my girlfriend was fairly well convinced that he was a probable psycho-killer (not that this proves anything). Actually, I'd say that if anythig, it proves the reverse.
When a psychotic killer is uncovered, it's it standard procedure to visit their neighbors, who all say "I had no idea - he was the nicest person.":)
I didn't start getting into trouble at school and such until my mother took on a job for extra cash during the carter years. Then when they split up, I got into even more trouble. I account this to a lack of parental supervision coupled with extreme boredom. Funny, I come from a poor single-parent household, have 5 brothers and sisters, and have never "gotten into trouble" even though there was a lack of parental supervision, and grew up in a small town with nothing to do (extreme boredom.) In addition, lots of kids (I'd say most) in my class, who had two parents at home (one of which stayed home) ended up "in trouble".
Maybe you should stop blaming others for your past mistakes, and admit that the fault lies with you?
Choice 3: React appropriately and install security measures that work, without unduly stressing people?
The problem isn't that there are two extremes the people in power must choose from, the problem is that the two choices you gave are actually being done at the same time.
One of the tenets of the capitalist system is clear ownership of property. How can one invest if the ownership can be taken away.
Yet, the current patent system dies exactly this. So... you're claiming that the current patent system is broken because patents expire, and therefore the Constituion (on which this facet of patent law is based) is wrong?
Seriously, I know someone who thinks like this. He believes that because QT is GPL'ed (instead of LGPL'ed) that it makes it 'not free' because you can't use it to write a proprietary app without paying for a QT license.
Personally, I think that the KDE haters just hate KDE because they don't want to admit that GNOME is now a waste of time now that QT is GPL'ed.
To be fair, Darl McBride, SCO, and their lawyers aren't exactly stupid either "SCO and their lawyers" is kind of a blanket generalization, but Darl sure as hell is stupid, and most of the people at SCOX are too.
Darl and co. simply assumed that everybody is as corrupt as they are, and that IBM would roll over because they had something to hide. The only word to describe this is stupid.
If they were smart, they would have actually done some research and discovered that IBM wouldn't play ball. They then would have gone after a softer target (MS, maybe) to get the gold to make their parachute.
Smart people can make stupid mistakes, and threatening IBM, when they had absolutely zero evidence, was a stupid mistake.
However continuing to threaten them, years after it became apparent that they weren't going to fold, is stupid beyond words, and not something that an intelligent person (or group of people) would do.
That said... you misread the article. Portman isn't on their list. She's on their list of almosts Neither did the submitter, as evidenced by the fact that he listed both Portman and Dr. Demento, when Demento is mentioned in the article as a fan of one of the people who *is* on the list.
What the hell ever happened to reading comprehension?
I do not want to know why anyone would want to make a fertilizer-based anal explosive that "can be detonated with a blasting cap". Maybe to emulate the goatse guy?:)
hang on to this stuff because you think it's cool and somebody may want it someday. I thought that it is a violation for a charity to allow its workers to claim any donation for their own personal use? Care to show me where it says that 'somebody" means "volunteer worker", because I don't see it.
It's pretty clear to me that he's talking about a museum (or some other organization) finding it useful for display.
I think the unlocked iPhone owners are the ones not playing fair. Poor Apple - people are buying things from them and then using them in ways that Apple hadn't intended! That's so totally unfair to Apple I can't believe it!
I mean god forbid that someone would buy something and then not expect the vendor to have complete and utter control over it! What is this world coming to?!?!
Microsoft does shitty things for the business world and other businesses. yes, and as we all know, businesses and the business world exist in their own separate reality, completely separated from people. So when "bad" things happen to to businesses, it has absolutely zero effect on real, living people.
Just like those house loans recently.. that was just business. No real actual people were affected.
DaveJakeman over on Groklaw said I'd have to say that Mr. Jakeman has serious reading comprehension issues.
The relevant part is
16. On September 11, 2007, through their counsel, Plaintiffs notified Defendant of its unlawful conduct based upon its failure to comply with the License. (emphasis mine.)
So they didn't just notify a "support droid", they notified Monsoon's lawyers.
And the lawyers never responded. Not even a "we'll look into your claims" or anything like that.
Unfortunately Darl will still come out of it with millions. Not necessarily.
First, the "millions" that Darl was paid were bonuses for good performance - but it turns out that the money they counted didn't actually belong to SCOX, so it wasn't profit... meaning that the bankruptcy trustee will ask for it back.
Second, as the money is part of the converted funds (ie., it belongs to Novell) the bankruptcy court can (and probably will) order Darl to turn it over. (If you rob a bank, then give the money to someone else, do they get to keep it?)
There is a very real possibility that Darl and Kevin will be personally on the hook for money owed to Novell.
Actually, in Canada, making available isn't illegal. Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that it was.
What I meant is that it is completely legal now, but that the CRIA is attempting to make it illegal. Whether they'll succeed or not depends on how corruptible our legislators are.
leaving finished torrents of infringing material continue uploading once the download is complete would be a liability. No, it wouldn't - because you're not uploading - someone is downloading from you. (This is not just semantics.)
The law in Canada states that it's OK to copy music for your own personal use. This means that you can borrow a friend's equipment and music to make a copy for yourself, but your friend would not be allowed to make a copy for you (even though the end result is the same, it's the intent that's different.)
How this affects uploading or downloading: when I fire up my bittorrent client and connect, I am initiating a download. In effect, I am the one downloading, using the hardware and software of other people. When someone else connects to my machine, it requires no action from me - they're simply using *my* hardware and software to make the copy.
Think about it: if you go to a website and click a link, *you* are downloading (making a copy), but there is nobody else involved in the transaction - just you and the remote web server. There is nobody clicking something on the web server to enable the transfer. (Note that "who put the file there in the first place" is an entirely *different* question.)
Note that this has already been decided by the court - the difference between uploading and downloading is who initiates the transfer. If you initiate the transfer, then you're either downloading or uploading, but it requires no action from anyone else, there is no uploading happening.
Note that "making available" is a different legal question. There is currently an effort by the CRIA to add "making available" an exclusive right of the copyright holder (which would negate this entire argument.)
The students blamed the damage on a certain fraternity known for destructive pranks. Since the fraternity had so many misdeeds to its credit, this was not only plausible to the authorities, it was convincing. On the other hand, the authorities had no proof with which to lay responsibility for the damage upon them. The result was an impasse Oh, that's just what they told you.
In reality, the frat got put on double-secret probation.
Can you please give a specific quote from the agreement that troubles you? If you really read the Agreement, I'm not sure how you missed this - the clause I am concerned about (from http://www.schedulesdirect.org/sagreement ) is this:
You shall not [...] engage in any act that, directly or indirectly, would jeopardize, limit, or interfere in any manner with the operation of Company's Licensed Data service.
I found this while searching for an alternative to Schedules Direct. It's not perfect (there's some minor glitches in the episode numbers) but it does work.
What's wrong with paying a couple bucks to get the listing data? Nothing. However the problem I have with SD is their "Agreement" - in order to get the listings, you have to agree to some pretty damn onerous things, including "not doing anything to piss off anyone at Tribune Media Services, even if you didn't know it would."
This is a completely untenable clause, because they don't tell you what things might piss them off, nor do they explain their relationship
For example, complaining on/. (or any other forum) could theoretically make TMS unhappy, which would cause you to be in violation of the "agreement" - and yet you wouldn't know it until after you get your account terminated (or worse, dragged into court.)
I have no problem paying for it (in fact, I had my credit card out to sign up), but it's some seriously fscked-up shit - too much for me.
What he said:
We absolutely and fundamentally believe we are right in this case, and we believe in the justice system. But we also know that things don't always happen the way they're supposed to, and we're realistic about that point. What he really meant:
We absolutely and fundamentally believe we could get them to sellt, and we believe in the justice system because we know that things don't always happen the way they're supposed to, and we're realistic about that point.
Slashdot Mirror
When a psychotic killer is uncovered, it's it standard procedure to visit their neighbors, who all say "I had no idea - he was the nicest person."
Maybe you should stop blaming others for your past mistakes, and admit that the fault lies with you?
How about:
Choice 3: React appropriately and install security measures that work, without unduly stressing people?
The problem isn't that there are two extremes the people in power must choose from, the problem is that the two choices you gave are actually being done at the same time.
Yet, the current patent system dies exactly this. So... you're claiming that the current patent system is broken because patents expire, and therefore the Constituion (on which this facet of patent law is based) is wrong?
Yeah, good luck with that.
Seriously, I know someone who thinks like this. He believes that because QT is GPL'ed (instead of LGPL'ed) that it makes it 'not free' because you can't use it to write a proprietary app without paying for a QT license.
Personally, I think that the KDE haters just hate KDE because they don't want to admit that GNOME is now a waste of time now that QT is GPL'ed.
Darl and co. simply assumed that everybody is as corrupt as they are, and that IBM would roll over because they had something to hide. The only word to describe this is stupid.
If they were smart, they would have actually done some research and discovered that IBM wouldn't play ball. They then would have gone after a softer target (MS, maybe) to get the gold to make their parachute.
Smart people can make stupid mistakes, and threatening IBM, when they had absolutely zero evidence, was a stupid mistake.
However continuing to threaten them, years after it became apparent that they weren't going to fold, is stupid beyond words, and not something that an intelligent person (or group of people) would do.
What the hell ever happened to reading comprehension?
It's pretty clear to me that he's talking about a museum (or some other organization) finding it useful for display.
Monkeys wrote vista, the gorillas only use it.
I mean god forbid that someone would buy something and then not expect the vendor to have complete and utter control over it! What is this world coming to?!?!
Just like those house loans recently.. that was just business. No real actual people were affected.
The relevant part is 16. On September 11, 2007, through their counsel, Plaintiffs notified Defendant of its unlawful conduct based upon its failure to comply with the License. (emphasis mine.)
So they didn't just notify a "support droid", they notified Monsoon's lawyers.
And the lawyers never responded. Not even a "we'll look into your claims" or anything like that.
First, the "millions" that Darl was paid were bonuses for good performance - but it turns out that the money they counted didn't actually belong to SCOX, so it wasn't profit... meaning that the bankruptcy trustee will ask for it back.
Second, as the money is part of the converted funds (ie., it belongs to Novell) the bankruptcy court can (and probably will) order Darl to turn it over. (If you rob a bank, then give the money to someone else, do they get to keep it?)
There is a very real possibility that Darl and Kevin will be personally on the hook for money owed to Novell.
What I meant is that it is completely legal now, but that the CRIA is attempting to make it illegal. Whether they'll succeed or not depends on how corruptible our legislators are.
The law in Canada states that it's OK to copy music for your own personal use. This means that you can borrow a friend's equipment and music to make a copy for yourself, but your friend would not be allowed to make a copy for you (even though the end result is the same, it's the intent that's different.)
How this affects uploading or downloading: when I fire up my bittorrent client and connect, I am initiating a download. In effect, I am the one downloading, using the hardware and software of other people. When someone else connects to my machine, it requires no action from me - they're simply using *my* hardware and software to make the copy.
Think about it: if you go to a website and click a link, *you* are downloading (making a copy), but there is nobody else involved in the transaction - just you and the remote web server. There is nobody clicking something on the web server to enable the transfer. (Note that "who put the file there in the first place" is an entirely *different* question.)
Note that this has already been decided by the court - the difference between uploading and downloading is who initiates the transfer. If you initiate the transfer, then you're either downloading or uploading, but it requires no action from anyone else, there is no uploading happening.
Note that "making available" is a different legal question. There is currently an effort by the CRIA to add "making available" an exclusive right of the copyright holder (which would negate this entire argument.)
In reality, the frat got put on double-secret probation.
It's called copyright - and I'm sure your particular jurisdiction has some laws regarding it.
You don't need to.
I found this while searching for an alternative to Schedules Direct. It's not perfect (there's some minor glitches in the episode numbers) but it does work.
This is a completely untenable clause, because they don't tell you what things might piss them off, nor do they explain their relationship
For example, complaining on
I have no problem paying for it (in fact, I had my credit card out to sign up), but it's some seriously fscked-up shit - too much for me.