How about we just make everyone collect signatures, including the top two parties?
Shouldn't it be the candidates who had to collect the signatures. If you were going for a "same rules for everyone" idea. Maybe at the same time consider separating party membership from voter registration.
Attacking Scientology is one thing. We all know that it is a crock of crap. However, when somebody hacks a VP candidate, the FBI and Secret Service will react strongly.
Unless Palin is a Scientologist, isn't it far more likely that the real culprits are Scientologists themselves?
Looks like it's another city to add to Triumph's blacklist.
You mean that being in a country which has been a "war zone" more or less since it came into existance dosn't already qualify?
Now I can just imagine irate neighbors taking poop and planting them to get their neighbors in trouble.
All you'd need would be a sample of the dog's DNA. There's also the possibility of people trying to seed the "poop bins" in order to get more freebies.
If only we could round up all the politicians and lobbyists in the same small area and convince them like lemmings to jump off a bridge...
I think a lot of things would improve.
So long as it was a bridge over deep water and you made sure they were wearing heavy enough clothing that they wouldn't float. So there wouldn't be any mess to clean up afterwards.
No country in the history of civilization (including ancient Greece) has ever been a "pure democracy". Insisting on your kind of pedantry would make the word democracy completely useless.
Actually it was Classical Athens. At the time there was no Greek nation state, instead various city states with various forms of government. The form of government used in Athens at the time was radically different from that currently in existance anywhere now though.
Moreover, any country without a hereditary king is a republic, including Burma, Syria, Sadaam's Iraq, Mussolini's Italy, etc.
There are plenty of forms of government which are neither Monarchies or Republics. There's at least one example of a Monarchy without a heredity Monarch.
The only way we've found to ensure liberty so far is to use a democratic republic.
Very often countries which call themselves "The Democratic Republic of Somewhere" arc actually dictatorships.
I always wondered about if accepting the gpl is required. If I decline the gpl license, what right does I have to use the software?
Exactly the same right you had if you accepted. You can make "personal use" of the software however you like. (Which is potentially a great deal of use if you are a large corporation). If you don't agree then you cannot distribute the software to any other party (except the copyright holder).
I mean I don't think I have any right to use any software, unless that right is explicit given to me.
Or is the fact that I am in possession of the software enough to also grant me right to run it?
That depends on the "law of the land". In some places there is applicable statute or case law which gives such permission so long as the software was lawfully aquired. (IIRC this includes the US).
Well that depends on how one is going to use it. But too not split hairs the GPL requires you to include the GPL with all GPL software. It doesn't say that it can not be displayed for them.
But displaying it in a way which attempts to force it to be read is something else. As is pretending it is some sort of EULA or somehow required to be agreed to in order to install or execute a program. Someone who is either installing or running a GPL program does not even need to know that the GPL exists...
Mozilla seems to want to do what is right.
If that was the case then they would have dropped this issue long ago.
I can't distribute copyrighted work without a license
Actually what you need is permission from the copyright holder(s). Something like the GPL grants you such permission, typically subject to some conditions. You are always free to negotiate for permission with copyright holders (or people acting on their behalf).
In fact, that's the fundamental argument about why an EULA for GPL'd software is wrong. An EULA really implies an "End User Use License Agreement". But GPL software is sold (or given), not licensed. The GPL is a distribution license, and explicitly places no restrictions on use.
IIRC the GPL does not actually forbid software having an EULA. So long as that EULA concerned itself with *using* the software.
So the EULA for Firefox really ought to say, "You can use Firefox for whatever you want, but if you want to distribute it, please comply with the GPL. Oh, and don't use the trademark 'Firefox' for any other browser. Otherwise, have a nice day!"
The part saying "if you want to distribute it, please comply with the GPL." is redundent in two ways. The first is that the GPL already covers distribution. The second is that program is unable to distribute itself. Just about every program which does distribute itself as a normal part of execution is considered to be malware anyway. Indicating that "Firefox" is a trademark would be more effectivly done by suffixing the superscript letters "TM" or the encirculed R glyph in all documentation.
Maybe so, but it's still an annoyance, and it's one that will be seen very early and hurt first impressions. Also, though Windows users may be used to EULA's while installing software,
Even though at that point there cannot be an "End User", by definition.
getting one when they're actually trying to run a program is going to be jarring.
It's actually slightly less daft that at installation. But still rather pointless since there's no way for the software producer to know who the End User actually is. Let alone if they will ever have a provable case of an EULA violation.
Yes, perhaps, but you are not forced to agree in order to use the product. You may deny the GPL and still use the software. Any software packaged on windows which requires you to check that you accept the terms is improperly packaged.
Having a program present some text as an EULA does not make it an EULA. Any more than claiming that some French text is actually English or German. It dosn't really matter if the text in question is the GPL, a quote from the bible or some random text from Project Gutenberg. That's before you even consider that EULA's are often thrown up at install time.
The EULA is at present still considered to be binding.
IIRC EULA's are very much "untested" when it comes to their legal status. Even if the concept was found to have legal standing the actual content on an EULA is subject to the "law of the land". Specifically statute and case laws will "trump" anything in an EULA.
Just because most GNU software doesn't have a EULA doesn't mean that projects which do should have their rights undermined for the sake of zealots. Of course the EULA isn't going to be displayed if it doesn't exist.
It's not unknown for various install routines (especially under Windows) to present something as an EULA even when it in fact isn't.
Requiring that the EULA be displayed 1 time the first time it's run is hardly unreasonable.
The original article mentions that much of the text is meaningless in the context it is presented.
Evidence has just been presented that Osama bin Laden had nothing to do with 9/11..
This isn't entirely new evidence either.
that's what this story is about.. and yet you persist in repeating the fiction we've been fed for the last 7 years - for which there has never been presented the slightest bit of evidence
Actually the whole "he did it" idea most closely follows that "nutjob conspiracy theory" including trying hard to make the facts fit the theory and downplaying any evidence which is mutually exclusive. As opposed to the approach a scientist (or detective) would take in forming a theory which would be consistent with as much evidence as possible. Typically radically changing there theory as new evidence became available. In contrast the Bin Laden/Al-Quada emerged, fully formed, within hours/minutes of the crashes. Before much evidence gathering could possibly have happened.
(except "trust us").
If you believe that from people who are proven liers and crooks then you are very foolish...
Not only that, but once the data is transmitted to-da-Feds, apparently the transmitter is semi-immune from a potential beating by the said-accused. Sorta like those security cams that are so ubiquitous but yet-oh-so-different as The Real-time.
Does this mean that when the police are up to something dodgy the phone system is apt to go down though?
Radio will kill the live music industry. Vinyl will kill radio and live music. Home taping will kill vinyl, radio and live music. Copying CDs will kill music. MP3s will kill music.
It wasn't true back then and it isn't true now. People want to listen to music, plain and simple. The RIAA know that damn well, they're not that stupid. Quite why they're so keen to describe every new piece of technology as the thing that will eventually kill them, I don't know. Some sort of control thing?
About the only way to kill music would be something which would kill the human race. However if the current music industry were to die, for any reason, a new one would come into being within a short time.
IMHO, the *AA could create a DRM scheme so advanced that it it powered by AI and knows, with 100% success, whether or not you're using content in a method that constitutes fair use...and it would still be bullshit, because no one should be able to tell you what you can do with what you own.
Maybe instead they could attempt to produce entertaining fiction.
Websense's big problem is that it's used in secondary schools and sixth form colleges in the UK (equivalent to junior high and above, I think). Few people are more industrious at finding simple holes than a school full of bored and idle kids wanting to surf myspace during lessons.
Most obviously is that a US product is likely to generate both false positives and false negatives for offensive words when used outside of the US. Possibly even when used outside of a specific part of the US. Offensive words, even offensive concepts can be very specific to both dialect and geography. That's before you even consider the some of the strange political views which the people running the companies which produce this kind of software often appear to have.
If you kill someone, you can certainly find yourself in court.
In many cases this simply isn't the case. Especially where the killer is a police officer, who may escape being charged with anything at all.
The outcome is determined by the totality of the facts, not by the exclusive opinion of the person who did the killing.
It may be even if the case actually gets to court. However a decision of if to prosecute at all, even what to charge someone with, can be highly political. Even if the facts of a case fit the definition of "murder" the judge's hands may be tied if they are only changed with a traffic violation.
So what's the difference between sending a whistle blower email anonymously to a reporter and saying "H1! my f3llow 3recti1e dy5funcktion Fr@nds!" to your 100,000 of your closest personal buddies?
Most likely in the first case the email is being sent to an email address which is advertised in some way as being for the submission of newsworthy information to a reporter. e.g. it's published together with articles that reporter has written in newspapers, on websites, etc. The idea that a subset of someone's friends who have could benefit from a certain drug and understand "leet" numbers 100,000 is just isn't credible.
Don't confuse the right to anonymous free speech with the "right" to use other people's equipment and bandwidth to broadcast your speech. One is a constitutionally protected right, the other is a convenient privilege that may be removed by the owners of said equipment and bandwidth at any time.
Consider that the methods which spammers use to try and evade spam filters are analogous to climbing over fences and going through locked doors in the physical world. So it isn't even as if they could honestly say they didn't know that they were trespassing on private property.
I have a big problem with geographics-based laws being applied to the internet. My email goes to a mail server in Virginia. I work in California and live in the Philippines. What jurisdiction applies to me in an anti-spam law?
Since you probably spend a lot of time commuting which country's flag is on the plane you usually use and what is your citizenship?
Slashdot Mirror
How about we just make everyone collect signatures, including the top two parties?
Shouldn't it be the candidates who had to collect the signatures. If you were going for a "same rules for everyone" idea. Maybe at the same time consider separating party membership from voter registration.
Attacking Scientology is one thing. We all know that it is a crock of crap. However, when somebody hacks a VP candidate, the FBI and Secret Service will react strongly.
Unless Palin is a Scientologist, isn't it far more likely that the real culprits are Scientologists themselves?
Looks like it's another city to add to Triumph's blacklist.
You mean that being in a country which has been a "war zone" more or less since it came into existance dosn't already qualify?
Now I can just imagine irate neighbors taking poop and planting them to get their neighbors in trouble.
All you'd need would be a sample of the dog's DNA.
There's also the possibility of people trying to seed the "poop bins" in order to get more freebies.
If only we could round up all the politicians and lobbyists in the same small area and convince them like lemmings to jump off a bridge...
I think a lot of things would improve.
So long as it was a bridge over deep water and you made sure they were wearing heavy enough clothing that they wouldn't float. So there wouldn't be any mess to clean up afterwards.
No country in the history of civilization (including ancient Greece) has ever been a "pure democracy". Insisting on your kind of pedantry would make the word democracy completely useless.
Actually it was Classical Athens. At the time there was no Greek nation state, instead various city states with various forms of government. The form of government used in Athens at the time was radically different from that currently in existance anywhere now though.
Moreover, any country without a hereditary king is a republic, including Burma, Syria, Sadaam's Iraq, Mussolini's Italy, etc.
There are plenty of forms of government which are neither Monarchies or Republics. There's at least one example of a Monarchy without a heredity Monarch.
The only way we've found to ensure liberty so far is to use a democratic republic.
Very often countries which call themselves "The Democratic Republic of Somewhere" arc actually dictatorships.
I always wondered about if accepting the gpl is required. If I decline the gpl license, what right does I have to use the software?
Exactly the same right you had if you accepted. You can make "personal use" of the software however you like. (Which is potentially a great deal of use if you are a large corporation). If you don't agree then you cannot distribute the software to any other party (except the copyright holder).
I mean I don't think I have any right to use any software, unless that right is explicit given to me.
Or is the fact that I am in possession of the software enough to also grant me right to run it?
That depends on the "law of the land". In some places there is applicable statute or case law which gives such permission so long as the software was lawfully aquired. (IIRC this includes the US).
Well that depends on how one is going to use it. But too not split hairs the GPL requires you to include the GPL with all GPL software. It doesn't say that it can not be displayed for them.
But displaying it in a way which attempts to force it to be read is something else. As is pretending it is some sort of EULA or somehow required to be agreed to in order to install or execute a program. Someone who is either installing or running a GPL program does not even need to know that the GPL exists...
Mozilla seems to want to do what is right.
If that was the case then they would have dropped this issue long ago.
I once encountered some free software that displayed the GPL in a dialog, complete with accept/ decline buttons, when it was run the first time.
In which case the person who packaged the installer is a fool.
I can't distribute copyrighted work without a license
Actually what you need is permission from the copyright holder(s). Something like the GPL grants you such permission, typically subject to some conditions. You are always free to negotiate for permission with copyright holders (or people acting on their behalf).
In fact, that's the fundamental argument about why an EULA for GPL'd software is wrong. An EULA really implies an "End User Use License Agreement". But GPL software is sold (or given), not licensed. The GPL is a distribution license, and explicitly places no restrictions on use.
IIRC the GPL does not actually forbid software having an EULA. So long as that EULA concerned itself with *using* the software.
So the EULA for Firefox really ought to say, "You can use Firefox for whatever you want, but if you want to distribute it, please comply with the GPL. Oh, and don't use the trademark 'Firefox' for any other browser. Otherwise, have a nice day!"
The part saying "if you want to distribute it, please comply with the GPL." is redundent in two ways. The first is that the GPL already covers distribution. The second is that program is unable to distribute itself. Just about every program which does distribute itself as a normal part of execution is considered to be malware anyway. Indicating that "Firefox" is a trademark would be more effectivly done by suffixing the superscript letters "TM" or the encirculed R glyph in all documentation.
There are 3rd party services now included in FF which have additional terms not covered by copyright/trademark law.
Copyright is automatic. For it not to apply the work in question must explicitally have been declared to be "public domain".
Maybe so, but it's still an annoyance, and it's one that will be seen very early and hurt first impressions. Also, though Windows users may be used to EULA's while installing software,
Even though at that point there cannot be an "End User", by definition.
getting one when they're actually trying to run a program is going to be jarring.
It's actually slightly less daft that at installation. But still rather pointless since there's no way for the software producer to know who the End User actually is. Let alone if they will ever have a provable case of an EULA violation.
Yes, perhaps, but you are not forced to agree in order to use the product. You may deny the GPL and still use the software. Any software packaged on windows which requires you to check that you accept the terms is improperly packaged.
Having a program present some text as an EULA does not make it an EULA. Any more than claiming that some French text is actually English or German. It dosn't really matter if the text in question is the GPL, a quote from the bible or some random text from Project Gutenberg. That's before you even consider that EULA's are often thrown up at install time.
The EULA is at present still considered to be binding.
IIRC EULA's are very much "untested" when it comes to their legal status. Even if the concept was found to have legal standing the actual content on an EULA is subject to the "law of the land". Specifically statute and case laws will "trump" anything in an EULA.
Just because most GNU software doesn't have a EULA doesn't mean that projects which do should have their rights undermined for the sake of zealots. Of course the EULA isn't going to be displayed if it doesn't exist.
It's not unknown for various install routines (especially under Windows) to present something as an EULA even when it in fact isn't.
Requiring that the EULA be displayed 1 time the first time it's run is hardly unreasonable.
The original article mentions that much of the text is meaningless in the context it is presented.
Evidence has just been presented that Osama bin Laden had nothing to do with 9/11..
This isn't entirely new evidence either.
that's what this story is about.. and yet you persist in repeating the fiction we've been fed for the last 7 years - for which there has never been presented the slightest bit of evidence
Actually the whole "he did it" idea most closely follows that "nutjob conspiracy theory" including trying hard to make the facts fit the theory and downplaying any evidence which is mutually exclusive. As opposed to the approach a scientist (or detective) would take in forming a theory which would be consistent with as much evidence as possible. Typically radically changing there theory as new evidence became available. In contrast the Bin Laden/Al-Quada emerged, fully formed, within hours/minutes of the crashes. Before much evidence gathering could possibly have happened.
(except "trust us").
If you believe that from people who are proven liers and crooks then you are very foolish...
Not only that, but once the data is transmitted to-da-Feds, apparently the transmitter is semi-immune from a potential beating by the said-accused. Sorta like those security cams that are so ubiquitous but yet-oh-so-different as The Real-time.
Does this mean that when the police are up to something dodgy the phone system is apt to go down though?
From China or Korea within two months after DECE is introduced: six or seven players that are "DECE-region-free".
That long?
Radio will kill the live music industry. Vinyl will kill radio and live music. Home taping will kill vinyl, radio and live music. Copying CDs will kill music. MP3s will kill music.
It wasn't true back then and it isn't true now. People want to listen to music, plain and simple. The RIAA know that damn well, they're not that stupid. Quite why they're so keen to describe every new piece of technology as the thing that will eventually kill them, I don't know. Some sort of control thing?
About the only way to kill music would be something which would kill the human race. However if the current music industry were to die, for any reason, a new one would come into being within a short time.
You can put lipstick on a religion-crazed hypocritical nutter, but she's still a religion-crazed hypocriical nutter.
How often do you find religion-crazed nutters who arn't hypocritical?
IMHO, the *AA could create a DRM scheme so advanced that it it powered by AI and knows, with 100% success, whether or not you're using content in a method that constitutes fair use...and it would still be bullshit, because no one should be able to tell you what you can do with what you own.
Maybe instead they could attempt to produce entertaining fiction.
Websense's big problem is that it's used in secondary schools and sixth form colleges in the UK (equivalent to junior high and above, I think). Few people are more industrious at finding simple holes than a school full of bored and idle kids wanting to surf myspace during lessons.
Most obviously is that a US product is likely to generate both false positives and false negatives for offensive words when used outside of the US. Possibly even when used outside of a specific part of the US. Offensive words, even offensive concepts can be very specific to both dialect and geography.
That's before you even consider the some of the strange political views which the people running the companies which produce this kind of software often appear to have.
If you kill someone, you can certainly find yourself in court.
In many cases this simply isn't the case. Especially where the killer is a police officer, who may escape being charged with anything at all.
The outcome is determined by the totality of the facts, not by the exclusive opinion of the person who did the killing.
It may be even if the case actually gets to court. However a decision of if to prosecute at all, even what to charge someone with, can be highly political. Even if the facts of a case fit the definition of "murder" the judge's hands may be tied if they are only changed with a traffic violation.
So what's the difference between sending a whistle blower email anonymously to a reporter and saying "H1! my f3llow 3recti1e dy5funcktion Fr@nds!" to your 100,000 of your closest personal buddies?
Most likely in the first case the email is being sent to an email address which is advertised in some way as being for the submission of newsworthy information to a reporter. e.g. it's published together with articles that reporter has written in newspapers, on websites, etc.
The idea that a subset of someone's friends who have could benefit from a certain drug and understand "leet" numbers 100,000 is just isn't credible.
Don't confuse the right to anonymous free speech with the "right" to use other people's equipment and bandwidth to broadcast your speech. One is a constitutionally protected right, the other is a convenient privilege that may be removed by the owners of said equipment and bandwidth at any time.
Consider that the methods which spammers use to try and evade spam filters are analogous to climbing over fences and going through locked doors in the physical world. So it isn't even as if they could honestly say they didn't know that they were trespassing on private property.
I have a big problem with geographics-based laws being applied to the internet. My email goes to a mail server in Virginia. I work in California and live in the Philippines. What jurisdiction applies to me in an anti-spam law?
Since you probably spend a lot of time commuting which country's flag is on the plane you usually use and what is your citizenship?