Other areas with high gun ownership also have high crime rates. Maybe the problem here is that crime rates aren't neccesarily linked to gun ownership, and there's some other determening factors. Try checking things like standard of living and poverty levels.
People don't live in vacuums, and they don't become criminals just because you give them guns. They also don't NOT become criminals just because you DON'T give them guns.
I'm for gun control because I think the idea that you need to own a gun is stupid. There's not really any good reason for it. I know you'll argue and I'm sure you've got some example of a guy who protected himself against a home invasion but I don't give a shit and don't feel like digging out statistics - suffice it to say that I feel that the self-defense argument is bogus.
He's talking about the usefull lifetime of a product - if it's got 1/3 the life, but it costs 1/5 as much and you plan to replace it after a year anyway, then whats the problem?
I know, I know, creates more waste & all that. But from a consumer point of view there's no issue at all.
There's some products where extreme lifespan is very desirable and important - things like appliances and (arguably) cars. Computers, at least for most people, are not one of them.
Well, thats not fair either - possession of child porn is illegal in it's own right, irrespective of copyright law. Even if you don't know it's child porn, in some places.
I'm not a lawyer, but I try to stay informed, and I've never heard of anything, either in case law or in the law itself that would allow you to prosecute an end-user for copyright infringment for a legitimatly obtained work, rather than the original distributor. All the lawyers I have heard speak on the issue, except SCO ones, have said more or less the same thing. One important thing to remember is what a civil case does - it's supposed to compensate you for a wrong. If SCO sues, say, Redhat and wins, they've _already been paid_ for everyone who uses Redhat Linux. SCO can't demand MORE money from individual users.
You know, the LAST time they said this, you either had to agree to an NDA that precluded an OSS implementation. The "formal agreements" there were pretty clearly only for other commercial (because of the licensing fee) & closed source vendors.
I've never met ANYONE who religiously held to the laws laid down in Leviticus, and anyone who did would no doubt be shunned and probably arrested (animal sacrifice is illegal in most of America...). If you are one of those rare exceptions, my apologies.
On the other hand, this country claims a seperation of church and state, and the issue at hand is the legal (civil) status of gay marriage - if your church wants to deny it's blessing to gay couples, thats fine. It has no bearing on the civil right of gay people to be married.
If, on the other hand, you point to Leviticus to condemn anything that bothers you, but ignore it's laws when you feel inclined, then I'd have to say that you're being intellectually dishonest and hypocritcal, and I'd ask you again why you feel threatened by the concept of gay marriage.
I understand that you aren't very smart, but just for clarification, the comparison she was making is that gay marriage is superior to the concept of "civil union", which is what gay people get now.
On a side note, I can't imagine why people feel so threatened by gay marriage. Nobody is gonna make you get married to a man if you don't want. It's not like theres a certain number of marriage points and the gay people will use them all up.
When.NET was in Beta test, before Visual Studio 2002 was realeased, this was how everyone used it - you used the command line tools & your favorite make utility. Theres tons of tutorials and FAQs and what have you on MSDN and all the.NET sites. It's not in the marketing literature because they're pushing VS.NET and it's RAD features - CIOs don't care about command line assemblers.
Utter nonsense. As another poster said, SCO can complain about and even spread FUD about the GPL all it likes - that's freedom of speech there, buddy - and it's still protected by the freedoms it grants. Thats what I mean about standing up for your beliefs even when it sucks.
An actual court case where they challenged the legality of the GPL is another matter entirely - and note that the GPL doesn't need any additional language to deal with such a case.
All the really big players in IT (including MS) have large patent portfolios and basically have gentlemans agreements to not rock the boat - because they understand that the actual enforcment of these patents would likely put them all out of buisness.
I believe, but am not certain (and can't check, because our DNS server is down) that one of the requirments for OSI-approved licenses is that they can't be arbitrarily revoke. It certainly doesn't make much sense - it's not very "free" then, after all.
This is especially amusing because Samba is potentially in much more legal danger than Linux ever was - due to MS's patents & annoying EULAs on documentation, Samba developers have to be VERY carefull about what they read and look at, and it'd be much easier to slip them up or even press claims that they did splip up than against Linux.
In your example the "end user" is distributing - by having the website.
I'll use a real life example - the Tommy Lee/Pamela Anderson video. It was illegal obtained, and then sold to (several) distributors (this is actually a little bit of a stretch, since in this case the people buying it knew that there was a good possibility it wasn't legitimate). In any case, once it started spreading, Pamela & Tommy tried to stop it - they were able to get injunctions against (at least some) of the sites distributing it. But the customers of those companies were never at risk or liable.
Just as a nitpick, showing that code is probably enough to get a court hearing - judges as a rule aren't programmers or experts on the history of Unix (I'm the former but not the latter, and 15 minutes of time with Google only told me that it was remotely possible there was infringment - this was before the LWN article and the Perens article and such were posted), and theres obvious similarity there. Defense against the claims would, of course, be trivial. You'd certainly have to pay a lawyer.
*applause* The biggest test of your ideals is when someone you don't like is taking advantage of them. Just as believing in freedom of speech means you have to support the right of people to say things you don't like, supporting free and open software means you have to support the right of people to do things with it that you don't approve of - this has been seen in the community before with things like forking, but this is where it gets hard.
The code snippet shown looks like part of a standard malloc implementation - a google for the one of the comments (here) shows an identical snippet in several places - all unix based code. I'm not a Unix expert, but it looks like this is Sys6 and Sys7? From the FAQ at unix-archive.pdp11.org.ru, this is all copyright owned by SCO and therefore probably is infringing - it doesn't seem to appear in the BSD sources?
I dunno, it'd be kinda cool if the win. Since they seem to be claiming that the GPL is trumped by federal copyright law, which only allows one copy, and this somehow means that the GPL is not only invalid, but the rest of the code is freely distributable, then it'd mean that pirating any software that comes with a distribution license is now legal.
Think about this for a second - in ANY industry except IT, what you said is totally untrue. Even in IT, it was untrue (or would have been considered untrue) before this case.
In fact, in any industry except IT, there's legal consequences for companies that know about dangerous problems and don't fix them, even if people don't get hurt.
The ability to disseminate information like this is the CORE of what makes capitalism work - you can't possibly have a working capitalist economny without the exchange of information about companies and products. On top of that, it strikes directly to the core of the First Amendment - which is getting eviscerated all the time, as people more and more are willing to allow third parties to overturn it just because they aren't the government.
The fact is, what this guy did is about as responsible as you can get - he went through official channels first. When those failed to respond, he went directly to those affected. Since he was mailing members of the site directly, not posting publically to bugtraq or (worse) to hacker forums, he limited the exposure as much as possible. His arrest, and even more his conviction, is such a travesty of justice that I shudder to even contemplate it.
I seriously doubt that either of those things are the case - it's much more likely that there's a mirror address or online phone book of some kind. Why do I think this? Because he wasn't arrested and convicted for sending the message (RTFA). He was arrested because for the CONTENT of his email. I certainly hope this is overturned on appeal - it's a massively dangerous precedent (there's nothing special about Bugtraq postings, given that the facts in the article are true and complete - you'd be just as liable for posting there as this guy was). It'd amount to the overturning of Federal Whistleblower laws and be an enormous blow to consumer rights.
It's pushing the analagy, of course - if your house was abandoned, say for a year while you're in Europe, and drug dealers move in, don't be suprised if you come back and it's been boarded up with plywood. In fact, it's very likely that your house will now be the propery of the US Government - the Feds can confiscate propery where drug crimes occur, even if the owner of the propery isn't involved.
How do you know? You dont even use Linux.
I don't? Damn. And here I thought I used it every day....
Here's a news flash: People don't upgrade because they got a worm. People often don't upgrade at all! How about that. They've ALREADY spent the money on Windows, so it's a pretty steep uphill battle to get them to switch, especially since Lindows isn't any cheaper.
Here's the best counterargument to what you're saying: Linux is dead on the desktop. It's market share is so small as to be a statistical abberation. No signifigant amount of people use it.
One major reason why: People are interested in spending time or money to "upgrade" to something thats no better than what they have. They don't care that much about Blaster or other viruses - if they did, they'd use the freely available Windows tools to safeguard themselves. They don't care that "Linux" is "etter" - because for them, it's not. It is, at best, equal to Windows.
Tell you what - when you can show me a market study that has Linux desktop machines equal in market share to OS X (ie, hardly any, but at least it's statistically measurable), then we can talk about Linux being "successful the desktop".
Slashdot Mirror
People don't live in vacuums, and they don't become criminals just because you give them guns. They also don't NOT become criminals just because you DON'T give them guns.
I'm for gun control because I think the idea that you need to own a gun is stupid. There's not really any good reason for it. I know you'll argue and I'm sure you've got some example of a guy who protected himself against a home invasion but I don't give a shit and don't feel like digging out statistics - suffice it to say that I feel that the self-defense argument is bogus.
I know, I know, creates more waste & all that. But from a consumer point of view there's no issue at all.
There's some products where extreme lifespan is very desirable and important - things like appliances and (arguably) cars. Computers, at least for most people, are not one of them.
I'm not a lawyer, but I try to stay informed, and I've never heard of anything, either in case law or in the law itself that would allow you to prosecute an end-user for copyright infringment for a legitimatly obtained work, rather than the original distributor. All the lawyers I have heard speak on the issue, except SCO ones, have said more or less the same thing. One important thing to remember is what a civil case does - it's supposed to compensate you for a wrong. If SCO sues, say, Redhat and wins, they've _already been paid_ for everyone who uses Redhat Linux. SCO can't demand MORE money from individual users.
You know, the LAST time they said this, you either had to agree to an NDA that precluded an OSS implementation. The "formal agreements" there were pretty clearly only for other commercial (because of the licensing fee) & closed source vendors.
I only got it once, for whatver thats worth (Trillian user myself...)
On the other hand, this country claims a seperation of church and state, and the issue at hand is the legal (civil) status of gay marriage - if your church wants to deny it's blessing to gay couples, thats fine. It has no bearing on the civil right of gay people to be married.
If, on the other hand, you point to Leviticus to condemn anything that bothers you, but ignore it's laws when you feel inclined, then I'd have to say that you're being intellectually dishonest and hypocritcal, and I'd ask you again why you feel threatened by the concept of gay marriage.
On a side note, I can't imagine why people feel so threatened by gay marriage. Nobody is gonna make you get married to a man if you don't want. It's not like theres a certain number of marriage points and the gay people will use them all up.
Or the fourth... she sells Georgy for Goc thongs on her website, too...
When .NET was in Beta test, before Visual Studio 2002 was realeased, this was how everyone used it - you used the command line tools & your favorite make utility. Theres tons of tutorials and FAQs and what have you on MSDN and all the .NET sites. It's not in the marketing literature because they're pushing VS .NET and it's RAD features - CIOs don't care about command line assemblers.
If you're passing large data sets, then you're probably passing a POINTER. Interop handles pointers just fine.
An actual court case where they challenged the legality of the GPL is another matter entirely - and note that the GPL doesn't need any additional language to deal with such a case.
All the really big players in IT (including MS) have large patent portfolios and basically have gentlemans agreements to not rock the boat - because they understand that the actual enforcment of these patents would likely put them all out of buisness.
I believe, but am not certain (and can't check, because our DNS server is down) that one of the requirments for OSI-approved licenses is that they can't be arbitrarily revoke. It certainly doesn't make much sense - it's not very "free" then, after all.
This is especially amusing because Samba is potentially in much more legal danger than Linux ever was - due to MS's patents & annoying EULAs on documentation, Samba developers have to be VERY carefull about what they read and look at, and it'd be much easier to slip them up or even press claims that they did splip up than against Linux.
I'll use a real life example - the Tommy Lee/Pamela Anderson video. It was illegal obtained, and then sold to (several) distributors (this is actually a little bit of a stretch, since in this case the people buying it knew that there was a good possibility it wasn't legitimate). In any case, once it started spreading, Pamela & Tommy tried to stop it - they were able to get injunctions against (at least some) of the sites distributing it. But the customers of those companies were never at risk or liable.
Just as a nitpick, showing that code is probably enough to get a court hearing - judges as a rule aren't programmers or experts on the history of Unix (I'm the former but not the latter, and 15 minutes of time with Google only told me that it was remotely possible there was infringment - this was before the LWN article and the Perens article and such were posted), and theres obvious similarity there. Defense against the claims would, of course, be trivial. You'd certainly have to pay a lawyer.
*applause* The biggest test of your ideals is when someone you don't like is taking advantage of them. Just as believing in freedom of speech means you have to support the right of people to say things you don't like, supporting free and open software means you have to support the right of people to do things with it that you don't approve of - this has been seen in the community before with things like forking, but this is where it gets hard.
The update with the LWM link was posted after my post - or rather, while I was researching it.
Theres a cvs ID in the patch that would indicated that marcello contributed the patch...
The patch where this was added seems to be here.
I dunno, it'd be kinda cool if the win. Since they seem to be claiming that the GPL is trumped by federal copyright law, which only allows one copy, and this somehow means that the GPL is not only invalid, but the rest of the code is freely distributable, then it'd mean that pirating any software that comes with a distribution license is now legal.
In fact, in any industry except IT, there's legal consequences for companies that know about dangerous problems and don't fix them, even if people don't get hurt.
The ability to disseminate information like this is the CORE of what makes capitalism work - you can't possibly have a working capitalist economny without the exchange of information about companies and products. On top of that, it strikes directly to the core of the First Amendment - which is getting eviscerated all the time, as people more and more are willing to allow third parties to overturn it just because they aren't the government.
The fact is, what this guy did is about as responsible as you can get - he went through official channels first. When those failed to respond, he went directly to those affected. Since he was mailing members of the site directly, not posting publically to bugtraq or (worse) to hacker forums, he limited the exposure as much as possible. His arrest, and even more his conviction, is such a travesty of justice that I shudder to even contemplate it.
I seriously doubt that either of those things are the case - it's much more likely that there's a mirror address or online phone book of some kind. Why do I think this? Because he wasn't arrested and convicted for sending the message (RTFA). He was arrested because for the CONTENT of his email. I certainly hope this is overturned on appeal - it's a massively dangerous precedent (there's nothing special about Bugtraq postings, given that the facts in the article are true and complete - you'd be just as liable for posting there as this guy was). It'd amount to the overturning of Federal Whistleblower laws and be an enormous blow to consumer rights.
It's pushing the analagy, of course - if your house was abandoned, say for a year while you're in Europe, and drug dealers move in, don't be suprised if you come back and it's been boarded up with plywood. In fact, it's very likely that your house will now be the propery of the US Government - the Feds can confiscate propery where drug crimes occur, even if the owner of the propery isn't involved.
I don't? Damn. And here I thought I used it every day....
Here's a news flash: People don't upgrade because they got a worm. People often don't upgrade at all! How about that. They've ALREADY spent the money on Windows, so it's a pretty steep uphill battle to get them to switch, especially since Lindows isn't any cheaper.
Here's the best counterargument to what you're saying: Linux is dead on the desktop. It's market share is so small as to be a statistical abberation. No signifigant amount of people use it.
One major reason why: People are interested in spending time or money to "upgrade" to something thats no better than what they have. They don't care that much about Blaster or other viruses - if they did, they'd use the freely available Windows tools to safeguard themselves. They don't care that "Linux" is "etter" - because for them, it's not. It is, at best, equal to Windows.
Tell you what - when you can show me a market study that has Linux desktop machines equal in market share to OS X (ie, hardly any, but at least it's statistically measurable), then we can talk about Linux being "successful the desktop".