You ask your electric utility to specify the voltage and frequency of the electricity they deliver. Instead, they try to sell you the blueprints for a power plant.
> Oh, and I suspect they'll insist on the standard "you can't work > with a computer" clause that will keep the guy from making a decent > living for another decade after he leaves prison.
Such "clauses" are always conditions of parole and expire at the end of the sentence.
>...by just offering bounties to law enforcement agencies for the > arrest and incarceration of guys like this?
Trouble is, if he had stayed away from the military computers he'd be safe. Taking over 500,000 home computers is not a violation of the computer fraud and abuse act.
Even two years in prison is certainly not a "slap on the hand". The problem here is not insufficient punishment. it's insufficient enforcement. If he had not made the mistake of breaking into military computers he would have never been prosecuted.
My former ISP imposed Postini on its customers without notice a couple of years ago. In the week before I noticed and turned the "service" off it passed about 60% of the spam and stopped about 20% of the valid email.
I know your pain, I dealt with it myself although in my case I am not depended on hotmail users so simply don't care that much. It is a lot of extra work but that is the cost of spam. No spam, no spam filters. It is something people often forget, it is not just the bandwidth cost and the time wasted sorting through spam but also the fact the real emails get lost in the mess.
> What percent of persons using a cell phone have developed a tumor > in the first place?
The same percentage as the general population.
> I think that with the massive use of cell phones in our culture, > and the lower numbers of tumors in the same population, we are > going to find that there is probably not a real strong correlation.
There is no correlation at all, nor is there any plausible theory that predicts that there would be.
> What you have left is simple: does the cancer happen on one side > more than the other? Well, yes it does. That's enough to say that > cell phones are almost certainly affecting the cancer.
If that were true they would have found an overall correlation between cellphone use and cancer. They didn't. They found a small increase on the reported phone-use side and a matching decrease on the reported non-use side. This is completely explained by assuming that some subjects erroneously reported using the phone on the side they had a tumor on.
Of course, it's all bullshit anyway. It is bloody well obvious from basic physics that cellphones can't cause cancer.
>...keeping your phone on the side you don't have a tumor yet will > remove the tumor you have on the other side...
If that were the case the study would have revealed a slight decrease in brain tumors among cell-phone users. Obviously cell phones don't cause tumors: they attract them. Keeping your phone on your tumorless side will merely cause your tumor to migrate.
> Modification can also trigger copyright protections.
That's a nonsensical statement. Copyright protection does not need any triggering.
> The FSF has said they don't care about modifications that you don't > distribute, but legally the GPL does apply to you if you merely > modify without distributing, since it is the only license that > grants you rights that you would not normally have under copyright > law.
A distinction without a difference. Modifying without distribution does not require anything of you.
> As far as I can tell, however, it says not one word about actually > using the software itself.
It says this:
Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are
not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act
of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the
Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based
on the Program
Thus as long as you only use GPL software the license has nothing to do with you.
> Can't this just be as simple as "We use/have modified the xxx > distribution of Linux. If you want to know everything and anything > about it, here's Google/a link to a site that has every Linux > contributer ever.
That is far in excess of what they would need to do. The don't need to say anything at all about mere use or unmodified distribution as the does not give them ownership of any "IP". If they make modifications a brief description of the program modifed and the modifications they made would suffice. There is no need for them to go on about who else contributed. If the value of their contribution is small I doubt that they are required to reveal it at all.
Slashdot Mirror
Also look at your power factor. If you don't know what that is you need to hire a consultant who does.
> Has anyone tried this?
Falling asleep in front of the computer every few hours? Sure.
> What were your experiences?
It's likely to get you fired.
> They don't have to give out code.
Correct. No one is asking them for source code. They came up with that themselves.
> They can choose not to do business in Europe.
Or they can provide the specifications that they were ordered to provide.
You ask your electric utility to specify the voltage and frequency of the electricity they deliver. Instead, they try to sell you the blueprints for a power plant.
> The injunction could be issued if NTP makes the case that they are
> suffering irrepairable harm...
They don't have to. Irreparable harm is presumed. RIM must rebut that presumption.
> ...I have the executables and wouldn't have to stop using them
> until someone came knocking at my door.
It's extremely unlikely that a patent owner would sue individual or small corporate users.
> I'm a Brit myself ... this proudly secular country...
A "secular" country with an official state religion. Right.
> Oh, and I suspect they'll insist on the standard "you can't work
> with a computer" clause that will keep the guy from making a decent
> living for another decade after he leaves prison.
Such "clauses" are always conditions of parole and expire at the end of the sentence.
> As I understand it, fair use copying is basically for backup
> purposes only.
You do not understand it. Among other things, you are confounding "fair use" with the Audio Home Recoding Act.
> ...by just offering bounties to law enforcement agencies for the
> arrest and incarceration of guys like this?
Trouble is, if he had stayed away from the military computers he'd be safe. Taking over 500,000 home computers is not a violation of the computer fraud and abuse act.
> Just a slap on the hand.
Even two years in prison is certainly not a "slap on the hand". The problem here is not insufficient punishment. it's insufficient enforcement. If he had not made the mistake of breaking into military computers he would have never been prosecuted.
My former ISP imposed Postini on its customers without notice a couple of years ago. In the week before I noticed and turned the "service" off it passed about 60% of the spam and stopped about 20% of the valid email.
Spamassassin doesn't lose any of my valid emails.
A good way to get fired and perhaps arrested as well.
> However, the employer will most likely find it easier to replace
> the employee than fix the security system.
Not if he invokes the ADA. He is obviously disabled, and they must accomodate him.
And it never occurred to him to invoke the ADA?
We can only hope.
> I was just thinking about the favorite remote-detonation switch:
> the cheapy, throw-away cell phone.
Generally used as a timer, not a remote-detonation device.
> What percent of persons using a cell phone have developed a tumor
> in the first place?
The same percentage as the general population.
> I think that with the massive use of cell phones in our culture,
> and the lower numbers of tumors in the same population, we are
> going to find that there is probably not a real strong correlation.
There is no correlation at all, nor is there any plausible theory that predicts that there would be.
> What you have left is simple: does the cancer happen on one side
> more than the other? Well, yes it does. That's enough to say that
> cell phones are almost certainly affecting the cancer.
If that were true they would have found an overall correlation between cellphone use and cancer. They didn't. They found a small increase on the reported phone-use side and a matching decrease on the reported non-use side. This is completely explained by assuming that some subjects erroneously reported using the phone on the side they had a tumor on.
Of course, it's all bullshit anyway. It is bloody well obvious from basic physics that cellphones can't cause cancer.
> ...keeping your phone on the side you don't have a tumor yet will
> remove the tumor you have on the other side...
If that were the case the study would have revealed a slight decrease in brain tumors among cell-phone users. Obviously cell phones don't cause tumors: they attract them. Keeping your phone on your tumorless side will merely cause your tumor to migrate.
> Modification can also trigger copyright protections.
That's a nonsensical statement. Copyright protection does not need any triggering.
> The FSF has said they don't care about modifications that you don't
> distribute, but legally the GPL does apply to you if you merely
> modify without distributing, since it is the only license that
> grants you rights that you would not normally have under copyright
> law.
A distinction without a difference. Modifying without distribution does not require anything of you.
> As far as I can tell, however, it says not one word about actually
> using the software itself.
It says this:
Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are
not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act
of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the
Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based
on the Program
Thus as long as you only use GPL software the license has nothing to do with you.
> Can't this just be as simple as "We use/have modified the xxx
> distribution of Linux. If you want to know everything and anything
> about it, here's Google/a link to a site that has every Linux
> contributer ever.
That is far in excess of what they would need to do. The don't need to say anything at all about mere use or unmodified distribution as the does not give them ownership of any "IP". If they make modifications a brief description of the program modifed and the modifications they made would suffice. There is no need for them to go on about who else contributed. If the value of their contribution is small I doubt that they are required to reveal it at all.
The state has sovereign immunity.