"MS will NEVER sue anybody using Linux because the consequences of MS losing that case would be disastrous. Instead they will simply try and make managers (who in most organizations outside the tech sphere are technologically illiterate) make the following connection:
Linux = Patent Violation = Unreliable"
If so, it might help to do two things:
1. Conduct and publish a study with an honest estimate of the number of patents MS code is in violation of.
2. Conduct and publish a study on the number of patents MS has been found guilty of violating.
"So, if he is head of Microsoft's Linux division, and Linux doesn't exist, I wonder why he has not fired himself and declared himself dead?"
Dude! The guy has a nice thing going! If I could get some mega corp to pay good money me to head up their Pangean Exploration Division, I might consider it for a while before turning it down.
"But there does need to be a culture of awareness over the fact that if you dredge up a comment positively attributable to me, it may still not mean much to me."
Indeed, there is a big difference between what I feel may be worth talking or thinking about and what I think is true even.
To put a stupid example up:
I am thinking the sky is silver. (I made sure to think this before, during, and after writing the previous sentence.)
I think the sky is blue. (Just not to play unneeded games, normal daytime sky here.)
[During the early months of the invasion of Afghanistan they bought up all satellite imagery over that country, worldwide, in a tactic later dubbed "checkbook shutter control."]
More like Censorship via Copyright right? Isn't this play on the rise? By private individuals as well as governments?
It's a fundamentally good idea; people who create something have exclusive rights to sell it."
Nope. I can't even agree with that. Have the right to be the first publisher or to sell the right to be the first publisher. Yes.
Fundamental.
Now, as a matter of expediency:
"Something like a 5 year limit would be appropriate in today's fast paced world."
Sure, even 10 might be OK. A person ought to be able to build freely upon what he is exposed to in childhood. Longer terms pollute and shackle a child's brain creatively speaking.
"Bottom line is: supporting Free Software and/or the GNU GPL does not automagically make you speak out against copyright per se at all."
Isn't he rather saying that If you support the GPL you cannot be against copyright?
If so, he is not correct. You can easily be against copyright but choose to use the GPL while it continues as a form of using the enemies weapons and tactics against him.
That said, if copyright were made a lot more sane (could these thoughts help?
then we may indeed be better off with a nice set of copyright and copyleft laws than we would be with no copyright. However his point does not hold up in my view.
Oh and by the way, if anyone is interested, I am not one of the anti-copyright crew but rather am opposed to current copyright laws and practices. (Though we may indeed be better off with no copyright at all than we are with today's copyright situation.)
Actually, if everyone would use Free Software to refer to libre software and freeware to refer to gratis software, we wouldn't really have much confusion.
Plus, I think a lot of people add to the confusion in a deliberate way as they somehow feel threatened by Free Software. Funny thing is, they don't seem to fell threatened by freeware to nearly the same extent.
"I think it simply goes to show how similar day traders are to monkeys."
"He also devised two games that showed monkeys could end up feeling as if they'd won or lost, even though they'd actually broken even. Their seemingly irrational preference for the "winning" game had Chen questioning how useful the monkeys would be as a touchstone for studying human behavior. Then he found that a similar study of day traders conducted by another researcher resulted in the same psychological preference. Even when they came out even, the day traders irrationally preferred to feel they won, rather than lost money."
I don't think it is irrational at all. If I can play two games where the money outcome for each is that I break even, but one leaves me feeling good and one leaves me feeling down, it is comepletely rational under those circumstances to prefer to play the game where I at least feel good when I am done playing.
Now, it might indeed be irrational to prefer a game where I lost a lot and felt like I won to one where I won a lot but felt like I lost. I could of course just be chalking the losses up to entertainment expenses.
"Oy. So now it makes a difference if I'm using my own computer or not? Or if I'm eating a bagel while logging in? Or if I have a hangover? Because my typing pattern is going to be different in each case."
This is along the lines of my initial thoughts. Suppose I sprain my finger? I can't log in until I get better? Lose a finger in a fight with laser equipped sharks? Say good bye to your data? ~;-)
I posted another link before the wikipedia one, it is just a few sentences long. Did you check it?
To sum things up.
There is defamation. You can break it down into slander and libel. Slander is verbal defamation, libel is written defamation. Both slander and libel are actionable.
So, no, you can't slander someone and call it free speech and get away with it if they follow up. I am not a lawyer either so that is why I made my post as a question in case you knew something the articles did not mention.
I may indeed not know more than you, but you seemed to be leaving slander out of the equation and only talking free speech and libel. It seems slander is the verbal form of defamation and is not protected by free speech. Do you know different?
Now to go on with this last post, perhaps slander has higher standards than libel, I don't recall seeing this discussed anywhere. This is basically what you are saying is it not? (If I get you right here.)
BTW, I was trying to be helpful not trying to make a dig. You may have read too much into my post.
"I suppose the classic distinction between free speech and libel is that the former is in a transient medium, while the latter is mass-distributed and accessible for the long term."
It's not really like that, but if the law is gonna deem it so, then we need a technical solution that specifically says yes or no so that people looking around can do so in a legally safe manner.
"If they have a problem with AutoCAD, and they can bring that kind of numbers to bear on the problem, don't you think that AutoDesk (or whomever makes AutoCAD) is going to be fairly solicitous of their needs?"
Lip service perhaps. These days, there seems to be more of an effort to achieve customer lock in that to meet customer needs.
Slashdot Mirror
"MS will NEVER sue anybody using Linux because the consequences of MS losing that case would be disastrous. Instead they will simply try and make managers (who in most organizations outside the tech sphere are technologically illiterate) make the following connection:
Linux = Patent Violation = Unreliable"
If so, it might help to do two things:
1. Conduct and publish a study with an honest estimate of the number of patents MS code is in violation of.
2. Conduct and publish a study on the number of patents MS has been found guilty of violating.
3. ???
(Couldn't resist 3. - sorry...)
all the best,
drew
"So, if he is head of Microsoft's Linux division, and Linux doesn't exist, I wonder why he has not fired himself and declared himself dead?"
Dude! The guy has a nice thing going! If I could get some mega corp to pay good money me to head up their Pangean Exploration Division, I might consider it for a while before turning it down.
all the best,
drew
"But there does need to be a culture of awareness over the fact that if you dredge up a comment positively attributable to me, it may still not mean much to me."
Indeed, there is a big difference between what I feel may be worth talking or thinking about and what I think is true even.
To put a stupid example up:
I am thinking the sky is silver. (I made sure to think this before, during, and after writing the previous sentence.)
I think the sky is blue. (Just not to play unneeded games, normal daytime sky here.)
all the best,
drew
[During the early months of the invasion of Afghanistan they bought up all satellite imagery over that country, worldwide, in a tactic later dubbed "checkbook shutter control."]
More like Censorship via Copyright right? Isn't this play on the rise? By private individuals as well as governments?
all the best,
drew
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=zotzbro
"Developers overseas now are asking why they should get paid less than others, he said."
Because it costs you less to live well where you are?
Not saying I agree or disagree, but that would be one reason given to such a question.
Why should your landlord get paid less than a landlord elsewhere? Your grocer? Etc...
all the best,
drew
"Honestly, what really happens here?"
You have to get fingerprinted to sell your own used CDs and you can't get cash for them. How about that?
all the best,
drew
"So, except for the only store credit part, they're making them follow the same laws that pawn shops must follow here in Colorado?"
Do the laws only apply to CDs in Colorado?
all the best,
drew
It's a fundamentally good idea; people who create something have exclusive rights to sell it."
Nope. I can't even agree with that. Have the right to be the first publisher or to sell the right to be the first publisher. Yes.
Fundamental.
Now, as a matter of expediency:
"Something like a 5 year limit would be appropriate in today's fast paced world."
Sure, even 10 might be OK. A person ought to be able to build freely upon what he is exposed to in childhood. Longer terms pollute and shackle a child's brain creatively speaking.
all the best,
drew
I think a lot of people do see copyrights as artificial rights and not natural rights though.
I do agree that many would be happy to use these artificial rights to spur the creation of new works though.
I also think that not having any copyrights could indeed be better than what we have today.
all the best,
drew
"Who are these amazing people that want to abolish copyright?"
Look for the people with the straw poking down from under their hats.
all the best,
drew
"Bottom line is: supporting Free Software and/or the GNU GPL does not automagically make you speak out against copyright per se at all."
- on-copyright-offensive.html
Isn't he rather saying that If you support the GPL you cannot be against copyright?
If so, he is not correct. You can easily be against copyright but choose to use the GPL while it continues as a form of using the enemies weapons and tactics against him.
That said, if copyright were made a lot more sane (could these thoughts help?
http://zotzbro.blogspot.com/2007/04/some-thoughts
)
then we may indeed be better off with a nice set of copyright and copyleft laws than we would be with no copyright. However his point does not hold up in my view.
Oh and by the way, if anyone is interested, I am not one of the anti-copyright crew but rather am opposed to current copyright laws and practices. (Though we may indeed be better off with no copyright at all than we are with today's copyright situation.)
all the best,
drew
1. A method for the initial speeding up the creation of source code.
2. ???
3. Profit.
Actually, if everyone would use Free Software to refer to libre software and freeware to refer to gratis software, we wouldn't really have much confusion.
Plus, I think a lot of people add to the confusion in a deliberate way as they somehow feel threatened by Free Software. Funny thing is, they don't seem to fell threatened by freeware to nearly the same extent.
all the best,
drew
"In regards to GPL'd/GFDL'd/CCL'd music, those are non-statutory licenses."
Hmmm, if so, except perhaps in the case of CC BY-NC(-*) right?
all the best,
drew
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biOFnAlXrV8
Man! And here I was hoping to build out a nano-internet in a bread box!
all the best,
drew
"Yeah, that caught my eye also. I think it was supposed to mean that it's irrational to feel you've won or lost when you've broken even.
:)"
Of course that's not what the author actually wrote
Good point. Interesting wording that.
It would be irrational to think you had won or lost when you've broken even. Feel? I don't know that how we feel is a rational deal from the start.
all the best,
drew
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=zotzbro
UFOs, paper planes, and a bit more.
What? Monkeys or amoebas?
And let's not even mention those spyrogyrators shall we?
all the best,
drew
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=zotzbro
If you dare...
"I think it simply goes to show how similar day traders are to monkeys."
"He also devised two games that showed monkeys could end up feeling as if they'd won or lost, even though they'd actually broken even. Their seemingly irrational preference for the "winning" game had Chen questioning how useful the monkeys would be as a touchstone for studying human behavior. Then he found that a similar study of day traders conducted by another researcher resulted in the same psychological preference. Even when they came out even, the day traders irrationally preferred to feel they won, rather than lost money."
I don't think it is irrational at all. If I can play two games where the money outcome for each is that I break even, but one leaves me feeling good and one leaves me feeling down, it is comepletely rational under those circumstances to prefer to play the game where I at least feel good when I am done playing.
Now, it might indeed be irrational to prefer a game where I lost a lot and felt like I won to one where I won a lot but felt like I lost. I could of course just be chalking the losses up to entertainment expenses.
all the best,
drew
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=zotzbro
UFOs, Paper Planes, and underwater smoke rings...
"Oy. So now it makes a difference if I'm using my own computer or not? Or if I'm eating a bagel while logging in? Or if I have a hangover? Because my typing pattern is going to be different in each case."
This is along the lines of my initial thoughts. Suppose I sprain my finger? I can't log in until I get better? Lose a finger in a fight with laser equipped sharks? Say good bye to your data? ~;-)
all the best,
drew
[If I recall correctly, you have an option to make a left turn.
It's marked by a sign that simply has an arrow and the word "Canada" on it.]
I hope you were headed east. If that sign shows for those headed west... Mexico here we come!
(Don't think you would have a one leaf clover loop on such a road...)
all the best,
drew
I posted another link before the wikipedia one, it is just a few sentences long. Did you check it?
To sum things up.
There is defamation. You can break it down into slander and libel. Slander is verbal defamation, libel is written defamation. Both slander and libel are actionable.
So, no, you can't slander someone and call it free speech and get away with it if they follow up. I am not a lawyer either so that is why I made my post as a question in case you knew something the articles did not mention.
I may indeed not know more than you, but you seemed to be leaving slander out of the equation and only talking free speech and libel. It seems slander is the verbal form of defamation and is not protected by free speech. Do you know different?
Now to go on with this last post, perhaps slander has higher standards than libel, I don't recall seeing this discussed anywhere. This is basically what you are saying is it not? (If I get you right here.)
BTW, I was trying to be helpful not trying to make a dig. You may have read too much into my post.
all the best,
drew
"I suppose the classic distinction between free speech and libel is that the former is in a transient medium, while the latter is mass-distributed and accessible for the long term."
r /defamation_character.htm
Are you sure you get this?
Check:
http://injury-law.freeadvice.com/libel_and_slande
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slander_and_libel
all the best,
drew
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biOFnAlXrV8
A UFO takes a potcake for nefarious purposes.
It's not really like that, but if the law is gonna deem it so, then we need a technical solution that specifically says yes or no so that people looking around can do so in a legally safe manner.
all the best,
drew
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biOFnAlXrV8
A UFO takes a potcake for nefarious purposes.
"Do you think the Association fo Computing Machinery could fund the best software development environment for their needs?"
Sure. Why not then?
"Better to centralise our efforts surely?"
I don't think I ever mentioned centralising efforts. (You have to read carefully perhaps to get that. Not sure.)
all the best,
drew
"If they have a problem with AutoCAD, and they can bring that kind of numbers to bear on the problem, don't you think that AutoDesk (or whomever makes AutoCAD) is going to be fairly solicitous of their needs?"
Lip service perhaps. These days, there seems to be more of an effort to achieve customer lock in that to meet customer needs.
all the best,
drew