You've answered your own question. <derisive snort>The House.</derisive snort>. You might as well ask why he doesn't follow the wishes of his local high school's Model United Nations club.
Go and read the Consitution. Find the part that says the President has to give a rats ass about what the House thinks. On foreign policy (well, on "treaties", which is all he's supposed to deal with), he's supposed to consult with and then get agreement from the Senate. But heck, I don't even see him doing any consulting before announcing policy then putting it before them for rubberstamping. As far as the House goes, he's barely required to acknowledge its existence.
Heh, that's funny. You could campaign on a platform of raping the corpses of underage pandas and still get releected to the House so long as you keep getting the campaign contributions that allow your panda raping policies to be As Seen On TV. Representatives. Good one.
>he'd never hear the end of how he's bought and sold in the next election. Which he shouldn't anyways, but nobody has the brains or balls to make an issue of it.
The zeroeth rule of spam, as for everything else is: question the other rules.
Please provide evidence that replying to spam actually puts you on a high value list. Note carefully that being able to pay more to receive such a list says absolutely nothing about the veracity of it. Remember who you're buying it from.
I'm more inclined to believe that spam is both relentless and undirected, and that replying does exactly zilch either way. Show me the evidence to the contrary.
How do you telephone an email address? Well at least we know who's dumb enough to actually buy things from spam, assuming that you can figure out what the ringing thing on your desk is.
Give the ASA a try. They bitchslapped Telewest for me for repeatedly "forgetting" that I'd unsubscribed from their spam. The response was rapid, but they were fairly clueless - I sent full plain text headers, and they got back to me asking what the recipient email address was. D'oh.
Best case, I never get spam from Telewest again. Middle case, they spam me again and I get to find out what the ASA does to repeat offenders. Worst case, I get the spam, the ASA does nothing, but at least I get to piss off them by forwarding the spam. I have a vague hope that swamping the ASA with UK spam might get the problem addressed.
I don't believe that contacting someone to tell them to cease and desist constitutes having a business relationship. I'm sure that J. Random Spammer would assert otherwise, but you do need a record of telling them to get lost. What have you got to lose?
Meh, you needed root (sorry, administrator) or physical access (so you can sploit root) to get the passwords. As you say, if you're unsupervised, you can do it, which is why sensible companies don't allow visitors to take a whizz without someone looking over their shoulder.
Mostly moot though, because the #1 hole will still be your malicious employees, and the #2 hole will be viruses caught by your incompetent employees. All the focus put on visitors is because that's a relatively easy problem to fix.
Don't get me wrong, I think open source is a fine initiative. I'm just saying that relying on boilerplate licenses (rather than mutually negotiated contracts) that don't explicitely grant rights in perpetuity and non-revokably is a pretty risky way to pay your mortgage.
You can "let's say" all you want, but it's 100 seconds down to 13.6 seconds. How about explaining the real world significance of that? Seems to me to be like quibbling over how many times we can nuke the world into glass. After the first time, it's just about dick size.
All software vendors should be responsible for IP claims on the software that they sell. Yes, that includes commercial Linux distros. Yes, that includes hobbyists selling shareware products. If you take money for it, you're saying that you have the rights to sell it. If you don't, then you're a thief and a liar.
Disclosure of interest: I work for a company that's pathological about keeping third party code out of our products. We sell to embedded device manufacturers and we simply cannot afford to get this wrong, because they will sue us until we glow, then hang us in the dark if we do.
There is absolutely no reason that vendors selling to Joe Public should be held to lower standards, other than that Joe lets them get away with it. While I still think that SCO is deranged, at least they're making it clear that you'd better be damn sure that you've got the rights - all of the rights - to whatever you're selling.
You fool! He's a Libertarian, not a liberal. Get it right: Conservatives worship Satan; Liberals defend their right to do it; Libertarians don't care if they do it, as long as they do it over there.
Re:Proving Economic Benefit of Copy Limitations
on
Saving the Net
·
· Score: 1
Economic benefit to whom?
I doubt that we can say "the economy", because what does George Conservative care about that? Prove the direct benefit, in hard dollars, to him.
How about this: if we reverted to the original intent and duration of copy rights, you'd be able to get any movie, book or music track made before 1975 (or 1989, if the creator has died) for the cost of production. If you ever get around to getting one of those intarweb connections, you get get it free, and legally.
Let's stop appealing to peoples' morals here and start counting the dollars.
>It is not revisionist to point out that in the nascent days of the Net, the cited motivation was a strong component of the network's culture
Should be easy for you to cite that citation then. Go ahead. Make sure you cite someone that actually had a hand in emerging protocols, not from some fuzzy thinking academic (with or without a real live PhD) who made a lucky guess about how it turned out.
Re:Dean for President
on
Saving the Net
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
>My Ph.D. says otherwise.
Mail me your diploma. In the meantime, you should fear my superpowers.
Slashdot Mirror
>Though I hope [Jefferson] wasn't right about the need to take up arms every generation or two to rid ourselves of our own hostile governments.
Well, starting a republic rather than a democracy was a strange way of showing it. Here, have some bread and get back to watching your circuses.
You've answered your own question. <derisive snort>The House.</derisive snort>. You might as well ask why he doesn't follow the wishes of his local high school's Model United Nations club.
Go and read the Consitution. Find the part that says the President has to give a rats ass about what the House thinks. On foreign policy (well, on "treaties", which is all he's supposed to deal with), he's supposed to consult with and then get agreement from the Senate. But heck, I don't even see him doing any consulting before announcing policy then putting it before them for rubberstamping. As far as the House goes, he's barely required to acknowledge its existence.
Heh, that's funny. You could campaign on a platform of raping the corpses of underage pandas and still get releected to the House so long as you keep getting the campaign contributions that allow your panda raping policies to be As Seen On TV. Representatives. Good one.
>See Article I, Section 7 of the US Constitution.
I tried knocking on Bush's outhouse door, but he said he wasn't done with it yet.
>he'd never hear the end of how he's bought and sold in the next election. Which he shouldn't anyways, but nobody has the brains or balls to make an issue of it.
Hilary has both. I have photos.
This is Slashdot. Why do you hate linux so much?
Plus, you get to bury bodies in the foundations. Everybody benefits from that.
And funny is -2, because in Soviet Russia... never mind.
The zeroeth rule of spam, as for everything else is: question the other rules.
Please provide evidence that replying to spam actually puts you on a high value list. Note carefully that being able to pay more to receive such a list says absolutely nothing about the veracity of it. Remember who you're buying it from.
I'm more inclined to believe that spam is both relentless and undirected, and that replying does exactly zilch either way. Show me the evidence to the contrary.
How do you telephone an email address? Well at least we know who's dumb enough to actually buy things from spam, assuming that you can figure out what the ringing thing on your desk is.
Give the ASA a try. They bitchslapped Telewest for me for repeatedly "forgetting" that I'd unsubscribed from their spam. The response was rapid, but they were fairly clueless - I sent full plain text headers, and they got back to me asking what the recipient email address was. D'oh.
Best case, I never get spam from Telewest again. Middle case, they spam me again and I get to find out what the ASA does to repeat offenders. Worst case, I get the spam, the ASA does nothing, but at least I get to piss off them by forwarding the spam. I have a vague hope that swamping the ASA with UK spam might get the problem addressed.
I don't believe that contacting someone to tell them to cease and desist constitutes having a business relationship. I'm sure that J. Random Spammer would assert otherwise, but you do need a record of telling them to get lost. What have you got to lose?
Just shut the fuck up, already. It wasn't funny six months ago, it's not funny now.
Meh, you needed root (sorry, administrator) or physical access (so you can sploit root) to get the passwords. As you say, if you're unsupervised, you can do it, which is why sensible companies don't allow visitors to take a whizz without someone looking over their shoulder.
Mostly moot though, because the #1 hole will still be your malicious employees, and the #2 hole will be viruses caught by your incompetent employees. All the focus put on visitors is because that's a relatively easy problem to fix.
Don't get me wrong, I think open source is a fine initiative. I'm just saying that relying on boilerplate licenses (rather than mutually negotiated contracts) that don't explicitely grant rights in perpetuity and non-revokably is a pretty risky way to pay your mortgage.
Solution:
YMMV, depending on whether you have execs of the sweaty oily finger variety, or the scaly lizard species.
You can "let's say" all you want, but it's 100 seconds down to 13.6 seconds. How about explaining the real world significance of that? Seems to me to be like quibbling over how many times we can nuke the world into glass. After the first time, it's just about dick size.
You take that back. My mother was a saint. A saint.
All software vendors should be responsible for IP claims on the software that they sell. Yes, that includes commercial Linux distros. Yes, that includes hobbyists selling shareware products. If you take money for it, you're saying that you have the rights to sell it. If you don't, then you're a thief and a liar.
Disclosure of interest: I work for a company that's pathological about keeping third party code out of our products. We sell to embedded device manufacturers and we simply cannot afford to get this wrong, because they will sue us until we glow, then hang us in the dark if we do.
There is absolutely no reason that vendors selling to Joe Public should be held to lower standards, other than that Joe lets them get away with it. While I still think that SCO is deranged, at least they're making it clear that you'd better be damn sure that you've got the rights - all of the rights - to whatever you're selling.
Modded redundant? Bullshit. Who else is guessing when Taco posts the dupe?
Thanks for admitting that you were wrong. It takes a big man to do that.
You fool! He's a Libertarian, not a liberal. Get it right: Conservatives worship Satan; Liberals defend their right to do it; Libertarians don't care if they do it, as long as they do it over there.
Economic benefit to whom?
I doubt that we can say "the economy", because what does George Conservative care about that? Prove the direct benefit, in hard dollars, to him.
How about this: if we reverted to the original intent and duration of copy rights, you'd be able to get any movie, book or music track made before 1975 (or 1989, if the creator has died) for the cost of production. If you ever get around to getting one of those intarweb connections, you get get it free, and legally.
Let's stop appealing to peoples' morals here and start counting the dollars.
>It is not revisionist to point out that in the nascent days of the Net, the cited motivation was a strong component of the network's culture
Should be easy for you to cite that citation then. Go ahead. Make sure you cite someone that actually had a hand in emerging protocols, not from some fuzzy thinking academic (with or without a real live PhD) who made a lucky guess about how it turned out.
>My Ph.D. says otherwise.
Mail me your diploma. In the meantime, you should fear my superpowers.