There's no such thing as a free-market municipal wireless solution. In order to implement it, you need to guarantee lack of interference, which requires a government-enforced monopoly.
Look, I agree with you. I prefer free market solutions wherever they're viable. This just happens to be a situation in which they're not. And given the choice between a government implementation and a government-mandated corporate monopoly, I'll take the government. There are fewer unnecessary levels of indirection to maintain.
No, I'm responding to it with, "Most if not all routers that you'd expect to encounter nowadays have NAT capabilities AS WELL AS routing capabilities."... will you not as graciously concede [NAT is becoming a ubiquitous feature of routers.]
There's nothing to concede; I never said you're wrong. I'm saying that your point is irrelevant to the topic at hand.
It's reasonable to assume that, since it's YOUR car, YOU are the driver.
So you've never had roommates, aren't married, and never left your keys anywhere for more than 30 minutes without direct supervision. Oh, and everyone KNOWS that you need the keys to steal a car. My best friend's wife had her car stolen while she was on vacation. She didn't even know it was gone until two weeks after it was stolen.
It's a reasonable assumption -- but it's just that, an assumption. It is not reasonable *proof*. In the case of the baseball bat, it'll sure as hell get you a warrant, but it will never, in and of itself, get you a conviction. If that's really all you have, it probably won't even make it past Grand Jury.
You can't accuse anyone of doing something illegal and prosecute them unless you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the individual is guilty.
Firstly, YES, you can.
A DA who prosecutes someone without a solid case will be disbarred.
The original retarded comment was: "Anyone with a class in Internet 101 knows that routers assign one IP address to represent whatever computers are attached to it."
You're responding to folks that said "not all routers are NAT devices" by pointing out that SOME routers are NAT devices. So what?
Length of time on the site only matters to me when its obvious the account was *created* just for one post. But anyway...
I can't see for myself: I don't have Windows or Steam. But this makes your claims a little more likely. I'll wait until a debug analysis becomes available before I pass final judgement (not that my judgement really matters).
If they linked DOSBox with one of their libraries and distributed this re-linked DOSBox (which is what seems to have happened), the terms of the GPL require them to release that library under the GPL as well as the modified DOSBox.
When you violate the GPL, you immediately lose your license to the GPL'ed code
No, you don't. "[A]ctivities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by [the GPL] License". Any time they distribute the software in compliance with the terms of the GPL, it is valid, regardless of past infractions. Violating the GPL does not revoke your license to USE the code, and it does not taint FUTURE uses of the license (provided they are done in compliance).
There are tons of other options. The judge could order the company to release Steam's source code. The judge could issue an injunction forcing Steam to cease operations. The judge could issue an injunction forbidding Valve or id from engaging in commercial exchanges. The judge could put a freeze on Valve's or id's assets. Et cetera et cetera.
Who the hell is that guy, and why should I believe him? He registered his account on that site apparently just to make that post. Until I get confirmation from a reputable source, I'm going to consider that a troll.
I don't particularly want to give anyone a hard time over an easily-fixable problem, but this is how I see it. What would Valve and id do if the Steam version of Commander Keen was included with the DOSBox download from Sourceforge?
These are corporations *not people*. They show no mercy, and they deserve none.
> [The public interest] is [not] what the court should be working for.
Wow. Just wow.
You do realize that the American Constitution is founded on the principle of the entire government (courts included) existing for no purpose *other* than serving the public interest, right?
If your point is that individual judges should avoid making decisions about *how* to serve the public interesting, you're doing a terrible job making it.
Your reading comprehender needs adjusting. "Public interest" != "public whim".
Also, there seems to be a lot of Americans espousing the view that this isn't "the job of the courts", and it just makes them look ignorant and silly... and, well, typically American. American law is derived from British Common Law, whereas German law is derived from Napoleonic Law; those are disparate systems in which "the job of the courts" differs significantly.
Slashdot Mirror
There's no such thing as a free-market municipal wireless solution. In order to implement it, you need to guarantee lack of interference, which requires a government-enforced monopoly.
Look, I agree with you. I prefer free market solutions wherever they're viable. This just happens to be a situation in which they're not. And given the choice between a government implementation and a government-mandated corporate monopoly, I'll take the government. There are fewer unnecessary levels of indirection to maintain.
I know, it's ridiculous. I was hoping for "funny", but when I saw "Score: 5 Informative" on my comment list, I could hardly believe it.
It depends. In nickels (4.5g), the dollar is about 5 bucks per pound. If you use quarters (5.67g), you get about 20 bucks.
WOOOOOOOOSH!!!
Yes, thank you for repeating the article summary.
No, I'm responding to it with, "Most if not all routers that you'd expect to encounter nowadays have NAT capabilities AS WELL AS routing capabilities." ... will you not as graciously concede [NAT is becoming a ubiquitous feature of routers.]
There's nothing to concede; I never said you're wrong. I'm saying that your point is irrelevant to the topic at hand.
You'd know if you read the article.
It's reasonable to assume that, since it's YOUR car, YOU are the driver.
So you've never had roommates, aren't married, and never left your keys anywhere for more than 30 minutes without direct supervision. Oh, and everyone KNOWS that you need the keys to steal a car. My best friend's wife had her car stolen while she was on vacation. She didn't even know it was gone until two weeks after it was stolen.
It's a reasonable assumption -- but it's just that, an assumption. It is not reasonable *proof*. In the case of the baseball bat, it'll sure as hell get you a warrant, but it will never, in and of itself, get you a conviction. If that's really all you have, it probably won't even make it past Grand Jury.
You can't accuse anyone of doing something illegal and prosecute them unless you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the individual is guilty.
Firstly, YES, you can.
A DA who prosecutes someone without a solid case will be disbarred.
The original retarded comment was: "Anyone with a class in Internet 101 knows that routers assign one IP address to represent whatever computers are attached to it."
You're responding to folks that said "not all routers are NAT devices" by pointing out that SOME routers are NAT devices. So what?
There's a cool program out there called "syslog". I know it's new and not widely used, but maybe google's heard of it.
You receive a new license every time you download the software. GPLv2 can say that if it wants, but it's not enforceable.
Length of time on the site only matters to me when its obvious the account was *created* just for one post. But anyway...
I can't see for myself: I don't have Windows or Steam. But this makes your claims a little more likely. I'll wait until a debug analysis becomes available before I pass final judgement (not that my judgement really matters).
If they linked DOSBox with one of their libraries and distributed this re-linked DOSBox (which is what seems to have happened), the terms of the GPL require them to release that library under the GPL as well as the modified DOSBox.
When you violate the GPL, you immediately lose your license to the GPL'ed code
No, you don't. "[A]ctivities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by [the GPL] License". Any time they distribute the software in compliance with the terms of the GPL, it is valid, regardless of past infractions. Violating the GPL does not revoke your license to USE the code, and it does not taint FUTURE uses of the license (provided they are done in compliance).
There are tons of other options. The judge could order the company to release Steam's source code. The judge could issue an injunction forcing Steam to cease operations. The judge could issue an injunction forbidding Valve or id from engaging in commercial exchanges. The judge could put a freeze on Valve's or id's assets. Et cetera et cetera.
Who the hell is that guy, and why should I believe him? He registered his account on that site apparently just to make that post. Until I get confirmation from a reputable source, I'm going to consider that a troll.
I don't particularly want to give anyone a hard time over an easily-fixable problem, but this is how I see it. What would Valve and id do if the Steam version of Commander Keen was included with the DOSBox download from Sourceforge?
These are corporations *not people*. They show no mercy, and they deserve none.
And BSD-style licenses are pretty damn close to public domain, wouldn't you say?
No, I wouldn't. BSD license is as close to public domain as it is (in the opposite direction) to GPL.
There's no "may or may not be copyleft" about [Free Software], that's the definition of copyleft.
The people who invented the term "Free Software" disagree with you.
http://www.gamespot.com/video/939643/6176222/
> [The public interest] is [not] what the court should be working for.
Wow. Just wow.
You do realize that the American Constitution is founded on the principle of the entire government (courts included) existing for no purpose *other* than serving the public interest, right?
If your point is that individual judges should avoid making decisions about *how* to serve the public interesting, you're doing a terrible job making it.
Your reading comprehender needs adjusting. "Public interest" != "public whim".
Also, there seems to be a lot of Americans espousing the view that this isn't "the job of the courts", and it just makes them look ignorant and silly... and, well, typically American. American law is derived from British Common Law, whereas German law is derived from Napoleonic Law; those are disparate systems in which "the job of the courts" differs significantly.
Holy christ, do you even bother to read threads before you post in them? That was discussed and resolved DAYS ago. But thanks for trying.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=257335&cid=200 53441
That was posted something like five hours before your comment. Thanks for the feedback, though.
Good point. I retract my position on the inappropriateness of calling it "infinite". That doesn't change any of my analysis though.
From the site: "[Windowlab] has a click-to-focus but not raise-on-focus policy..."
Holy cow, I was wishing for that just yesterday! Thanks for the link.