Wait, so GPL 2 is "locking code up?" Where were all these people who had strong anti-GPL 2 sentiments before 3 was released? Was it not good enough then, or are we just angry because the FSF is telling us to be?
In 3.5 and even basic 3d ed, Priests were far and away more useful than wizards and sorcers. They had damage spells, could use better weapons out of the box and had a serious of buffs, combined with their armor, that made them powerful and extremely difficult to kill. At very high levels, a powerful wizard can deal great damage with delayed blast fireball and whatnot, but at that point a good cleric can throw down greater aspect of the diety, divine power and a load of other spells and turn themselves into a combat machine, plus the ability to heal and a few good damage spells.
How are you going to balance the two main spellcasting types in 4th ed? Or are you going to leave things generally as they are?
I think this is one of the most insightful statement I have seen on slashdot in a long time. As long as the representatives of the republic are democratically elected, it is probably the best form of government around.
Untrue! The best form of government around is the Constitutional Ninjocracy. This system holds the ultimate in checks and balances: retaliatory assassinations. Say the Ninja-King decided that he didn't like a law, so issued a signing statement to render it toothless. The Ninja-Senators could simply enter the Black House and off him in the middle of the night, and then hold an election for a new Ninja-King the next month. Say Senator Yoshitsune (N-?) was in an inappropriate liaison with a congressional grasshopper. The Smokebombs and Other Methods of Entry and Egress Committee could track him down and off him, then assign the poor grasshopper to the tutelage of another master ninja. By this method, all rules are obeyed, since every member of the government is a trained killing machine who swore a blood oath to protect the secrets of their order, destroy rogue agents, and uphold the constitution. This would also help the media, as any scandals would be dealt with quietly and in total secrecy, so reporters could get a break from the neverending scandal coverage and avoid any fake scandals; you cannot interview that which you cannot see!
"But," you ask, betraying your low intelligence, "What is to keep these masters of the shadows from turning their awesome ninja might against the general populace?" That, my poor deluded fool, is why it is a constitutional system. There is a separate branch of Ninja-Jurists whose sole purpose is to ensure that any Ninja-Legislators meet swift justice if they abuse the system. The Constitution furthermore disallows revenge-killings between branches of government, assuring that each branch's assassinative actions are either allowed under some general law, or internal to each branch. This, naturally, assures separation of sneaky powers of stealth, and gives each branch of the government incentive to uphold the rules to the letter, in the hope of replacing the lapsed representative with a member of their own sect.
Armies of ninja ruling from the shadows- not just a laughable translation, but a sound system of government.
"If you need a clue as to how creative ISP execs might get in the absence of network neutrality, look no further than United Airlines CEO Glenn Tilton, who is wowing Wall Street with his willingness to examine new ways to wring money out of the carrier, including making economy passengers pay a fee unless they want their luggage to come last off the plane."
I must say, though; thank you, thank you, thank you for actual legal discussion. Slashdot lawyers are like jailhouse lawyers- always long on drama and short on substance. You obviously know your stuff.
There existed no set of facts through which SCO could prevail. That is not a legal statement, but a statement about the factual situation. SCO will then appeal the decision, not about specific facts, but that there exist some facts that would allow a rational trier of fact to find in their favor. It may not be a trial before a judge or a jury, but it is still, at heart, a factual inquiry. The standard on review is still abuse of discretion, not de novo (which it would be if it were a question of law, or a mixed question of law and fact).
That is why I made such a strong statement.
Re:Fair??? Language, please...
on
SCO Loses
·
· Score: 1
It's good to know we still have proponents of kangaroo courts hanging around. Stupid in-depth inquiry into the matter to arrive at a well-reasoned decision!
Re:For once..
on
SCO Loses
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Wha? Lots of things are set in stone. Nearly nothing is overturned, ever, so trial court decisions and findings are nearly always set in stone, when they deal with facts.
This dealt with facts. SCO did not own UNIX. A review court would have to find the trial court abused its discretion in doing this. I don't think anyone believes that court actually would.
"What set of values is the author promoting" is probably one of the most important questions to ask about . . . whatever you are reading. The first stage of discovering the author's message is figuring out what his purpose was for the book itself. From there, you can have a solid frame of reference for whatever imagery or metaphor he incorporates into the text.
For what it's worth, I got an A+ in the class and a 5 on the AP English test back when I took it, then went on to minor in English with a focus on English education.*
* It is worth nothing. Ideas stand on their own. Twit.
If you want to work for the industry (Intel, Microsoft, Cisco), you'd want CS. If you would rather be a a programmer or admin in the CS department of a non-industry company, than IS would likely be more useful.
So do scientists now have to declare themselves politically pro-Einstein in order to discuss relativity? And what the heck does "silent majority" mean? In the scientific community, if you're not talking (publishing), you're not even there. A silent majority is impossible!
This is a very depressing piece for a normally useful outlet.
Nerds on the internet is not "public opinion." I'm sorry, they act terribly, but just because a group of people think something, especially as insular a group as the one that frequents slashdot, does not mean there is any sort of public support for it.
Freedom is freedom. You can't say "oh, well, this is good freedom, so it's all right. That's bad freedom, so we don't like that." If you want real freedom, you have to give freedom, not select uses that are "good freedom." If you want people to do something different, convince them not to. Or convince everyone else to ignore them or force their hand. Taking that freedom away is a horribly inept way to deal with it.
On the other hand, everyone is convinced that an indemnity agreement is a hostile takeover. There doesn't appear to be any evidence of this, other than the fact that MS does not like linux. Not liking Linux does not mean they have legal tools to wreck Linux, especially as part of an agreement to cover future infringement.
And that's really the catch- people don't want to admit that linux would ever, ever infringe on Microsoft's patents. Because of this ideology, they're angry and lash out, albeit with nearly no substance. Novell is worried about that possibility, so they've made an agreement to cover themselves just in case their fears are realized. I'm skeptical of the strategy. You and others seem to think it is some sort of trojan horse. Novell doesn't, however, and they can. Because that sort of freedom is important.
It's good that RMS is now telling everyone what are morally acceptable uses of software. I thought the idea of freedom was the freedom to do whatever you wanted with the software, so long as you shared the work. Apparently freedom doesn't matter quite so much when you have a chance to take shots at "ideologically impure" groups and start a pissing war with Microsoft.
In other news, Romer!can submits a fairly biased article summary which includes: a cheap shot dismissing one critique of the open source community, blatantly pretending that there is popular dissatisfaction behind copyright and patent term lengths, and an embarrassing failure to even casually mention the serious legal status of copyright infringement. Instead, he wades through obscure humor and emotional appeals, mocking the comparison of infringement to theft and characterizing anyone who disagrees with him as a wanker.
Not only is that an overly broad comment (each jurisdiction defines rape by itself), it is also completely wrong, as I don't believe any jurisdiction in the first world still uses that definition. The ones that use similar language also have special statutes (such as sodomy) to reenforce the inadequate rape laws.
The silly thing about your post is that you are right, but for a different reason. All of these statutes require some sort of force. Force or threat of force means the ability to confine or control the other person. Since you can instantly log off in second life, there can literally never be force involved. Some may argue coercion, but things like pressuring someone to have sex to keep there job generally isn't enough to render the encounter non-consentual (that is, however, a nice sexual harassment lawsuit).
You still have no idea what you're talking about, however.
That's not a defense. If he did that, he would be completely screwed. They would have to have a gun at his head or maybe- maybe- a family member's for duress to come into play. This is really, really bad advice.
All the comments expressing joy seriously make me sick. The man disagreed with you on essentially political matters. If you want to make it a "rights" question, the right he was trying to take away wasn't even a constitutional one! It was an esoteric statutory right that few really know anything about.
Were he Stalin, or Hitler, then yes, perhaps this would be warranted. But really, no-one here knows a damn thing about Jack Valenti other than the fact that he advocated for a different IP scheme than you. If you are happy for the death of someone who opposed you on such a ridiculously insignificant aspect of life, then you are fifteen times worse than you imagine Valenti to be.
Absolutely sickening. Save the moral outrage for something worth your outrage.
If I recall, after a point retailers are able to force-sell excessive stock back to the manufacturer at discounted cost. I remember Nintendo tried to not do that and got bit sometime in the 80s.
So even if they are shipped, that doesn't mean Sony is completely in the clear.
Mod parent up. The judge hearing a case absolutely has the right to declare a patent invalid as preempted by prior art. The article is idiotic grandstanding.
Bit of grandstanding at the end of the comment, too, but ah well. C'est la vie.
Slashdot Mirror
Wait, so GPL 2 is "locking code up?" Where were all these people who had strong anti-GPL 2 sentiments before 3 was released? Was it not good enough then, or are we just angry because the FSF is telling us to be?
In 3.5 and even basic 3d ed, Priests were far and away more useful than wizards and sorcers. They had damage spells, could use better weapons out of the box and had a serious of buffs, combined with their armor, that made them powerful and extremely difficult to kill. At very high levels, a powerful wizard can deal great damage with delayed blast fireball and whatnot, but at that point a good cleric can throw down greater aspect of the diety, divine power and a load of other spells and turn themselves into a combat machine, plus the ability to heal and a few good damage spells.
How are you going to balance the two main spellcasting types in 4th ed? Or are you going to leave things generally as they are?
If a company wins a format war and nobody cares about it, have they really won anything?
Yes. When the $200 of rice runs out, they can then eat their laptop.
Wait, I think I fell off the tortured analogy wagon...
Untrue! The best form of government around is the Constitutional Ninjocracy. This system holds the ultimate in checks and balances: retaliatory assassinations. Say the Ninja-King decided that he didn't like a law, so issued a signing statement to render it toothless. The Ninja-Senators could simply enter the Black House and off him in the middle of the night, and then hold an election for a new Ninja-King the next month. Say Senator Yoshitsune (N-?) was in an inappropriate liaison with a congressional grasshopper. The Smokebombs and Other Methods of Entry and Egress Committee could track him down and off him, then assign the poor grasshopper to the tutelage of another master ninja. By this method, all rules are obeyed, since every member of the government is a trained killing machine who swore a blood oath to protect the secrets of their order, destroy rogue agents, and uphold the constitution. This would also help the media, as any scandals would be dealt with quietly and in total secrecy, so reporters could get a break from the neverending scandal coverage and avoid any fake scandals; you cannot interview that which you cannot see!
"But," you ask, betraying your low intelligence, "What is to keep these masters of the shadows from turning their awesome ninja might against the general populace?" That, my poor deluded fool, is why it is a constitutional system. There is a separate branch of Ninja-Jurists whose sole purpose is to ensure that any Ninja-Legislators meet swift justice if they abuse the system. The Constitution furthermore disallows revenge-killings between branches of government, assuring that each branch's assassinative actions are either allowed under some general law, or internal to each branch. This, naturally, assures separation of sneaky powers of stealth, and gives each branch of the government incentive to uphold the rules to the letter, in the hope of replacing the lapsed representative with a member of their own sect.
Armies of ninja ruling from the shadows- not just a laughable translation, but a sound system of government.
"Fruit Fucker" holds a great grain of truth?
I'm sorry, Penny Arcade is occasionally funny, but snark generally doesn't equate to insight.
"If you need a clue as to how creative ISP execs might get in the absence of network neutrality, look no further than United Airlines CEO Glenn Tilton, who is wowing Wall Street with his willingness to examine new ways to wring money out of the carrier, including making economy passengers pay a fee unless they want their luggage to come last off the plane."
Best. Non sequitur. Ever.
Read: "We realized that plan was completely insane."
I must say, though; thank you, thank you, thank you for actual legal discussion. Slashdot lawyers are like jailhouse lawyers- always long on drama and short on substance. You obviously know your stuff.
There existed no set of facts through which SCO could prevail. That is not a legal statement, but a statement about the factual situation. SCO will then appeal the decision, not about specific facts, but that there exist some facts that would allow a rational trier of fact to find in their favor. It may not be a trial before a judge or a jury, but it is still, at heart, a factual inquiry. The standard on review is still abuse of discretion, not de novo (which it would be if it were a question of law, or a mixed question of law and fact).
That is why I made such a strong statement.
It's good to know we still have proponents of kangaroo courts hanging around. Stupid in-depth inquiry into the matter to arrive at a well-reasoned decision!
Wha? Lots of things are set in stone. Nearly nothing is overturned, ever, so trial court decisions and findings are nearly always set in stone, when they deal with facts.
This dealt with facts. SCO did not own UNIX. A review court would have to find the trial court abused its discretion in doing this. I don't think anyone believes that court actually would.
"What set of values is the author promoting" is probably one of the most important questions to ask about . . . whatever you are reading. The first stage of discovering the author's message is figuring out what his purpose was for the book itself. From there, you can have a solid frame of reference for whatever imagery or metaphor he incorporates into the text.
For what it's worth, I got an A+ in the class and a 5 on the AP English test back when I took it, then went on to minor in English with a focus on English education.*
* It is worth nothing. Ideas stand on their own. Twit.
If you want to work for the industry (Intel, Microsoft, Cisco), you'd want CS. If you would rather be a a programmer or admin in the CS department of a non-industry company, than IS would likely be more useful.
What? ... Wait, what?
So do scientists now have to declare themselves politically pro-Einstein in order to discuss relativity? And what the heck does "silent majority" mean? In the scientific community, if you're not talking (publishing), you're not even there. A silent majority is impossible!
This is a very depressing piece for a normally useful outlet.
Nerds on the internet is not "public opinion." I'm sorry, they act terribly, but just because a group of people think something, especially as insular a group as the one that frequents slashdot, does not mean there is any sort of public support for it.
Freedom is freedom. You can't say "oh, well, this is good freedom, so it's all right. That's bad freedom, so we don't like that." If you want real freedom, you have to give freedom, not select uses that are "good freedom." If you want people to do something different, convince them not to. Or convince everyone else to ignore them or force their hand. Taking that freedom away is a horribly inept way to deal with it.
On the other hand, everyone is convinced that an indemnity agreement is a hostile takeover. There doesn't appear to be any evidence of this, other than the fact that MS does not like linux. Not liking Linux does not mean they have legal tools to wreck Linux, especially as part of an agreement to cover future infringement.
And that's really the catch- people don't want to admit that linux would ever, ever infringe on Microsoft's patents. Because of this ideology, they're angry and lash out, albeit with nearly no substance. Novell is worried about that possibility, so they've made an agreement to cover themselves just in case their fears are realized. I'm skeptical of the strategy. You and others seem to think it is some sort of trojan horse. Novell doesn't, however, and they can. Because that sort of freedom is important.
It's good that RMS is now telling everyone what are morally acceptable uses of software. I thought the idea of freedom was the freedom to do whatever you wanted with the software, so long as you shared the work. Apparently freedom doesn't matter quite so much when you have a chance to take shots at "ideologically impure" groups and start a pissing war with Microsoft.
This is all really, really sad.
I understand yet dislike Firefly and despise BSG. Does that make me an idiot?
It's all a matter of opinion.
In other news, Romer!can submits a fairly biased article summary which includes: a cheap shot dismissing one critique of the open source community, blatantly pretending that there is popular dissatisfaction behind copyright and patent term lengths, and an embarrassing failure to even casually mention the serious legal status of copyright infringement. Instead, he wades through obscure humor and emotional appeals, mocking the comparison of infringement to theft and characterizing anyone who disagrees with him as a wanker.
Not only is that an overly broad comment (each jurisdiction defines rape by itself), it is also completely wrong, as I don't believe any jurisdiction in the first world still uses that definition. The ones that use similar language also have special statutes (such as sodomy) to reenforce the inadequate rape laws.
The silly thing about your post is that you are right, but for a different reason. All of these statutes require some sort of force. Force or threat of force means the ability to confine or control the other person. Since you can instantly log off in second life, there can literally never be force involved. Some may argue coercion, but things like pressuring someone to have sex to keep there job generally isn't enough to render the encounter non-consentual (that is, however, a nice sexual harassment lawsuit).
You still have no idea what you're talking about, however.
No, no, no.
That's not a defense. If he did that, he would be completely screwed. They would have to have a gun at his head or maybe- maybe- a family member's for duress to come into play. This is really, really bad advice.
All the comments expressing joy seriously make me sick. The man disagreed with you on essentially political matters. If you want to make it a "rights" question, the right he was trying to take away wasn't even a constitutional one! It was an esoteric statutory right that few really know anything about.
Were he Stalin, or Hitler, then yes, perhaps this would be warranted. But really, no-one here knows a damn thing about Jack Valenti other than the fact that he advocated for a different IP scheme than you. If you are happy for the death of someone who opposed you on such a ridiculously insignificant aspect of life, then you are fifteen times worse than you imagine Valenti to be.
Absolutely sickening. Save the moral outrage for something worth your outrage.
If I recall, after a point retailers are able to force-sell excessive stock back to the manufacturer at discounted cost. I remember Nintendo tried to not do that and got bit sometime in the 80s.
So even if they are shipped, that doesn't mean Sony is completely in the clear.
Mod parent up. The judge hearing a case absolutely has the right to declare a patent invalid as preempted by prior art. The article is idiotic grandstanding.
Bit of grandstanding at the end of the comment, too, but ah well. C'est la vie.