I never said the response was sane, just that it was a response.
Regardless of whether or not anyone but GWB believes Iraq is in anyway related to 9-11, I'd still contend that Iraq wouldn't have been targeted if 9-11 hadn't happened.
Bin laden proved a bit too hard to get so GW thrashed around looking for what he thought was an alternative good/easy/daddy-hates-the-guy-anyway target.
Without 9-11 he wouldn't have been looking for targets at all - in fact at that time he looked more like he was pursuing an isolationist policy.
The IRA have killed around two thousand (see eg. wikipedia quoting news agencies: here), wich is one of the lower numbers quoted around the web, and in the hundreds (at least) of civilians.
If you use IRA definitions of "civilian" you'll get lower numbers - according to them anyone connected in any way to government was a soldier (work for a company that once repaired a police car - oops you're a "soldier").
So, IRA was 2000, and 9-11 was 2,752.
That is hardly a "few" vs. "few thousand", it isn't even double.
Al Quaeda sees the US as enemy because of it's support for the occupiers (as they see it) of the palestinian homeland.
Before that of course, it was the zionists who went around blowing people up (a few hundred at a time in some cases) until we gave them control of same disputed homeland.
The Americans didn't do much protecting / defending until after _their_ home _was_ attacked.
After which they went chasing the culprits round the world with as much military force as they could.
WWII or war on terror - take your pick. Not to diminish the importance, but in both cases America only got involved because it was directly provoked, not because of some altruistic / noble motive.
Thats C#, not VB! I'm not an MS expert, but I say thats pretty damn good for a nine year old!
By my recollection, back in the 80s there were 11/12yr olds (probably some 9yr olds too but not that I knew and computers weren't anywhee near as common) writing games in assembler, and on hardware that you could actually fry by doing the wrong thing in software.
These days many children grow up with access to pcs from 1 or 2. My 3yr old has been known to help his nursery teachers with windows when they stuck.
What if your company decides to move to all OSX machines
They will consider the cost of porting / replacing the app, just as they will have to for the other windows apps they use.
For a web based app, the port may well be a lot simpler than a thick-client / desktop app (but not guaranteed).
When developing the app in the first place you balance the extra cost of portable development (you think if you write to w3c standards you don't have to at least test in every browser??) vs. the risk of a future platform move.
Would your boss like it if your store rejected people who drove up in something *other* than a Ford or GM car? The answer is (quite obviously) "NO".
Not obvious at all.
Plenty of businesses discriminate on vehicle. Car parks are for parking cars - you think they should all accomodate trucks, buses, bikes, planes ?
Plenty of roadside restaurants (at least here in UK) ban trucks and/or coaches and/or cars towing caravans.
In all cases it is not a question of whose money is good or not, but on whether it is economic to support them. If you have limited car parking for a restaurant, you probably don't want truck drivers there - no matter how good their money is they aren't going to eat as much as the passengers from the several cars who can't park because of the truck.
You can always sell / transfer the old book - distributing _copies_ of it would be different.
This case is more like
* asking for copies of the old book * then asking "can I photocopy pages 4 6 and 10 for a court case" * then getting sued for the photocopying
Making a (most likely partial) copy for a court case ought to fall squarely under fair use.
If it didn't, then presumably you would then have to ask the court to order the current owner of the book to make the copy for the court. I doubt that extra work is going to make the courts happy.
These journalists didn't name the agent - they wrote about it (one of them - the other wrote nothing - as did loads of people) _after_ the leak. The journalist that did name the agent _hasn't_ been prosecuted. Conspiracy would have it that that is because he did name his sources (he isn't saying), but in that case where is the prosecution of the informer, and why would they need to know the sources of other journalists who only wrote when things were public anyway ?
Doesn't make sense, unless the source they know is too embarassing to prosecute so they are looking for someone else to blame / deflect attention...
AWT was poor and Sun knew it, hence Swing. Swing was nicer, but sllooowwww. SWT is a completely different approach, it is really just a java wrapper for the platform native toolkit - not a Java toolkit. Not really NIH since it is a different approach to the problem. Both have pros and cons - eventually the performance difference will reduce and Swing may win for portability, but the competition between the approaches is a good thing.
GUI Editor? - never missed it. A large part of the java dev market is server-side, not quite the same for VB. I haven't yet seen a GUI designer for html UIs that I would want to use (all I've tried fall at the first hurdle of producing sane, editable, html+css layout, without mangling your html). I guess that, like for me, it's way down the priority list for most eclipse users.
Instead, the server was seized because they refused to give the police access to its logs, claiming journalistic privilege.
Nope, they claimed that they didn't keep logs.
The police then said ok we'll hahve the whole server then.
Then they were advised to claim journalistic privilege - for the server, not for the logs, which (if you believe them and they would be silly to lie on this point) they don't have.
Not everyone would agree it is fair use (eg. Eisner - who argued that rip-mix-burn was an example of an industry seeing piracy as its "killer app").
Also depends on where you live, eg. in the UK, copying for personal use is _not_ legal.
Apple most likely didn't get hit because they would be a massive target with big industry backing, clearly making a computer with lots of other uses, and it would be hard to get around Sony on the basis of one ad campaign.
Apple's legal dept. were probably told not to care.
a) they are used to getting sued by record companies (Apple...)
b) Jobs doesn't exactly seem to get on with Eisener. He'd probably relish the fight.
they said "making a piece of software that's marketed as a vehicle for copyright infringement is illegal."
Wrong. RTFA (and the order).
Nowhere do the words "making a piece of software" appear.
They are solely ruling on _distribution_ and distribution with demostrated prior intent at that.
... one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement,...
Essentially they _are_ ruling that the promotion is the illegal bit - since without it or other "affirmative steps", the distribution of the device is not (for this reason) illegal.
What interests me is "with the object" and whether this means "with the sole object" - eg. Apple's rip-mix-burn campaign was only one promotion for one aspect of the Mac, so did they distribute "with the object of..." ? I don't think so, but IANAL - I think they are saying that the promotion of infringement has to be your only intent.
Note also that they are quite clear that they are not overturning Sony, and that the non-infringing uses tests still apply, just that they don't get you off the inducement hook:
Liability under our jurisprudence may be predicated on actively encouraging (or inducing) infringement through specific acts (as the Court's opinion develops) or on distributing a product distributees use to infringe copyrights, if the product is not capable of 'substantial' or 'commercially significant' noninfringing uses. Sony, 464 U. S., at 442; see also 3 M. Nimmer & D.Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright 12.04[A][2] (2005). While the two categories overlap, they capture different culpable behavior.
Firefox has been at v1 for only a few months, and there were rendering/standards issues with earlier versions - you were much more trying to hit a moving target.
So, what we are really saying is that within about 6 months of Firefox release, 90% of sites have been updated to work with it.
Seems to me that is a pretty good record.
[ and yes I do know you can design you sites to "standards" rather than browsers, I also know how much still goes wrong, in even the most recent browsers, when you do ]
How about the fact the current MS windows update is real slow because it is client-server and there are always going to be hundreds of millions of clients all wanting the same damn thing at the same damn time.
The patches ain't getting smaller either.
This is exactly the sort of problem BT was built to solve.
Even if they restrict it to only MS authorised updates it might still be a big win for them and, arguably, Joe windows user.
On the other hand, if they screw up on whatever verification they put in (and they haven't exactly got a good track record on crypto implementations) then you've got virus heaven...
Oh FFS - _Sun_ _don't_ care. If they did, they'd have removed the comments from their dist (it's open source code after all).
That they (it seems) left them intact even if they (alledgedly according to TFA) might not have met the standards for _Sun_ code actually (to me) shows that they have some respect for the authors and OSS.
The only people making a fuss about it are in the media. Must be a slow week for IT stories, either that or MS is paying for "see what happens when you use OSS" articles.
Slashdot Mirror
I never said the response was sane, just that it was a response.
Regardless of whether or not anyone but GWB believes Iraq is in anyway related to 9-11, I'd still contend that Iraq wouldn't have been targeted if 9-11 hadn't happened.
Bin laden proved a bit too hard to get so GW thrashed around looking for what he thought was an alternative good/easy/daddy-hates-the-guy-anyway target.
Without 9-11 he wouldn't have been looking for targets at all - in fact at that time he looked more like he was pursuing an isolationist policy.
The IRA have killed around two thousand (see eg. wikipedia quoting news agencies: here), wich is one of the lower numbers quoted around the web, and in the hundreds (at least) of civilians.
If you use IRA definitions of "civilian" you'll get lower numbers - according to them anyone connected in any way to government was a soldier (work for a company that once repaired a police car - oops you're a "soldier").
So, IRA was 2000, and 9-11 was 2,752.
That is hardly a "few" vs. "few thousand", it isn't even double.
Al Quaeda sees the US as enemy because of it's support for the occupiers (as they see it) of the palestinian homeland.
Before that of course, it was the zionists who went around blowing people up (a few hundred at a time in some cases) until we gave them control of same disputed homeland.
The Americans didn't do much protecting / defending until after _their_ home _was_ attacked.
After which they went chasing the culprits round the world with as much military force as they could.
WWII or war on terror - take your pick. Not to diminish the importance, but in both cases America only got involved because it was directly provoked, not because of some altruistic / noble motive.
Kids getting A levels isn't new either. As far as I know Ruth Lawrence's record from the 80s still stands.
Thats C#, not VB! I'm not an MS expert, but I say thats pretty damn good for a nine year old!
By my recollection, back in the 80s there were 11/12yr olds (probably some 9yr olds too but not that I knew and computers weren't anywhee near as common) writing games in assembler, and on hardware that you could actually fry by doing the wrong thing in software.
These days many children grow up with access to pcs from 1 or 2. My 3yr old has been known to help his nursery teachers with windows when they stuck.
A 9yr old knowing C# is really not suprising.
What if your company decides to move to all OSX machines
They will consider the cost of porting / replacing the app, just as they will have to for the other windows apps they use.
For a web based app, the port may well be a lot simpler than a thick-client / desktop app (but not guaranteed).
When developing the app in the first place you balance the extra cost of portable development (you think if you write to w3c standards you don't have to at least test in every browser??) vs. the risk of a future platform move.
Would your boss like it if your store rejected people who drove up in something *other* than a Ford or GM car? The answer is (quite obviously) "NO".
Not obvious at all.
Plenty of businesses discriminate on vehicle. Car parks are for parking cars - you think they should all accomodate trucks, buses, bikes, planes ?
Plenty of roadside restaurants (at least here in UK) ban trucks and/or coaches and/or cars towing caravans.
In all cases it is not a question of whose money is good or not, but on whether it is economic to support them. If you have limited car parking for a restaurant, you probably don't want truck drivers there - no matter how good their money is they aren't going to eat as much as the passengers from the several cars who can't park because of the truck.
You can always sell / transfer the old book - distributing _copies_ of it would be different.
This case is more like
* asking for copies of the old book
* then asking "can I photocopy pages 4 6 and 10 for a court case"
* then getting sued for the photocopying
Making a (most likely partial) copy for a court case ought to fall squarely under fair use.
If it didn't, then presumably you would then have to ask the court to order the current owner of the book to make the copy for the court. I doubt that extra work is going to make the courts happy.
But how is solar energy "renewable" ? Where exactly we going to get another sun from when this one runs out ?
Solar is no more renewable than oil - there is just more of it and it is going to last longer, so we think there's more than we'll ever need.
Probably at one time people thought that about oil too.
In pre electricity days they sent small children to work in the mines.
Miners or minors - either would be accurate in those days.
For example, some fingerprint readers can tell if the finger is alive or not.
Yes, but what they need to do, however, is determine that the finger is both alive and still attached to its original owner.
Hand transplants have already been done.
facing the reality of the way technology is changing business practices and legislating appropriately which is so normal it should not be newsworthy
Erm, surely politicians understanding changing technology and legisilating appropriately is definitely _not_ normal and _is_ newsworthy.
aisa will do alright...
These journalists didn't name the agent - they wrote about it (one of them - the other wrote nothing - as did loads of people) _after_ the leak. The journalist that did name the agent _hasn't_ been prosecuted. Conspiracy would have it that that is because he did name his sources (he isn't saying), but in that case where is the prosecution of the informer, and why would they need to know the sources of other journalists who only wrote when things were public anyway ?
Doesn't make sense, unless the source they know is too embarassing to prosecute so they are looking for someone else to blame / deflect attention...
AWT was poor and Sun knew it, hence Swing. Swing was nicer, but sllooowwww. SWT is a completely different approach, it is really just a java wrapper for the platform native toolkit - not a Java toolkit. Not really NIH since it is a different approach to the problem. Both have pros and cons - eventually the performance difference will reduce and Swing may win for portability, but the competition between the approaches is a good thing.
GUI Editor? - never missed it. A large part of the java dev market is server-side, not quite the same for VB. I haven't yet seen a GUI designer for html UIs that I would want to use (all I've tried fall at the first hurdle of producing sane, editable, html+css layout, without mangling your html). I guess that, like for me, it's way down the priority list for most eclipse users.
They can't provide the logs if (as they say) they don't keep them.
Keeping such logs is not (yet) a requirement.
This is trying to make it a requirement by the back door (if you don't keep logs we'll just shut down your business).
Instead, the server was seized because they refused to give the police access to its logs, claiming journalistic privilege.
Nope, they claimed that they didn't keep logs.
The police then said ok we'll hahve the whole server then.
Then they were advised to claim journalistic privilege - for the server, not for the logs, which (if you believe them and they would be silly to lie on this point) they don't have.
name one single American journalist who has been imprisoned
Read the news - see your recent supreme court decisions for at least two that will be.
Not everyone would agree it is fair use (eg. Eisner - who argued that rip-mix-burn was an example of an industry seeing piracy as its "killer app").
Also depends on where you live, eg. in the UK, copying for personal use is _not_ legal.
Apple most likely didn't get hit because they would be a massive target with big industry backing, clearly making a computer with lots of other uses, and it would be hard to get around Sony on the basis of one ad campaign.
Apple's legal dept. were probably told not to care.
a) they are used to getting sued by record companies (Apple...)
b) Jobs doesn't exactly seem to get on with Eisener. He'd probably relish the fight.
they said "making a piece of software that's marketed as a vehicle for copyright infringement is illegal."
... one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement,...
Wrong. RTFA (and the order).
Nowhere do the words "making a piece of software" appear.
They are solely ruling on _distribution_ and distribution with demostrated prior intent at that.
Essentially they _are_ ruling that the promotion is the illegal bit - since without it or other "affirmative steps", the distribution of the device is not (for this reason) illegal.
What interests me is "with the object" and whether this means "with the sole object" - eg. Apple's rip-mix-burn campaign was only one promotion for one aspect of the Mac, so did they distribute "with the object of..." ? I don't think so, but IANAL - I think they are saying that the promotion of infringement has to be your only intent.
Note also that they are quite clear that they are not overturning Sony, and that the non-infringing uses tests still apply, just that they don't get you off the inducement hook:
Liability under our jurisprudence may be predicated on actively encouraging (or inducing) infringement through specific acts (as the Court's opinion develops) or on distributing a product distributees use to infringe copyrights, if the product is not capable of 'substantial' or 'commercially significant' noninfringing uses. Sony, 464 U. S., at 442; see also 3 M. Nimmer & D.Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright 12.04[A][2] (2005). While the two categories overlap, they capture different culpable behavior.
Firefox has been at v1 for only a few months, and there were rendering/standards issues with earlier versions - you were much more trying to hit a moving target.
So, what we are really saying is that within about 6 months of Firefox release, 90% of sites have been updated to work with it.
Seems to me that is a pretty good record.
[ and yes I do know you can design you sites to "standards" rather than browsers, I also know how much still goes wrong, in even the most recent browsers, when you do ]
How about the fact the current MS windows update is real slow because it is client-server and there are always going to be hundreds of millions of clients all wanting the same damn thing at the same damn time.
The patches ain't getting smaller either.
This is exactly the sort of problem BT was built to solve.
Even if they restrict it to only MS authorised updates it might still be a big win for them and, arguably, Joe windows user.
On the other hand, if they screw up on whatever verification they put in (and they haven't exactly got a good track record on crypto implementations) then you've got virus heaven...
Oh FFS - _Sun_ _don't_ care. If they did, they'd have removed the comments from their dist (it's open source code after all).
That they (it seems) left them intact even if they (alledgedly according to TFA) might not have met the standards for _Sun_ code actually (to me) shows that they have some respect for the authors and OSS.
The only people making a fuss about it are in the media. Must be a slow week for IT stories, either that or MS is paying for "see what happens when you use OSS" articles.
Wierd - I thought he was good at reading upside down...
(something like) "enemy of the state"
vs.
"enemy combatant"
Either way, knowing the accusation doesn't make a lot of difference to the accused, with no access to independent judicial process for any of them.