Robbery isn't necessarily violent Huh? Then it's not robbery.
although he probably should have used home burglary as a better example You're suggesting that burglary is the same thing as robbery?
Ok...
It does seem ridiculous that "white collar" crimes are less penalized since any one case typically affects many more people than any one burglary. Larceny, whether committed via burglary or fraud or hacking carries the same penalty, determined by the value of the goods stolen. Burglary may carry other penalties, like trespass, or entering a domicile while the occupants are home, or damaging the property.. but that's just co-incidental.
The purpose of prisons is to separate those who are a danger to society from society.
As much as I believe those responsible for the Enron disaster are a danger to society, they can be neutralized simply by prohibiting them from being directors of companies ever again.
"If you rob a 7-11 you'll get a much harsher punishment than if you stole millions online," DeWal remarked. "The cross-border sophistication in tracking and arresting cyber-criminals is just not there." Yeah, it's the difference between a violent crime and shifting some numbers from one table in a database to another.
What I've found really annoying lately is that bag, watch and clothes makers have started calling "look alike" products "counterfeits" even though they don't have the same logos or pretend to be originals.
Take something that isn't covered by copyright law.. say, the recipe to a cake, or whatever.
You give it to my friend after making him sign an NDA stating that he will return all copies to you after 30 days.
My friend gives it to me and I make a copy.
After 30 days, my friend gives the original back to you.
I start selling my copy. What recourse do you have?
If you can prove that my friend gave me the original to copy, you can sue my friend for any loss of revenue that you can prove you have suffered as a result of my competition.. but you can't stop me from selling copies.
That's what copyright stops.. the ability of third parties to make copies. And the result is not in the public interest.
And I'm simply telling you that you are wrong and don't know what you are talking about.
What don't you get?
You're obviously used to bullshitting to people who don't know squat and now you're talking to someone who does and you can't understand why they're telling you to fuck off?
Sigh. It says you must maintain the conditions on their code. They can't make any claims to your code. No matter how minor.
They've authorized you to make derivative works by saying you can modify the code.
Now if you'd like to talk about this more, I suggest you get in your time machine and go back to the '80s. I'm sure there's someone there who is interested.
"This code is GPL, it is based on code by John Hacker that is also available under this license: "
That's perfectly legal. John Hacker can't make licensing claims to code you have written. You can't make licensing claims to code has written.. but you can make licensing claims to a combined work of his and your code.
You can be almost guaranteed that Steam would be a binary release, and there's nothing wrong with that. Except for all the usual reasons about source code being a prerequisite for software freedom.
Other than that, yeah, nothing wrong with it at all.
Slashdot Mirror
So you're saying that atheists are required to value money more than life.
yah.
Yeah, the whole "we'll be complete assholes to you so that other people think twice before doing what you did" thing. It's barbaric.
Ok... It does seem ridiculous that "white collar" crimes are less penalized since any one case typically affects many more people than any one burglary. Larceny, whether committed via burglary or fraud or hacking carries the same penalty, determined by the value of the goods stolen. Burglary may carry other penalties, like trespass, or entering a domicile while the occupants are home, or damaging the property.. but that's just co-incidental.
The purpose of prisons is to separate those who are a danger to society from society.
As much as I believe those responsible for the Enron disaster are a danger to society, they can be neutralized simply by prohibiting them from being directors of companies ever again.
Did you just refer to sex as a vice?
Only on Slashdot..
Don't forget the war on copying.
We could probably make this easier by just call them all "the war on freedom".
What an idiot.
What I've found really annoying lately is that bag, watch and clothes makers have started calling "look alike" products "counterfeits" even though they don't have the same logos or pretend to be originals.
And yeah, who couldn't see that coming.
Yeah, it's worse than that.
Take something that isn't covered by copyright law.. say, the recipe to a cake, or whatever.
You give it to my friend after making him sign an NDA stating that he will return all copies to you after 30 days.
My friend gives it to me and I make a copy.
After 30 days, my friend gives the original back to you.
I start selling my copy. What recourse do you have?
If you can prove that my friend gave me the original to copy, you can sue my friend for any loss of revenue that you can prove you have suffered as a result of my competition.. but you can't stop me from selling copies.
That's what copyright stops.. the ability of third parties to make copies. And the result is not in the public interest.
I was talking about his future works.. as was everyone else in this thread.
And still not be free to copy it because he's a big phony.
He's a confused little non-conformist.
Rather than take an actual stand he's the squeaky little wheel in the establishment.
Stop being a slave Reznor.
How about just 'copy'.
It's a job. You want excitement? Get into death sports.
And I'm simply telling you that you are wrong and don't know what you are talking about.
What don't you get?
You're obviously used to bullshitting to people who don't know squat and now you're talking to someone who does and you can't understand why they're telling you to fuck off?
Seriously, your cornflakes box understanding of copyright is not charming.
Fuck off.
Sigh. It says you must maintain the conditions on their code. They can't make any claims to your code. No matter how minor.
They've authorized you to make derivative works by saying you can modify the code.
Now if you'd like to talk about this more, I suggest you get in your time machine and go back to the '80s. I'm sure there's someone there who is interested.
"This code is GPL, it is based on code by John Hacker that is also available under this license: "
That's perfectly legal. John Hacker can't make licensing claims to code you have written. You can't make licensing claims to code has written.. but you can make licensing claims to a combined work of his and your code.
just because someone from cnn finds out shit we all knew months ago and writes a story about it does not justify duping it here.
There's plenty of new news out there.
You should go into politics or something.
I didn't demand anything.
Other than that, yeah, nothing wrong with it at all.
Uhhh, since when is music "one of the largest sectors of industry"?
Total music industry revenue is about $40 billion worldwide, and about $12 billion in the United States, per year.
The GDP of the United States is $13.13 trillion, per year.
Compare this to "self storage" companies which make about $22.6 billion, per year.
Companies that supply lock up garages for people who own too much crap make almost twice as much per year as the music industry.
Alternatively, we could all be using a modern microkernel design and enjoying the benefits.
Thankfully there's an evolutionary path from here to there and Linux development is walking it.
Larry later released a "free" read-only bitkeeper client.
http://www.bitmover.com/bk-client2.0.shar
under the "no whining" license. Earlier this year I submitted a few security patches to it, so he made it GPL.