And you have obviously never tried to make changes to 40 year old, multalated, goto-infested, they-only-put-periods-in-where-they-were-required swine-code. Not to mention the small inconsistancies between differing flavors of COBOL that can really bite you when you change compilers.
Well written code is more a function of the programmer than the language. I've even seen easy-to-read Perl (believe it or not.) I do wish more languages had 88-levels and redefines though.
Re:If you don't read anything else, read this...
on
OSI vs SCO
·
· Score: 1
That's probably the most coherant analogy adressing the GPL argument that I've heard so far.
But this still sounds a lot like using "we didn't know we were infringing" to prevent the loss of trade secrets. Is this a defense only available to the owner of said secrets? I think it's interresting that the only recepient of a related lawsuit (so far) is IBM, the supposed infringer.
Re:a good explanation from....
on
OSI vs SCO
·
· Score: 1
Hate to feed ya, but the "burn in hell like the thieving dog that it is" comment made me laugh out loud....
First off I thought that the lawsuit was over trade secrets, not IP (or does IP now encompass trade secrets as well as copyrights and trademarks and patents and bears! oh my!) Seems to me that the IP moniker has become so broad that it's not worth using anymore because points made that would be apropriate for one form of IP are not apropriate for another form (a prime example would be the necessity to defend or lose trademarks which does not apply, AFAIK, to patents.)
Next, I think that of the problems that Cuba and North Korea have, respecting IP claims are pretty far down on that list.
And the problem with equating the 'theft' of non-physical items with the theft of physical items has been illustraded time and time again ad nausiam.... No matter what anyone else does with it, you still have your use of it. It's still wrong, and criminal, and should be. But it is not theft, nor is it piracy. It is infringement of whatever state-granted privilege is being infringed upon.
I may have some of my facts wrong, but as I recall he initially had some illegal mp3s on his machine which would make hims a direct as well as alleged contributory infringer. He may be planning on removing his illegal mp3s and then putting the engine back up so that he is now above reproach.
Someone with the legal standing to do so should find a way to sue SCO for defamation and interfering with the Linux industry in order to force SCO to reveal what they think they have. I just don't believe them or their lawyers and there oughta be a way to call them on it and just shut them up. Either tell us where we've wronged them or go away.
(my real feelings involve bandsaws and CEOs, but that's just not quite socially acceptable.)
I dunno about you, but my first impression was that this was first and formost a parody about Strawberry Shortcake, with only a slight mention about McGee.
Can a work parody more than one thing at a time? Is it only protected from its primary target? Seems to me that this lampoons both McGee and AG and the new strip comparing AG to Nazis seems to make that even more clear.
But your suggestion that PA simply go out a pick a new pair of characters to make their point, I assume that they'd have to find some characters who are both well-known (to make a point with equal impact) and in the public domain (to avoid more legal action from someone else.) But with copyright law going the way it is, and the public domain moving farther into the past every day, I don't see this as a reasonable course of action. Just as a trademark holder needs to defend his right to a trademark in order to keep it, the public needs to defend their right to parody or we will certainly lose it. Or have we lost it already? Just look at the Consumer Whore parody of Starbucks or the The Wind Done Gone parody of Gone With the Wind.
their lawsuit was enough to scare my employer from buying an updated AIX machine and now we're in the process of migrating that app to NT.
I've gotta disagree with you
on
FTC vs Spammers
·
· Score: 1
I don't see any real difference between this guy's spam and someone selling shoes via spam, a dating service, or viagra. The crime (in my opinion) if the theft of my bandwidth - so if his emails are larger (due to pictures) then he's worse than someone sending text-only spam. But to me that's based solely on the size of the message, not its content.
If he's selling kiddie porn, priated software, or illegal drugs (perscriptions also) then that spam is evidence of another related crime. But I think that sending spam (with forged headers and no UCE flags) is all equally bad per byte without reguard to its content.
Seems to me that the "unnecessary or frivolous" definition of gay falls closer to the original "happy" definition of gay rather than the "homosexual" definition, and would therefore be more likely to imply that happy people are stupid than it would be to make a statement about homosexuals.
Since Microsoft created the software that contributed to the actual this specific file-sharing network to exist, and since they made money from the sale of this copyright-infringement enableing software shouldn't they be more liable for these copyright violations than the author of an indexing program?
I gotta say, I'd love to see MS and the RIAA tear into each other - though I don't know which one I'd rather see lose.
But I think that Uy's site is fundamentally different in that it does not suggest committing violence against anyone, the contact information is posted to facilitate serving the target with legal action that he is subject to under Maryland's laws, AND the address and telephone numbers posted were the ones the spammer listed his business at.
Sounds like fair game to me. Hell, I'd love to see some protests outside his "business address." Anyone in southern Louisiana feel like getting together in masse to protest a certain Slidell address?
Yea, and just look at how effective this "second superpower" was in enforcing its will. (I'd hardly call the "peace movement" a power, nor would I consider world opinion to be united enough to exist as a single coherant entity.)
Then again France is still considered by some to be relevant in today's world.
Even better, you could man-in-the-middle to replace the 10 outstanding warrants, suspended liscense, and stolen car flag for a clean record, valid liscense, and no stolen card record as they're running your plates/ liscense.
Robert X. Cringley suggested that a while back. Seems like a good idea...but I'm just a little apprehensive about cars with more distractions in them. I'm already seeing an increasing number of cars with LCD TV screens on dashboards. I've even seen a few (ok, 2) people driving around watching pornos on them (I assUme they weren't driving stickshifts - but I didn't try to get a look in to verify that.)
I can just see those "Hang up and drive" bumper stickers being replaced with "Quit surfing and drive" stickers.
I don't see how it would matter if they had a copy to keep or not. Security holes could still be found while auditing the source, and knowledge of those holes could certainly be brought back to China by their auditors.
As for being percise about perjury, buddy, I just don't need your dose of reality interfering with my world.
Just because "expert defense witnesses" generally don't get charged for spouting off hokey bullshit doesn't mean that they shouldn't be charged. Maybe if we threw more liars in jail, people wouldn't be so quick to lie in court.
But couldn't one just boot off a CD-Linux distro and run regedit under wine? (does regedit work under wine?) Or is there perhaps a console version of regedit that would run under the win2k console?
Unless the registry is actually encrypted, I don't see any real advantage to having it in a non-human-readable format.
One thing that just jumped out at me as being a prime source of inflated punishments for these case seemed to be in the estimation of damages. Perhaps a requirement that the complaintant be required to file his losses in his SEC filing (for publicly traded companies) and in any apropriate IRS paperwork. This would criminalise the over-inflating of damages and provide the stock market with much-needed insight into the security abilities and practices of publicly traded companies.
One point (of many I'm sure) is field names. MS allows illegal field names (IIRC you can put them within quotes and MS SQL will allow them.) Just that one point alone would make it a major pain to re-write all the variable names in all the code that touches the database. And it's not just the rewriting, but also the coordination of that as well as tracking down all the users who've written their own routines (that suddenly WE have to now support) who call to bitch when we suddenly "break" their database.
Slashdot Mirror
And you have obviously never tried to make changes to 40 year old, multalated, goto-infested, they-only-put-periods-in-where-they-were-required swine-code. Not to mention the small inconsistancies between differing flavors of COBOL that can really bite you when you change compilers.
Well written code is more a function of the programmer than the language. I've even seen easy-to-read Perl (believe it or not.) I do wish more languages had 88-levels and redefines though.
That's probably the most coherant analogy adressing the GPL argument that I've heard so far.
But this still sounds a lot like using "we didn't know we were infringing" to prevent the loss of trade secrets. Is this a defense only available to the owner of said secrets? I think it's interresting that the only recepient of a related lawsuit (so far) is IBM, the supposed infringer.
Hate to feed ya, but the "burn in hell like the thieving dog that it is" comment made me laugh out loud....
First off I thought that the lawsuit was over trade secrets, not IP (or does IP now encompass trade secrets as well as copyrights and trademarks and patents and bears! oh my!) Seems to me that the IP moniker has become so broad that it's not worth using anymore because points made that would be apropriate for one form of IP are not apropriate for another form (a prime example would be the necessity to defend or lose trademarks which does not apply, AFAIK, to patents.)
Next, I think that of the problems that Cuba and North Korea have, respecting IP claims are pretty far down on that list.
And the problem with equating the 'theft' of non-physical items with the theft of physical items has been illustraded time and time again ad nausiam.... No matter what anyone else does with it, you still have your use of it. It's still wrong, and criminal, and should be. But it is not theft, nor is it piracy. It is infringement of whatever state-granted privilege is being infringed upon.
Maybe their current actions attempting to harm Linux are a payback to MS for settling the DR.DOS suit (they did settle that, didn't they?)
Somebody'd better warn the Baldwins.
Please don't.
I may have some of my facts wrong, but as I recall he initially had some illegal mp3s on his machine which would make hims a direct as well as alleged contributory infringer. He may be planning on removing his illegal mp3s and then putting the engine back up so that he is now above reproach.
Someone with the legal standing to do so should find a way to sue SCO for defamation and interfering with the Linux industry in order to force SCO to reveal what they think they have. I just don't believe them or their lawyers and there oughta be a way to call them on it and just shut them up. Either tell us where we've wronged them or go away.
(my real feelings involve bandsaws and CEOs, but that's just not quite socially acceptable.)
I dunno about you, but my first impression was that this was first and formost a parody about Strawberry Shortcake, with only a slight mention about McGee.
Can a work parody more than one thing at a time? Is it only protected from its primary target? Seems to me that this lampoons both McGee and AG and the new strip comparing AG to Nazis seems to make that even more clear.
But your suggestion that PA simply go out a pick a new pair of characters to make their point, I assume that they'd have to find some characters who are both well-known (to make a point with equal impact) and in the public domain (to avoid more legal action from someone else.) But with copyright law going the way it is, and the public domain moving farther into the past every day, I don't see this as a reasonable course of action. Just as a trademark holder needs to defend his right to a trademark in order to keep it, the public needs to defend their right to parody or we will certainly lose it. Or have we lost it already? Just look at the Consumer Whore parody of Starbucks or the The Wind Done Gone parody of Gone With the Wind.
their lawsuit was enough to scare my employer from buying an updated AIX machine and now we're in the process of migrating that app to NT.
I don't see any real difference between this guy's spam and someone selling shoes via spam, a dating service, or viagra. The crime (in my opinion) if the theft of my bandwidth - so if his emails are larger (due to pictures) then he's worse than someone sending text-only spam. But to me that's based solely on the size of the message, not its content.
If he's selling kiddie porn, priated software, or illegal drugs (perscriptions also) then that spam is evidence of another related crime. But I think that sending spam (with forged headers and no UCE flags) is all equally bad per byte without reguard to its content.
Seems to me that the "unnecessary or frivolous" definition of gay falls closer to the original "happy" definition of gay rather than the "homosexual" definition, and would therefore be more likely to imply that happy people are stupid than it would be to make a statement about homosexuals.
Since Microsoft created the software that contributed to the actual this specific file-sharing network to exist, and since they made money from the sale of this copyright-infringement enableing software shouldn't they be more liable for these copyright violations than the author of an indexing program?
I gotta say, I'd love to see MS and the RIAA tear into each other - though I don't know which one I'd rather see lose.
But I think that Uy's site is fundamentally different in that it does not suggest committing violence against anyone, the contact information is posted to facilitate serving the target with legal action that he is subject to under Maryland's laws, AND the address and telephone numbers posted were the ones the spammer listed his business at.
Sounds like fair game to me. Hell, I'd love to see some protests outside his "business address." Anyone in southern Louisiana feel like getting together in masse to protest a certain Slidell address?
Yea, and just look at how effective this "second superpower" was in enforcing its will. (I'd hardly call the "peace movement" a power, nor would I consider world opinion to be united enough to exist as a single coherant entity.)
Then again France is still considered by some to be relevant in today's world.
Great! Now we need a plugin so that Outlook can automatically execute these scripts.
Even better, you could man-in-the-middle to replace the 10 outstanding warrants, suspended liscense, and stolen car flag for a clean record, valid liscense, and no stolen card record as they're running your plates/ liscense.
Robert X. Cringley suggested that a while back. Seems like a good idea...but I'm just a little apprehensive about cars with more distractions in them. I'm already seeing an increasing number of cars with LCD TV screens on dashboards. I've even seen a few (ok, 2) people driving around watching pornos on them (I assUme they weren't driving stickshifts - but I didn't try to get a look in to verify that.)
I can just see those "Hang up and drive" bumper stickers being replaced with "Quit surfing and drive" stickers.
Speak for yourself. I'd spit on him (of course only if I were sure it wouldn't put said fire out.)
Besides, as I recall he also got less that 50% of the popular vote, meaning that the majority of people voted against him.
I don't see how it would matter if they had a copy to keep or not. Security holes could still be found while auditing the source, and knowledge of those holes could certainly be brought back to China by their auditors.
As for being percise about perjury, buddy, I just don't need your dose of reality interfering with my world.
Just because "expert defense witnesses" generally don't get charged for spouting off hokey bullshit doesn't mean that they shouldn't be charged. Maybe if we threw more liars in jail, people wouldn't be so quick to lie in court.
I think what he MEANT to say was that compiling the Windows operating system source code could damage national security.
So the US government needs to either arrest Jim Allchin for perjury or Bill Gates for treason.
But couldn't one just boot off a CD-Linux distro and run regedit under wine? (does regedit work under wine?) Or is there perhaps a console version of regedit that would run under the win2k console?
Unless the registry is actually encrypted, I don't see any real advantage to having it in a non-human-readable format.
One thing that just jumped out at me as being a prime source of inflated punishments for these case seemed to be in the estimation of damages. Perhaps a requirement that the complaintant be required to file his losses in his SEC filing (for publicly traded companies) and in any apropriate IRS paperwork. This would criminalise the over-inflating of damages and provide the stock market with much-needed insight into the security abilities and practices of publicly traded companies.
One point (of many I'm sure) is field names. MS allows illegal field names (IIRC you can put them within quotes and MS SQL will allow them.) Just that one point alone would make it a major pain to re-write all the variable names in all the code that touches the database. And it's not just the rewriting, but also the coordination of that as well as tracking down all the users who've written their own routines (that suddenly WE have to now support) who call to bitch when we suddenly "break" their database.