Ha! So patent owners who do nothing with their patents are ok with you but the others are not? Cause that's what patents are for, suing people to stop progress and innovation.
umm, among US lawyers he's considered a big wheel too ya know. He clerked for Justice Thurgood Marshall. He defended Phil Zimmermann in the investigation of PGP by the spooks in the US government. And he's a tenured law professor. If you're going to take free legal advice from anyone, you could do a heck of a lot worse.
Eben Moglen, invalidator of bioscience patents filed by his own university ("that is what tenure is for") is a public ally of the OLPC. I suspect he'll not only invalidate their patent, he'll drive em one step from bankruptcy.
Drooling over hardware like an idiot.. you already own a Mac don't you?
What's scary is that supposedly normal, non-geek people, are now drooling over hardware. They're the same idiots who buy a 4wd to pick the kids up from soccer practice.
There's also augmented reality. You could recreate your house in Second Life and wear this suit around with a head mounted display on. What would be really cool (and I've not seen anyone do this yet) is a full house CAVE system. Cover the walls of your house with OLED displays and wear LCD shutter glasses. You'd probably need a whole server farm to run it.
Excuse me, but no. If you "win" the defense of a civil case, you get nothing. It's only if you are prosecuting that you can be awarded attorney's fees - which is why people often will file a *counter suit* for attorney fees after they win.. it takes months and months and it is a completely new case that you have no guarantee of winning. Quite simply, most people can't afford "fair use".
If I had this prototype I'd be hacking Second Life to stream my movements into the world (and get Linden Labs to stream it out) and everyone would be like "wow, how's he move like that?!" but I guess they'd just think I was a poser.
Fair Use is bullshit. You still have to go to court. You still have to present the case, and that means hiring a lawyer, and any lawyer, even Eben Moglen, will tell you, even if you win you will be liable for court fees and it is terribly unlikely that you will win because fair use doctrine is extremely hard to prove.
I think the tendency of people (especially on Slashdot) to jump to the absurd to defend their position is disturbing. The exception does not disprove the rule. Let me give you a better example. Imagine you were at the food court of a mall and you ordered something with "no sauce". The idiot behind the counter plonks it down in front of you with sauce and then asks you to pay.
You: I said "no sauce". Clerk: It comes with sauce. You: Yeah, but I said "no sauce". Clerk: It comes with sauce, $8.95. You: I don't want it. Clerk: You ordered it, you have to pay for it. You: I ordered it with "no sauce", I'm not paying.
At this point, you notice there is a police officer standing on either side of you. Not security guards, mind you, real bonified cops in uniform.
Cop: What's the problem here. Clerk: He won't pay. Cop: What's the problem pal? You: It's got sauce on it, I asked for no sauce. Clerk: It comes with sauce. Cop: Pay him. You: I don't want it. Cop: You ordered it, pay. You: I ordered it with no sauce. Clerk: It comes with sauce. Cop: Are you refusing to pay? You: I don't want it. Cop: I'm ordering you to pay. You: No. Other Cop: Put your hands behind your back please.
At this point, hopefully, you know you're in trouble and you're not the kind of idiot who resists arrest. They 'cuff you and take you away for refusing to follow the lawful direction of a police officer. Maybe they even take the money out of your pocket and pay the clerk before they take you away. You're booked. Your fingerprints and a mugshot are taken. Your personal belongings are put into an envelope and you are put in a holding cell. Eventually, you get to see a judge and you might reasonably ask if the judge would have paid and the judge would say yes, if the police told her to, because it is no longer your call. You might think you are completely within your rights to not pay for a meal you didn't order (and I would agree with you) but if the cops tell you to pay, you pay, they've evaluated the situation and they've decided against you. Maybe they think ordering such a meal without sauce is stupid. Maybe they think they heard you order and didn't hear you say no sauce. It doesn't matter.
That's what authority is.. and that's what our society values. If you want your $8.95 back take it to small claims court. Otherwise, obey the rule of the law.
My email address is right there in every one of my posts if you want to tell me your personal opinion of me. Using a public forum to vent your personal feelings is just not on. I'd love to hear what it is you think is "self righteous bullshit" but this is not the place..
Yes, if they tell you to do something that would result in you breaking the law you are required to refuse. Otherwise, no, you do what the cop says. If you think the cop has done something illegal or improper you bring it up with a judge.
They've got the right to use force to eject you from the premises if you refuse to leave. As does everyone who owns property. Some asks you to leave, you leave.. it's not your property. It's not public property. It's private property and you're a guest.
Well, duh. Yes, you are required to sign the ticket. If you listen to the tape he even says that. As well as he says "ok, get out of the vehicle Sir, I'm going to arrest you." Are you retarded?
I'm not from the US
I love the fact the police was more upset and aggitated than guy being shot. Perhaps you're not aware that the kind of people who refuse to turn around and put their hands behind their back are the kind of people who pull guns and shoot cops in the US.
Police tell you to do something, do what you are told. Period.
Every one of these videos the person was tased not for "arguing about a speeding ticket" or any of the other stupid claims. They were tased for refusing to follow the lawful directions of a police officer. That's the law. When the police tell you to put your hands behind your back, you do it. They have the right to use force to make you do it. I can't believe people are surprised by this. That's what the police are for, to use force in society.
blah, the guy in "don't tase me, bro!" did a hell of a lot more than pull his arm away as a natural reaction. He refused to leave the premises when instructed. He resisted the attempts to use force to eject him. He continued to resist after 3 cops tackled him to the ground.
The use of the taser was warranted. And yes, he's lucky that someone didn't break his arm or his nose.
In general, if you don't have the skills to beat down private security (which is what they were, not police) then do what they say. They have the right to use force.
Slashdot Mirror
Ha! So patent owners who do nothing with their patents are ok with you but the others are not? Cause that's what patents are for, suing people to stop progress and innovation.
What's even more silly is that a patent is supposed to describe exactly how something works so people don't *need* to reverse engineer it.
umm, among US lawyers he's considered a big wheel too ya know. He clerked for Justice Thurgood Marshall. He defended Phil Zimmermann in the investigation of PGP by the spooks in the US government. And he's a tenured law professor. If you're going to take free legal advice from anyone, you could do a heck of a lot worse.
Eben Moglen, invalidator of bioscience patents filed by his own university ("that is what tenure is for") is a public ally of the OLPC. I suspect he'll not only invalidate their patent, he'll drive em one step from bankruptcy.
Cool! Where can we buy it? How much does it cost?
yeah, and DRM on books is just a dystopian nightmare because the Kindle is just so cool..
class action lawsuit
Or, to put it another way, music made for money sucks ass anyway, it will be no loss.
Macs are powered by a combination of the Jobs Reality Distortion Field and the smugness of their users.
Drooling over hardware like an idiot.. you already own a Mac don't you?
What's scary is that supposedly normal, non-geek people, are now drooling over hardware. They're the same idiots who buy a 4wd to pick the kids up from soccer practice.
There's also augmented reality. You could recreate your house in Second Life and wear this suit around with a head mounted display on. What would be really cool (and I've not seen anyone do this yet) is a full house CAVE system. Cover the walls of your house with OLED displays and wear LCD shutter glasses. You'd probably need a whole server farm to run it.
Excuse me, but no. If you "win" the defense of a civil case, you get nothing. It's only if you are prosecuting that you can be awarded attorney's fees - which is why people often will file a *counter suit* for attorney fees after they win.. it takes months and months and it is a completely new case that you have no guarantee of winning. Quite simply, most people can't afford "fair use".
If I had this prototype I'd be hacking Second Life to stream my movements into the world (and get Linden Labs to stream it out) and everyone would be like "wow, how's he move like that?!" but I guess they'd just think I was a poser.
Fair Use is bullshit. You still have to go to court. You still have to present the case, and that means hiring a lawyer, and any lawyer, even Eben Moglen, will tell you, even if you win you will be liable for court fees and it is terribly unlikely that you will win because fair use doctrine is extremely hard to prove.
Enjoy your visit from Homeland Security dude.
Look, I've told you the situation, if you care to refute me, go ask a lawyer.
Jesus, there's no helping some people.
I think the tendency of people (especially on Slashdot) to jump to the absurd to defend their position is disturbing. The exception does not disprove the rule. Let me give you a better example. Imagine you were at the food court of a mall and you ordered something with "no sauce". The idiot behind the counter plonks it down in front of you with sauce and then asks you to pay.
You: I said "no sauce".
Clerk: It comes with sauce.
You: Yeah, but I said "no sauce".
Clerk: It comes with sauce, $8.95.
You: I don't want it.
Clerk: You ordered it, you have to pay for it.
You: I ordered it with "no sauce", I'm not paying.
At this point, you notice there is a police officer standing on either side of you. Not security guards, mind you, real bonified cops in uniform.
Cop: What's the problem here.
Clerk: He won't pay.
Cop: What's the problem pal?
You: It's got sauce on it, I asked for no sauce.
Clerk: It comes with sauce.
Cop: Pay him.
You: I don't want it.
Cop: You ordered it, pay.
You: I ordered it with no sauce.
Clerk: It comes with sauce.
Cop: Are you refusing to pay?
You: I don't want it.
Cop: I'm ordering you to pay.
You: No.
Other Cop: Put your hands behind your back please.
At this point, hopefully, you know you're in trouble and you're not the kind of idiot who resists arrest. They 'cuff you and take you away for refusing to follow the lawful direction of a police officer. Maybe they even take the money out of your pocket and pay the clerk before they take you away. You're booked. Your fingerprints and a mugshot are taken. Your personal belongings are put into an envelope and you are put in a holding cell. Eventually, you get to see a judge and you might reasonably ask if the judge would have paid and the judge would say yes, if the police told her to, because it is no longer your call. You might think you are completely within your rights to not pay for a meal you didn't order (and I would agree with you) but if the cops tell you to pay, you pay, they've evaluated the situation and they've decided against you. Maybe they think ordering such a meal without sauce is stupid. Maybe they think they heard you order and didn't hear you say no sauce. It doesn't matter.
That's what authority is.. and that's what our society values. If you want your $8.95 back take it to small claims court. Otherwise, obey the rule of the law.
My email address is right there in every one of my posts if you want to tell me your personal opinion of me. Using a public forum to vent your personal feelings is just not on. I'd love to hear what it is you think is "self righteous bullshit" but this is not the place..
Yes, if they tell you to do something that would result in you breaking the law you are required to refuse. Otherwise, no, you do what the cop says. If you think the cop has done something illegal or improper you bring it up with a judge.
They've got the right to use force to eject you from the premises if you refuse to leave. As does everyone who owns property. Some asks you to leave, you leave.. it's not your property. It's not public property. It's private property and you're a guest.
Well, duh. Yes, you are required to sign the ticket. If you listen to the tape he even says that. As well as he says "ok, get out of the vehicle Sir, I'm going to arrest you." Are you retarded?
Police tell you to do something, do what you are told. Period.
It's the law.
He refused the lawful direction of the police officer to put his hands behind his back. That's a crime.
I think the officer handled it very professionally.
Every one of these videos the person was tased not for "arguing about a speeding ticket" or any of the other stupid claims. They were tased for refusing to follow the lawful directions of a police officer. That's the law. When the police tell you to put your hands behind your back, you do it. They have the right to use force to make you do it. I can't believe people are surprised by this. That's what the police are for, to use force in society.
blah, the guy in "don't tase me, bro!" did a hell of a lot more than pull his arm away as a natural reaction. He refused to leave the premises when instructed. He resisted the attempts to use force to eject him. He continued to resist after 3 cops tackled him to the ground.
The use of the taser was warranted. And yes, he's lucky that someone didn't break his arm or his nose.
In general, if you don't have the skills to beat down private security (which is what they were, not police) then do what they say. They have the right to use force.