Interesting, but these people were not working for the Bush administration, they were local cops. I'd say your beef is with them.
There are always cops who are bad and arrest people just for being people they don't like. I just don't see how this has anything to do with the federal government, since this is a local official with completely different jurisdictions. I don't think GWB has called up all of the local police forces and said, "I want you to do me a favor..."
Well, considering these places teach how to engage in illegal acts to promote their causes (peaceful, but illegal - like blockading), I don't see this reference as too far off.
There is a place for intentional breakage of the law, but it is few and far between. To have camps that teach how to do it as part of regular protest action is just plain wrong.
Interestingly, they haven't come for anyone yet. When they do, come and get me, and I'll be on your side. They are just watching people. I'm, personally, glad for the watching.
However, the poster was talking about that Patents are good because the little guy wins, and used the Eolas patent as proof. Even the most vicious Microsoft-haters know that the Eolas patent was nothing but extortion.
One thing to remember is that with GPL software, you CAN learn from the GPL software and use that learning to write your own. As long as you aren't directly copying and just using ideas you learned you are fine.
I think you are mixing fraudulent businesses and legitimate businesses. For example, I work for an email marketing company, but we don't do spam. What we do, is help customers learn how to grow their own list and send to them effectively. We are not based on annoying people (our customer's lists are usually less than 5,000 addresses), we're based on helping companies provide useful services and advertise by email. Our reputation lives and dies by the percentage of people who find the marketing piece interesting and perform actions based on it. We usually get between 20% and 30% of people we send to to click through to the website. One of our lists gets a 50% click-through rate. I would say that for the most part, the people we send to are glad they are getting the email, since they do appear to be actively engaging with it. This is why we LOVE unsubscribes - if everyone who doesn't want the email unsubscribes, our numbers go WAY up, and we can say - look, this is getting GREAT returns per person sent.
Here lies the problem - when you outlaw a mode of communication, you aren't helping anyone. We already have laws on the books for fraud. Perhaps we need more, but really the telephone isn't the problem here, is it? The problem is people acting fraudulently. Why don't we take care of _that_ issue? Then we wouldn't have to worry about disrupting business for those who use the medium and are not fraudulent.
Now, another problem with telemarketing is - what about cold calls from individual business people? Is _that_ telemarketing? If it is, we might as well close down industry in this country, because that would cut off the supply for our sales forces.
It seems to me that whatever they are teaching in business schools about sales is completely unethical. Sales is actually what keeps industry turning. Unfortunately, the schools turning out unethical sales forces is giving the whole industry a bad name, and if it continues progressing, could cause a recession.
"And this entire argument is based on the idea that it was a programmer error, which I don't believe has been mentioned as a fact."
Actually, I'm not talking about this case in particular, I'm talking about the bill.
The point is that the instances you mention (someone getting injured from slipping on the floor), the reparations is IN PROPORTION to the damage. In the case of telemarketing, there is no such proportion - it is simply an absurdity.
I think that the punishment should be in line with the damage, and that _willful_ disobedience should be punished with very large fines. Willful disobedience is hard to prove, as it should be, but it should allow for people to make mistakes, without allowing for companies to disregard structural errors.
Imagine - if a call center operator did not follow procedure ONE time, it could cost the company $10,000 even thought the most damage is 10 minutes of someone's time. So, these low-level telemarketers are going to start getting fired for making single errors. Companies who live and die by telemarketing will not be able to afford the liability, even though mistakes aren't causing any real harm.
Obviously, but really, should the company face a fine so large because of an incompetent programmer? Since there are no standard licensing practices for programmers, it would seem difficult to require perfect programmers.
$780,000 for 78 phone calls? This is waaay too harsh. Let's say that a programmer makes an innocent mistake which causes 50% of the DNC list to not work properly. Can you imagine how much money that would cost? If we continue to pass laws like this, businesses will find it increasingly hard to conduct business here in the US, and the recession we're just coming out of will seem like heaven.
" A single patron can start to cause a lot of problems, as we've already seen with all the musicians, artists, and poets that you mentioned. Their (the donors) ideas are the only ones that get seen through, since they control the purse strings."
And that's why they are paid. I'm sorry, this culture of complete independence has gotten out of hand. Since when is performing work for someone else viewed as a problem? They couldn't do exactly what they wanted to - they should cry on someone else's shoulders, because that's real life for all of us.
It's early and I'm being a little over-harsh. But I hope you can see what I'm saying.
When projects are in the stage that they can be managed by an "Average guy", usually Excel is still the better tool for the job. Then, when it's far enough along that the average joe can't handle it with Excel, it's time to move on to a real database built by a professional or semi-professional.
Remember, OOo can act like a front-end for any ODBC database. However, Access sucks for being a backend for anything.
Actually, they haven't, with a few exceptions, been using their patents offensively. True Microsoft has copyright law giving them temporary monopoly status over works they create, but that's nothing compared to what the drug companies have.
You see, with Microsoft, anyone with a computer can help put together a solution to a computer problem. Also, anyone can instantly enter the market selling software, just by downloading GNU and selling it.
However, with the drug industry, it takes YEARS to get past the FDA. So, if you can imagine being able to operate a company at a loss for YEARS before being able to enter the market, you can see how the only ones who can do so are the very rich. The barrier to entry is inflated by the FDA's regulations, and no amount of an "open movement" is going to get around that while the FDA is there.
I think the reasoning there is that it's hard to force a company to only ship software it has licenses for, since that's so hard to track. However, if it only ships open-source software, that's easy to tell if you have licenses for.
This way, the government can easily tell if a shipped computer is legal or not.
"If you are using IE, that means you still have to have a copy of Windows, it won't run stand alone will it?"
Yes, it will under wine. You DO NOT need a copy of Windows. It works just like the rest of the MS Office Suite.
Microsoft isn't developing for Linux, Codeweavers (along with other folks with wine) is developing an implementation of the Windows API that runs on Linux, so applications don't even know they are on a different operating system.
It matters for developers wanting to test in multiple platforms. This way you don't have to purchase a Windows license to use it. With vmware you would have to pay a Windows license.
"Christianity will bring with it the recognition that their religion is doctrinally Communist"
Incorrect. Christians are to give because of their convictions, not because of governmental force. If governmental force is applied, it is expressly non-Christian.
This is why many Christians favor capitalism - the free markets allow Christians to be free in their giving, and give based on where they think God is telling them to give. This is much different from someone saying "give me X dollars or you're going to jail". Forcible giving is not a part of Christianity.
The explanation doesn't make sense. If the information is already out there, then it's already cached. Saying "don't cache this" doesn't help when it's already been crawled and indexed. Unless they have also asked google to expunge their caches.
Of course, there is a big question concerning whether the government should allow caching of their web pages. Correction of information could always be perceived as a cover-up.
In GWB's case, every time he speaks someone tries to make it into a conspiracy theory.
Slashdot Mirror
Interesting, but these people were not working for the Bush administration, they were local cops. I'd say your beef is with them.
There are always cops who are bad and arrest people just for being people they don't like. I just don't see how this has anything to do with the federal government, since this is a local official with completely different jurisdictions. I don't think GWB has called up all of the local police forces and said, "I want you to do me a favor..."
Well, considering these places teach how to engage in illegal acts to promote their causes (peaceful, but illegal - like blockading), I don't see this reference as too far off.
There is a place for intentional breakage of the law, but it is few and far between. To have camps that teach how to do it as part of regular protest action is just plain wrong.
Interestingly, they haven't come for anyone yet. When they do, come and get me, and I'll be on your side. They are just watching people. I'm, personally, glad for the watching.
You are quite correct in your assessment. Unfortunately, it's even worse with democrats.
I haven't seen their XML, but you can create XML that is just as useful as binary guacamole.
"Patents are not inherently evil."
That's arguable.
However, the poster was talking about that Patents are good because the little guy wins, and used the Eolas patent as proof. Even the most vicious Microsoft-haters know that the Eolas patent was nothing but extortion.
Okay, but codifying that sentiment into a law is next to impossible.
One thing to remember is that with GPL software, you CAN learn from the GPL software and use that learning to write your own. As long as you aren't directly copying and just using ideas you learned you are fine.
I think you are mixing fraudulent businesses and legitimate businesses. For example, I work for an email marketing company, but we don't do spam. What we do, is help customers learn how to grow their own list and send to them effectively. We are not based on annoying people (our customer's lists are usually less than 5,000 addresses), we're based on helping companies provide useful services and advertise by email. Our reputation lives and dies by the percentage of people who find the marketing piece interesting and perform actions based on it. We usually get between 20% and 30% of people we send to to click through to the website. One of our lists gets a 50% click-through rate. I would say that for the most part, the people we send to are glad they are getting the email, since they do appear to be actively engaging with it. This is why we LOVE unsubscribes - if everyone who doesn't want the email unsubscribes, our numbers go WAY up, and we can say - look, this is getting GREAT returns per person sent.
Here lies the problem - when you outlaw a mode of communication, you aren't helping anyone. We already have laws on the books for fraud. Perhaps we need more, but really the telephone isn't the problem here, is it? The problem is people acting fraudulently. Why don't we take care of _that_ issue? Then we wouldn't have to worry about disrupting business for those who use the medium and are not fraudulent.
Now, another problem with telemarketing is - what about cold calls from individual business people? Is _that_ telemarketing? If it is, we might as well close down industry in this country, because that would cut off the supply for our sales forces.
It seems to me that whatever they are teaching in business schools about sales is completely unethical. Sales is actually what keeps industry turning. Unfortunately, the schools turning out unethical sales forces is giving the whole industry a bad name, and if it continues progressing, could cause a recession.
"And this entire argument is based on the idea that it was a programmer error, which I don't believe has been mentioned as a fact."
Actually, I'm not talking about this case in particular, I'm talking about the bill.
The point is that the instances you mention (someone getting injured from slipping on the floor), the reparations is IN PROPORTION to the damage. In the case of telemarketing, there is no such proportion - it is simply an absurdity.
I think that the punishment should be in line with the damage, and that _willful_ disobedience should be punished with very large fines. Willful disobedience is hard to prove, as it should be, but it should allow for people to make mistakes, without allowing for companies to disregard structural errors.
Imagine - if a call center operator did not follow procedure ONE time, it could cost the company $10,000 even thought the most damage is 10 minutes of someone's time. So, these low-level telemarketers are going to start getting fired for making single errors. Companies who live and die by telemarketing will not be able to afford the liability, even though mistakes aren't causing any real harm.
Obviously, but really, should the company face a fine so large because of an incompetent programmer? Since there are no standard licensing practices for programmers, it would seem difficult to require perfect programmers.
I'm sorry, in what way is telemarketing fraud?
$780,000 for 78 phone calls? This is waaay too harsh. Let's say that a programmer makes an innocent mistake which causes 50% of the DNC list to not work properly. Can you imagine how much money that would cost? If we continue to pass laws like this, businesses will find it increasingly hard to conduct business here in the US, and the recession we're just coming out of will seem like heaven.
" A single patron can start to cause a lot of problems, as we've already seen with all the musicians, artists, and poets that you mentioned. Their (the donors) ideas are the only ones that get seen through, since they control the purse strings."
And that's why they are paid. I'm sorry, this culture of complete independence has gotten out of hand. Since when is performing work for someone else viewed as a problem? They couldn't do exactly what they wanted to - they should cry on someone else's shoulders, because that's real life for all of us.
It's early and I'm being a little over-harsh. But I hope you can see what I'm saying.
Honestly, I've never seen a good use of Access.
When projects are in the stage that they can be managed by an "Average guy", usually Excel is still the better tool for the job. Then, when it's far enough along that the average joe can't handle it with Excel, it's time to move on to a real database built by a professional or semi-professional.
Remember, OOo can act like a front-end for any ODBC database. However, Access sucks for being a backend for anything.
"if I were either Linus or the FSF, I'd be adding a rider to my licenses that they can be used by anybody with the exception of SCO"
Then it would be totally incompatible with every piece of GPL software in existence. Yeah, that would be great.
The GPL _forbids_ anyone adding extra terms. Since you just added a term, that means you can't combine works with a GPL'd item.
Actually, they haven't, with a few exceptions, been using their patents offensively. True Microsoft has copyright law giving them temporary monopoly status over works they create, but that's nothing compared to what the drug companies have.
You see, with Microsoft, anyone with a computer can help put together a solution to a computer problem. Also, anyone can instantly enter the market selling software, just by downloading GNU and selling it.
However, with the drug industry, it takes YEARS to get past the FDA. So, if you can imagine being able to operate a company at a loss for YEARS before being able to enter the market, you can see how the only ones who can do so are the very rich. The barrier to entry is inflated by the FDA's regulations, and no amount of an "open movement" is going to get around that while the FDA is there.
I think the reasoning there is that it's hard to force a company to only ship software it has licenses for, since that's so hard to track. However, if it only ships open-source software, that's easy to tell if you have licenses for.
This way, the government can easily tell if a shipped computer is legal or not.
Drug companies aren't competitive, either. For the same reasons, basically.
The difference is that drug companies have the FDA to help keep their monopoly status, while Microsoft has no such gift.
"If you are using IE, that means you still have to have a copy of Windows, it won't run stand alone will it?"
Yes, it will under wine. You DO NOT need a copy of Windows. It works just like the rest of the MS Office Suite.
Microsoft isn't developing for Linux, Codeweavers (along with other folks with wine) is developing an implementation of the Windows API that runs on Linux, so applications don't even know they are on a different operating system.
It matters for developers wanting to test in multiple platforms. This way you don't have to purchase a Windows license to use it. With vmware you would have to pay a Windows license.
" not to put down their achievement, but how is this any functionally different than running said applications in vmware/bochs/plex86?"
Because with vmware/bochs/plex86 you need to install a full copy of Windows. Codeweavers does not require a Windows license or any Windows software.
"Christianity will bring with it the recognition that their religion is doctrinally Communist"
Incorrect. Christians are to give because of their convictions, not because of governmental force. If governmental force is applied, it is expressly non-Christian.
This is why many Christians favor capitalism - the free markets allow Christians to be free in their giving, and give based on where they think God is telling them to give. This is much different from someone saying "give me X dollars or you're going to jail". Forcible giving is not a part of Christianity.
"This admin has a long history of attempting to rewrite history"
Please provide examples.
The explanation doesn't make sense. If the information is already out there, then it's already cached. Saying "don't cache this" doesn't help when it's already been crawled and indexed. Unless they have also asked google to expunge their caches.
Of course, there is a big question concerning whether the government should allow caching of their web pages. Correction of information could always be perceived as a cover-up.
In GWB's case, every time he speaks someone tries to make it into a conspiracy theory.