Imagine for a minute if a successful male role model had written a book explicitly for boys, in the tradition of the classical textbooks on engineering/science/mathematics, and emphasised rigour, and used examples exclusively applicable to males, using language which boys would be comfortable with (but girls would probably not).
...OK, but for the analogy to work, you also have to imagine that his book is an embroidery textbook.
Better still, everyone who thinks capturing a 20-second excerpt of a film to share with their friends should be regarded as fair use could simply stop going to cinemas, period. When movies are still judged primarily on their first weekend's take, the impact of such a boycott would be significant.
I only realised this today - but my guess is that they ask for CVs in Word format so that it's easy for them to file off your personal details. Otherwise their clients (who despise recruitroids just as much as candidates do) would just go round them and contact interesting people directly.
...farmers tend not to have the kind of finances or legal muscle required to take on a corporate entity the size of monsanto.
Does anyone? Individuals can't afford it, governments don't have jurisdiction, and other companies won't sabotage the status quo - don't multinational corporations effectively operate outside the reach of law altogether?
Because it seems to me that most of the people you're trying to persuade will choke on that statement and refuse to consider anything you say any further.
So which "Socialsim" are you objecting to...
Beware of unwarranted assumptions. I'm British, moderately left-inclined, and staunchly anarchist - which socialism do you think I'd be objecting to?
It does seem odd that crimes against large companies, the state or one's own body are punished more harshly than crimes against one's neighbours. One might come to believe that one's neighbours are seen as an acceptable target by those in authority...
From what I can remember of my Contracts Law classes, English law is generally laissez-faire about contracts; it tends to assume that people knew what they were agreeing to when they agreed to it.
That said, for a contract to be valid, consideration is required on both sides, and past case law has ruled out quite a lot of "theoretical" considerations, including mere promise or assent to the terms of a contract except under very specific circumstances. From the perspective of a free download, even one with an attached EULA, it's hard to see where the consideration on the part of the end user would lie - which on the face of it, renders any supposed contract invalid from the get-go, without even having to consider EULA enforceability.
So if contract law can't be used, what else do we have? Copyright law? Unless MS can demonstrate that Cansdale is redistributing a derived work without permission, I don't see how that could fly either - certainly, it would be very troubling for the whole industry were it found that using readily available API documentation was sufficient to violate the copyright of the creators of said API. Patent law? Not on software, thanks; not in the UK.
So I have to say (although as a non-lawyer, this is only my personal opinion) that if the foundation of MS' case is that a clause in the EULA of a piece of software available with no exchange of consideration purports to prohibit what Cansdale did, they'll be doing extremely well to avoid summary dismissal.
I agree that it's changed, but I think what it's changed into is exactly the business of providing a "good" product to the consumer (where good is defined in terms of popularity). Those of us who bought computers expecting to be spending most of our time writing software on them, to whom the first couple of decades of the micro industry catered exclusively, were never just "consumers" - we intended to be producers, partners; arguably, the gradual consumerisation of the field is the problem.
Good to have official confirmation from the people it's specifically aimed at that the GPLv3 will do the job it's intended to do.
Meanwhile, TiVo might want to look into an interesting little niche project, whose licensing might be more suited to their specific business model, called NetBSD. They might have to do a little more assembly themselves, of course... but then, sponging off a community whilst deliberately frustrating the very motive for allowing them to do so could never be described as a sustainable practice, could it?
But there used to be lots of other monarchies, and there used to be lots of other governments that placed themselves above the rule of law.
Now there are not so many.
Whilst I'm no ally of government at all, that progression gives me hope for the more distant future, no matter how bloody depressing the short term looks...
So the question appears to be - is advocating and/or supporting the forced overthrow of a democratically elected government a legitimate expression of dissent or not? If it is, then clearly Chavez is in the wrong - but then so is pretty much every democratically elected government which has a treason offence on the statute books. But if it isn't, then Chavez has not "stifled dissent" at all, but has instead shown remarkable tolerance - far more than some Western governments, it must be said.
Moreover, I'm having trouble generally with the idea that anyone who supports a military junta is working to repair democracy, promote legitimate opposition, or make their country safe for dissenters. It seems to me that what they're advocating will have rather the opposite effect - after all, armies have not historically been known for their tolerance of divergent opinions.
Slashdot Mirror
Better still, everyone who thinks capturing a 20-second excerpt of a film to share with their friends should be regarded as fair use could simply stop going to cinemas, period. When movies are still judged primarily on their first weekend's take, the impact of such a boycott would be significant.
I only realised this today - but my guess is that they ask for CVs in Word format so that it's easy for them to file off your personal details. Otherwise their clients (who despise recruitroids just as much as candidates do) would just go round them and contact interesting people directly.
Does anyone? Individuals can't afford it, governments don't have jurisdiction, and other companies won't sabotage the status quo - don't multinational corporations effectively operate outside the reach of law altogether?
When was MS-DOS 3.30 released, again...?
Um, your sample might be a little bit biased there...
Of the four metaphorical boxes to be used in the defence of freedom, the first three have now been neutralised.
Maybe he just means that the time aspect got stuck in a cube somewhere...?
...not to mention a desire to maximise his heirs' benefits from his estate.
Because it seems to me that most of the people you're trying to persuade will choke on that statement and refuse to consider anything you say any further.
Beware of unwarranted assumptions. I'm British, moderately left-inclined, and staunchly anarchist - which socialism do you think I'd be objecting to?
I have to say, I think you just lost your audience.
What would the story have been if he'd severed his thumb on his own time? Or developed lung cancer?
...Which is all well and even-handed, but still raises the question of why Google appear to only be reaching out to one side of the debate.
That cuts both ways, though, as anyone who bought 4 Non Blondes' "Bigger, Better, Faster, More!" on the strength of "What's Up?" will tell you.
The trouble is that those cats were mice when they were elected. But the closer they came to power, the more feline they became...
You don't think it might be a little bit, you know, biased in its reporting, do you...?
It does seem odd that crimes against large companies, the state or one's own body are punished more harshly than crimes against one's neighbours. One might come to believe that one's neighbours are seen as an acceptable target by those in authority...
Isn't it a good job that 14 year old girls always honestly, correctly and unambiguously identify their attackers?
Yes, my immediate response was "How the hell did that bitch get one"? I didn't even realise Mother Teresa was eligible.
From what I can remember of my Contracts Law classes, English law is generally laissez-faire about contracts; it tends to assume that people knew what they were agreeing to when they agreed to it.
That said, for a contract to be valid, consideration is required on both sides, and past case law has ruled out quite a lot of "theoretical" considerations, including mere promise or assent to the terms of a contract except under very specific circumstances. From the perspective of a free download, even one with an attached EULA, it's hard to see where the consideration on the part of the end user would lie - which on the face of it, renders any supposed contract invalid from the get-go, without even having to consider EULA enforceability.
So if contract law can't be used, what else do we have? Copyright law? Unless MS can demonstrate that Cansdale is redistributing a derived work without permission, I don't see how that could fly either - certainly, it would be very troubling for the whole industry were it found that using readily available API documentation was sufficient to violate the copyright of the creators of said API. Patent law? Not on software, thanks; not in the UK.
So I have to say (although as a non-lawyer, this is only my personal opinion) that if the foundation of MS' case is that a clause in the EULA of a piece of software available with no exchange of consideration purports to prohibit what Cansdale did, they'll be doing extremely well to avoid summary dismissal.
I agree that it's changed, but I think what it's changed into is exactly the business of providing a "good" product to the consumer (where good is defined in terms of popularity). Those of us who bought computers expecting to be spending most of our time writing software on them, to whom the first couple of decades of the micro industry catered exclusively, were never just "consumers" - we intended to be producers, partners; arguably, the gradual consumerisation of the field is the problem.
Good to have official confirmation from the people it's specifically aimed at that the GPLv3 will do the job it's intended to do.
Meanwhile, TiVo might want to look into an interesting little niche project, whose licensing might be more suited to their specific business model, called NetBSD. They might have to do a little more assembly themselves, of course... but then, sponging off a community whilst deliberately frustrating the very motive for allowing them to do so could never be described as a sustainable practice, could it?
That'll be the "cute furry animal" strategy, then.
But there used to be lots of other monarchies, and there used to be lots of other governments that placed themselves above the rule of law.
Now there are not so many.
Whilst I'm no ally of government at all, that progression gives me hope for the more distant future, no matter how bloody depressing the short term looks...
So the question appears to be - is advocating and/or supporting the forced overthrow of a democratically elected government a legitimate expression of dissent or not? If it is, then clearly Chavez is in the wrong - but then so is pretty much every democratically elected government which has a treason offence on the statute books. But if it isn't, then Chavez has not "stifled dissent" at all, but has instead shown remarkable tolerance - far more than some Western governments, it must be said.
Moreover, I'm having trouble generally with the idea that anyone who supports a military junta is working to repair democracy, promote legitimate opposition, or make their country safe for dissenters. It seems to me that what they're advocating will have rather the opposite effect - after all, armies have not historically been known for their tolerance of divergent opinions.