Microsoft's products that have been successful have been those ahead of their competitors.
Microsoft's successful products are mostly follow-the-leader as well. Windows -- following the Mac, of course. Excel, following Lotus 1-2-3 (more or less a descendant of Visicalc). Word, following Wordstar. Exchange, following Netware (I think)
And have the cryptographically signed commands posted on Slashdot as AC postings. Have the bots scan the most recent Slashdot stories at -1 for their commands.
RMS is not the last word on open source. He probably could have been, if he weren't such an ass about it. Most people have been ignoring him for a decade or more now, he's pretty much irrelevant.
Hardly. He is the anchor for one side of the issue. But he's not the last word on "open source"; the term he uses has long been "free software".
Open source means, literally, that the source code is available for free. The "Source" is "Open". Open Source. Hey, that's amazing! It means exactly what it says!
Providing the source for free with a restrictive license which says you can't modify it isn't "open source". The Open Source Initiative's criteria are much more reasonable, and close to what the GP posted.
The courts should reject omega's claim, and rule that the importation was legal, but that would mean that importation of counterfeit works is also legal until congresses fixes the law. So that will never happen.
All they have to do is rule that "lawfully made under this title" includes "lawfully made in a country in the Berne Convention". Which would actually make sense because if you look at 17 USC 104, which defines which works "are subject to protection under this title", you find that all works made in "a treaty party" are included. If a work in a foreign country which the US has a copyright treaty with can be "subject to protection under this title", then surely a copy made in a foreign country can also be "lawfully made under this title". That excludes counterfeits while including foreign works, preserving the status quo ante.
Basically only port 80 and 443 are allowed and those are verified by some means. Now if you wrote your own encapsulation (and incurred the overhead), you could get through.
You mean there isn't already a VPN over HTTPS which is indistinguishable (without the keys) from HTTPS?
That argument does not hold. Every power plant has downtimes for scheduled maintainance or because of accidents. You need backup power plants anyway for that. The fact that the downtimes happen more often for wind power than for nuclear power does not make it a lot more expensive or complicated to provide the backup power.
The fact that the downtimes for wind are less predictable, less controllable, more frequent, and tend to happen all at once over a wide area, however, DO make it a lot more expensive and complicated to do so.
Are you an Indian? No? Then you are an illegal immigrant yourself and your ancestors killed millions of natives to steal their land.
Nope. #1, I was born here, thus not an immigrant. #2, none of my ancestors were around to kill off any natives. Some of them were legal immigrants, when the US immigration policy was much looser. Even if some were illegal immigrants (I doubt it; not much reason to be then), that doesn't make me an illegal immigrant. The US _does_ have birthright citizenship, though some of the anti-immigration types want to do away with it.
Too many people look at cases that are right at the legal limit of fair use and had to be argued heavily in court and be well justified. Rather than looking that at the point where fair use ends, they see that as a new baseline and then step over the mark whilst thinking the law is on their side.
This implies that there IS a hard line somewhere. There isn't. The "gray area" in which decisions are mixed is the WHOLE area in which fair use might be asserted. There have been cases where copying single sentences (out of several paragraphs) have been ruled not-fair, for instance.
I will point out that the $4.7 trillion figure sounds as exaggerated as the loss numbers claimed the RIAA.
So? They can make up numbers, we can make up numbers. BTW, did you know a recent Oomain Society study showed that the RIAA was responsible for the torture and mutilation of up to 5000 puppies every day in 2009?
You have to pretty much throw away any pretense of fairness for a doctrine which holds that every copyright applies in every country, but first sale rights (copyright exhaustion) only apply in the country of first sale.
There is no such thing as 'lost' property to the law. If it is lost, the law calls that stolen.
It most certainly does not. California Penal Code 485 states in full:
One who finds lost property under circumstances which give him knowledge of or means of inquiry as to the true owner, and who appropriates such property to his own use, or to the use of another person not entitled thereto, without first making reasonable and just efforts to find the owner and to restore the property to him, is guilty of theft.
Right there in black and white, "lost property". No theft occurs until certain things happen, and even then not unless other things aren't done first.
CPC 496 covers receipt of stolen property... but if no theft occurred, the property couldn't have been stolen.
California law regulates what you can do when you find lost property in the state. Section 2080 of the Civil Code provides that any person who finds and takes charge of a lost item acts as "a depositary for the owner." If the true owner is known, the finder must notify him/her/it within a reasonable time and "make restitution without compensation, except a reasonable charge for saving and taking care of the property."
But Section 2080 of the Civil Code is not the Penal Code. He can't be jailed for violating Section 2080, only sued; and since Apple got their prototype back, that's unlikely, because they won't be able to show damages; the main obligation of a depositary (detailed in CCC 1822-1828) is to give the item back.
California Penal Code 485 requires only "reasonable and just efforts to find the owner and to restore the property to him".
That's civil code, not penal code. Despite having the same subject matter, violating CCC 2080.1 doesn't make one guilty of violating CPC 485; they're entirely separate bodies of law.
(Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer no matter how often I play one on the net)
Doesn't really work as a definition for "addicted". To provide a counter example, there are "high-functioning" alcoholics - just as fucked up as regular alkies, but able to hold it together enough to keep a job, maintain relationships (albeit often dysfunctional ones), etc. Often the shit hits the fan for them eventually, though this isn't guaranteed.
It doesn't really work because "addicted" in the sense of the article is really only being used pejoratively. If you stretch the definition enough you can show that just about any enjoyable activity is "addictive"; further, there are addictions in the narrow sense which are pretty much harmless; caffeine being one.
The difference between a user and an addict is, when you take their whatever away, the user is okay, and the addict is not.
Not good enough. The user of anything presumably derives a benefit from using it; that's why they use it. Take that away and of course they're not as well off, and will seek substitutes. If that's addiction, the term is too broad to be of any use.
One who finds lost property under circumstances which give him knowledge of or means of inquiry as to the true owner, and who appropriates such property to his own use, or to the use of another person not entitled thereto, without first making reasonable and just efforts to find the owner and to restore the property to him, is guilty of theft.
Since the finder knew who lost the phone (he found that info on the phone itself), he was obligated by law to either return it to the owner or bring it to the police so they could see the owner gets it back.
Really? I don't see anything there which makes specific reference to bringing it to the police.
Historically, whenever a journalist has been jailed for not ratting out a source, the cops have pulled all their stuff right off their desks. There is no legal exemption just because you happen to work for a media outlet.
Well, except Section 1070 of the California Evidence Code. But then, you'd have to read the article to find that out.
My grandmother used to like to bet on the horses, and, in the UK at least, with some bookies you paid tax on the wager itself (with no tax on the winnings), at others you paid tax on the winnings (or nothing if you lose).
In most of the US you don't pay tax with any bookies, but if you can't cover your losses, you lose an arm and a leg.
It looks to me like someone did not read this through. (Unfortunately it is not news when a slashdotian responds to an article without actually reading it.)
Slashdot isn't solely at fault here. The article referenced makes the same error:
Here are the basics of the new law. If you have personally identifiable information (PII) about a Massachusetts resident, such as a first and last name, then you have to encrypt that data on the wire and as it's persisted. Sending PII over HTTP instead of HTTPS? That's a big no no. Storing the name of a customer in SQL Server without the data being encrypted? No way, Jose. You'll get a fine of $5,000 per breach or lost record. If you have a database that contains 1,000 names of Massachusetts residents and lose it without the data being encrypted that's $5,000,000. Yikes.
If you can avoid the cloud you're completely safe, the key problem is you don't know where the ash is until you fly into it, since it can't be detected on radar or other instruments currently available on passenger aircraft.
How about the Mk1 eyeball? Aren't ash clouds visible? Flight 9 didn't see them because it was nighttime, but if you're flying during the daylight it's a different story.
If I had a choice between taking off into air heavily polluted with ash from a volcano and staying on terra firma, I'm staying on the ground.
No one disputes that. What they do dispute is whether the air was "heavily polluted with ash", and how polluted it has to be to make the risk unacceptable.
Aviation safety is not repeat NOT something to play around with. Better for an airline to lose a few million pounds and passengers to be stranded somewhere than for a plane to lose engine power in the middle of the Atlantic.
Even if Katla blows, millions turn to billions, and the entire European airline collapses? I suppose it would be good for Cunard and Kvaerner...
Simply put: why is it that we assume an "advanced" civilization means that it is militarily advanced and not ethically advanced? Those two categories are not mutually exclusive and I would argue that any alien race not ethically advanced before becoming militarily advanced will simply continue to focus on killing each other.
Too many examples on Earth otherwise. The twentieth century provides plenty of examples; the Nazis, of course. The US or the USSR, depending on what side of the pinko/flagwaver line you stand. Go further back and you have the British empire, which was relatively tame compared to the Spanish one. The Romans were not known for their ethical advancement, nor was Sparta (which conquered Athens, usually better regarded ethically). And Genghis Khan of the Mongols felt that the best thing in life was "To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women," as paraphrased by the authors of Conan the Barbarian.
If the part added by the government can't be copyrighted, it can't be licensed under the GPL. It's incompatible with the GPL and they cannot touch each other.
The public domain is compatible with the GPL. I don't know where you got the idea that it isn't.
A vast majority of people who were nearly successful in their suicide attempt generally regret having ever gone down that dark path.
No one who has actually succeeded regrets going through with it. And many who are not successful try again and succeed the next time; those who don't are the only ones you hear from, thus there is some serious systemic bias in any sampling.
Talking about bare assertions, how do you decide that natural law gives you the right to do something?
Well, if you'd like to throw it away, there's no need to worry about whether it's OK to kill yourself, as freedom of speech is based on the same thing, so we can just throw it out.
As for the right to kill oneself -- who are you (or anyone else, including the government) to tell anyone they must go on living? What duty do they have to you to do so?
Aristotle, who made some offhand comments that people use to justify natural law
Aristotle? Now who's the freshman philosophy major.
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft's successful products are mostly follow-the-leader as well. Windows -- following the Mac, of course. Excel, following Lotus 1-2-3 (more or less a descendant of Visicalc). Word, following Wordstar. Exchange, following Netware (I think)
MOD ME UP OR I PWN J00!
*(SJKHCI&^HSKJNSIU&S(QJSJSQ)NSQJBN
Hardly. He is the anchor for one side of the issue. But he's not the last word on "open source"; the term he uses has long been "free software".
Providing the source for free with a restrictive license which says you can't modify it isn't "open source". The Open Source Initiative's criteria are much more reasonable, and close to what the GP posted.
All they have to do is rule that "lawfully made under this title" includes "lawfully made in a country in the Berne Convention". Which would actually make sense because if you look at 17 USC 104, which defines which works "are subject to protection under this title", you find that all works made in "a treaty party" are included. If a work in a foreign country which the US has a copyright treaty with can be "subject to protection under this title", then surely a copy made in a foreign country can also be "lawfully made under this title". That excludes counterfeits while including foreign works, preserving the status quo ante.
You mean there isn't already a VPN over HTTPS which is indistinguishable (without the keys) from HTTPS?
The fact that the downtimes for wind are less predictable, less controllable, more frequent, and tend to happen all at once over a wide area, however, DO make it a lot more expensive and complicated to do so.
Nope. #1, I was born here, thus not an immigrant. #2, none of my ancestors were around to kill off any natives. Some of them were legal immigrants, when the US immigration policy was much looser. Even if some were illegal immigrants (I doubt it; not much reason to be then), that doesn't make me an illegal immigrant. The US _does_ have birthright citizenship, though some of the anti-immigration types want to do away with it.
This implies that there IS a hard line somewhere. There isn't. The "gray area" in which decisions are mixed is the WHOLE area in which fair use might be asserted. There have been cases where copying single sentences (out of several paragraphs) have been ruled not-fair, for instance.
So? They can make up numbers, we can make up numbers. BTW, did you know a recent Oomain Society study showed that the RIAA was responsible for the torture and mutilation of up to 5000 puppies every day in 2009?
You have to pretty much throw away any pretense of fairness for a doctrine which holds that every copyright applies in every country, but first sale rights (copyright exhaustion) only apply in the country of first sale.
It most certainly does not. California Penal Code 485 states in full:
Right there in black and white, "lost property". No theft occurs until certain things happen, and even then not unless other things aren't done first.
CPC 496 covers receipt of stolen property... but if no theft occurred, the property couldn't have been stolen.
But Section 2080 of the Civil Code is not the Penal Code. He can't be jailed for violating Section 2080, only sued; and since Apple got their prototype back, that's unlikely, because they won't be able to show damages; the main obligation of a depositary (detailed in CCC 1822-1828) is to give the item back.
California Penal Code 485 requires only "reasonable and just efforts to find the owner and to restore the property to him".
That's civil code, not penal code. Despite having the same subject matter, violating CCC 2080.1 doesn't make one guilty of violating CPC 485; they're entirely separate bodies of law.
(Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer no matter how often I play one on the net)
It doesn't really work because "addicted" in the sense of the article is really only being used pejoratively. If you stretch the definition enough you can show that just about any enjoyable activity is "addictive"; further, there are addictions in the narrow sense which are pretty much harmless; caffeine being one.
Not good enough. The user of anything presumably derives a benefit from using it; that's why they use it. Take that away and of course they're not as well off, and will seek substitutes. If that's addiction, the term is too broad to be of any use.
Really? I don't see anything there which makes specific reference to bringing it to the police.
Well, except Section 1070 of the California Evidence Code. But then, you'd have to read the article to find that out.
In most of the US you don't pay tax with any bookies, but if you can't cover your losses, you lose an arm and a leg.
Slashdot isn't solely at fault here. The article referenced makes the same error:
How about the Mk1 eyeball? Aren't ash clouds visible? Flight 9 didn't see them because it was nighttime, but if you're flying during the daylight it's a different story.
No one disputes that. What they do dispute is whether the air was "heavily polluted with ash", and how polluted it has to be to make the risk unacceptable.
Even if Katla blows, millions turn to billions, and the entire European airline collapses? I suppose it would be good for Cunard and Kvaerner...
Too many examples on Earth otherwise. The twentieth century provides plenty of examples; the Nazis, of course. The US or the USSR, depending on what side of the pinko/flagwaver line you stand. Go further back and you have the British empire, which was relatively tame compared to the Spanish one. The Romans were not known for their ethical advancement, nor was Sparta (which conquered Athens, usually better regarded ethically). And Genghis Khan of the Mongols felt that the best thing in life was "To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women," as paraphrased by the authors of Conan the Barbarian.
The public domain is compatible with the GPL. I don't know where you got the idea that it isn't.
No one who has actually succeeded regrets going through with it. And many who are not successful try again and succeed the next time; those who don't are the only ones you hear from, thus there is some serious systemic bias in any sampling.
Well, if you'd like to throw it away, there's no need to worry about whether it's OK to kill yourself, as freedom of speech is based on the same thing, so we can just throw it out.
As for the right to kill oneself -- who are you (or anyone else, including the government) to tell anyone they must go on living? What duty do they have to you to do so?
Aristotle? Now who's the freshman philosophy major.