If You institute patent litigation against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the Work or a Contribution incorporated within the Work constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, then any patent licenses granted to You under this License for that Work shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed.
I'm no lawyer, but this seems to be saying that if you sue anyone for breach of patent for something in apache, then you lose your patanet license?
I'm no lawyer either, but the way I read is that there is software in Apache that is covered by patents, but the owners have given people who use Apache a licence to use them. However, if someone decides to sue over one of their patents in Apache, then they lose the licence from the other patent holders, posibly leaving them open to an infringment suit themselves.
In short, is seems to say: you play nice, we'll play nice, and we'll all play with everyone's toys, but if you won't let someone play with your toys, then everyone else will gang up on you and not let you play with any of theirs either.
Everywhere else, only outgoing calls cost money, and mobile phone companies are still very profitable.
Not quite. If you take a mobile phone abroad in Europe, receiving a call costs you too. (Caller pays for the leg from them to your provider, you pay for the provider to your abroad location leg.)
Caller ID isn't a help here, as the ID often doesn't get transferred internationally, (but this is improving all the time.
I've been job hunting recently and have sent several resumes to people with whom I've had no previous contact, generally having gotten their addresses from their friends who suggested I contact them. Including in the UK. Would I be eligible for prosecution under this law?
The law is for "unsolicited communications for the purposes of direct marketing", so the point you raise is moot.
The proposal is very simple and most of the posts are just plain wrong about what it means.
I get it, because it sounds like an idea I've been bouncing around for a while (e.g. See previouscomments of mine)
The mail server could add a header saying if the domain was verified and spamassassin could then adjust the spam rating of the message appropriately. Eventually servers would be configured to refuse mail from unverified domains.
Exactly, and the main advantage of this is the network effect - if yahoo.com "mail verifys" its domain, all mail servers will know that unverified email "from" yahoo.com is spam, and hence have a good reason to upgrade, and reject all forged yahoo emails. So spammers will have to use "otherisp.com" as the return address, and otherisp gets increased bounces. If OtherIsp change to a verified domain, spammers have to move until finally, the from address actually trustworthly, and banning individual isps on the SMTP from becomes feasible, and complaints will go to the corrct isp.
Aside from the possible computational requirements for all the crypto work, I don't see any downsides to this.
The only downsides are that people will complain about not being able to set their from address when they are using different isps. Personally, I don't see that as a problem, I belive the "from" address should be the equilavent of an electonic postmark, and if you want to set the return address you should used the sender or reply-to field instead.
Just to be clear on another point, the lab is Bio-Level 3 - NOT level 4. If this thing could infect humans and cause some kind of serious catastrophe it would be in a Bio-Level 4 lab
But when you're messing with geane splicing and such like, how exactly are you supposed to forsee exactly what a new virus can or can not do? After all this was supposed to be contagious and non-lethal, and ended up being lethal and non-contagious, didn't it?
If you're a hardware manufacturer...and software is capable of destroying your products, you're fucking fired.
So how do you propose putting firmware updates into CD-ROM drives, DVD drives, modems, etc.? Just about any peripheral which has flashable firmware can be rendered unusable by software.
Unusable != Destroyed
dd if=badfirmware of=cdrom; ; dd if=goodfirmware of=cdrom; cdrom = works again (=unusable)
For instance if your tires were spinning, it could record you going a lot faster than you actually were, but the blackbox has no way of telling that,
If your tires were going any significant speed over the speed of your car, I'm sure the rubber smeared on the road would be a good indication. Otherwise speculation that that tyre speed could be explained by your car "hovering" is just a cop out.
If number portability means that a company will lose customers, that must mean that another company will gain those same customers, so aren't those who are complaining the loudest admitting they have the worst service?
I must say I'm surprised it's taken this long for the US to catch up, we can change networks and keep the number in a matter of days here in the UK - the only downside of this is that you never know which network you're calling, which can be annoying, as calls accros the same network are often cheaper.
I'm in the process of changing networks due to my provider sending me unsolicited text messages, calling me for promotions (despite my number being on TPS) and worst of all, disabling my voice mail without notice for six months. However, if they come back with an apology and a good offer to stay, I may do so, but it's good to have the option of leaving and keeping my number - it's a powerful bargining chip!
Linus is influential because he has given very few people cause to dislike him. He avoids taking part in political arguments, he avoids making himself anyone's enemy.
RMS is a zealot, and for every person he brings into his way, he alienates two others. RMS's influence is limited becaue of the numbers of people that he alienates.
In other words: "Influence is like money in the bank, the less you use it, the more you have."
I wouldn't be able to use my domain while on my ISP's (Cox Cable) network because SPF would reject it, and I can't use my domain's mailserver because my ISP won't let me connect to it. This is, IMHO, a fatal flaw in the scheme.
I don't see that as a flaw, because I believe the envelope from address should be net equivalent of a real life envelope postmark. You can put whatever return address you like on an envelople but the postmark should indicate the point it entered the system. Also, this doesn't stop you setting your own domain as the from, as there is also the widely underrated Sender header. The Sender should be your ISP account (as you're using their smtp sever) it can be from your domain, and reply to who ever you like.
The main failure of SMTP (and spam blocking) is that you can't trust the envelope address. If, however, the envelope address became more like the RL equilavent of a postmark on a letter, then it more be more useful - change the from and reply-to all you like, but the sender address will always be from the ISP which injected the email into the system.
*They* will trace the company for you from the phone number they used - which *can't* be faked!
The phone number it came from was "IMPORTANT". looks like it was faked to me! the only number I have is the message center it came through, I don't know how traceable that is.
I've never endorsed vigilante action against spammers, but the instant I get a text message on my phone from a Nigerian businessman, I'm changing my mind.
I've lost track of the junk text messages I've got, advertising free holidays, premimum rate lines, and the latest one this morning was from a phone number "important" telling me to go to a certain url for a surpise prize.
Unfortunatly, I live in the UK, where despite this being illegal (my cell phone is registered with TPS), trying to get these people fined, never mind shut down, is next to impossible. Hell, I can't even find what company sent it to lodge the iniital complaint!
As an aside, does anyone know if you can get any info from your phone provider on thses "anonymous" text messages, Also, can you do a reverse lookup on premium rate lines? (I know if you register a PO box, your information must be available, is the same for premium rate lines?)
The original poster was correct, SCO = TOAST assigned the value of TOAST to SCO, guaranteeing that SCO is TOAST after this statement, but SCO == TOAST is only a logical expression (not necessarily true), whose result does not change the value of SCO, and plus you all know that logic and SCO don't go together.
By putting yourself on it, you are declaring to the world you have no interest in Telemarketers.
However, there are people who have no interest in telemarketing, but if they are called, they find it very difficult to refuse, end up buying something they don't want, and feel foolish afterwards. For these people, the Do Not Call list is a godsend, as it's a easy way of saying no without being put under pressure. If the people that are most susceptible to hard sell tactics have an easy way out, telemarketers will suffer, and they know it.
While it sounds great on the surface, just look at the corresponding fine for breaching the UK telephone do not call list - this is also up to 5,000, but no one has ever been fined despite 250 complaints a week being received over the past four years.
As I see it the simple fact remains that there is a way around all of these measures
If you check the article, it's more than email logs they will have access to. It also includes telephone logs, web site visits, and your location (via your mobile phone.) This is all automatic i.e. without any need for a warrent.
Allowing so many agencies access to this information is unjustifiable, it's the job of the police to investigate crimes, not the fire station or local council!
The doublethink comment that this is "imposing further restrictions" by increasing the number of agencies which have access is clear indication that "spin" is still alive and well in government.
They even "get it" , that if a warrant isn't required here it isn't required at all, meaning that the government is completely free to put a GPS device on you and everyone else for the purpose of tracking everything you and they do.
It's a pity that the UK doesn't get it. Here the government have reintroduced the Snoopers charter so your mobile phone location (as well as your email, telephone, website logs) can all be accessed automatically (i.e. without a warrent) not only by the police, but also by departments like the fire service, local council, etc.
In true 1984 double speak, allowing more departments access to this information has been described as "imposing further restrictions" on the use of existing powers.
Slander is spoken. Libel is written. He's guilty of libel.
To be pedantic, I think the difference is the matter of record. Libel requires a record of the offence, whereas slander does not, hence a verbal comment on a recorded radio show would constitute libel, not slander.
Open to correction, as this is a memory from an article I once read in the distant past.
It's a little tricky as the x is pronounced as 'by' as in 4x3 = 12, but the rest is as it looks, resulting in the full word being proounced "By oh you vert!"
SCO is definetely not acting in the best interests of its shareholders.
Alas, how can you prove that, when all SCO has to say is: "Is the stock price going up as a result of these actions?" - yes. "Is share price going up good for our shareholders?" - yes. Ergo, we're going the right thing.
It's could be said that a company is breaking the law (in its duty to its shareholders) if it doesn't push every law it can to breaking point for its advantage. Too many shareholders would look at short terms results, not the long term picture, so it's difficult for any company not to take an action that would have increase its short term value unless they have a clear reason why it will be better over the long term. In SCO's case, many people have commented that the lawsuit is putting off the end, which if there is no long term picture, they are mandated to try and increase the short term picture at all costs.
A company is mandated to make money any which way within the confines of the law, pushing any boundrys it needs to. Morals never come in it to, A compamy must be amoral, or it will be illegal (even though it may take what seems like moral actions, they are never based on morals, just increasing long term value)
There's a lot of gloating here today, but I think that the SCO execs got what they wanted, the lawyers got rich, and everyone else would have benifited from this never happening in the first place.
Forget counter suits by IBM or Redhat for a second, the ideal legal tactic to get SCO in line would be for a sharehold suit to suspend any stock sales by execs until this is resolved.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm no lawyer, but this seems to be saying that if you sue anyone for breach of patent for something in apache, then you lose your patanet license?
I'm no lawyer either, but the way I read is that there is software in Apache that is covered by patents, but the owners have given people who use Apache a licence to use them. However, if someone decides to sue over one of their patents in Apache, then they lose the licence from the other patent holders, posibly leaving them open to an infringment suit themselves.
In short, is seems to say: you play nice, we'll play nice, and we'll all play with everyone's toys, but if you won't let someone play with your toys, then everyone else will gang up on you and not let you play with any of theirs either.
Not quite. If you take a mobile phone abroad in Europe, receiving a call costs you too. (Caller pays for the leg from them to your provider, you pay for the provider to your abroad location leg.)
Caller ID isn't a help here, as the ID often doesn't get transferred internationally, (but this is improving all the time.
The law is for "unsolicited communications for the purposes of direct marketing", so the point you raise is moot.
I get it, because it sounds like an idea I've been bouncing around for a while (e.g. See previous comments of mine)
The mail server could add a header saying if the domain was verified and spamassassin could then adjust the spam rating of the message appropriately. Eventually servers would be configured to refuse mail from unverified domains.
Exactly, and the main advantage of this is the network effect - if yahoo.com "mail verifys" its domain, all mail servers will know that unverified email "from" yahoo.com is spam, and hence have a good reason to upgrade, and reject all forged yahoo emails. So spammers will have to use "otherisp.com" as the return address, and otherisp gets increased bounces. If OtherIsp change to a verified domain, spammers have to move until finally, the from address actually trustworthly, and banning individual isps on the SMTP from becomes feasible, and complaints will go to the corrct isp.
Aside from the possible computational requirements for all the crypto work, I don't see any downsides to this.
The only downsides are that people will complain about not being able to set their from address when they are using different isps. Personally, I don't see that as a problem, I belive the "from" address should be the equilavent of an electonic postmark, and if you want to set the return address you should used the sender or reply-to field instead.
It's been said many times before, but it bears repeating:
The truthfullness of a statment is independent of the number of times it is repeated. (Is not! Is too!, is not! is too! is not times infinity!)
First, they ignore you,
Then they laugh at you,
Then they fight you,
Then you win.
SCO have been ignored, laughed at, are being fought at the moment, so do you expect them to win too?
With the same result too - you have to put money in to get a decent result, and the house always wins in the long term regardless.
But when you're messing with geane splicing and such like, how exactly are you supposed to forsee exactly what a new virus can or can not do? After all this was supposed to be contagious and non-lethal, and ended up being lethal and non-contagious, didn't it?
So how do you propose putting firmware updates into CD-ROM drives, DVD drives, modems, etc.? Just about any peripheral which has flashable firmware can be rendered unusable by software.
Unusable != Destroyed
dd if=badfirmware of=cdrom; ; dd if=goodfirmware of=cdrom; cdrom = works again (=unusable)
dd if=badcode of=cdrom; dd if=goodcode of=cdrom; cdrom = still broken (destroyed)
If your tires were going any significant speed over the speed of your car, I'm sure the rubber smeared on the road would be a good indication. Otherwise speculation that that tyre speed could be explained by your car "hovering" is just a cop out.
If number portability means that a company will lose customers, that must mean that another company will gain those same customers, so aren't those who are complaining the loudest admitting they have the worst service?
I must say I'm surprised it's taken this long for the US to catch up, we can change networks and keep the number in a matter of days here in the UK - the only downside of this is that you never know which network you're calling, which can be annoying, as calls accros the same network are often cheaper.
I'm in the process of changing networks due to my provider sending me unsolicited text messages, calling me for promotions (despite my number being on TPS) and worst of all, disabling my voice mail without notice for six months. However, if they come back with an apology and a good offer to stay, I may do so, but it's good to have the option of leaving and keeping my number - it's a powerful bargining chip!
Linus is influential because he has given very few people cause to dislike him. He avoids taking part in political arguments, he avoids making himself anyone's enemy.
RMS is a zealot, and for every person he brings into his way, he alienates two others. RMS's influence is limited becaue of the numbers of people that he alienates.
In other words: "Influence is like money in the bank, the less you use it, the more you have."
I don't see that as a flaw, because I believe the envelope from address should be net equivalent of a real life envelope postmark. You can put whatever return address you like on an envelople but the postmark should indicate the point it entered the system. Also, this doesn't stop you setting your own domain as the from, as there is also the widely underrated Sender header. The Sender should be your ISP account (as you're using their smtp sever) it can be from your domain, and reply to who ever you like.
If you see my past messages, (e.g. http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=56973&cid= 5506309 and http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=27728&cid= 2981955 ) I've been bouncing around an idea similar to this idea, which is backwardly compatible and has a positive network effect for adopters.
The main failure of SMTP (and spam blocking) is that you can't trust the envelope address. If, however, the envelope address became more like the RL equilavent of a postmark on a letter, then it more be more useful - change the from and reply-to all you like, but the sender address will always be from the ISP which injected the email into the system.
*They* will trace the company for you from the phone number they used - which *can't* be faked!
The phone number it came from was "IMPORTANT". looks like it was faked to me! the only number I have is the message center it came through, I don't know how traceable that is.
I've lost track of the junk text messages I've got, advertising free holidays, premimum rate lines, and the latest one this morning was from a phone number "important" telling me to go to a certain url for a surpise prize.
Unfortunatly, I live in the UK, where despite this being illegal (my cell phone is registered with TPS), trying to get these people fined, never mind shut down, is next to impossible. Hell, I can't even find what company sent it to lodge the iniital complaint!
As an aside, does anyone know if you can get any info from your phone provider on thses "anonymous" text messages, Also, can you do a reverse lookup on premium rate lines? (I know if you register a PO box, your information must be available, is the same for premium rate lines?)
SCO = TOAST
I believe the correct syntax is SCO == TOAST
The original poster was correct, SCO = TOAST assigned the value of TOAST to SCO, guaranteeing that SCO is TOAST after this statement, but SCO == TOAST is only a logical expression (not necessarily true), whose result does not change the value of SCO, and plus you all know that logic and SCO don't go together.
No, no, you've got it all wrong. SCO's business plans is:
1. ???
2. !!???
3. ???
4. !!!???
5. Profit???
By putting yourself on it, you are declaring to the world you have no interest in Telemarketers.
However, there are people who have no interest in telemarketing, but if they are called, they find it very difficult to refuse, end up buying something they don't want, and feel foolish afterwards. For these people, the Do Not Call list is a godsend, as it's a easy way of saying no without being put under pressure. If the people that are most susceptible to hard sell tactics have an easy way out, telemarketers will suffer, and they know it.
While it sounds great on the surface, just look at the corresponding fine for breaching the UK telephone do not call list - this is also up to 5,000, but no one has ever been fined despite 250 complaints a week being received over the past four years.
If you check the article, it's more than email logs they will have access to. It also includes telephone logs, web site visits, and your location (via your mobile phone.) This is all automatic i.e. without any need for a warrent.
Allowing so many agencies access to this information is unjustifiable, it's the job of the police to investigate crimes, not the fire station or local council!
The doublethink comment that this is "imposing further restrictions" by increasing the number of agencies which have access is clear indication that "spin" is still alive and well in government.
It's a pity that the UK doesn't get it. Here the government have reintroduced the Snoopers charter so your mobile phone location (as well as your email, telephone, website logs) can all be accessed automatically (i.e. without a warrent) not only by the police, but also by departments like the fire service, local council, etc.
In true 1984 double speak, allowing more departments access to this information has been described as "imposing further restrictions" on the use of existing powers.
To be pedantic, I think the difference is the matter of record. Libel requires a record of the offence, whereas slander does not, hence a verbal comment on a recorded radio show would constitute libel, not slander.
Open to correction, as this is a memory from an article I once read in the distant past.
It's a little tricky as the x is pronounced as 'by' as in 4x3 = 12, but the rest is as it looks, resulting in the full word being proounced "By oh you vert!"
Alas, how can you prove that, when all SCO has to say is: "Is the stock price going up as a result of these actions?" - yes. "Is share price going up good for our shareholders?" - yes. Ergo, we're going the right thing.
It's could be said that a company is breaking the law (in its duty to its shareholders) if it doesn't push every law it can to breaking point for its advantage. Too many shareholders would look at short terms results, not the long term picture, so it's difficult for any company not to take an action that would have increase its short term value unless they have a clear reason why it will be better over the long term. In SCO's case, many people have commented that the lawsuit is putting off the end, which if there is no long term picture, they are mandated to try and increase the short term picture at all costs.
A company is mandated to make money any which way within the confines of the law, pushing any boundrys it needs to. Morals never come in it to, A compamy must be amoral, or it will be illegal (even though it may take what seems like moral actions, they are never based on morals, just increasing long term value)
Forget counter suits by IBM or Redhat for a second, the ideal legal tactic to get SCO in line would be for a sharehold suit to suspend any stock sales by execs until this is resolved.
Well, I can dream, can't I?
I think you mean wave the flag, and waive your rights