Yeah, I don't get it either. If Fox News wants to pay my ISP something extra to get their crud to people who wanna watch it, what concern of it is mine?
I always wonder whether embedding a glucose powered computer of some description into a new-born baby's brain would give them super math ability.. if you can fit a wireless connection in there too, that'd be nice.
the lawsuit was filed largely because Sun 18 months ago "aggressively demanded" cross-licensing fees related to the Write Anywhere File Layout (WAFL) file-system technology included in ZFS. Hitz said the cross-licensing talks were halted in April after Sun claimed that NetApp's use of WAFL infringed on Sun patents. You got gun? I got gun too! Maybe I come round your place with my friends, shoot it up a bit.
And, let's not forget, it's not only easier, but wiser, to believe that we have little to no idea how the universe was formed than to believe it was formed by a divine power and all the details are spelled out in the first page of the most common book in the world.
Otherwise I could do with one of these for my office. I'd also be able to spot when they're stealing the network cables from under my desk! Every time I go in these days I have to hunt one down.
Wow, you love making a huge argument out of "implied statements" and assumptions, don't ya?
I don't drink drive. I do encourage friends not to drink drive.
I'm just saying that the argument that a vehicle moving at 60 km/hr is only dangerous when the person in control of the vehicle is drunk is a fallacy and the fact that we're only willing to accept that cars are dangerous when there is alcohol involved is a hypocritical.
That's not a very good argument. Oh really, let's look at yours then.
Driving under the influence of alcohol is illegal. Huh? What does current law have to do with what is right?
Therefore, doing it is breaking the law regardless of whether or not you injure someone else. No shit, that was my argument.
We can add on to that that driving is a privilege, not a right, and that every driver has a responsibility to drive safely. Uh huh. What makes you think that? Current law? A car is property. I have a right to use my property. If you want to say something like "who is and who isn't allowed to drive on public roads is at the discretion of the public" then I'm willing to accept that assertion, but it seems to me that such a thought never entered your mind.
Impaired driving (without regard to the source of impairment) is inherently unsafe and puts everyone else on the road at risk of injury or death. So, for example, disabled people shouldn't be allowed to drive.. and cyclists or vehicles without good pickup shouldn't be allowed on public roads.
That risk is high enough to justify restricting or revoking said privilege until the impairment is no longer a problem. If police only pulled over people who were driving dangerously, sure.
If we follow your argument to it's logical conclusion then attempted murder would often not be a crime. Nor would sexual assault unless "harm" was done. Harassment and stalking are fair game. Maybe it depends on how you define harm. And now the conversation is over. Because you can't help yourself from making an emotional argument.
Yeah, you're right! And if someone has a pet dinosaur and they take it into a movie theater, shouldn't they have to buy everyone extra popcorn?
Cause that's about how stupid your argument is.. if you can't participate in an adult debate without making stupid analogies or appealing to emotional crap, don't participate.
Whenever there is a fine involved, it becomes no longer about social good, but about revenue raising.
In California, for example, police statistics have shown that crash rates did not go down when stronger DUI laws were enacted. Inherently, driving a vehicle is the dangerous activity.. drink driving just gives people an acceptable scapegoat.
As much as I agree with everyone else who has replied to you and said you're an idiot.. I can make a better point against drink driving laws: until harm is done, no charges should be pressed. If you're driving erratically, the police should have the right to take you out of your car and deliver you home, leaving your car, locked, on the side of the road. Being charged for a crime that *might* have occurred is just wrong.
This is like the Lexmark case were they tried to use copyright law to prevent people from making cheap ink cartridges. The result was that the court ruled that Lexmark was engaged in copyright abuse and Lexmark lost all copyright protection on the code in question.
You're retarded. You've lost, so you're trying to change the argument. I am not interested in arguing whether or not you are permitted to to use Pepsi's logo. I'm willing to submit that you are correct in saying that you can't use their logo without violating trademark law. Trade secret in no way applies to co-incidental similarity between products. It in no way applies to reverse engineering of products to discover said trade secrets. It covers unlawful disclosure, that's it.
Again, if you disagree provide some evidence already. You don't have any.
Look, dude, read your own post:
Your magic, free Pepsi machine is knowingly interfering with the undisputed property rights of Pepsi. Pepsico holds the exclusive rights to make Pepsi. Coca-Cola holds the exclusive rights to make Coke. You do not have the right to give away more Coke or Pepsi than you purchased. If you bought a bottle and magically made more, congratulations, but you can't give away or sell even a single drop more than that one bottle of soda. Here we go:
Your magic, free Pepsi machine is knowingly interfering with the undisputed property rights of Pepsi. Assuming I had a magic free Pepsi machine, it would not "interfere" with any "undisputed property rights" of Pepsi. What are you talking about? If I had the Pepsi logo on the side, sure it would be interfering with their trademark.. but that's not what you were talking about. You were talking about the taste of the drink that my magic free Pepsi machine produces.. in other words, the recipe. And that's what you're claiming Pepsi has undisputed property rights over... and I'm telling you they don't.
Pepsico holds the exclusive rights to make Pepsi. Coca-Cola holds the exclusive rights to make Coke. No, they don't. They hold the exclusive rights to make something and call it Pepsi Cola or Coca Cola. Again, this is their trademark. Again, I don't think that's what you are talking about. You're talking about the recipe. You seem to think that Pepsi has the exclusive right to make a drink that tastes like Pepsi Cola. They don't. They just happen to have a secret that they can keep secret thanks to trade secret law and non-disclosure agreements. If they were to publish their secret, I would be free to follow it. If I can reverse engineer their secret from their product, I am free to follow it. Again, what are you talking about when you say they have the exclusive right to make their products? They don't.
You do not have the right to give away more Coke or Pepsi than you purchased. If you bought a bottle and magically made more, congratulations, but you can't give away or sell even a single drop more than that one bottle of soda. What makes you think this? What element of law do you use to justify this extraordinary claim?
I never limited it to recipes. A trade secret, furthermore, is a property right. So are patents, non-disclosure agreements, copyrights, trademarks, service marks, and whatever other creative ways the two companies may use to protect their product. Which one of these?
trade secret Great. I don't know their secret. I have not been exposed to their secret under NDA or otherwise. If I am "magically" able to make more of their product then trade secret law is no good to restrain me.
patents There's a patent on the bottle shape. There's also a patent on the ribbon machine they use to put the flashy wrapper on it. There's no patents on the recipe and, even if there were, I could probably get the same taste without using the technique covered in the patent.
non-disclosure agreements Nope, haven't signed one of those with either of these companies.
copyrights As we've said, copyright doesn't cover recipes.
trademarks, service marks Again, not saying you can call it Pepsi Cola or Coca Cola, but if you can magically make more of it then there's nothing in law to prevent you from distributing it.
So do you have some case law or other evidence to show me to convince me that I'm wrong on these points?
You made the claim that Pepsi and Coca Cola have undisputed property rights over their recipes. I'm telling you that you are wrong. I'm not making any analogies..
Trade secrets are great, so long as you keep it secret. Coca Cola and Pepsi send out copies of their recipes every time they ship product. You are free to extract the recipe from their product if you have the right equipment. That's the way it should be.
If you can find a single court case where a recipe has been enforced as intellectual property, then you have an argument. Until then, you're the one making the extraordinary claims, you present some evidence.
If a trade secret is stolen then there's some grievance. Reverse engineering to attain trade secrets is not prohibited by law.
If you want to claim it is, present some evidence.
A genome is defined as "The complete genetic material of an organism." If the organism can't function without some other organism, you have to include the genome of that other organism.
Slashdot Mirror
See, that's not what ANYONE has been talking about when they say "Net Neutrality" but thanks for the strawman.
Yeah, I don't get it either. If Fox News wants to pay my ISP something extra to get their crud to people who wanna watch it, what concern of it is mine?
I always wonder whether embedding a glucose powered computer of some description into a new-born baby's brain would give them super math ability.. if you can fit a wireless connection in there too, that'd be nice.
I guess there's no ethical way to do it though.
I'll just get out my magic wand shall I?
How you like that?
And, let's not forget, it's not only easier, but wiser, to believe that we have little to no idea how the universe was formed than to believe it was formed by a divine power and all the details are spelled out in the first page of the most common book in the world.
Otherwise I could do with one of these for my office. I'd also be able to spot when they're stealing the network cables from under my desk! Every time I go in these days I have to hunt one down.
Wow, you love making a huge argument out of "implied statements" and assumptions, don't ya?
I don't drink drive. I do encourage friends not to drink drive.
I'm just saying that the argument that a vehicle moving at 60 km/hr is only dangerous when the person in control of the vehicle is drunk is a fallacy and the fact that we're only willing to accept that cars are dangerous when there is alcohol involved is a hypocritical.
I think you just made the point that driving a car, even not drunk, is the same as firing off a weapon in a public place.
Which is why "you wouldn't fire a gun into a crowd" and other bullshit analogy is such a poor form of argument.
No, by driving a person is directly creating a dangerous situation to others, and without a good cause, that should not be happening.
Driving drunk just makes it slightly more dangerous.
People would have you believe that there was some massive drop off in the number of crashes on the road when DUI laws were enacted. There wasn't.
Yeah, you're right! And if someone has a pet dinosaur and they take it into a movie theater, shouldn't they have to buy everyone extra popcorn?
Cause that's about how stupid your argument is.. if you can't participate in an adult debate without making stupid analogies or appealing to emotional crap, don't participate.
Whenever there is a fine involved, it becomes no longer about social good, but about revenue raising.
In California, for example, police statistics have shown that crash rates did not go down when stronger DUI laws were enacted. Inherently, driving a vehicle is the dangerous activity.. drink driving just gives people an acceptable scapegoat.
As much as I agree with everyone else who has replied to you and said you're an idiot.. I can make a better point against drink driving laws: until harm is done, no charges should be pressed. If you're driving erratically, the police should have the right to take you out of your car and deliver you home, leaving your car, locked, on the side of the road. Being charged for a crime that *might* have occurred is just wrong.
Doesn't work like that. Once you have a police state, it's too late.
Ultimately, the slippery slope was started when freedom of speech became second fiddle to copyright infringement.
This is like the Lexmark case were they tried to use copyright law to prevent people from making cheap ink cartridges. The result was that the court ruled that Lexmark was engaged in copyright abuse and Lexmark lost all copyright protection on the code in question.
o ntrol/20030108_lexmark_v_static_control_components .pdf
http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/Lexmark_v_Static_C
The next Mars lander Phoenix launched last month. It will arrive in May next year.
Although it's not a "rover" it does have solar panels for power. I believe there is no way to clean the solar panels of dust.
So, in short, no, lesson not learned.
No, it's not.
WINE is also for aiding the porting process from Windows to Linux.
You're retarded. You've lost, so you're trying to change the argument. I am not interested in arguing whether or not you are permitted to to use Pepsi's logo. I'm willing to submit that you are correct in saying that you can't use their logo without violating trademark law. Trade secret in no way applies to co-incidental similarity between products. It in no way applies to reverse engineering of products to discover said trade secrets. It covers unlawful disclosure, that's it.
Again, if you disagree provide some evidence already. You don't have any.
http://www.calvin.edu/~adams/research/microwulf/bu dget/
AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+ AM2 CPU x 4
It's two clicks from the summary.
Slack++
So do you have some case law or other evidence to show me to convince me that I'm wrong on these points?
You made the claim that Pepsi and Coca Cola have undisputed property rights over their recipes. I'm telling you that you are wrong. I'm not making any analogies..
Trade secrets are great, so long as you keep it secret. Coca Cola and Pepsi send out copies of their recipes every time they ship product. You are free to extract the recipe from their product if you have the right equipment. That's the way it should be.
If you can find a single court case where a recipe has been enforced as intellectual property, then you have an argument. Until then, you're the one making the extraordinary claims, you present some evidence.
If a trade secret is stolen then there's some grievance. Reverse engineering to attain trade secrets is not prohibited by law.
If you want to claim it is, present some evidence.
A genome is defined as "The complete genetic material of an organism." If the organism can't function without some other organism, you have to include the genome of that other organism.