> It will likely be overturned on the grounds that > the original recording was illegal.
Illegal how?
> Therefore the constitutional requirement that > copyright protection (accorded to legally > published works) be granted only for a limited > time does not apply.
The patent and copyright clause is the only authority Congress has for enacting laws restricting copying.
BTW copyright protection is not accorded only to published works (though it should be).
And if there is some reason why it needs to be there, why is it possible to write and execute a new script? Does Microsoft Windows have no equivalent of noexec and readonly?
> Anyone with access to these few servers (100s of > thousands I'm guessing) would be "authorzied" to > send mail for any one of these domains.
But they won't be able to send mail purporting to be from my domain. Joe-job bounces account for about a third of my incoming mail. I want that to stop.
>...if the product were open source and it was > later found to have flaws, could California sue?
Of course they could sue whoever they bought the machines from. Why do you think that the fact that the vendor chose (or was required) to deliver machines running Open Source software would relieve him of his obligation to fulfill the contract?
Reading the paper, I see that there is actually some good stuff in there. Predictably, the Slashdot article ignored it and puffed the useless eye-candy.
The Federal district courts are not "higger up" than state courts: they just have different jurisdiction. The Federal appellate courts are "higer up" than state courts where Constitutional issues are concerned and where state and Federal laws intersect.
Slashdot Mirror
> It will likely be overturned on the grounds that
> the original recording was illegal.
Illegal how?
> Therefore the constitutional requirement that
> copyright protection (accorded to legally
> published works) be granted only for a limited
> time does not apply.
The patent and copyright clause is the only authority Congress has for enacting laws restricting copying.
BTW copyright protection is not accorded only to published works (though it should be).
Have they come up with a name that acronyms into CANSPY yet?
And if there is some reason why it needs to be there, why is it possible to write and execute a new script? Does Microsoft Windows have no equivalent of noexec and readonly?
> Given the choice between access and ms sql
> server for our voting machines, I guess access
> isn't so bad.
What gives you the idea that those were the only choices?
The Federal government objects to paper ballots because blind people need assistance to vote with them.
ROFL
Only my soldering iron? What about my cutting torch and my drill press?
It may not be unethical, but it is a felony under US law.
> It would also break bootcode in older versions
> of Linux...
I know nothing in any Linux kernel that needs the BIOS. Older Linux kernels will boot perfectly well with newer bootloaders.
There is no need for the fibers to be as long as the cable. Ever look at a rope?
It's the other way around. You put their mailservers in your DNS. You don't need their cooperation.
> You're probably thinking, "What's the point?"
It's worthwhile even if all it does is stop scumbags from forging my domain on child porn.
> Anyone with access to these few servers (100s of
> thousands I'm guessing) would be "authorzied" to
> send mail for any one of these domains.
But they won't be able to send mail purporting to be from my domain. Joe-job bounces account for about a third of my incoming mail. I want that to stop.
> UUCP mail. ihnp4 anybody?
Worked for me for years.
john@foundln!bungia!stolaf!ihnp4
Accelerating at 1G for about a year of ship time will get you to any point in the universe, no matter how large it is.
Just don't try to go back home.
Contact one of the companies that does disaster recovery after fires. The methods they use for getting rid of the smell of smoke might work.
Yes. Land is measured in hectares. As in "She'll plow 20 hectares on one liter of kerosene!" (not bloody likely)
Put it out of its misery. Please. It should have died thirty years ago.
> ...if the product were open source and it was
> later found to have flaws, could California sue?
Of course they could sue whoever they bought the machines from. Why do you think that the fact that the vendor chose (or was required) to deliver machines running Open Source software would relieve him of his obligation to fulfill the contract?
Reading the paper, I see that there is actually some good stuff in there. Predictably, the Slashdot article ignored it and puffed the useless eye-candy.
> That's window shadows and window shadows within
> windows as well as true translucency
How do you turn it off?
I don't think they intend to charge. I think they intend to license it under terms intended to freeze out Free Software.
Microsoft owns a patent on it which they intend to enforce in such a way as to freeze out Free Software.
> Most importantly, why wasn't this type of public
> condemnation available for the various W3C
> proposals that had patents attached?
There was considerable discussion and controversy, with the result that W3C dropped their RAND proposal in favor of open standards.
The Federal district courts are not "higger up" than state courts: they just have different jurisdiction. The Federal appellate courts are "higer up" than state courts where Constitutional issues are concerned and where state and Federal laws intersect.