I had a nice, top of the line Nokia - a couple years later, calls would randomly disconnect. I used equipment replacement twice and get back the same model. Finally they tell me my phone is no longer compatible with their network! I asked to be transfered to the guy who could close my account, since my phone was entirely useless. Instead they transferred me to the guy who sent me a new phone, which did turn out to be a marginal upgrade due to two years of advancement in the technology. Eventually they even gave me a nice credit on my account for the months my phone was useless. However, I had to threaten to terminate my account before getting any results.
I don't see why we need laws to offer you this protection. You can very well enter a contract with anyone who you allow to use your database stating that they are not allowed to resell it, give the info away, etc. You retain complete control. What's wrong with treating "databases" like trade secrets?
If you want your database protected, do you want a EULA that has never been tested in court, or do you want a law that explicitly lets you take a civial action and lays out the criteria for the offense, as well as remedies?
I read the bill, and I'm in the news business, and I think it's very bad. The government does not belong in a role of defining what is, and what is not, a legitimate news organization. The freedom of speech and of the press belongs to all the people, not just to a select few, or to specific corporate entities.
This bill protects the rights of news organizations by not letting competing organizations copy all their articles from their web site:
(d) NEWS REPORTING- Nothing in this Act shall restrict any person from making available in commerce information for the primary purpose of news reporting, including news and sports gathering, dissemination, and comment, unless the information is time sensitive and has been gathered by a news reporting entity, and making available in commerce the information is part of a consistent pattern engaged in for the purpose of direct competition.
Everyone else has done a good job of arguing other flaws in your argument. Let me be the first (apparently) to point out that you *CANNOT* sit at an NBA game and retransmit or capture information about the game.
Ok, but the article cites a 1997 Supreme Court decision which allowed Motorla to retransmit scores. What you and others fail to understand is that this law is essentially about stealing a database. It's not about copyrighting information. It is saying, in a nutshell, "you can't steal my database and sell it for profit". In the sponsor's own words: "The bill only applies where someone takes a substantial portion of the database and uses it in a way that causes commercial harm to the provider of the data. You have to prove an injury, and it needs to be significant".
Contract and copyright law already covers what needs to be covered here. This is just another law that overextends existing protections, all to the benefit of a few and the harm of the many.
It's not a copyright issue, it's a content access issue. It seems to me that there is a huge legal loophole that leaves a database provider open to getting their entire product stolen. For example, suppose I maintain and provide a database consisting of the names of phone numbers of lawyers, and I run a web site that makes the database available for consumers, and collect advertising fees. Then suppose some clever competing company spiders my database and sets up a competing site with the same data, cutting into me revenue. Is the data they took protected by copyright? Absolutely not, since it consists only of facts. Did they violete my terms of service in obtaining the data? Probably - but is this a crime? At best it's legally ambiguous. This is definitely unethical behavior, and a law that helps prevent it is a good thing, IMO.
Before getting all pissed off, Take a look at the bill. Among other things, it explictly makes allowances for educational and scientific purposes, as well as for news and sports. This isn't about "owning facts", it's about protecting the interests of those who take the time to compile a database and preventing others from obtaining that database and sellling it for themselves. You can sit at an NBA game and edit your web pages in real time, if you want. You can't slurp Yahoo's NBA page, reformat the text, and place it on your own page for profit. This seems perfectly reasonable to me.
I really do not understand why people can't see a common sense middle ground to this whole abortion debate
There are really two debates... most people spend time on "is a fetus alive". However, the more pressing debate is "should the states be allowed to criminalize abortion". As it stands, the SCOTUS has declared abortion to be a right protected by the Constitution. Even if science proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that life begins at conception, there is nothing anyone can do about it.
Perl is a window into a programmers heart
on
Perl's Extreme Makeover
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
If the programmer is disciplined and well organized, the code will be disciplined and well organized. If the programmer doesn't value readability, then the code will not be readable. People like to take pot-shots at Perl, but they should really be aimed at Perl programmers.
Isn't it possible that most of these people have placed abortion rights low on their list of priorities, and voted these legislators into office for other reasons?
The only reason abortion isn't an issue in elections is because the Supreme Court has prevented states from criminalizing it. If Roe were overturned tomorrow, you can bet the farm that abortion would be the #1 issue in every state election. Do you think abortion is a fundamental right protected by the Constitution?
Obviously. A majority of the country hasn't voted against it, either. If a majority of the country is against it, then why hasn't anyone called for a referendum?
The people have spoken by electing people to state legislatures that passed laws criminalizing abortion. The problem is that the Supreme Court has stepped in an declared that abortion is a fundamental right protected by the Constitution, at least until the fetus is viable, at which time the state has a "compelling interest" in protecting fetal life. It's a rather bizarre interpretation of the Constitution, IMO, when half the country can be convinced that abortion is murder yet the Supreme Court upholds it as a fundamental right.
Why not ask the parents who are allowing their children to play these games to be the responsible ones? Because criticizing the people you're begging for votes doesn't play well. I've stood right behind a father in a game store while he bought Conker's Bad Fur Day for his kid who wouldn't shut up about how he wanted it (and how he'd have to keep it secret from his mom), while the cashier told him at least THREE times that it was a Mature oriented title. The father shrugged it off, because he wanted to get out of there as soon as possible. Great job there, dad.
If there was not massive pressure from people like Joe Lieberman, the game company would happily neglect to mark the title "Mature" and the game store would happily sell it anyway. The entire point of ratings is to equip parents to let them have some control the over the content their children see. In fact, I have never heard Lieberman suggest otherwise. A bad parent is a bad parent, no question - but large companies will do anything for a buck, including marketing inappropriate content to young people. Calling companies not to renounce inappropriate content is certainly reasonable in the same way I would call for the KKK to renounce racism.
I dredged This up on Google. From this article at least, his views are pretty similar to what they are now. He called for a ratings system, and expressed his view that violent video games contribute to a violent society. As far as I know, he has never called for a outright ban, favoring industry self-regulation instead.
When it comes to cases like that, majority rules, and the majority has decided that killing fetuses should not be prohibited (even if they personally do not like the idea of abortion)
Although this post is obvious flamebait, it's worth pointing out that at no time has a majority of people in this country voted to allow abortion (unless you count the very democratic 5-4 vote on the Supreme Court). In fact, this country has a very long history of criminalizing abortion going back to English common law, and many states have laws on the books that will prohibit abortion as soon as Roe is completely overturned.
Apperently, you just don't get it. Both abortions and video games come down to a single point: choice. Someone chooses to do something that you may find abhorrent (like have an abortion, or kill a virtual hooker for cash), but which doesn't affect you. Government shouldn't intervene, then. That person is making a choice about their own behavior. A choice that should be respected.
Normally I wouldn't get sucked into a debate like this, but your statement makes no sense. If someone neglects to feed their infant and it dies, I will ask the Government to criminalize that behavior even though it "doesn't affect me". Furthermore, Lieberman was not calling for legislation (at least in this article) to ban games, and in fact explictly mentions that these companies have to right to produce them. He is simply asking game developers to be more responsible - which is a perfectly legitimate opinion to have. You don't need to be a Puritan to find the content of that game objectionable.
Perl is powerful, but its code looks like assembler
Important correction - Perl can look like assembler... but it doesn't have to. A Perl script can be as clean and readable as you want it to be. Ugly code is a result of lazy programmers, not the language itself.
for one thing this mean a court of law in a country (China) says virtual items are just the same as real. Likewise it means that there is a legitimate claim to such items, ie a person can own a item even if it is intangable.
while not so much a issue now, It COULD be one in the future, one that could become a very serious issue. By making things legitimate now you advoid the issues that could come later
This is exactly what we have now - with US currency. Its not backed by any metal standard - it only has value because we think it does. I am curious as to what percentage of money used in transactions is "virtual", e.g. credit cards, wire transfers, etc. The only difference between money in a MMORPG and "real" money is that real money is backed up by a government as opposed to a private company with no real guarantees.
You must be especially sheltered and puritanical to an extreme to believe that teens shoudn't be able to see NC-17 movies (R movies are more or less unenforced).
Ha, are you kidding me? You think I am being "puritanical" for not letting my kid see NC-17 movies like "Kids" or "Showgirls"? Whatever! I want my kids to have healthy attitudes about human sexuality, so I think we'll be avoiding Trois and friends.
Actually if the adapter was GPL you would have the same problem. You might be able to make the adapter LGPL and have the intended effect. Of course someone who is actually a GPL expert would have the best reply.
My understanding is that if you write the adaptor yourself, you must release it under the GPL, but you are free to use it yourself however you want. I guess this would amount to licensing it to yourself BSD-style. It seems like a very gray area though
It seems to me that adherants to western religions are stymied by their need for a literal instruction manual to their faith. It tends to lead to less of an appreciation of the nuances of their beliefs and bogs them down in the literal interpretations, many of which were originally intended to be metaphors to begin with.
I'm not sure what you are thinking needs to be interpreted about Christianity to be a "Christian", or what styimes people. All you reall need is Matthew 22:34-40 and John 3:16. Now Christians may debate about rituals and general emphasis, but they are all certainly Christians, assuming you believe in Christ, love God, and love your neighbor as yourself. I think you have a point about Islam though, as individual sects seem to consider all other sects heretics, though frankly I know less about it.
Uh: by virtually every other major moral philosopher in previous history (Socrates, for one)? By many different Eastern mystics and philosophers? I mean, the idea that if we treat each other well, the world will be great, is not exactly an earth-shattering insight.
Quotes? Examples? Who are these Eastern mystics that said your salvation was dependent on your heart, not on what you do? That obedience to God was fulfilled in loving your fellow man? Ancient religions were full of "salvation by works" notions... but what Jesus talked about was entirely new - so new, in fact, the Jewish authorites felt the need to have him crucified.
Slashdot Mirror
I had a nice, top of the line Nokia - a couple years later, calls would randomly disconnect. I used equipment replacement twice and get back the same model. Finally they tell me my phone is no longer compatible with their network! I asked to be transfered to the guy who could close my account, since my phone was entirely useless. Instead they transferred me to the guy who sent me a new phone, which did turn out to be a marginal upgrade due to two years of advancement in the technology. Eventually they even gave me a nice credit on my account for the months my phone was useless. However, I had to threaten to terminate my account before getting any results.
If you want your database protected, do you want a EULA that has never been tested in court, or do you want a law that explicitly lets you take a civial action and lays out the criteria for the offense, as well as remedies?
This bill protects the rights of news organizations by not letting competing organizations copy all their articles from their web site:
(d) NEWS REPORTING- Nothing in this Act shall restrict any person from making available in commerce information for the primary purpose of news reporting, including news and sports gathering, dissemination, and comment, unless the information is time sensitive and has been gathered by a news reporting entity, and making available in commerce the information is part of a consistent pattern engaged in for the purpose of direct competition.
Seems fair enough to me...
Ok, but the article cites a 1997 Supreme Court decision which allowed Motorla to retransmit scores. What you and others fail to understand is that this law is essentially about stealing a database. It's not about copyrighting information. It is saying, in a nutshell, "you can't steal my database and sell it for profit". In the sponsor's own words: "The bill only applies where someone takes a substantial portion of the database and uses it in a way that causes commercial harm to the provider of the data. You have to prove an injury, and it needs to be significant".
It's not a copyright issue, it's a content access issue. It seems to me that there is a huge legal loophole that leaves a database provider open to getting their entire product stolen. For example, suppose I maintain and provide a database consisting of the names of phone numbers of lawyers, and I run a web site that makes the database available for consumers, and collect advertising fees. Then suppose some clever competing company spiders my database and sets up a competing site with the same data, cutting into me revenue. Is the data they took protected by copyright? Absolutely not, since it consists only of facts. Did they violete my terms of service in obtaining the data? Probably - but is this a crime? At best it's legally ambiguous. This is definitely unethical behavior, and a law that helps prevent it is a good thing, IMO.
Before getting all pissed off, Take a look at the bill. Among other things, it explictly makes allowances for educational and scientific purposes, as well as for news and sports. This isn't about "owning facts", it's about protecting the interests of those who take the time to compile a database and preventing others from obtaining that database and sellling it for themselves. You can sit at an NBA game and edit your web pages in real time, if you want. You can't slurp Yahoo's NBA page, reformat the text, and place it on your own page for profit. This seems perfectly reasonable to me.
There are really two debates... most people spend time on "is a fetus alive". However, the more pressing debate is "should the states be allowed to criminalize abortion". As it stands, the SCOTUS has declared abortion to be a right protected by the Constitution. Even if science proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that life begins at conception, there is nothing anyone can do about it.
If the programmer is disciplined and well organized, the code will be disciplined and well organized. If the programmer doesn't value readability, then the code will not be readable. People like to take pot-shots at Perl, but they should really be aimed at Perl programmers.
What else can we blame when get our butts kicked?
The only reason abortion isn't an issue in elections is because the Supreme Court has prevented states from criminalizing it. If Roe were overturned tomorrow, you can bet the farm that abortion would be the #1 issue in every state election. Do you think abortion is a fundamental right protected by the Constitution?
The people have spoken by electing people to state legislatures that passed laws criminalizing abortion. The problem is that the Supreme Court has stepped in an declared that abortion is a fundamental right protected by the Constitution, at least until the fetus is viable, at which time the state has a "compelling interest" in protecting fetal life. It's a rather bizarre interpretation of the Constitution, IMO, when half the country can be convinced that abortion is murder yet the Supreme Court upholds it as a fundamental right.
If there was not massive pressure from people like Joe Lieberman, the game company would happily neglect to mark the title "Mature" and the game store would happily sell it anyway. The entire point of ratings is to equip parents to let them have some control the over the content their children see. In fact, I have never heard Lieberman suggest otherwise. A bad parent is a bad parent, no question - but large companies will do anything for a buck, including marketing inappropriate content to young people. Calling companies not to renounce inappropriate content is certainly reasonable in the same way I would call for the KKK to renounce racism.
I dredged This up on Google. From this article at least, his views are pretty similar to what they are now. He called for a ratings system, and expressed his view that violent video games contribute to a violent society. As far as I know, he has never called for a outright ban, favoring industry self-regulation instead.
Although this post is obvious flamebait, it's worth pointing out that at no time has a majority of people in this country voted to allow abortion (unless you count the very democratic 5-4 vote on the Supreme Court). In fact, this country has a very long history of criminalizing abortion going back to English common law, and many states have laws on the books that will prohibit abortion as soon as Roe is completely overturned.
Normally I wouldn't get sucked into a debate like this, but your statement makes no sense. If someone neglects to feed their infant and it dies, I will ask the Government to criminalize that behavior even though it "doesn't affect me". Furthermore, Lieberman was not calling for legislation (at least in this article) to ban games, and in fact explictly mentions that these companies have to right to produce them. He is simply asking game developers to be more responsible - which is a perfectly legitimate opinion to have. You don't need to be a Puritan to find the content of that game objectionable.
Crazy Taxi! It's easy to learn, visually impressive, and you can have short, timed rounds - pretty much the only game my wife ever showed interest in.
Important correction - Perl can look like assembler... but it doesn't have to. A Perl script can be as clean and readable as you want it to be. Ugly code is a result of lazy programmers, not the language itself.
while not so much a issue now, It COULD be one in the future, one that could become a very serious issue. By making things legitimate now you advoid the issues that could come later
This is exactly what we have now - with US currency. Its not backed by any metal standard - it only has value because we think it does. I am curious as to what percentage of money used in transactions is "virtual", e.g. credit cards, wire transfers, etc. The only difference between money in a MMORPG and "real" money is that real money is backed up by a government as opposed to a private company with no real guarantees.
More important personally, or presents a greater challenge to the country, or what?
Ha, are you kidding me? You think I am being "puritanical" for not letting my kid see NC-17 movies like "Kids" or "Showgirls"? Whatever! I want my kids to have healthy attitudes about human sexuality, so I think we'll be avoiding Trois and friends.
"Skullomania", from Streat Fighter EX, probably the lamest chararacter from the franchise
See Skullomania
My understanding is that if you write the adaptor yourself, you must release it under the GPL, but you are free to use it yourself however you want. I guess this would amount to licensing it to yourself BSD-style. It seems like a very gray area though
I'm not sure what you are thinking needs to be interpreted about Christianity to be a "Christian", or what styimes people. All you reall need is Matthew 22:34-40 and John 3:16. Now Christians may debate about rituals and general emphasis, but they are all certainly Christians, assuming you believe in Christ, love God, and love your neighbor as yourself. I think you have a point about Islam though, as individual sects seem to consider all other sects heretics, though frankly I know less about it.
Columbo's First Name and The Supreme Court - The "Philip Columbo" Story
Quotes? Examples? Who are these Eastern mystics that said your salvation was dependent on your heart, not on what you do? That obedience to God was fulfilled in loving your fellow man? Ancient religions were full of "salvation by works" notions... but what Jesus talked about was entirely new - so new, in fact, the Jewish authorites felt the need to have him crucified.