Actually (IANAL) it's when you hire someone to work in said premises. The anti-smoking law is to protect employees. If the business is run purely by the owners, then the law does not apply. The cigar bar in SF is a good example:
I don't find "extensive plot and character development" in modern art, but if a judge ruled that it wasn't free speach he'd be off the bench faster than you could say "It's Art!".
Overall, it's a moving composition of violence and death, signifying and attesting to the warrior spirit and the fight for freedom (Doom). Sounds like artistic (first amendment) expression to me.
Let's just be honest and say the judge has lost it, and it's time he retired.
It's building stuff with the moon's resources for use on the moon. The total mass of the moon would not change significantly (since the stuff used is staying there).
So how much stuff do we have to ship to the moon to increase tidal movement? Sounds like something NASA needs to spend a billion or two researching...
You don't just get scared. You are scared because you fear something happening that you don't want to.
What don't they want to happen? Microsoft split up, or shackled.
They would actually like to be fined massively (as a final, no other restrictions remedy) - out of existence is almost impossible given how much cash they have, and without the shackles, they'll just tack it onto the cost of the next version of windows and office.
So if Microsoft know that the situations that they fear are not going to happen, they're not going to be scared, are they...
Of course the expert doesn't understand the difference between an application and an OS. The concept that there is a difference is alien to the entire Microsoft argument at this point...
XP is about realising what you are doing, and how. There are too many projects that claim to use a one step design-build-test, overall, but end up having version 1,2,3,4...
XP realises that
a) there will be feature creep, b) you must test, retest, and test again, c) it's really how most developers work...
If you had to change a bridge because the river got wider, would you insist on using the same parts as before - regardless of how long the bridge needs to be now?
1) The "I have to get browser/media player/3d" issue - the ISV actually wanted to do this, but were prohibited from doing so due to agreements with MS in order to be able to license windows at a competative price. Read the trial statement of fact.
2) Let's consider the OS provider. Is it acceptable to say, "This OS will be fine, if you only run our other products on it?" Why should't the OS have defined interfaces that have been tested fully. This cuts to the case. MS are supposed to be providing an OS, yet think they don't have to test the OS advertised functionality. And why would there ever be un-advertised parts of the OS...
Therefore, the only decent remedy the judge should accept is:
a) A cut down version of windows with a fully documented API. If a competing OS is produced that meets the API, but Office won't run on it, MS are in contempt - jail the execs and fine hugely.
b) barrier to application disolved by opening up all file formats for Office. If a third party app meets the file format, but office won't read the file, jail the execs for contempt and fine hugely.
c) ban contracts with ISVs for OS software licenses that in any way involve application level software. If evidence of such a contract is found, jail the execs for contempt and fine hugely.
If MS will not accept this, then you have to split the OS part of MS into a totally separate company. You would have to mandate that all developers for the OS would get the same level of info on the OS provided. Should it be found that MS (Apps) was given additional information above and beyond what was provided to other developers for the MS (OS), then jail the MS (OS) execs...
Let's look at it this way. If I have to go to a judge to request a tap, spelling out why I need it, then it's a serious thing. If I don't have to, then it's a casual thing - so the possibilities of misuse become that much greater.
Let's say someone is misusing it. If they have to knowingly decieve a judge in order to get their tap, then if they are caught it's obvious to all. If they don't have to get prior approval, it can be blown off with "oh that's the wrong address, sorry" without any easy way of proving that it is not the case. And as it's a casual thing, generate a load of taps - the "oh that shouldn't have been there" excuse becomes all the more plausable...
Everyone accepts that misuse is always likely to occur (human nature). That's why you should have a set of checks and balances to disuade people from casual misuse.
But it's all smoke. The constitution (4th amnd.) says that your right of "privacy" should only be disturbed if authorised by a judge. If the government/authorities want to change that, then they need a new amendment (nothing less will do). Anything less is "not the american way". What's the point in having a constitution (contyract between people and government) if it's not followed by the government?
I've always understood that you are innocent until proven "a criminal". It's not that criminal's can't find out if they are under surveilance, it's *anyone*, criminal or otherwise can't find out. Who decides if it's a just cause -oit used to be a judge...
How am I supposed to back up my data? In the finance industry, for SEC and exchange compliance reasons, you've got to store all your trading records for a number of years, on permanent media. Should we go back to keeping paper records? Should I paint the data on the insides of caves.
The hard disk on my home PC died, and had to be replaced. It was only the fact that I had all my files backed up on CR-RW that kept me sane!
If you read the Microsoft case Statement of Fact, it pretty much spells out why - all the major OEMs were prevented by MS from adding pre-desktop software (i.e. anything on the bootup other than a "this is a gateway flash screen"). Compaq, as an example, saw their returns, and user complaints skyrocket in the immediate and subsequent months of being forced to pull their value added stuff (the stuff you hide in the back ground to help the less techie users).
Back to the article (Off topic? Me?). A number of people are having a go at Gateway for "protecting their business model". Well, duh. Oh, wait! Their business model happens to be the "standard throughout the world" de facto business model. The advert is a good step forward though - this is not going to be another Hollins' slip it through on the quiet effort if there's mainstream TV singing (cow) about it!
A DRM machine is not "my" machine, since it decides what *I* can do. It could do more, but it won't let me. And I'm expected to pay for a device like this? I would accept the argument "it helps you not break the law", if it wasn't for the other totally legal things it will also help me *not* do.
This doesn't take into the case where the defendant believes that they have not committed a crime. If everyone understands the law such that they could adjudicate on a crime, I don't think we'd need judges or juries...
It is also to be said that at the end of the trial, the defendant is *judged* to be guilty. This is the case where "proved beyond reasonable doubt" is not necessarily the same as "mathematically proved".
If you've got a rate of inflation of 7.5%, your prices *will* double in ten years. With 3%, you're still only looking at twenty four years. There's a reason people say "twenty years ago, this would have cost half what it does now"!
Also remember that materials are not the entire bottom line of the publishing industry. Authors, pinters, managers, marketeers, advertisers, etc. need to be paid more every year...
What is unjustified is when you get an enforced manufacturer's recommended price, combined with cheaper methods of manufacturing, and the benefits not passed on to the consumer.
I tend to buy used books a lot, because I the "new book" shops only sell the latest books, or the mainstream resellers. Try getting hold of Frank Herbert books that don't have the word Dune in the title...
Example - The Dosadi Experiment (one of Frank Herbert's greatest books) Amazon will have it. Oh, wait, they only have a used copy - costing 48 cents...
If I set up a web radio that only plays indie songs, and I do actually have on file permission from said artist (who owns rights to song), for every song I webcast, the poor RIAA lawyer who has to stand up and say "it's assumed that..." is going to get another hole ripped somewhere by the defense...
It was calm and well reasoned. I still find it incredible that some people complain that they can't find a way of selling modified GPL software (even though they themselves didn't pay for the GPL'd code), while at the same time looking to sue anyone who tried to sell software built off the back of theirs without paying them.
I just wish Perens had pointed out that since Microsoft have worked hard to destroy/assimilate all other competitors, it was only a matter of time that someone came up with a method of competition that couldn't be bought out by Microsoft. A method that couldn't be out-priced by microsoft.
If someone says "It's my ball. Only I can say who plays", then in the end, either no one plays, or someone else donates a ball and everyone excludes the selfish one (who then presumably complains that no one understands them).
I don't think you're right. GIF was pretty much the defacto until the owners said "right, we're charging for it", and then everyone moved to JPEG, or the not-for-money equivalent.
But the owners were the first to wait until after it was popular. No one will fall for that trick again...
I now wait for the inevitable TIFF/GIF/JPEG argument of compression versus quality of image.
And my view is that members of the corporate elite who rely on the "provoke you" technique, just antagonise people, and lose either customers, or the talented employees that do all the work for them, or both.
Due to DMCA you no longer *have* a fair use defence, unless you wrote the circumvention device yourself, as part of a "pre-approved" research project, and then took the device home and used it (but did not give it away or sell it to anyone).
Because they will no longer sue you for copyright infringement, but instead for breaking DMCA. And no "fair use" defence has been established for that law.
There's no freedom of speech issue. He can close his server down tomorrow, and no one would have a go at him for not sending their e-mails. Nothing in the constitution forces him to publish what you say. Freedom of speech is about preventing the government from passing laws that prevent you from saying things.
However, he's asking to be labelled as an "accessory to spamming" if he doesn't close that relay. And that may not be a crime in the real world, but would certainly lead to a lynching if the mob ruled.
Napster was the equivalent of openly selling burgler's tools. I have no problem with a file sharing system that allows you to swap files with a friend (regardless of what the file is - that's the user's business). But when the only reason you know the "friend" is that they were advertised "by" Napster as having particular files.
Information doesn't want anything. It's not sentient. What you're really saying is that you want the fruits of someone else's hard labour for free. There is no freedom of lunch.
OK, some people are in need of help and/or attention, and if not helped will do something anti-social to garner that attention. I don't think anyone is advocating that they shouldn't be helped.
What is being said though is that for kids, the first point of help is their parents. I can understand a young child acting violently after watching a violent program or playing a violent video game (or seeing a violent act). I cannot however, condone a parent letting their child(ren) continue to act in any violent manner without taking action. I *cannot* excuse any parent explaining away aggressive and violent behavior in a teen or young adult using the claim that it was the fault of the TV program or video game. I actively blame *any* parent who allows their teenage children to acquire automatic weapons and ammunition, store them in the family house, and then use them against another person.
As always, we ask, what is the difference between right and wrong? Well, I was taught this at an early age. I didn't learn it from TV. My parents instilled it in me, deliberately, and painstakingly. I have played video games and watched violent programs on TV all my life. I have ever gone on a rampage through my school with a sub-machine gun.
I think the case has to be decided on who is buying vs who is selling. If there's a company abroad that offers what I want, and I contact them over the internet, and buy from them, then I would say that their locality has jurisdiction.
But if the company, despite being based abroard makes every effort to trade in-country (sales and shipping office, billing service), then I would say the sale is being made internal to the country for jurisdiction purposes.
So in this case, since they are selling via a US based entity, then the "we're not a US company" argument really isn't going to cut it.
But if you were mail ordering it from Russia, I would feel they might be justified in using this argument.
My college mates would probably disagree. We had to learn fortran. I was lucky to learn C over the summer. Then...
Data structures. Please program a doubly linked list. In fortran. And be able to parse it in both directions. Now a tree structure. Same rules.
My tree parser took six lines in C. Doncha just luve recursion! Some guys took over a day to write their parser in fortran. And they were the grade A students...
Back on topic. The reference manual I bought (Schildt - C, the complete reference)had examples of data structures in C.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually (IANAL) it's when you hire someone to work in said premises. The anti-smoking law is to protect employees. If the business is run purely by the owners, then the law does not apply. The cigar bar in SF is a good example:
http://bayarea.citysearch.com/profile/11345253/
I don't find "extensive plot and character development" in modern art, but if a judge ruled that it wasn't free speach he'd be off the bench faster than you could say "It's Art!".
Overall, it's a moving composition of violence and death, signifying and attesting to the warrior spirit and the fight for freedom (Doom). Sounds like artistic (first amendment) expression to me.
Let's just be honest and say the judge has lost it, and it's time he retired.
Is their sub-contractor Drax Industries ;)
It's building stuff with the moon's resources for use on the moon. The total mass of the moon would not change significantly (since the stuff used is staying there).
...
So how much stuff do we have to ship to the moon to increase tidal movement? Sounds like something NASA needs to spend a billion or two researching
You don't just get scared. You are scared because you fear something happening that you don't want to.
...
...
What don't they want to happen? Microsoft split up, or shackled.
They would actually like to be fined massively (as a final, no other restrictions remedy) - out of existence is almost impossible given how much cash they have, and without the shackles, they'll just tack it onto the cost of the next version of windows and office.
So if Microsoft know that the situations that they fear are not going to happen, they're not going to be scared, are they
Of course the expert doesn't understand the difference between an application and an OS. The concept that there is a difference is alien to the entire Microsoft argument at this point
XP is about realising what you are doing, and how. There are too many projects that claim to use a one step design-build-test, overall, but end up having version 1,2,3,4 ...
...
XP realises that
a) there will be feature creep,
b) you must test, retest, and test again,
c) it's really how most developers work
If you had to change a bridge because the river got wider, would you insist on using the same parts as before - regardless of how long the bridge needs to be now?
OK, I'll bite.
...
...
1) The "I have to get browser/media player/3d" issue - the ISV actually wanted to do this, but were prohibited from doing so due to agreements with MS in order to be able to license windows at a competative price. Read the trial statement of fact.
2) Let's consider the OS provider. Is it acceptable to say, "This OS will be fine, if you only run our other products on it?" Why should't the OS have defined interfaces that have been tested fully. This cuts to the case. MS are supposed to be providing an OS, yet think they don't have to test the OS advertised functionality. And why would there ever be un-advertised parts of the OS
Therefore, the only decent remedy the judge should accept is:
a) A cut down version of windows with a fully documented API. If a competing OS is produced that meets the API, but Office won't run on it, MS are in contempt - jail the execs and fine hugely.
b) barrier to application disolved by opening up all file formats for Office. If a third party app meets the file format, but office won't read the file, jail the execs for contempt and fine hugely.
c) ban contracts with ISVs for OS software licenses that in any way involve application level software. If evidence of such a contract is found, jail the execs for contempt and fine hugely.
If MS will not accept this, then you have to split the OS part of MS into a totally separate company. You would have to mandate that all developers for the OS would get the same level of info on the OS provided. Should it be found that MS (Apps) was given additional information above and beyond what was provided to other developers for the MS (OS), then jail the MS (OS) execs
Let's look at it this way. If I have to go to a judge to request a tap, spelling out why I need it, then it's a serious thing. If I don't have to, then it's a casual thing - so the possibilities of misuse become that much greater.
...
...
Let's say someone is misusing it. If they have to knowingly decieve a judge in order to get their tap, then if they are caught it's obvious to all. If they don't have to get prior approval, it can be blown off with "oh that's the wrong address, sorry" without any easy way of proving that it is not the case. And as it's a casual thing, generate a load of taps - the "oh that shouldn't have been there" excuse becomes all the more plausable
Everyone accepts that misuse is always likely to occur (human nature). That's why you should have a set of checks and balances to disuade people from casual misuse.
But it's all smoke. The constitution (4th amnd.) says that your right of "privacy" should only be disturbed if authorised by a judge. If the government/authorities want to change that, then they need a new amendment (nothing less will do). Anything less is "not the american way". What's the point in having a constitution (contyract between people and government) if it's not followed by the government?
I've always understood that you are innocent until proven "a criminal". It's not that criminal's can't find out if they are under surveilance, it's *anyone*, criminal or otherwise can't find out. Who decides if it's a just cause -oit used to be a judge
It's Sony that is being sued by the owners of the billboards.
How am I supposed to back up my data?
In the finance industry, for SEC and exchange compliance reasons, you've got to store all your trading records for a number of years, on permanent media. Should we go back to keeping paper records? Should I paint the data on the insides of caves.
The hard disk on my home PC died, and had to be replaced. It was only the fact that I had all my files backed up on CR-RW that kept me sane!
Yea for the cow, that's what I say.
If you read the Microsoft case Statement of Fact, it pretty much spells out why - all the major OEMs were prevented by MS from adding pre-desktop software (i.e. anything on the bootup other than a "this is a gateway flash screen"). Compaq, as an example, saw their returns, and user complaints skyrocket in the immediate and subsequent months of being forced to pull their value added stuff (the stuff you hide in the back ground to help the less techie users).
Back to the article (Off topic? Me?). A number of people are having a go at Gateway for "protecting their business model". Well, duh. Oh, wait! Their business model happens to be the "standard throughout the world" de facto business model. The advert is a good step forward though - this is not going to be another Hollins' slip it through on the quiet effort if there's mainstream TV singing (cow) about it!
A DRM machine is not "my" machine, since it decides what *I* can do. It could do more, but it won't let me. And I'm expected to pay for a device like this? I would accept the argument "it helps you not break the law", if it wasn't for the other totally legal things it will also help me *not* do.
This doesn't take into the case where the defendant believes that they have not committed a crime. If everyone understands the law such that they could adjudicate on a crime, I don't think we'd need judges or juries ...
It is also to be said that at the end of the trial, the defendant is *judged* to be guilty. This is the case where "proved beyond reasonable doubt" is not necessarily the same as "mathematically proved".
If you've got a rate of inflation of 7.5%, your prices *will* double in ten years. With 3%, you're still only looking at twenty four years. There's a reason people say "twenty years ago, this would have cost half what it does now"!
...
Also remember that materials are not the entire bottom line of the publishing industry. Authors, pinters, managers, marketeers, advertisers, etc. need to be paid more every year
What is unjustified is when you get an enforced manufacturer's recommended price, combined with cheaper methods of manufacturing, and the benefits not passed on to the consumer.
I tend to buy used books a lot, because I the "new book" shops only sell the latest books, or the mainstream resellers. Try getting hold of Frank Herbert books that don't have the word Dune in the title ...
...
Example - The Dosadi Experiment
(one of Frank Herbert's greatest books)
Amazon will have it. Oh, wait, they only have a used copy - costing 48 cents
If I set up a web radio that only plays indie songs, and I do actually have on file permission from said artist (who owns rights to song), for every song I webcast, the poor RIAA lawyer who has to stand up and say "it's assumed that ..." is going to get another hole ripped somewhere by the defense ...
It was calm and well reasoned. I still find it incredible that some people complain that they can't find a way of selling modified GPL software (even though they themselves didn't pay for the GPL'd code), while at the same time looking to sue anyone who tried to sell software built off the back of theirs without paying them.
I just wish Perens had pointed out that since Microsoft have worked hard to destroy/assimilate all other competitors, it was only a matter of time that someone came up with a method of competition that couldn't be bought out by Microsoft. A method that couldn't be out-priced by microsoft.
If someone says "It's my ball. Only I can say who plays", then in the end, either no one plays, or someone else donates a ball and everyone excludes the selfish one (who then presumably complains that no one understands them).
So. When will microsoft release Office for Linux?
They'll have passed CTEA II by then extending it another 20+ years ...
...
New set of politicians wanting their share
I don't think you're right. GIF was pretty much the defacto until the owners said "right, we're charging for it", and then everyone moved to JPEG, or the not-for-money equivalent. But the owners were the first to wait until after it was popular. No one will fall for that trick again ...
I now wait for the inevitable TIFF/GIF/JPEG argument of compression versus quality of image.
And my view is that members of the corporate elite who rely on the "provoke you" technique, just antagonise people, and lose either customers, or the talented employees that do all the work for them, or both.
Due to DMCA you no longer *have* a fair use defence, unless you wrote the circumvention device yourself, as part of a "pre-approved" research project, and then took the device home and used it (but did not give it away or sell it to anyone). Because they will no longer sue you for copyright infringement, but instead for breaking DMCA. And no "fair use" defence has been established for that law.
There's no freedom of speech issue. He can close his server down tomorrow, and no one would have a go at him for not sending their e-mails. Nothing in the constitution forces him to publish what you say. Freedom of speech is about preventing the government from passing laws that prevent you from saying things.
However, he's asking to be labelled as an "accessory to spamming" if he doesn't close that relay. And that may not be a crime in the real world, but would certainly lead to a lynching if the mob ruled.
Napster was the equivalent of openly selling burgler's tools. I have no problem with a file sharing system that allows you to swap files with a friend (regardless of what the file is - that's the user's business). But when the only reason you know the "friend" is that they were advertised "by" Napster as having particular files.
Information doesn't want anything. It's not sentient. What you're really saying is that you want the fruits of someone else's hard labour for free. There is no freedom of lunch.
That should of course read *never* gone on a rampage ...
OK, some people are in need of help and/or attention, and if not helped will do something anti-social to garner that attention. I don't think anyone is advocating that they shouldn't be helped.
What is being said though is that for kids, the first point of help is their parents. I can understand a young child acting violently after watching a violent program or playing a violent video game (or seeing a violent act). I cannot however, condone a parent letting their child(ren) continue to act in any violent manner without taking action. I *cannot* excuse any parent explaining away aggressive and violent behavior in a teen or young adult using the claim that it was the fault of the TV program or video game. I actively blame *any* parent who allows their teenage children to acquire automatic weapons and ammunition, store them in the family house, and then use them against another person.
As always, we ask, what is the difference between right and wrong? Well, I was taught this at an early age. I didn't learn it from TV. My parents instilled it in me, deliberately, and painstakingly. I have played video games and watched violent programs on TV all my life. I have ever gone on a rampage through my school with a sub-machine gun.
I think the case has to be decided on who is buying vs who is selling. If there's a company abroad that offers what I want, and I contact them over the internet, and buy from them, then I would say that their locality has jurisdiction.
But if the company, despite being based abroard makes every effort to trade in-country (sales and shipping office, billing service), then I would say the sale is being made internal to the country for jurisdiction purposes.
So in this case, since they are selling via a US based entity, then the "we're not a US company" argument really isn't going to cut it.
But if you were mail ordering it from Russia, I would feel they might be justified in using this argument.
just my two cent-penny-euros.
My college mates would probably disagree. We had to learn fortran. I was lucky to learn C over the summer. Then ...
Data structures. Please program a doubly linked list. In fortran. And be able to parse it in both directions. Now a tree structure. Same rules.
My tree parser took six lines in C. Doncha just luve recursion! Some guys took over a day to write their parser in fortran. And they were the grade A students ...
Back on topic. The reference manual I bought (Schildt - C, the complete reference)had examples of data structures in C.
They do know a lot about the language - but that does not mean they can explain it well to a complete novice.
As has been noted elsewhere, their book is the best "reference" tome, but not the best t=place to start learning C.