Except that, one has to have actually 1) been a member of an enemy military (which Al Quaeda is not, see below), and 2) actually have taken a military action, which he has not. Believing that someone might, in the future, take military (military-esque) action against the United States does not fall under DOD jurisdiction.
Citizens who associate themselves with the military arm of the enemy government[...] (quoted from Ex Parte Quirin)
Al Quaeda is not the military arm of any government. Ex Parte Quirin is irrelevant.
No, he is NOT a member of an organized military force. He is a member of a separate, semi-organized, non-military something or other, ALLEGEDLY.
Under NO circumstances, NONE, are 4th, 5th, and 8th Amendment rights stripped to someone who has not ACTUALLY BEEN CONVICTED OF A CRIME. Let's revisit that. The USC DOES NOT PERMIT the aribtrary denial of those rights without conviction, in a properly formed court (Article III court, not Article I), by a jury of the peers of the accused. ONCE CONVICTED, the person formerly known as a defendant then loses lots of things. However, in order for the DOD, DOJ, or any other Executive branch agency to deny a U. S. Citizen their rights, they must first CONVICT them, earlier posts notwithstanding (they conflict with the Constition, and are therefore Unconstitutional and uneforceable).
It won't cost IBM $20M to win this lawsuit. Why should they pay $20M to give SCO/Caldera/Ray No-nookie whatever the hell his name is exactly what they/he/she/it want(s)?
Except that the term Googol, which is a homophone of Google, is a well-established term, trademarked or not. Trademarks must be unique, I thought, and Google certainly doesn't qualify on that criteria. This is one reason why Microsoft lost the Trademark infringement suit against Lindows (or, at last check, had been handed some not-so-good-for-Microsoft rulings, at least), because Windows is not sufficiently unique. It certainly seems to me that Google should not be trademark-able, specifically because it is a homophone of a term which can't be trademarked, IIRC (mathematical terms). *shrug* Maybe I expect too much?
But, homophones aren't eligible for trademark, are they? If that were the case, I could trademark Dizknee (like, the song title?). That just seems stupid. *sigh*
In addition, the Noun form of the word Google is a 1 followed by one hundred zeros. I'm mystified as to how that could be trademarked by a company who didn't invent the term? (IIRC, some mathematician's son came up with the word, lo these many years ago... at least ten, maybe more like thirty?).
You specifically said that there is more Windows software being written in medium- to large-scale operations than Unix software. This is patently false, and is in fact contradicted by reality.
There's your contradiction.
Yeah, it's a troll. Still, I feel like munching on a little troll.
In fact, there are more installed UNIX servers in large scale operations than there are Windows servers (I work for a company that sells hundred-terabyte disk storage systems, to those exact operations, and more than 60% of our non-mainframe-using customers are using Solaris, AIX, and HP/UX, with Windows rolling in at about 35%).
On the whole, Windows is completely unsuited to enterprise-level programs and projects. It has a laughably low limit on the number of attached disk devices, as well as ludicrious limits on how big those disks can be. Sharing disks between clusters of Windows servers is tenuous, at best, and not recommended for high-risk environments.
Unix(es), on the other hand, grew up in the enterprise, and is quite well suited to that environment. Just as an example, I am aware of at least ten multi-national banks that operate only Unix in their transaction processing centers, which is one of the most demanding enterprise solutions available. Only Unix. No Windows in any of their datacenters.
The fact that there may, or may not, be a system like Aegis for Windows is irrelevant to your original message, which explicitly anointed truth to things which are wholly untrue.
... who had negative feedback posted against them, as a buyer, every word of which was false (well, save the conjunctions, maybe). Even though eBay was notified about it, there has been no attempt made to correct or remove this feedback. Ultimately, it probably qualifies as libel, which would require... you guessed it... a lawyer.
eBay's feedback posting system does need revision, and I fear this is the only way it will change.
people will stop bitching about the lack of OS X user support?
Come on. If you only sold your product, for $100, to 1% of the OS peopulation, you'd sell 50,000 units. That's 5 million dollars in income. That easily covers the cost of porting, machines, and lab time.
Quark, what the f*** are you waiting for?
Here's good faith:
I am innocent of crimes, and innocent of wrong doing, unless I have been proven otherwise. If you have no evidence that I have violated your license agreement, there is no case-in-fact, and your lawsuit will be dismissed, and you will be held liable for court and attorney's fees.
If you merely present suppositions of wrong doing, I am perfectly justified in ignoring your pleas. I am under no obligation whatever to demonstrate to you that I have done anything at all. It is incumbent upon you to prove that I have committed a wrongful act. Mere accusations are worthless.
He runs a branch-office in a foreign country. No mention that the parent company is in a foreign country, actually, which certainly doesn't rule out it being an American parent company. Maybe you should read the article.
Except that, if you invite them in to look, you don't get to counter-sue, because they never had to accuse you of anything. Force them to take the low road, and file the suit, or make a criminal claim. Then, now that you have your ducks in a row, and they are forced to either make a substantive claim before a judge for civil issues, or convince a magistrate that they have cause to believe you are actually commiting a crime and have a warrant issued, you have been injured and have a whole host of claims available. Assuming you are clean, of course. Document everything.:-)
Despite the licensing agreement, they do not have a right to inspect your computers, servers, or anything else in your personal or business property, without either a subponea (in a civil case, which you can defend against), or a warrant (which must be served by a police agent, not a software engineer or marketing wonk, and must be issued by a magistrate because there is a reasonable assumption that investigators will find criminial activities or incriminating propery pursuant to an ongoing criminal investigation). Exercise your 4th Amendment rights. You own the property, including the computers, or your company does. You reserve the right to refuse physical access to anyone, short of court orders, even if those who sold you the software disagree.
Linux Administration Handbook (Nemeth, Snyder, Hein, PH/PTR 2001). The title might indicate that it's for administrators, but the style is very gnubie friendly, and it's the best overall introduction to Linux, bar none.
The manuals that ship with SuSE Linux Personal are quite excellent, as well.
Frankly, I haven't yet seen a good book, or even a decent online doc or tutorial on Guh-Nome or KDE.
Yes, you're right that it is reality at this point in time. That doesn't mean that we have to accept it:-) If we are serious as a group about wanting choice re: the OS we run on our computer(s), we must pressure those who are weak-willed, and willing to let Microsoft and Intuit and whomever else bend them over without so much as a kiss hello into doing the Right Thing(tm): support open, cross-platform standards.
BUT, as a previous poster mentioned, the file is cross-platform, at least in content (if not line endings), and shouldn't be a problem. So, the real culprit here is Intuit, for charging banks an extra fee for, essentially, transforming line endings. That doesn't absolve us of the responsibility for chastising and dressing-down those banks that are being stupid, but it does mean that perhaps we also need to be beating down Intuit's door.
without having to train them on things they will only encounter once in a hundred calls
Two things. First, the Macintosh has between 5-8% of the destkop space. That's not one out of every hundred, that's, just on raw marketshare, one out of twenty. Second, if the one per one hundred call is even remotely accurate, that means that only 20% of those Mac users have those kinds of problems.
Sure, not every user uses Quicken (or, even has it installed), but that's a poor excuse for poor customer service. That bank's customer uses a Macintosh. That is all there is to it. It is not sufficient to say that the majority of people use Windows, so let's just support Windows users. That's exactly what Microsoft counts on: monopoly control over the market without spending money to quash competitors. Is that really acceptable?
[rant mode=on]
I have long despised the "science" of economics because they have an annoying tendency to take common, everyday words, with well-defined meanings, and turn them into something completely unrelated (see: efficient). Now, computer science and knowledge engineering is doing the same thing?
Ontology already has a specific, well-defined meaning, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with the scope of agent or community relationships and concepts.
When describing a concept that does not yet have a descriptive word or phrase, don't just assume that you can take a word out of the dictionary and co-opt it for your own use. English is a hard enough language without our academics and researchers stealing words and twisting them to new, completely unrelated topics. If no word fits, make one up!!
[/rant]
1. What do you think the legal (or appropriate) uses of MP3 technology should be?
MP3 is an audio compression technology and, like JPEG, or MPEG, compression, is a valid way to make audio files smaller while sacrificing as little audio quality as possible.
2. We all know the RIAA complains about the illegitimate uses of P2P technology. Since its most prevalent usage is (by the RIAA's definition) illegal use, what are some applications of the technology that the P2P crowd can use to swing the tide in its favor?
I don't know that P2P can ever unsully its image. Napster's court case has forever altered that; a new name would help.
3. The DMCA is frequently seen as a flawed piece of legislation which is easily abused and so broadly worded that such abuse is unpreventable. Despite this, what positive or useful elements can be taken from the DMCA and used to formulate a new law that would do what the media companies want without infringing on consumers' rights?
Current copyright laws, prior to the DMCA, are still sufficient. The DMCA was an attempt by content providers to undo hundreds of years of case law in copyrights, which essentially spells out the reasons for which a consumer of copyrighted material is allowed to copy otherwise protected material. It was, and still is, a power grab, and is neither necessary, nor fixable.
4. An argument frequently levied at the RIAA and MPAA is that they are more than content to label the large majority of consumers as thieves and pirates. What can the RIAA and MPAA do to change this? How can these organizations polish this image up?
By noting that, at least in the RIAA's case, their member organizations are making money hand over fist. Clearly, even if the majority of their consumers are, in fact, "thieves and pirates," there is more than enough money for them just in the pockets of the people who are paying full price, or "market price," for their content. It is capitalist, and free market, to desire to turn a profit. It is "Capitalist Pig" and very anti-free market to want to make all the profit in a given industry or market segment (see: Microsoft, US Oil, AT&T).
5. With laws such as the DMCA and possible future legislation such as the CBDTPA, many consumers feel that their freedoms to enjoy the entertainment they purchase are being slowly eroded away by content companies. What rights (other than the right to listen or view) do you feel that consumers should have with media they purchase?
Consumers buy copyrighted material for their own use. They should have the legal right (oh, wait, prior to the DMCA, they did have the legal right) to make copies of it, on whatever material they desire, for thier own peronal use, as long as they don't: claim it as their own, original work, use it commercially or publicly (this is not personal use), or make copies for another's personal use. Note that it should not be illegal to sell copyrighted materials that one has paid for, for a profit or at a loss, because you are not only selling the material, but the copyright as well. Frankly, for that, you could give it away, but only once, and you couldn't keep it or a copy after giving it away (you, again, transfer the copyright, and you no longer have a "right to copy").
Slashdot Mirror
Except that, one has to have actually 1) been a member of an enemy military (which Al Quaeda is not, see below), and 2) actually have taken a military action, which he has not. Believing that someone might, in the future, take military (military-esque) action against the United States does not fall under DOD jurisdiction.
Citizens who associate themselves with the military arm of the enemy government[...] (quoted from Ex Parte Quirin)
Al Quaeda is not the military arm of any government. Ex Parte Quirin is irrelevant.
No, he is NOT a member of an organized military force. He is a member of a separate, semi-organized, non-military something or other, ALLEGEDLY.
Under NO circumstances, NONE, are 4th, 5th, and 8th Amendment rights stripped to someone who has not ACTUALLY BEEN CONVICTED OF A CRIME. Let's revisit that. The USC DOES NOT PERMIT the aribtrary denial of those rights without conviction, in a properly formed court (Article III court, not Article I), by a jury of the peers of the accused. ONCE CONVICTED, the person formerly known as a defendant then loses lots of things. However, in order for the DOD, DOJ, or any other Executive branch agency to deny a U. S. Citizen their rights, they must first CONVICT them, earlier posts notwithstanding (they conflict with the Constition, and are therefore Unconstitutional and uneforceable).
Doggoned employers ... OpenSSH still not running on Windows 2K, is it ?
:( But only for me :)
Sad
I disagree completely.
It won't cost IBM $20M to win this lawsuit. Why should they pay $20M to give SCO/Caldera/Ray No-nookie whatever the hell his name is exactly what they/he/she/it want(s)?
IBM should counter-sue.
I'm looking very carefully at my Mac OS X desktop, and there is nary a trash can in sight.
... *snicker snicker* ... buy a Mac.
:D
Then again, my Dock auto-hides.
But, then again, again, the Dock is not the Desktop. So, if you want the Desktop to be free of the trash can,
Okay, don't buy one just for that. But Mac OS X doesn't have a trashcan on the desktop. So there you go.
Except that the term Googol, which is a homophone of Google, is a well-established term, trademarked or not. Trademarks must be unique, I thought, and Google certainly doesn't qualify on that criteria. This is one reason why Microsoft lost the Trademark infringement suit against Lindows (or, at last check, had been handed some not-so-good-for-Microsoft rulings, at least), because Windows is not sufficiently unique. It certainly seems to me that Google should not be trademark-able, specifically because it is a homophone of a term which can't be trademarked, IIRC (mathematical terms). *shrug* Maybe I expect too much?
Good point, thanks for the correction.
But, homophones aren't eligible for trademark, are they? If that were the case, I could trademark Dizknee (like, the song title?). That just seems stupid. *sigh*
In addition, the Noun form of the word Google is a 1 followed by one hundred zeros. I'm mystified as to how that could be trademarked by a company who didn't invent the term? (IIRC, some mathematician's son came up with the word, lo these many years ago ... at least ten, maybe more like thirty?).
You specifically said that there is more Windows software being written in medium- to large-scale operations than Unix software. This is patently false, and is in fact contradicted by reality. There's your contradiction.
Yeah, it's a troll. Still, I feel like munching on a little troll.
In fact, there are more installed UNIX servers in large scale operations than there are Windows servers (I work for a company that sells hundred-terabyte disk storage systems, to those exact operations, and more than 60% of our non-mainframe-using customers are using Solaris, AIX, and HP/UX, with Windows rolling in at about 35%).
On the whole, Windows is completely unsuited to enterprise-level programs and projects. It has a laughably low limit on the number of attached disk devices, as well as ludicrious limits on how big those disks can be. Sharing disks between clusters of Windows servers is tenuous, at best, and not recommended for high-risk environments.
Unix(es), on the other hand, grew up in the enterprise, and is quite well suited to that environment. Just as an example, I am aware of at least ten multi-national banks that operate only Unix in their transaction processing centers, which is one of the most demanding enterprise solutions available. Only Unix. No Windows in any of their datacenters.
The fact that there may, or may not, be a system like Aegis for Windows is irrelevant to your original message, which explicitly anointed truth to things which are wholly untrue.
EDUcation TLDs. Chartered, for 4-year degree granting institutions.
...
...
COMmercial TLDs. Chartered, for commercial businesses.
NETwork TLDs. Chartered, for Network entities.
ORGanizations TLDs. Chartered, for non-profit organizations.
MILitary TLDs. Chartered, for Military activities.
If you don't like those divisions, use a separate TLD provider
What? There are no separate TLD providers?
What moron came up with that idea?
And ICANN's monopoly is being extended? Lemme guess, Bush had something to do with that
... who had negative feedback posted against them, as a buyer, every word of which was false (well, save the conjunctions, maybe). Even though eBay was notified about it, there has been no attempt made to correct or remove this feedback. Ultimately, it probably qualifies as libel, which would require ... you guessed it ... a lawyer.
eBay's feedback posting system does need revision, and I fear this is the only way it will change.
If memory serves, they sued Microsoft and won. Just not much.
people will stop bitching about the lack of OS X user support? Come on. If you only sold your product, for $100, to 1% of the OS peopulation, you'd sell 50,000 units. That's 5 million dollars in income. That easily covers the cost of porting, machines, and lab time. Quark, what the f*** are you waiting for?
Here's good faith: I am innocent of crimes, and innocent of wrong doing, unless I have been proven otherwise. If you have no evidence that I have violated your license agreement, there is no case-in-fact, and your lawsuit will be dismissed, and you will be held liable for court and attorney's fees. If you merely present suppositions of wrong doing, I am perfectly justified in ignoring your pleas. I am under no obligation whatever to demonstrate to you that I have done anything at all. It is incumbent upon you to prove that I have committed a wrongful act. Mere accusations are worthless.
He runs a branch-office in a foreign country. No mention that the parent company is in a foreign country, actually, which certainly doesn't rule out it being an American parent company. Maybe you should read the article.
Except that, if you invite them in to look, you don't get to counter-sue, because they never had to accuse you of anything. Force them to take the low road, and file the suit, or make a criminal claim. Then, now that you have your ducks in a row, and they are forced to either make a substantive claim before a judge for civil issues, or convince a magistrate that they have cause to believe you are actually commiting a crime and have a warrant issued, you have been injured and have a whole host of claims available. Assuming you are clean, of course. Document everything. :-)
Despite the licensing agreement, they do not have a right to inspect your computers, servers, or anything else in your personal or business property, without either a subponea (in a civil case, which you can defend against), or a warrant (which must be served by a police agent, not a software engineer or marketing wonk, and must be issued by a magistrate because there is a reasonable assumption that investigators will find criminial activities or incriminating propery pursuant to an ongoing criminal investigation). Exercise your 4th Amendment rights. You own the property, including the computers, or your company does. You reserve the right to refuse physical access to anyone, short of court orders, even if those who sold you the software disagree.
Linux Administration Handbook (Nemeth, Snyder, Hein, PH/PTR 2001). The title might indicate that it's for administrators, but the style is very gnubie friendly, and it's the best overall introduction to Linux, bar none.
The manuals that ship with SuSE Linux Personal are quite excellent, as well.
Frankly, I haven't yet seen a good book, or even a decent online doc or tutorial on Guh-Nome or KDE.
Yes, you're right that it is reality at this point in time. That doesn't mean that we have to accept it :-) If we are serious as a group about wanting choice re: the OS we run on our computer(s), we must pressure those who are weak-willed, and willing to let Microsoft and Intuit and whomever else bend them over without so much as a kiss hello into doing the Right Thing(tm): support open, cross-platform standards.
BUT, as a previous poster mentioned, the file is cross-platform, at least in content (if not line endings), and shouldn't be a problem. So, the real culprit here is Intuit, for charging banks an extra fee for, essentially, transforming line endings. That doesn't absolve us of the responsibility for chastising and dressing-down those banks that are being stupid, but it does mean that perhaps we also need to be beating down Intuit's door.
without having to train them on things they will only encounter once in a hundred calls
Two things. First, the Macintosh has between 5-8% of the destkop space. That's not one out of every hundred, that's, just on raw marketshare, one out of twenty. Second, if the one per one hundred call is even remotely accurate, that means that only 20% of those Mac users have those kinds of problems.
Sure, not every user uses Quicken (or, even has it installed), but that's a poor excuse for poor customer service. That bank's customer uses a Macintosh. That is all there is to it. It is not sufficient to say that the majority of people use Windows, so let's just support Windows users. That's exactly what Microsoft counts on: monopoly control over the market without spending money to quash competitors. Is that really acceptable?
[rant mode=on]
I have long despised the "science" of economics because they have an annoying tendency to take common, everyday words, with well-defined meanings, and turn them into something completely unrelated (see: efficient). Now, computer science and knowledge engineering is doing the same thing? Ontology already has a specific, well-defined meaning, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with the scope of agent or community relationships and concepts.
When describing a concept that does not yet have a descriptive word or phrase, don't just assume that you can take a word out of the dictionary and co-opt it for your own use. English is a hard enough language without our academics and researchers stealing words and twisting them to new, completely unrelated topics. If no word fits, make one up!!
[/rant]
Guys. If you're going to be a lam0, and stalk a switcher, Ellen is a dead end. And, too young for even the high-schoolers among you.
Instead, I recommend Janie Porche. She's literate and smiles. A lot. Much easier to deal with, in the long run. Trust me on this one.
Don't forget, Maya runs on Mac OS X ...
1. What do you think the legal (or appropriate) uses of MP3 technology should be?
MP3 is an audio compression technology and, like JPEG, or MPEG, compression, is a valid way to make audio files smaller while sacrificing as little audio quality as possible.
2. We all know the RIAA complains about the illegitimate uses of P2P technology. Since its most prevalent usage is (by the RIAA's definition) illegal use, what are some applications of the technology that the P2P crowd can use to swing the tide in its favor?
I don't know that P2P can ever unsully its image. Napster's court case has forever altered that; a new name would help.
3. The DMCA is frequently seen as a flawed piece of legislation which is easily abused and so broadly worded that such abuse is unpreventable. Despite this, what positive or useful elements can be taken from the DMCA and used to formulate a new law that would do what the media companies want without infringing on consumers' rights?
Current copyright laws, prior to the DMCA, are still sufficient. The DMCA was an attempt by content providers to undo hundreds of years of case law in copyrights, which essentially spells out the reasons for which a consumer of copyrighted material is allowed to copy otherwise protected material. It was, and still is, a power grab, and is neither necessary, nor fixable.
4. An argument frequently levied at the RIAA and MPAA is that they are more than content to label the large majority of consumers as thieves and pirates. What can the RIAA and MPAA do to change this? How can these organizations polish this image up?
By noting that, at least in the RIAA's case, their member organizations are making money hand over fist. Clearly, even if the majority of their consumers are, in fact, "thieves and pirates," there is more than enough money for them just in the pockets of the people who are paying full price, or "market price," for their content. It is capitalist, and free market, to desire to turn a profit. It is "Capitalist Pig" and very anti-free market to want to make all the profit in a given industry or market segment (see: Microsoft, US Oil, AT&T).
5. With laws such as the DMCA and possible future legislation such as the CBDTPA, many consumers feel that their freedoms to enjoy the entertainment they purchase are being slowly eroded away by content companies. What rights (other than the right to listen or view) do you feel that consumers should have with media they purchase?
Consumers buy copyrighted material for their own use. They should have the legal right (oh, wait, prior to the DMCA, they did have the legal right) to make copies of it, on whatever material they desire, for thier own peronal use, as long as they don't: claim it as their own, original work, use it commercially or publicly (this is not personal use), or make copies for another's personal use. Note that it should not be illegal to sell copyrighted materials that one has paid for, for a profit or at a loss, because you are not only selling the material, but the copyright as well. Frankly, for that, you could give it away, but only once, and you couldn't keep it or a copy after giving it away (you, again, transfer the copyright, and you no longer have a "right to copy").