> if your going to get a false positive why filter?
My spam folder gets several hundred messages each day. It is _impossible_ for me to read every one of them to determine if it is really spam. I glance over the subject lines and read the occasional borderline one, but I _guarantee_ you that I am already getting false positives. If I dropped spamassassin and allowed the spam into my other folders I would get even more false positives as I impatiently deleted every other message as obvious spam.
> Your spam may be my correspondence -- I may want > to get mail from those whose conduct you find > abhorrent.
You _want_ to receive mail from the bastards that are forging my domain in their penis-enlargement ads and fake PayPal confirmation requests?
> Today, a network may responsibly be censoring > only unwanted and unsolicited commercial e-mail. > Next week, the powers-that-be-in-the-networks > start censoring geek news.
I'm the only power that is on my network.
> To protect our liberties, spam control should be > decentralized -- as close to the last mile as > possible.
Can't get any closer to the last mile then right here in my office.
> Yes, of course, this means that the supposed > great harm of spam -- huge volume transmissions > through the network
"Supposed"? More than half my email is spam. And that's on a shared dialup.
> Under the Berne convention, and various local laws > depending on where you are, there's some rights > that are inalienable, and cannot be transferred to > the public domain even if you want to!
Which is another way of saying that you do not have the right to place your work in the public domain. Interesting how often laws forbidding people to do something are labeled "rights".
> "Inalienable rights" is a strange concept to > Americans in particular...
ROTFLMAO. You really ought to learn something about the US (something that is true, that is).
> I have contributed code to the Linux kernel, and I > suppose many other people here did. Can I sue > them?
Probably not, because they are not proposing to license Linux. They are promising not to sue UnixWare licensees who also use Linux for copyright infringement.
On the other hand, you could threaten to sue them for appropriating your code into UnixWare...
> It is a bit ironic that the Freenet project > doesn't run on a free system like Debian > GNU/Linux.
Package: freenet-unstable Priority: extra Section: contrib/net Installed-Size: 1532 Maintainer: Robert Bihlmeyer Architecture: all Version: 0.6+20021221-1 Depends: kaffe (>= 1:1.0.6-4) | java-virtual-machine, adduser, debianutils (>= 1.6), net-tools, debconf (>= 1.2.9) Conflicts: freenet Filename: pool/contrib/f/freenet-unstable/freenet-unstable_0.6+20021221-1_all.deb Size: 1273386 MD5sum: f1e9f4ae9949f77f618bd1ff6d7a5220 Description: A peer-to-peer network for anonymous publishing (unstable branch)
Freenet is a decentralised network of nodes designed to allow for efficient
distribution of information over the Internet. Freenet's goals are resilience
to censorship, and anonymity for producers and consumers of information
through plausible denyability. .
This package provides the software necessary to run a Freenet node able to
take part in the network used by versions 0.4 to 0.6. Content can be inserted
and retrieved with a commandline tool, or via the HTTP gateway with any
browser. .
This is a snapshot from the development branch.
> It is possible to keep an invention secret for > years after an actual reduction to practice and > before filing a patent application, and still keep > the date of conception as the date of the > invention, as long as the patent is applied for > within one year of the invention becoming public.
Unfortunately, it isn't. In barratry the victim is the _client_: a lawyer commits barratry when he induces a client to enter into lawsuits that he knows he cannot win in order to enrich himself at the client's expense.
> After all is said and done, if SCO loses (which is > likely) they will be called on the carpet for > this, I'm sure.
> Excuse me, but isn't extortion illegal in the US?
It isn't extortion. Extortion would involve a threat of violence. I am perfectly free to send you a letter offering to promise not to sue you for running Windows if you send me $1000.
> They're talking about theft of copyrighted > material.
"Theft of copyrighted material" would be stealing a book. Copyright infringement is not theft, according to the US Supreme Court.
> If you have a music (or other copyrighted work) > file, and you didn't buy it, technically you > stole it.
BULLSHIT. I have gigabytes of copyrighted software on my computer that I did not buy: in fact I have no software that I _did_ buy. None of it was acquired in violation of copyright law (or "stolen" as you would erroneously put it). Furthermore, as many as several hundred thousand people have software on their computers that I own the copyright on, legally and without paying me (or anyone else) anything.
> It's the USPTO people who are missing this > experience to find prior art. But can we really > expect one (government) organization to have deep > experience in every field?
That is _exactly_ what the USPTO is supposed to do: employ examiners expert in every field. They are also supposed to require them to thoroughly research every application.
> There's something fundamentally wrong with the > idea of the USPTO.
Yes, but this isn't it. Thirty years ago bullshit patents like this were not granted.
Slashdot Mirror
> Can anyone please give advice on how to overcome
> this problem, be it a little trick, medication, or
> anything else?"
I do only unpaid work on Free Software, with no deadlines. Since there is no pressure I don't put it off.
Of course, I'm poor as a churchmouse...
> if your going to get a false positive why filter?
My spam folder gets several hundred messages each day. It is _impossible_ for me to read every one of them to determine if it is really spam. I glance over the subject lines and read the occasional borderline one, but I _guarantee_ you that I am already getting false positives. If I dropped spamassassin and allowed the spam into my other folders I would get even more false positives as I impatiently deleted every other message as obvious spam.
> Your spam may be my correspondence -- I may want
> to get mail from those whose conduct you find
> abhorrent.
You _want_ to receive mail from the bastards that are forging my domain in their penis-enlargement ads and fake PayPal confirmation requests?
> Today, a network may responsibly be censoring
> only unwanted and unsolicited commercial e-mail.
> Next week, the powers-that-be-in-the-networks
> start censoring geek news.
I'm the only power that is on my network.
> To protect our liberties, spam control should be
> decentralized -- as close to the last mile as
> possible.
Can't get any closer to the last mile then right here in my office.
> Yes, of course, this means that the supposed
> great harm of spam -- huge volume transmissions
> through the network
"Supposed"? More than half my email is spam. And that's on a shared dialup.
> Under the Berne convention, and various local laws
...where *everything* is a commodity....
> depending on where you are, there's some rights
> that are inalienable, and cannot be transferred to
> the public domain even if you want to!
Which is another way of saying that you do not have the right to place your work in the public domain. Interesting how often laws forbidding people to do something are labeled "rights".
> "Inalienable rights" is a strange concept to
> Americans in particular...
ROTFLMAO. You really ought to learn something about the US (something that is true, that is).
>
ROTFLMAO again.
> I say targeted because we have not yet selected a
> licensing model and placed the code in the public
> domain
Are you going to license it or place it in the public domain? You can't do both.
See it.
The closest we have is the FTC. Won't do you any good to file a complaint until you actually receive something directly from SCO, though.
> I have contributed code to the Linux kernel, and I
> suppose many other people here did. Can I sue
> them?
Probably not, because they are not proposing to license Linux. They are promising not to sue UnixWare licensees who also use Linux for copyright infringement.
On the other hand, you could threaten to sue them for appropriating your code into UnixWare...
> For a real collectors' item, i.e. to have any :-)
> value there needs to be scarcity. These nastygrams
> will be far too common to be valuable!
Has anyone actually received one yet?
SCO has made all sorts of wild statements to the press about copyright, but their suit against IBM has to do only with breach of contract.
> If you want your program to be included in Debian,
> you may package it yourself.
That won't get it included in Debian. Only Debian developers can add packages to the distribution.
> Or, you could file an RFP (Request For Package).
Yes.
> It is a bit ironic that the Freenet project
0 .6+20021221-1_all.deb
.
.
> doesn't run on a free system like Debian
> GNU/Linux.
Package: freenet-unstable
Priority: extra
Section: contrib/net
Installed-Size: 1532
Maintainer: Robert Bihlmeyer
Architecture: all
Version: 0.6+20021221-1
Depends: kaffe (>= 1:1.0.6-4) | java-virtual-machine, adduser, debianutils (>= 1.6), net-tools, debconf (>= 1.2.9)
Conflicts: freenet
Filename: pool/contrib/f/freenet-unstable/freenet-unstable_
Size: 1273386
MD5sum: f1e9f4ae9949f77f618bd1ff6d7a5220
Description: A peer-to-peer network for anonymous publishing (unstable branch)
Freenet is a decentralised network of nodes designed to allow for efficient
distribution of information over the Internet. Freenet's goals are resilience
to censorship, and anonymity for producers and consumers of information
through plausible denyability.
This package provides the software necessary to run a Freenet node able to
take part in the network used by versions 0.4 to 0.6. Content can be inserted
and retrieved with a commandline tool, or via the HTTP gateway with any
browser.
This is a snapshot from the development branch.
> Linux : run update.sh in the freenet directory.
/etc/apt/sources.list at unstable and 'apt-get install freenet-unstable'.
Debian GNU/Linux: point
> Should I send a couple of bucks to Hans, a couple
> to KDE e.v., and so on, or just buy from SuSE?
Neither. You should pick a developer (preferably one who no company "contracts") and send him $20.
> YAST.
YAST is a reason not to support Free Software?
> Like the other guy said, it makes evangelizing
> that much easier / effective.
Evangelizing doesn't pay the rent.
> Also, I don't program, so it's my way of giving a
.1% of your money ends up in their hands.
:)
> little back to the nice people at SuSE for
> sponsoring KDE developers and the like.
Why don't you send the money directly to the developers? The way you are doing it maybe
> I may not have a stall in the Bazar, but I can
> bring doughnuts to share.
Then why not share them with the guys in the stalls doing the actual work?
> It is possible to keep an invention secret for
> years after an actual reduction to practice and
> before filing a patent application, and still keep
> the date of conception as the date of the
> invention, as long as the patent is applied for
> within one year of the invention becoming public.
Not true. Look up "diligence".
Unfortunately, it isn't. In barratry the victim is the _client_: a lawyer commits barratry when he induces a client to enter into lawsuits that he knows he cannot win in order to enrich himself at the client's expense.
> After all is said and done, if SCO loses (which is
> likely) they will be called on the carpet for
> this, I'm sure.
Not a chance.
> Excuse me, but isn't extortion illegal in the US?
It isn't extortion. Extortion would involve a threat of violence. I am perfectly free to send you a letter offering to promise not to sue you for running Windows if you send me $1000.
I'm tempted to write to all SCO customers telling them that for only $100 I will guarantee that they can run SCO without fear of litigation from me.
> I guess it just goes to show that no matter how
> overpopulated the world seems, there is still a
> lot of wide-open space out there.
You have an urbanite's notion of "wide-open space".
> They're talking about theft of copyrighted
> material.
"Theft of copyrighted material" would be stealing a book. Copyright infringement is not theft, according to the US Supreme Court.
> If you have a music (or other copyrighted work)
> file, and you didn't buy it, technically you
> stole it.
BULLSHIT. I have gigabytes of copyrighted software on my computer that I did not buy: in fact I have no software that I _did_ buy. None of it was acquired in violation of copyright law (or "stolen" as you would erroneously put it). Furthermore, as many as several hundred thousand people have software on their computers that I own the copyright on, legally and without paying me (or anyone else) anything.
> I'm wondering how long it will be before someone
> sues the patent office...
Do a Google search on "sovereign immunity".
> It's the USPTO people who are missing this
> experience to find prior art. But can we really
> expect one (government) organization to have deep
> experience in every field?
That is _exactly_ what the USPTO is supposed to do: employ examiners expert in every field. They are also supposed to require them to thoroughly research every application.
> There's something fundamentally wrong with the
> idea of the USPTO.
Yes, but this isn't it. Thirty years ago bullshit patents like this were not granted.
> So go to the site, click Contact Us, and give
> them a piece of your mind. For that matter, you
> could even snail mail them something.
And send a copy to your congressman.
> The minimum computer requirements are:
> Operating System: Microsoft Windows...
Perhaps we should take "minimum requirements" literally. Looked at that way, Linux and the Mac are clearly ok.