutated by deliberate by use of mutagenic compounds and artificial radiation. And if it happens to be in the tiny percentage of worldwide corn production that is neither of those, it's a human created hybrid whose ancestors were randomly mutated by radiation from the largest nuclear reactor in the solar system.
nor a natural right
Sure, Locke interpreted intellectual property as a subset of royal monopolies, but plenty of other natural rights theorists instead argue it's more properly interpreted in the light of his theories on physical property.
Locke's theory was that someone becomes the owner of an unowned resource by applying his labor to it. Which arguably applies even more firmly to intellectual property, because it is a pure product of work, instead of the transformation by work of a limited physical resource to which no one has an inherent right.
There's a reason most advocates of eliminating intellectual property use Hobbes-authoritarian (government has all power), Burke-conservative (common law tradition is right), Marx-socialist (property is theft), or FDR-progressive (property is merely necessary to society) theories to bolster their claims, instead of natural rights (classical) liberal theories.
This begs the question, "So why was it released to begin with?"
First, that's a misuse of the phrase "begs the question", a phrase of art for a fallacy of debate.
Second, the article answers that question.
And the Americans with Disabilities Act was for the defense of corporate profits, right?
Yeah, and the MPAA didn't have the courts inhibit 2600's freedom of the press.
One district court judge in the pocket of Time Warner made one ruling in the MPAA's favor. OTOH, Dow Corning was forced to settle for millions when sued over a product that had no harmful effects except in the overexcited imaginations of the scientifically illiterate.
And that Jon Johanson kid's house was never raided.
Er, he isn't in the U.S. The writer didn't say anything about Norway.
Various companies didn't get *sucks.com internet domains transferred to them due to "trademark infringement."
Let's see -- the revocations were by the UN's WIPO, under a resolution policy promulgated by a nonprofit corporation, affecting only root servers operated by one specific for-profit corporation.
Napster was never [temporarily] shut down due to consumers doing their own file sharing.
Lots of corporations are ordered to cease and desist from legal activities temporarily when there is a question of legality raised.
Microsoft rules the desktop due to fair licensing tactics.
So, if corporate power is so great, why couldn't they have been stomped out by the much larger blue-chip IBM?
The DCMA was institued into law for the protection of consumers and artists.
And the Americans with Disabilities Act wass instituted for the protection of corporate profits...
Er, last I checked, Norway was not a U.S. state or territory. Heck, it wasn't even part of the EU.
It was about 4 years ago that the blackdown project came out with ver 1.0 of the JDK. Unless I'm mistaken I don't think apple or OS/2 had a working JDK.
Maybe. I was pretty sure that IBM had released an IBM-created JDK for OS/2 sometime in '96; IBM was really pushing Java...
Major Premise: ICANN is incorporated in the United States and as such its decisions are to U.S. law
.com, .org, and .net are subject to U.S. law.
Minor Premise: The UDRP is an ICANN-issued policy.
Conclusion: The UDRP is subject to U.S. law
Major Premise: The Network Solutions root DNS servers are in the U.S.
Minor Premise: Items within the U.S. are subject to U.S. law.
Conclusion: The current DNS root servers for
Now, if you want to build overseas root servers to replace the NSI ones, fine. Nobody's stopping you (although you might ask AlterNIC about your odds of getting people to use your servers). In the meantime, the U.S. Supreme Court has final jurisdiction over the core DNS root servers in operation today.
The TI-89 has a Motorola 68000 processor at 10 or 12 MHz. See the TI calculator processor chip and speed FAQ.
And next time, don't correct someone when you don't know what the hell you're talking about.
Let me start by saying that I believe that intellectual property right are the purest form of property rights, and that property rights are inherent, natural, human rights, necessary corollaries of the rights to life and liberty. And that by comparison, the "right" to vote is not a right, but merely a useful check on the tendency of administrators to become self-serving.
Despite that, I believe Apple is in the wrong here. I believe these skins were sufficiently different from Aqua to not violate Apple's IP, whether trade dress, copyright, or design patent. And I think Apple has historically shown itself to be overzealous, targeting any design that is inspired by but less than derivative of its designs.
The penguin that was hatched is Linux, which was born in Finland. Have you ever done any interpretation of literature?
(And penguins don't all come from the Antarctic, but it is true none live north of the equator in nature.)
So, Windows 200(1|2|3) = OS/2 1996. Glad the Windows world is catching on. Maybe now they'll adopt a system-wide object model like OS/2 1992.