Fair doesn't mean you get treated well, just that it be by the same standard as everyone else.
Somebody just described the Canadian health care system.
You're still alive, aren't you? No problems with getting born in the hospital when you first came into the world, it obviously worked well enough for that. How about all those childhood diseases? When you're sick, it's good to be able to concentrate on getting well instead of worrying about how much it's going to cost, or some HMO deciding that they won't cover you because it's a "pre-existing condition" or because they just don't feel like it, or because you just don't have health insurance.
Also, having everyone treated to the same standard of care means there's more incentive to fix something, since everyone's affected, so people can't just say "it doesn't affect me, so not my problem, now get off my lawn".
Oracle uses Java, their customers use Java, it's all over the place... a chance to keep it out of competitors' hands is a bonus, but the real reason would be to be able to exercise more control over the direction the language takes.
Insights into that area are not as useful to Oracle though.
If it helps get them mind-share, it means that people will look at their other offerings. I personally think they bought Sun for Java, not for MySQL or the hardware biz. There's no reason the java runtime can't be adapted to work with a whole slew of front-end languages - and no reason that Java can't have multiple back-ends bolted onto it. Beat the crap out of Microsofts' CLR and.NET, cover the whole processor and application space from embedded to supercomputing clusters.
It's perfectly feasible to fix Java's performance problems by compiling down to platform-specific code instead of depending on a runtime and just-in-time compilation. That's the sort of thing a company with deep pockets (like Oracle) and a visceral hatred of Microsoft (like Ellison) could do.
It's the sort of project I know I would love to get my grubby little hands on, just from a "gee, this is such an interesting problem" perspective.
Or perhaps Oracle, like Novell and IBM, doesn't like people trying to blackmail them into doing something... Sun is bleeding money because of the delays, and Widenius tried to use that as leverage, and failed. At this point he's just another Darl McBride - "gimme what I want or I drag you through hell."
Widenius and Co. have shown their true colours by asking the EU to invalidate the GPL on all versions of MySQL ever released (contrary to the Bern Convention). They're no friends of open source - never have been. They used the GPL version as a mindshare gimmick.
Game theory shows that a scorched-earth policy is the only proper way to deal with such clowns. Anything less and you lose in the long run. Robert Heinlein had it right in "The Man Who Sold the Moon". When you're wrong, be generous. People will remember that, and respect you for it. When you're right and some asshat tries to run a scam on you, drag them through hell, poison their wells, salt their fields - people will remember that; the honest will respect you for it, and the dishonest will fear you.
Grow up. Really. Do you even HAVE a drivers' license? Have you ever crossed a border (your mama driving you across doesn't count)? You didn't know what the 14th Amendment was, you couldn't parse simple phrases such as "due process" correctly, and you still haven't offered any answer as to why there are no pictures. Not one.
PICS OR IT DIDN'T HAPPEN!
It's as simple as that.
Really - it IS as simple as that.
PICS OR IT DIDN'T HAPPEN!
If he had been beaten, he could have reported it to the Canadian police immediately on entry into Canada. They would have photographed him.
PICS OR IT DIDN'T HAPPEN!
If he had been beaten, he could have gone to ANY hospital, and they would have documented it and treated him.
PICS OR IT DIDN'T HAPPEN!
If he had been beaten, he could have said something at Canada Customs.
PICS OR IT DIDN'T HAPPEN!
Because after all, he wasn't beaten, contrary to his assertions.
PICS OR IT DIDN'T HAPPEN!
Nobody had even a cell phone with a camera? His passenger didn't have a cell phone? Didn't think to use Watt's cell phone?
PICS OR IT DIDN'T HAPPEN!
Explain why there are NO pics.
Explain why we should believe it happened the way Watts claims, despite the total lack of evidence.
PICS OR IT DIDN'T HAPPEN!
Explain why a professor should be so stupid if he's so smart.
PICS OR IT DIDN'T HAPPEN!
Show me the pics instead of making any more lame excuses, lamer.
They treated him as a criminal, and made him into one.
Riiight.... how is telling him to park his ass in his car on a busy bridge (which is a common-sense safety precaution, especially on a cold winter day) treating someone like a criminal?
I'm not sure why they would want to beat him dow
And there's no proof that happened. Like I said, he could have gone for FREE to any hospital and they would have immediately documented it. Pics or it didn't happen.
The officer's report indicated that the person he was speaking with was not the one performing the awful search. Also, I'm unaware how speaking to someone prevents them from doing their job? So, how was he, not speaking to anyone performing any searches, preventing them from performing that search while he was away talking to someone else who wasn't performing any searches?
Maybe if Watts had parked his sorry ass back in the car, the other officer would have been able to concentrate on other things, like handling identification, etc., so as to... you know... get everything done as quickly as possible so as not to inconvenience travellers?
I've never heard that before, and maybe he didn't either. I've had cars swapped on trips when there was a problem with one, thats one reason you rent for big chains sometimes. And customs almost never searches someone leaving the country. To do so, though allowed, is very unusual. He was singled out for unusual treatment, asked why, and was beaten.
I've taken several vehicles through export control on leaving the US; always friendly, and because I'm not a dick-head, never searched, just some paperwork to get stamped;
Doesn't matter what you or he heard - it was a lawful search. Ignorance of the law is no excuse;
You have no proof that he was singled out for unusual treatment - the searching of cars leaving the US at random is not "singling out" anyone for unusual treatment;
Any proof that he was beaten? Pics or it didn't happen. There is NO reason why he shouldn't have pics since he could have gotten a free exam at any hospital in Ontario, and an obvious one why he doesn't - an exam would have shown that he wasn't beaten.
You name the law he broke by getting out of his car and asking why he was being detained.
Already have. YOU name the law that allows him to interfere with a lawful search, then resist arrest. Hint - it's not the 14th Amendment.
The guy's a dickhead. If he had gotten back into his car, they would have probably answered his questions. However, his behaviour (getting visibly upset over having his trunk searched) is a "whoa - what's wrong with this picture, what is he worried we're going to find" scenario. It's like when you were in school trying to hide when the teacher asked the class a question.
action like this isn't going to encourage people to embrace open source...
Why - because if you take something that's GPL'd you have to offer the source? What's the big deal? It certainly costs less to make the source available to buyers than it would to write your own code from scratch.
b) Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product (including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by a written offer, valid for at least three years and valid for as long as you offer spare parts or customer support for that product model, to give anyone who possesses the object code either (1) a copy of the Corresponding Source for all the software in the product that is covered by this License, on a durable physical medium customarily used for software interchange, for a price no more than your reasonable cost of physically performing this conveying of source, or (2) access to copy the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge.
You're starting to sound like Monty Widenius wanting to have the GPL retroactively removed from all versions of MySQL.
The source for Darwin 8.4 (the underpinning for OSX 10.4) is sitting there if you want to play with it. It's not "locked down". What they DON'T offer is the user interface, etc., but you can always run the window manager of your choice - it IS a modified BSD.
The question is, did Sun actually buy it to sell commercial licenses, or as a way to push an integrated hardware stack? Server, Operating system, Java, Office suite, Database and support - all open-source, and all from one vendor. It would make for a compelling argument, and Apple has shown that you can make a profit on hardware and increase your market share if you have all the software components lined up.
The only reason they have to buy MySQL is to kill it as a competitor because it is cutting into their sales. They certainly aren't going to incorporate any MySQL technology into their bread-and-butter product line.
They certainly aren't going to incorporate any MySQL technology into their bread-and-butter product line.
Ever thought that's probably because the codebases are incompatible, and not for any nefarious reasons?
Monty Widenius wants to use MySQL code without having to distribute his modifications, because that's the only way his new business (Monty Program AB) can survive - by keeping the modifications closed. This is why he wants the EU to change the licensing - not just going forward, but retroactively. Totally illegal under international treaty, btw, but spoiled brat Monty doesn't care. He wants what he wants, and damn the GPL.
"
I'll get back in my car just as soon as you tell me how long you think this will take." Is that refusal? It
Yes, it IS refusal to comply, same as it would be any other police traffic stop. He was told more than once to get back in his car. What part of "as required by international treaty" don't you get. The customs agents have absolutely the right to order it, and he is obliged, by both Canadian and American law, to comply. They did not have to say why they were searching his car. Nowhere in any agreement between the two countries is this required. They do not have to say how long it will take. They are free to completely dismantle it if they so choose. That's the law.
they they shouldn't have beat him for asking a question
Where's your evidence of a beating? Oh, wait, there is none. If I were beaten by the cops, the FIRST thing I would do, first opportunity, would be to get some pictures. Or go to a hospital or clinic to get it documented (free for Canadians) Pics or it didn't happen.
But being an ass isn't illegal
It is when it interferes with a lawful search. CPB (US Customs and Border Patrol) doesn't need a warrant to conduct searches. If he's so stupid that he doesn't know that, and doesn't know that he is interfering with a lawful search by refusing to cooperate by getting back in his car, that's his problem. He's a dumbass.
He was driving a different rental car than the one he brought into the States. That in itself raises a red flag, and you can be expected to be searched when you do that.
So, where are the pictures? Tsk, tsk - there are none. There was no beating. Just some guy who was a jerk and tried to resist arrest after being given several chances to comply with a lawful search.
Why don't you try it? Drive around at night with your headlights off, get stopped by the cops, and get out of the car when they ask for your papers - and don't get back in the car when they tell you to. Let us know how that works out for you.
Where does Stallman say that the EU should have the right to violate the Bern Convention and post-hoc modify the license of GPL'd code? Because that's what Monty Widenius is asking, so that his new company, Monty Program AB, can compete with the business he sold.
So what if MariaDB can't compete with GPL'd code? That is no excuse for asking the EU to retroactively file off all the copyrights.
Or do you think it's okay to take GPL'd code, remove the cpyright notices, and incorporate it into your own product and redistribute it without the source?
He was told at least once. If he was specifically told to not leave his car, it is not in his account or the account the officers gave. If he was told more than once to get in the car, it is not in his or the officer's account.
Watts alleges the incident occurred after customs officers stopped his vehicle and ordered him to remain in the vehicle as they searched it.
The author said he exited the car and demanded to know why his car was being searched, allegedly prompting Tuesday's conflict.
Police in Port Huron, Mich., insist Watts refused repeated requests to return to his vehicle during the search and became aggressive once officers attempted to handcuff him.
Also, you appear to not understand the 14th Amendment.
When I wrote:
Due process under the 14th Amendment doesn't guarantee freedom from all searches - only that they conform to procedures that do not affect your life, liberty, or property without giving you a legal process to seek redress, also known as "due process".
... and you replied...
What process did they go through, and did they let him know? What is the difference between a "due process" that is hidden, unannounced, secret, and arbitrary versus an "undue process"? Which was this, and how could he know without asking?
... you apparently don't understand, even though I explained it, what "due process" is. In this case, it's the process of going to COURT if he wants to contest the search - NOT the procedures they followed to do the search, which are covered under international treaty. Please, go read the 14th Amendment again.
The guy was being a total dickhead. There's no defending his actions. It's not like he was from Quebec and didn't understand English - he's from Ontario, and was crossing from Michigan to Ontario. He was stopped after the toll, told his car was being searched, got out of his car, was told (twice) to get back into it, refused both times.
When you're pulled over by a cop and asked for your drivers license, proof of insurance, and vehicle registration and to STAY IN YOUR CAR, you don't then get out of your car, and when told to get back in your car, refuse, do you?
The guy made 4 mistakes - getting out of the car in the first place, not going back in the first time he was asked to, not going back in the second time he was asked to, and trying to create a scene when they finally said, "you won't let us do our jobs, we're arresting you."
At any point, he could have chosen not to escalate. In Canada, the courts have held that Canadians have a right to say "Fuck you!" to a police officer when they feel the officer is acting outside the scope of the law - there is no requirement to be polite - that doesn't mean Canadians have the right to say it in the US. The US doesn't enjoy the same set of freedoms. Some areas more, some areas less...
Keep defending him if you want, but (1) read the 14th Amendment, and (2) check out what he *doesn't* say in his blog post. He doesn't say that he didn't resist arrest.
In a follow-up post, he says he was pulling away, and that shouldn't be considered "aggressive behaviour", but "retreat." Police would consider it "attempting to flee" or "resisting arrest."
If, instead of trying to "retreat", he had apologized for being a total dork, they might have just finished the search, ran his ID, then uncuffed him and let him off with a warning. Cops don't like filling in paperwork any more than you or I do.
And for another, he repeated the question once. That is, he uttered one sentence (not two) from the time he was ordered back into his car until he was arrested.
Nice way to try to confuse the issue. He wast told TWICE to get back into his car. From his own account:
If you buy into the Many Worlds Intepretation of quantum physics, there must be a parallel universe in which I crossed the US/Canada border without incident last Tuesday. In some other dimension, I was not waved over by a cluster of border guards who swarmed my car like army ants for no apparent reason; or perhaps they did, and I simply kept my eyes downcast and refrained from asking questions.
Along some other timeline, I did not get out of the car to ask what was going on. I did not repeat that question when refused an answer and told to get back into the vehicle.
He was in the car, and was told to stay in the car (that's SOP for both customs and regular police stops). He got out, asked what they were doing, was told to get back in the car, and instead of doing so, again demanded to know what they were doing.
The agents aren't superheroes with super-speed. He could have gotten back in the car quicker than they could have gotten from the back of the car to the drivers' side door. He could have stayed in the car in the first place. He could have gotten back in the car when they told him to. One of the reasons they do that is to avoid exactly this sort of altercation. They can concentrate on doing their search quickly and with the least delay for the passengers, rather than having to keep one eye on them while doing the search, and maybe someone doing something stupid - avoiding exactly what happened.
He stated he didn't touch anyone except while being beat.
Wait, they have the Right to search me, and I don't have the Right to be secure in my person and possessions?
...
He was on US soil, and you are claiming the Constitution doesn't apply. Yup, must be Republican.
Due process under the 14th Amendment doesn't guarantee freedom from all searches - only that they conform to procedures that do not affect your life, liberty, or property without giving you a legal process to seek redress, also known as "due process". If you believe a search was unreasonable, you have the constitutional right to a process to redress the grievance by, for example, asking that any evidence uncovered be suppressed. You *don't* have the right to refuse the search itself, or to interfere with it. If the search is legal - and the search of a vehicle entering or leaving the United States is legal under international law, as all countries have a sovereign right to police their borders - he has the right to due process after the fact. He doesn't have the right to interfere in a legal search that is recognized by treaty and international law.
You're the one who is claiming that the US Constitution doesn't apply, by trying to read into it more than is there. Your right to be "secure in your person and possessions" is limited, not absolute, and it is limited by the Constitution - more specifically, the 14th Amendment. Due process, not vigilantism or taking the law into your own hands.
He was a Canadian on US soil, and subject to all the rules of conduct that foreign nationals are subject to as guests in the US. As a Canadian who was visiting the US, it was his duty to know what those rules are - "ignorance of the law is no excuse." Having said that, they didn't treat him any different that the police back in his home province would have. If the Ontario Provincial Police had stopped him for, say, speeding, they w
Yeah... but fortunately the Bern Convention doesn't allow it. The worst part, of course,is that he wants to make this change retroactive, to ALL code that was ever released under the GPL.
We would like to draw attention to the fact that some major concerns about the effects of the proposed transaction could be somewhat alleviated by requiring that all versions of MySQL source code previously released under the GPLv2 license (whether in a General Availability, Release Candidate, Beta, Alpha release, or as public bazaar or bitkeeper revision control trees) must be released under a more liberal open source license that is usable also by the OEM users and would also create an opportuity for other service vendors to compete with offerings comparable to MySQL Enterprise. A good candidate is the Apache Software License.
Note the reference to how the GPL is an "infection":
The "copyleft/infection" principle of the GPL license represents a particular obstacle not only to revenue generation by the fork vendor but also to the overall adoption and market penetration of MySQL, MySQL forks and MySQL storage engines....
OMG GPL VIRUS STERILIZE STERILIZE STERILIZE!!! He wants to distribute GPL'd code in commercial products without having to also distribute the modified source.
Why does he want to have the EU retroactively invalidate the GPL grant-back?
We would like to draw attention to the fact that some major concerns about the effects of the proposed transaction could be somewhat alleviated by requiring that all versions of MySQL source code previously released under the GPLv2 license (whether in a General Availability, Release Candidate, Beta, Alpha release, or as public bazaar or bitkeeper revision control trees) must be released under a more liberal open source license that is usable also by the OEM users and would also create an opportuity for other service vendors to compete with offerings comparable to MySQL Enterprise. A good candidate is the Apache Software License.
We believe this could be a FOSS-specific approach to addressing the ownership of some of the key assets involved, as an alternative to conventional conditions imposed on such transactions.
Section 5.5 of the supplementary document discusses this possible measure.
In other words, he wants to be able to use and distribute GPL'd code without having to distribute the changes. Greedy pig indeed.
Or this:
The "copyleft/infection" principle of the GPL license represents a particular obstacle not only to revenue generation by the fork vendor but also to the overall adoption and market penetration of MySQL, MySQL forks and MySQL storage engines....
Under such open source licenses as the Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD) license and the Apache license, proprietary derivatives are legal. The only obligation might be attribution.
Where else have we heard about the GPL being an infection?
by his own account, he refused to get back in the car when ordered to.
That's a lie. He got out of his car and asked a question. The officers did not answer the question and ordered him back in his car. Without getting back in his car, he asked the question again. At no point did he refuse. He just didn't comply as fast as the officers wanted.
It's not a lie - even you YOUR rendition of the facts. He had enough time to ask - twice - rather than get back in his car when told to. ALL the cops I've ever run across, not just border guards, tell you to remain in your car. Instead, he got out. He was told - by his own account - to get back in the car - and didn't. Instead, he stayed out of the car and asked him again what they were doing.
He isn't being charged with assault for "hitting the officer's fist with his face". He's being charged with assault because he resisted being cuffed, and to do that required physical contact, which is assault. Same as it's assault if someone grabs your arm when you try to walk away from an argument (btw - assault doesn't even require physical contact).
He's a dumbass, and we should be spending our time complaining about real cases of brutality like extraordinary rendition, not someone who by his own account was interfering with a lawful search. Border control has the legal right to search your vehicle when leaving the country. You don't have the legal right to interfere in that search. If you don't piss them off, the worst that usually happens is "we're sorry for the delay." If you *do* piss them off, they can pretty much dismantle your car on the spot and leave it to you to reassemble it. Consider it a disincentive to wasting taxpayers' money by being a dick.
From your link: That was Structured English Query Language. SQL came later. Even in the late '80s, we pronounced SQL by the individual letters, not slurring them together to make a word.
The law says *maximum* - not mandatory. If you plow into a crowd of people at a bus-stop and kill a bunch of them (not hypothetical - it HAS happened here), you really should face more than a fine and token jail time.
The courts consider how many people you've harmed/killed, the level of intoxication, and the number of repeat offenses.
If you repeatedly drive drunk, you should have your license suspended for life since you've shown you're not capable of behaving like an adult and you can't learn from past mistakes.
Also, just because someone else didn't get hurt or killed is no reason to be all that lenient. Look at Cheetah Woods - driving while stoned on prescription drugs, ended up SNORING on the street. What would be so bad about a minimum one month mandatory sentence in cases like that? Or do you wait until an impaired driver actually maims someone to act?
37 states have adopted some form of "social host" law or set a legal precedent that allows you to be found liable if a guest injures himself or someone else as a result of alcohol consumption at your party (see list). Some social-host laws have conditions. For example, in South Carolina and Nevada, liability applies only if your guests are under age 21.
OK but there's also the question of availability. Firebird is not readily available on most hosting plans. Postgres is getting there, most half-decent hosters will provide it. As for MySQL, it's everywhere. It's part of why it's so popular (and viceversa).
Which brings up an interesting question - why would any hosting provider switch to Widenius' "Monty Program AB" "MariaDB"? Monty took the money, now he's trying to get Oracle to dump MySQL and using the EU regulatory process as a form of blackmail ("Sun is bleeding millions every month - give MySQL up or else").
SQL is pronounced.in many old timer circles as "squeal"
Old-timers never pronounced it "squeal" or "sequel" - that's a give-away that you're either a newbie or you come from a Microsoft background. Real old-timers pronounce it "ess queue ell".
The reason I mentioned the ban on headphones while driving or riding a bike was because of the aforementioned incident where someone was killed by a train because they didn't hear it is because it happened 5 minutes from where I live.
Banning (and then fining) stupidity works as a form of user education, because stupid people get caught, then bitch and moan to everyone about how it's so *unfair" - while everyone else goes "don't you think it's pretty stupid what you did?" It also gives parents a fallback, instead of just having to say "because I told you to!" for things like "wear your bicycle helmet" and "put on your seatbelt."
It's the same for drunken driving. Here it's a criminal offense and can get you up to 10 years in jail; we heavily advertise this fact during holiday periods, so people at parties feel they have more support when they demand that a drunk guest hand over their keys.
Laws against stupidity aren't there toi help the stupid - they're too stupid - they're there for the rest of us. A ban on "too loud headsets" will help reduce the second-hand noise everyone else hears while some idiot is blasting their brains out.
so a guy who sold out is now worried about what he sold?
It's worse than that - Monty is a greedy self-centered pig. He sold it, then waited long enough so that he couldn't be sued (non-compete), then starts whining about how nobody else can be trusted with it.
If Oracle *doesn't* get it, I'm switching everything to a combination of PostgreSQL and NoSQL. I trust Oracle more than Monty any day. Oracle at least has a business case to not screw around - unlike Monty, who has already demonstrated his crappy ethics.
Slashdot Mirror
You're still alive, aren't you? No problems with getting born in the hospital when you first came into the world, it obviously worked well enough for that. How about all those childhood diseases? When you're sick, it's good to be able to concentrate on getting well instead of worrying about how much it's going to cost, or some HMO deciding that they won't cover you because it's a "pre-existing condition" or because they just don't feel like it, or because you just don't have health insurance.
Also, having everyone treated to the same standard of care means there's more incentive to fix something, since everyone's affected, so people can't just say "it doesn't affect me, so not my problem, now get off my lawn".
I think Oracle bought Sun for Java, and that everything else was bonus material.
Oracle uses Java, their customers use Java, it's all over the place ... a chance to keep it out of competitors' hands is a bonus, but the real reason would be to be able to exercise more control over the direction the language takes.
If it helps get them mind-share, it means that people will look at their other offerings. I personally think they bought Sun for Java, not for MySQL or the hardware biz. There's no reason the java runtime can't be adapted to work with a whole slew of front-end languages - and no reason that Java can't have multiple back-ends bolted onto it. Beat the crap out of Microsofts' CLR and .NET, cover the whole processor and application space from embedded to supercomputing clusters.
It's perfectly feasible to fix Java's performance problems by compiling down to platform-specific code instead of depending on a runtime and just-in-time compilation. That's the sort of thing a company with deep pockets (like Oracle) and a visceral hatred of Microsoft (like Ellison) could do.
It's the sort of project I know I would love to get my grubby little hands on, just from a "gee, this is such an interesting problem" perspective.
Or perhaps Oracle, like Novell and IBM, doesn't like people trying to blackmail them into doing something ... Sun is bleeding money because of the delays, and Widenius tried to use that as leverage, and failed. At this point he's just another Darl McBride - "gimme what I want or I drag you through hell."
Widenius and Co. have shown their true colours by asking the EU to invalidate the GPL on all versions of MySQL ever released (contrary to the Bern Convention). They're no friends of open source - never have been. They used the GPL version as a mindshare gimmick.
Game theory shows that a scorched-earth policy is the only proper way to deal with such clowns. Anything less and you lose in the long run. Robert Heinlein had it right in "The Man Who Sold the Moon". When you're wrong, be generous. People will remember that, and respect you for it. When you're right and some asshat tries to run a scam on you, drag them through hell, poison their wells, salt their fields - people will remember that; the honest will respect you for it, and the dishonest will fear you.
Grow up. Really. Do you even HAVE a drivers' license? Have you ever crossed a border (your mama driving you across doesn't count)? You didn't know what the 14th Amendment was, you couldn't parse simple phrases such as "due process" correctly, and you still haven't offered any answer as to why there are no pictures. Not one.
PICS OR IT DIDN'T HAPPEN!
It's as simple as that.
Really - it IS as simple as that.
PICS OR IT DIDN'T HAPPEN!
If he had been beaten, he could have reported it to the Canadian police immediately on entry into Canada. They would have photographed him.
PICS OR IT DIDN'T HAPPEN!
If he had been beaten, he could have gone to ANY hospital, and they would have documented it and treated him.
PICS OR IT DIDN'T HAPPEN! If he had been beaten, he could have said something at Canada Customs.
PICS OR IT DIDN'T HAPPEN!
Because after all, he wasn't beaten, contrary to his assertions.
PICS OR IT DIDN'T HAPPEN!
Nobody had even a cell phone with a camera? His passenger didn't have a cell phone? Didn't think to use Watt's cell phone?
PICS OR IT DIDN'T HAPPEN!
Explain why there are NO pics.
Explain why we should believe it happened the way Watts claims, despite the total lack of evidence.
PICS OR IT DIDN'T HAPPEN!
Explain why a professor should be so stupid if he's so smart.
PICS OR IT DIDN'T HAPPEN!
Show me the pics instead of making any more lame excuses, lamer.
Riiight .... how is telling him to park his ass in his car on a busy bridge (which is a common-sense safety precaution, especially on a cold winter day) treating someone like a criminal?
And there's no proof that happened. Like I said, he could have gone for FREE to any hospital and they would have immediately documented it. Pics or it didn't happen.
Maybe if Watts had parked his sorry ass back in the car, the other officer would have been able to concentrate on other things, like handling identification, etc., so as to ... you know ... get everything done as quickly as possible so as not to inconvenience travellers?
Already have. YOU name the law that allows him to interfere with a lawful search, then resist arrest. Hint - it's not the 14th Amendment.
The guy's a dickhead. If he had gotten back into his car, they would have probably answered his questions. However, his behaviour (getting visibly upset over having his trunk searched) is a "whoa - what's wrong with this picture, what is he worried we're going to find" scenario. It's like when you were in school trying to hide when the teacher asked the class a question.
Why - because if you take something that's GPL'd you have to offer the source? What's the big deal? It certainly costs less to make the source available to buyers than it would to write your own code from scratch.
What's a DVD cost nowadays - a dime? Heck, they could include it on a free USB key, or offer it for $1 (+ $10 shipping and handling) a pop in the written documentation:
You're starting to sound like Monty Widenius wanting to have the GPL retroactively removed from all versions of MySQL.
Apple released the Darwin source code as open source - you can still download it directly from Apple
The source for Darwin 8.4 (the underpinning for OSX 10.4) is sitting there if you want to play with it. It's not "locked down". What they DON'T offer is the user interface, etc., but you can always run the window manager of your choice - it IS a modified BSD.
The question is, did Sun actually buy it to sell commercial licenses, or as a way to push an integrated hardware stack? Server, Operating system, Java, Office suite, Database and support - all open-source, and all from one vendor. It would make for a compelling argument, and Apple has shown that you can make a profit on hardware and increase your market share if you have all the software components lined up.
The only reason they have to buy MySQL is that it is part and parcel of the Sun purchase. And they haven't gone around like Monty Widenius and his buddy, who are demanding that the EU violate the Bern Convention on Copyrights by invalidating the GPL on all versions of MySQL ever released.
Ever thought that's probably because the codebases are incompatible, and not for any nefarious reasons?
Monty Widenius wants to use MySQL code without having to distribute his modifications, because that's the only way his new business (Monty Program AB) can survive - by keeping the modifications closed. This is why he wants the EU to change the licensing - not just going forward, but retroactively. Totally illegal under international treaty, btw, but spoiled brat Monty doesn't care. He wants what he wants, and damn the GPL.
Yes, it IS refusal to comply, same as it would be any other police traffic stop. He was told more than once to get back in his car. What part of "as required by international treaty" don't you get. The customs agents have absolutely the right to order it, and he is obliged, by both Canadian and American law, to comply. They did not have to say why they were searching his car. Nowhere in any agreement between the two countries is this required. They do not have to say how long it will take. They are free to completely dismantle it if they so choose. That's the law.
Where's your evidence of a beating? Oh, wait, there is none. If I were beaten by the cops, the FIRST thing I would do, first opportunity, would be to get some pictures. Or go to a hospital or clinic to get it documented (free for Canadians) Pics or it didn't happen.
It is when it interferes with a lawful search. CPB (US Customs and Border Patrol) doesn't need a warrant to conduct searches. If he's so stupid that he doesn't know that, and doesn't know that he is interfering with a lawful search by refusing to cooperate by getting back in his car, that's his problem. He's a dumbass.
He was driving a different rental car than the one he brought into the States. That in itself raises a red flag, and you can be expected to be searched when you do that.
So, where are the pictures? Tsk, tsk - there are none. There was no beating. Just some guy who was a jerk and tried to resist arrest after being given several chances to comply with a lawful search.
Why don't you try it? Drive around at night with your headlights off, get stopped by the cops, and get out of the car when they ask for your papers - and don't get back in the car when they tell you to. Let us know how that works out for you.
Where does Stallman say that the EU should have the right to violate the Bern Convention and post-hoc modify the license of GPL'd code? Because that's what Monty Widenius is asking, so that his new company, Monty Program AB, can compete with the business he sold.
So what if MariaDB can't compete with GPL'd code? That is no excuse for asking the EU to retroactively file off all the copyrights.
Or do you think it's okay to take GPL'd code, remove the cpyright notices, and incorporate it into your own product and redistribute it without the source?
Really? Follow the links: http://trolltalk.com/blog/blog/article.php?story=20091212120550767
Also, you appear to not understand the 14th Amendment. When I wrote:
The guy was being a total dickhead. There's no defending his actions. It's not like he was from Quebec and didn't understand English - he's from Ontario, and was crossing from Michigan to Ontario. He was stopped after the toll, told his car was being searched, got out of his car, was told (twice) to get back into it, refused both times.
When you're pulled over by a cop and asked for your drivers license, proof of insurance, and vehicle registration and to STAY IN YOUR CAR, you don't then get out of your car, and when told to get back in your car, refuse, do you?
The guy made 4 mistakes - getting out of the car in the first place, not going back in the first time he was asked to, not going back in the second time he was asked to, and trying to create a scene when they finally said, "you won't let us do our jobs, we're arresting you."
At any point, he could have chosen not to escalate. In Canada, the courts have held that Canadians have a right to say "Fuck you!" to a police officer when they feel the officer is acting outside the scope of the law - there is no requirement to be polite - that doesn't mean Canadians have the right to say it in the US. The US doesn't enjoy the same set of freedoms. Some areas more, some areas less ...
Keep defending him if you want, but (1) read the 14th Amendment, and (2) check out what he *doesn't* say in his blog post. He doesn't say that he didn't resist arrest.
In a follow-up post, he says he was pulling away, and that shouldn't be considered "aggressive behaviour", but "retreat." Police would consider it "attempting to flee" or "resisting arrest."
If, instead of trying to "retreat", he had apologized for being a total dork, they might have just finished the search, ran his ID, then uncuffed him and let him off with a warning. Cops don't like filling in paperwork any more than you or I do.
Here's a thought: What will we call the next generation (the sequel to MySQL, if you will)?
YourSQL?
LQSyM? (like case and esac) ...
(BTW, I also refuse to pronounce "gui" as "gooey". Some things are just too stupid for words, but that's just me :-).
Nice way to try to confuse the issue. He wast told TWICE to get back into his car. From his own account:
He was in the car, and was told to stay in the car (that's SOP for both customs and regular police stops). He got out, asked what they were doing, was told to get back in the car, and instead of doing so, again demanded to know what they were doing.
The agents aren't superheroes with super-speed. He could have gotten back in the car quicker than they could have gotten from the back of the car to the drivers' side door. He could have stayed in the car in the first place. He could have gotten back in the car when they told him to. One of the reasons they do that is to avoid exactly this sort of altercation. They can concentrate on doing their search quickly and with the least delay for the passengers, rather than having to keep one eye on them while doing the search, and maybe someone doing something stupid - avoiding exactly what happened.
False. His original post is quoted in its' entirety here - just in case he decides to edit it.
Next, you claim
Due process under the 14th Amendment doesn't guarantee freedom from all searches - only that they conform to procedures that do not affect your life, liberty, or property without giving you a legal process to seek redress, also known as "due process". If you believe a search was unreasonable, you have the constitutional right to a process to redress the grievance by, for example, asking that any evidence uncovered be suppressed. You *don't* have the right to refuse the search itself, or to interfere with it. If the search is legal - and the search of a vehicle entering or leaving the United States is legal under international law, as all countries have a sovereign right to police their borders - he has the right to due process after the fact. He doesn't have the right to interfere in a legal search that is recognized by treaty and international law.
You're the one who is claiming that the US Constitution doesn't apply, by trying to read into it more than is there. Your right to be "secure in your person and possessions" is limited, not absolute, and it is limited by the Constitution - more specifically, the 14th Amendment. Due process, not vigilantism or taking the law into your own hands.
He was a Canadian on US soil, and subject to all the rules of conduct that foreign nationals are subject to as guests in the US. As a Canadian who was visiting the US, it was his duty to know what those rules are - "ignorance of the law is no excuse." Having said that, they didn't treat him any different that the police back in his home province would have. If the Ontario Provincial Police had stopped him for, say, speeding, they w
Yeah ... but fortunately the Bern Convention doesn't allow it. The worst part, of course,is that he wants to make this change retroactive, to ALL code that was ever released under the GPL.
Note the reference to how the GPL is an "infection":
OMG GPL VIRUS STERILIZE STERILIZE STERILIZE!!! He wants to distribute GPL'd code in commercial products without having to also distribute the modified source.
Sure sounds like a greedy pig trolling the EU.
BTW - I hear Darl McBride is looking for a new gig. You don't suppose ... ?
Then why does he have to lie?
Why does he want to have the EU retroactively invalidate the GPL grant-back?
In other words, he wants to be able to use and distribute GPL'd code without having to distribute the changes. Greedy pig indeed.
Or this:
Where else have we heard about the GPL being an infection?
It was changed to SEQL because of the word "English" in SEQL. Hence Sequel.
Things changed when the E was dropped.
Which reminds me - how do you conjugate "I.B.M."?
I BM, You BM,
He BMs, She BMs,
We BM, They BM,
We ALL BM at IBM!.
It's not a lie - even you YOUR rendition of the facts. He had enough time to ask - twice - rather than get back in his car when told to. ALL the cops I've ever run across, not just border guards, tell you to remain in your car. Instead, he got out. He was told - by his own account - to get back in the car - and didn't. Instead, he stayed out of the car and asked him again what they were doing.
He isn't being charged with assault for "hitting the officer's fist with his face". He's being charged with assault because he resisted being cuffed, and to do that required physical contact, which is assault. Same as it's assault if someone grabs your arm when you try to walk away from an argument (btw - assault doesn't even require physical contact).
He's a dumbass, and we should be spending our time complaining about real cases of brutality like extraordinary rendition, not someone who by his own account was interfering with a lawful search. Border control has the legal right to search your vehicle when leaving the country. You don't have the legal right to interfere in that search. If you don't piss them off, the worst that usually happens is "we're sorry for the delay." If you *do* piss them off, they can pretty much dismantle your car on the spot and leave it to you to reassemble it. Consider it a disincentive to wasting taxpayers' money by being a dick.
From your link: That was Structured English Query Language. SQL came later. Even in the late '80s, we pronounced SQL by the individual letters, not slurring them together to make a word.
The law says *maximum* - not mandatory. If you plow into a crowd of people at a bus-stop and kill a bunch of them (not hypothetical - it HAS happened here), you really should face more than a fine and token jail time.
The courts consider how many people you've harmed/killed, the level of intoxication, and the number of repeat offenses.
If you repeatedly drive drunk, you should have your license suspended for life since you've shown you're not capable of behaving like an adult and you can't learn from past mistakes.
Also, just because someone else didn't get hurt or killed is no reason to be all that lenient. Look at Cheetah Woods - driving while stoned on prescription drugs, ended up SNORING on the street. What would be so bad about a minimum one month mandatory sentence in cases like that? Or do you wait until an impaired driver actually maims someone to act?
Do you let people drive drunk after you host a party? Or do you take their keys away from them - as required by law in most jurisdictions because the host is legally liable .
Why should I pay for your stupidity?
Which brings up an interesting question - why would any hosting provider switch to Widenius' "Monty Program AB" "MariaDB"? Monty took the money, now he's trying to get Oracle to dump MySQL and using the EU regulatory process as a form of blackmail ("Sun is bleeding millions every month - give MySQL up or else").
">Some would call it extortion.
Old-timers never pronounced it "squeal" or "sequel" - that's a give-away that you're either a newbie or you come from a Microsoft background. Real old-timers pronounce it "ess queue ell".
Just saying ...
The reason I mentioned the ban on headphones while driving or riding a bike was because of the aforementioned incident where someone was killed by a train because they didn't hear it is because it happened 5 minutes from where I live.
Banning (and then fining) stupidity works as a form of user education, because stupid people get caught, then bitch and moan to everyone about how it's so *unfair" - while everyone else goes "don't you think it's pretty stupid what you did?" It also gives parents a fallback, instead of just having to say "because I told you to!" for things like "wear your bicycle helmet" and "put on your seatbelt."
It's the same for drunken driving. Here it's a criminal offense and can get you up to 10 years in jail; we heavily advertise this fact during holiday periods, so people at parties feel they have more support when they demand that a drunk guest hand over their keys.
Laws against stupidity aren't there toi help the stupid - they're too stupid - they're there for the rest of us. A ban on "too loud headsets" will help reduce the second-hand noise everyone else hears while some idiot is blasting their brains out.
It's worse than that - Monty is a greedy self-centered pig. He sold it, then waited long enough so that he couldn't be sued (non-compete), then starts whining about how nobody else can be trusted with it.
If Oracle *doesn't* get it, I'm switching everything to a combination of PostgreSQL and NoSQL. I trust Oracle more than Monty any day. Oracle at least has a business case to not screw around - unlike Monty, who has already demonstrated his crappy ethics.