I seem to recall from my childhood that it took effort to stay in-phase with someone swinging next to you, and if you both just swung normally you'd end up in anti-phase, even if you started together. This would be related, I assume?
The reason why (I at least) keep saying wiretap law - the PA law you mentioned is, in fact, a wiretap law. Thus, whether or not wiretap laws apply is, in fact, the core of the case.
You also need a refresher course on copyright protection law. And the DMCA. Are you really claiming that the quality reduction from compression in mpeg movies is sufficent change to qualify it as a non-infringing derivitive work? Or maybe you're just trolling, I dunno.
*bzzzt* copyright doesn't protect the design of the cartridge, only the content. The claim, I suppose, will be that the form factor of the cartridge is sufficent "access control" under the DMCA, but whether or not it's a "standard" has no bearing whatsoever.
It has EVERYTHING to do with Internet privacy/wiretapping laws - because this decision will affect whether we legally consider Internet communcations to be telecommunications (and thus covered by wiretap laws) or physical communications (and thus not).
In both cases, existing law provides for signifigant protection on data in transit, so all the people blathering about how since you can snoop any packets coming over your router it's the same as broadcasting on CNN might want to perk up as well. (BTW, there's a large difference between scanning headers and whatnot with automated scrips to route packets and actually having a live human or heuristic algorithm to store/redirect them based on content)
I feel obliged to play a bit of devils advocate here and point out that a 15 year old hardly falls under "pedophilia", except of course in the strict legal sense (and even then, not in all states) - a 15 year old is (usually) sexually mature, hence, it's not abnormal or un-natural to be attracted to one.
Statutory rape, emotional maturity, blah, blah, blah all aside - this is not pedophilia. Maybe a bit perverted, but not as much as a few rightous people would like to think.
Y'all are not paying attention. The contention here is that an IM conversation falls under the same laws as a phone conversation, which, in PA, requires that both parties be notified of the recording. Thus, the logs would be illegal. This would not neccesarily mean they are inadmissable, but thats what he's arguing.
If I recall the wording of the patent correctly, it makes specific mention of using escape sequences to encode the link. If I weren't so lazy I'd look the patent up and check.
Re:Perl, Python under .NET?
on
.NETly News
·
· Score: 2
they've written a wrapper around the Perl interpeter (which is very amenable to this sort of thing), which can be linked to compiled perl bytecode is some magic way. Very much (in fact, almost exactly like) VB worked.
I have found UPS customer support to consistently be totally unhelpful about anything thats no on the list of options in front of them. If it's not on that list, then nothing can be done, and the list is REALLY short. They won't even bump you up. I'm considering filing a BBB report - the service is just awful.
Getting offtopic:) But, and I'm not 100% sure about this, but I believe that the difference lies in that you pay a prostitute to have sex with you, while in porn, you pay 2 people to have sex with each other. Arguably the same as is done in sex research labs. I'd be suprised if they didn't use pandering and prostitution charges to try to shut down porn in the 50's, I'll try to do some reasearch and see what I can find.
Well, GOOD courts frown on them:P Politically neutered courts don't frown on much of anything.
IANAL (still!), but I imagine that a good one could come up with legal language that amounts to "the full and detailed source files as used by the engineers who actually work with it". And, as was mentioned, if needed marshals could go in and just TAKE that source code.
legally, this isn't any different than a multi-billion dollar drug bust, and a judge would be within his powers to order such a warrant, if he were convinced that Microsoft wouldn't fully comply with a subpeona of the source code. Politcally speaking is another matter, which is one reason it didn't happen to Enron. But, in essence, yes, they certainly can send in the Federal Marshals to take whatever they want. It happens all the time.
UPS has it too, when you're doing package tracking - it apparently understands both letters and numbers, also. Pretty slick. Too bad the rest of the service sucks ass:P
It's kind of ironic that I can buy 2600 at Borders and then use the info from that magazine to rip crappy protected CDs, which I will then return as defective.
Re:"Netscape-style plug-in modules" - HUH?
on
SuSE 7.3 vs XP
·
· Score: 2
IE 6 under XP must be different than IE 6 under other versions, because my Adobe plugin works fine.
Well, with the caveat that IANAL - I think this would work. However, under the GPL, the original ditributor has to make source available. This is all clearly against the spirit of the GPL, but (IANAL) seems that it meets existing licensing terms and couldn't be "fixed" without, as anthony has said, making the GPL more restrictive than normal copyright.
You're wrong, you have no right to distribute Red Hat binaries at all. You can sell your copy of them (without retaining any copies on your own!) but that's all. This is all addressed in detail in the above thread.
I don't know how to make it any clearer. In the absence of the GPL, you have no right to distribute COPIES at all. Nobody does. You may resell what you currently have (that's first sale) but you may not copy it and distribute those copies. The GPL grants you a limited right to distribute and modify copyrighted work - a right which you would otherwise not have. Agreeing to the GPL does nothing to your first sale rights. First sale rights do not cover copying.
In the specific instance of you selling the binary CD but not the source CD, then yes, that's a violation of the SPIRIT of the GPL, but not the law. Do do this legally, you would have to buy a copy of the binaries for every one you sold. Since, of course, you can download the binaries for free, you have a potential (very bad) buisness model based on having other people pay you to download stuff for them. Go you. Redhat does not have this right because they distribute copies.
That's why its a sticky issue. MS tells you it's the dealers problem. The problem tells you it's MS's problem. Personally, I'm of the opinion that MS is the one who owes you money (the EULA is an agreement between you and MS, and they are the ones who guarantee the returnability of the product in the EULA), and they should refund you the full retail price of Windows, not the OEM price.
Slashdot Mirror
I seem to recall from my childhood that it took effort to stay in-phase with someone swinging next to you, and if you both just swung normally you'd end up in anti-phase, even if you started together. This would be related, I assume?
Did YOU know it? Then I guess it's news to you, eh?
The reason why (I at least) keep saying wiretap law - the PA law you mentioned is, in fact, a wiretap law. Thus, whether or not wiretap laws apply is, in fact, the core of the case.
You also need a refresher course on copyright protection law. And the DMCA. Are you really claiming that the quality reduction from compression in mpeg movies is sufficent change to qualify it as a non-infringing derivitive work? Or maybe you're just trolling, I dunno.
*bzzzt* copyright doesn't protect the design of the cartridge, only the content. The claim, I suppose, will be that the form factor of the cartridge is sufficent "access control" under the DMCA, but whether or not it's a "standard" has no bearing whatsoever.
In both cases, existing law provides for signifigant protection on data in transit, so all the people blathering about how since you can snoop any packets coming over your router it's the same as broadcasting on CNN might want to perk up as well. (BTW, there's a large difference between scanning headers and whatnot with automated scrips to route packets and actually having a live human or heuristic algorithm to store/redirect them based on content)
Statutory rape, emotional maturity, blah, blah, blah all aside - this is not pedophilia. Maybe a bit perverted, but not as much as a few rightous people would like to think.
Y'all are not paying attention. The contention here is that an IM conversation falls under the same laws as a phone conversation, which, in PA, requires that both parties be notified of the recording. Thus, the logs would be illegal. This would not neccesarily mean they are inadmissable, but thats what he's arguing.
And in win2k, it switch apps, just like alt-tab.
If I recall the wording of the patent correctly, it makes specific mention of using escape sequences to encode the link. If I weren't so lazy I'd look the patent up and check.
they've written a wrapper around the Perl interpeter (which is very amenable to this sort of thing), which can be linked to compiled perl bytecode is some magic way. Very much (in fact, almost exactly like) VB worked.
I have found UPS customer support to consistently be totally unhelpful about anything thats no on the list of options in front of them. If it's not on that list, then nothing can be done, and the list is REALLY short. They won't even bump you up. I'm considering filing a BBB report - the service is just awful.
Getting offtopic :) But, and I'm not 100% sure about this, but I believe that the difference lies in that you pay a prostitute to have sex with you, while in porn, you pay 2 people to have sex with each other. Arguably the same as is done in sex research labs. I'd be suprised if they didn't use pandering and prostitution charges to try to shut down porn in the 50's, I'll try to do some reasearch and see what I can find.
IANAL (still!), but I imagine that a good one could come up with legal language that amounts to "the full and detailed source files as used by the engineers who actually work with it". And, as was mentioned, if needed marshals could go in and just TAKE that source code.
Ironically, when I attempted to read your link, the page was TOTALLY filled with a horrendous, translucent Flash add for .NET. I cried like a baby.
legally, this isn't any different than a multi-billion dollar drug bust, and a judge would be within his powers to order such a warrant, if he were convinced that Microsoft wouldn't fully comply with a subpeona of the source code. Politcally speaking is another matter, which is one reason it didn't happen to Enron. But, in essence, yes, they certainly can send in the Federal Marshals to take whatever they want. It happens all the time.
Courts frown on such tricks and trying them would get them slapped with contempt of court. They aren't totally stupid, you know.
The manual isn't evidence at all, as it's at least as likely to be a legal shield as based on some actual knowledge.
UPS has it too, when you're doing package tracking - it apparently understands both letters and numbers, also. Pretty slick. Too bad the rest of the service sucks ass :P
It's kind of ironic that I can buy 2600 at Borders and then use the info from that magazine to rip crappy protected CDs, which I will then return as defective.
IE 6 under XP must be different than IE 6 under other versions, because my Adobe plugin works fine.
Well, with the caveat that IANAL - I think this would work. However, under the GPL, the original ditributor has to make source available. This is all clearly against the spirit of the GPL, but (IANAL) seems that it meets existing licensing terms and couldn't be "fixed" without, as anthony has said, making the GPL more restrictive than normal copyright.
You know, if I have to go read a website analyzing a movie before I can like it, maybe it's just not good? (at least for me).
I don't know how to make it any clearer. In the absence of the GPL, you have no right to distribute COPIES at all. Nobody does. You may resell what you currently have (that's first sale) but you may not copy it and distribute those copies. The GPL grants you a limited right to distribute and modify copyrighted work - a right which you would otherwise not have. Agreeing to the GPL does nothing to your first sale rights. First sale rights do not cover copying.
In the specific instance of you selling the binary CD but not the source CD, then yes, that's a violation of the SPIRIT of the GPL, but not the law. Do do this legally, you would have to buy a copy of the binaries for every one you sold. Since, of course, you can download the binaries for free, you have a potential (very bad) buisness model based on having other people pay you to download stuff for them. Go you. Redhat does not have this right because they distribute copies.
That's why its a sticky issue. MS tells you it's the dealers problem. The problem tells you it's MS's problem. Personally, I'm of the opinion that MS is the one who owes you money (the EULA is an agreement between you and MS, and they are the ones who guarantee the returnability of the product in the EULA), and they should refund you the full retail price of Windows, not the OEM price.