Who won WW1 and WW2? Did the US rake in the cash from those wars? No. But they acheived objectives.
Everyone Claims that the US fights wars to take oil or other valuable things, but in fact we don't. However when we don't make a profit you call us losers.
The objective was to shut down an oppressive and threatening government. That government is gone. We won. We are occupying Iraq. Winners occupy, losers are occupied. We will soon hand the country back to the people of Iraq. If we succeed in shutting down the terrorists and insurgents, the people of Iraq will win as well.
-Jacob
The military and government of Saddam is defeated. In fact, as of a few minutes ago, the UN approved a resolution which establishes the sovereignty of the new Iraq government.
And Vietnam did not win by strapping 10lb of home made explosives to thier donkeys. They resisted our liberation because the soviet (nuclear armed) forces behind them prevented us from using overwhelming force.
You could even have a collected database of unpatented prior art and existing patents that is available for searching.
Then upon submission, a computer could compare the information in the patent to existing patents and return a list of possible prior art or patents.
Once you receive the list, you would need to re-assert that your patent does not duplicate any of the items listed.
If after that, the human reviewer deems otherwise, it would be a strike against you. Fines would be appropriate after a significant amount of abuse, or possible just on steep slope of increasing fees for rejected patents which duplicate prior art or patents of which you were undeniably _informed_.
Copyright law allows for licensing of copyrights. In most circumstances this is done in exchange for money. So usually the restriction on distribution consists of a monetary compensation.
Example: "You have the right to print up to X copies of my book and I get $Y for each one you sell. Books must be printed between Date A and Date B and sold before Date C within some region and I agree not to distribute in that region during that time or authorize others to do so either."
GPL: "You may copy and distribute the program as much as you like for as long as you like privided you include the source code to it and any modifications you made and grant this same license on all who receive the software.
Other licenses also generally include some level of exclusivity, but the GPL does not. It retains the right to grant the same terms or different terms to other parties at any time.
The GPL does not go any further beyond the copyrighters intentions than any other distribution license does from a legal standpoint. Copyright is just the means by which the creator can choose the GPL by exercising his exclusive right to choose the means by which his creation is distributed.
However a license is a contract, and if the contract is deemed to be invalid by a court ( which SCO has attempted to bring about ) then all contracts based on it would likely be null and void by precedent. However you are right. In the case that it happened, exclusive rights to distribute should still be retained by the Author, and any distribution at all, without another license, would be illegal from what I could understand.
The most important thing here is that you have an abstraction from your database. If you write the business logic entirely into your application as a series of, say, java classes, you must be sure that they are not wrapped up in queries and expected data collections that can only work in your database.
Some ability to store the queries in a place that can be accessed for rewrite when the database changes, and require minimal rewrite of the business logic's use of them is best.
I use the RedHat WAF which currently supports oracle and postgresql. Using their PDL language I can define data object schemes which can automatically generate database schemas for each database. I can then tweak the queries and write special use queries and specify different sql for each database where necessary. On the java side, you never need to know which database is hooked up (almost).
-Jacob
I think the difference is that the cracking of DRM is justified by the fact that the copyright laws protect certain actions which DRM restricts, under the guise of preventing other infractions of the copyright code.
On the other hand, violating the GPL is by definition a violation of copyright law, assuming the GPL is a valid license (which I believe to be true).
While most people who use the DRM breakers will be breaking copyright laws in their actions, there are uses of it that are not inherintly violating the copyright laws (except for the DMCA, intrinsicly) which would be impossible without them.
A few ultra rich people are working diligently to remove your rights to make you dependent on a few ultra-rich people so that a few ultra-rich people can make a few more bucks.
In that case you are dealing with a real person, not a non-corporeal life form. The corporation is just a tool. Then when you one day realize that the few ultra rich people includes anyone with the motivation to save some money and invest in a business.
Which Americans? The Americans that lost money when the stock market broke _were_ the corporations. A publicly traded company is a corporation of stockholders. If it went bankrupt, that means that they wasted all their money.
Some people have a misconception that the CEO owns a company. Sometimes he is a share holder, but when you invest in company, you are not a consumer of that company's stock. You are a member of the corporation.
Ever since Plato outlined the Republic as an organization of people representing the human mind, our basic concept of the group acting as a whole has changed. The fact is that an organization is a person for the most part, and our constant "reorganization" is just an attempt an innovation that would make the whole act more like a person.
This is a perfect example of a case where the corporation acting as a person. We are debating whether the corporations actions are just. But none of us really has a good definition of justice. However we seem to have a good idea of how a just person would react in a given situation.
An organization of people is either corporate or it is ruled by an individual. Wal-mart is a corporation which consists of executives and managers who are responsible to the share holders and who's decisions are carried out by the employees. This is Plato's model of the human mind: the rulers, the gaurdians and the workers.
If you're saying that calling a corporation a person is "asinine" then you are also calling most of western philosophy "asinine". If that is in fact what you are saying I'd love to hear your ideas about philosophy.
-Jacob
Iii don't knooooooow how I am going tttttttttoooo oppppperaaaaate thesssssse damn devvvvvvvvices if I HHHhhhhavee to reguuuuuuuuuulllllate how llllllong IIIIIIIII hold dddddddooooown the bbbbbbbbuttonnns on my pooocketpppppppccc.
In WWII we were not very discriminating in the buildings that were hit. Primarily because we didn't have any control. We just lobbed huge amounts of munitions into populated areas.
And when we took over Germany and Japan we decided who ran the economies there too.
AFAIK these laws are different from state to state. From what I understand in Texas, my home state, only one party of the conversation has to consent. That means that you cannot record a conversation to which you are not a party without at least one party's permission.
However, I don't understand the legality of a recorded chat session anyways. Unless there is a certificate that gaurantees that the text has not been altered from what was originally transmitted, I would not trust a chat session log if I was a juror or jurist. With a voice recording, there can be a modest amount of verification through voice analysis which is then reinforced by the witness of the conversation giving authenticity through testimony. The two together (testimony and recording) provide a very reliable source of evidence. However, a text log is not verifiable. If I change the text as it is recorded and then testify that it represents the conversation, it is really just my word against theirs. In that sense a text log is not really any additional authentication of a text conversation. Sure any "recording" could be forged, but the ease of forging chat logs makes them completely useless in my opinion. The testimony of the participant is not authenticated in any way and no extra weight should be given to the testimony by means of the chat log. It should be treated in the same way as if the participant had scribbled it on a sheet of paper moments after it was said. And in that case you could not exclude it, since documenting a conversation is not illegal of you participated in it in any state. (Eavesdropping on a chat session without the knowledge of participants would be a different situation.)
Slashdot Mirror
Didn't the post say in multiple languages?
Sorry, after I posted I realized that I was just grumpy cause I haven't had my coffee yet.
Who won WW1 and WW2? Did the US rake in the cash from those wars? No. But they acheived objectives. Everyone Claims that the US fights wars to take oil or other valuable things, but in fact we don't. However when we don't make a profit you call us losers. The objective was to shut down an oppressive and threatening government. That government is gone. We won. We are occupying Iraq. Winners occupy, losers are occupied. We will soon hand the country back to the people of Iraq. If we succeed in shutting down the terrorists and insurgents, the people of Iraq will win as well. -Jacob
The people of Vietnam are still being oppressed by a totalitarian regime. They still try to escape. -Jacob
Do you know what Irony is?
We have Won in Iraq.
The military and government of Saddam is defeated. In fact, as of a few minutes ago, the UN approved a resolution which establishes the sovereignty of the new Iraq government.
And Vietnam did not win by strapping 10lb of home made explosives to thier donkeys. They resisted our liberation because the soviet (nuclear armed) forces behind them prevented us from using overwhelming force.
-Jacob
But the other 20% doesn't come from linux and mac trojans. It comes from non-trojan sources.
-Jacob
Why should Windows users be "cured"?
To slow down this.
Exactly.
You could even have a collected database of unpatented prior art and existing patents that is available for searching.
Then upon submission, a computer could compare the information in the patent to existing patents and return a list of possible prior art or patents.
Once you receive the list, you would need to re-assert that your patent does not duplicate any of the items listed.
If after that, the human reviewer deems otherwise, it would be a strike against you. Fines would be appropriate after a significant amount of abuse, or possible just on steep slope of increasing fees for rejected patents which duplicate prior art or patents of which you were undeniably _informed_.
-Jacob
Because you have a small penis?
So apparently its an issue with mbr problems in the fedora release and not related to grub or kernel 2.6 directly. I use Gentoo.
I run Grub with 2.6 and an XP partition and didn't have any trouble on my notebook.
I wonder where you heard this?
-Jacob
Or maybe its big because they got several revisions.
-Jacob
Copyright law allows for licensing of copyrights. In most circumstances this is done in exchange for money. So usually the restriction on distribution consists of a monetary compensation.
Example: "You have the right to print up to X copies of my book and I get $Y for each one you sell. Books must be printed between Date A and Date B and sold before Date C within some region and I agree not to distribute in that region during that time or authorize others to do so either."
GPL: "You may copy and distribute the program as much as you like for as long as you like privided you include the source code to it and any modifications you made and grant this same license on all who receive the software.
Other licenses also generally include some level of exclusivity, but the GPL does not. It retains the right to grant the same terms or different terms to other parties at any time.
The GPL does not go any further beyond the copyrighters intentions than any other distribution license does from a legal standpoint. Copyright is just the means by which the creator can choose the GPL by exercising his exclusive right to choose the means by which his creation is distributed.
However a license is a contract, and if the contract is deemed to be invalid by a court ( which SCO has attempted to bring about ) then all contracts based on it would likely be null and void by precedent. However you are right. In the case that it happened, exclusive rights to distribute should still be retained by the Author, and any distribution at all, without another license, would be illegal from what I could understand.
The most important thing here is that you have an abstraction from your database. If you write the business logic entirely into your application as a series of, say, java classes, you must be sure that they are not wrapped up in queries and expected data collections that can only work in your database. Some ability to store the queries in a place that can be accessed for rewrite when the database changes, and require minimal rewrite of the business logic's use of them is best. I use the RedHat WAF which currently supports oracle and postgresql. Using their PDL language I can define data object schemes which can automatically generate database schemas for each database. I can then tweak the queries and write special use queries and specify different sql for each database where necessary. On the java side, you never need to know which database is hooked up (almost). -Jacob
I think the difference is that the cracking of DRM is justified by the fact that the copyright laws protect certain actions which DRM restricts, under the guise of preventing other infractions of the copyright code.
On the other hand, violating the GPL is by definition a violation of copyright law, assuming the GPL is a valid license (which I believe to be true).
While most people who use the DRM breakers will be breaking copyright laws in their actions, there are uses of it that are not inherintly violating the copyright laws (except for the DMCA, intrinsicly) which would be impossible without them.
-Jacob
What other things comprise a corporation? Do you know of a corporation that has turned over decision making responsibility to a non-human?
(If you know of some, tell me, it sounds like an amusing topic.)
So what you are saying is:
A few ultra rich people are working diligently to remove your rights to make you dependent on a few ultra-rich people so that a few ultra-rich people can make a few more bucks.
In that case you are dealing with a real person, not a non-corporeal life form. The corporation is just a tool. Then when you one day realize that the few ultra rich people includes anyone with the motivation to save some money and invest in a business.
Which Americans? The Americans that lost money when the stock market broke _were_ the corporations. A publicly traded company is a corporation of stockholders. If it went bankrupt, that means that they wasted all their money.
Some people have a misconception that the CEO owns a company. Sometimes he is a share holder, but when you invest in company, you are not a consumer of that company's stock. You are a member of the corporation.
-Jacob
In order for this to make since you will have to explain how corporations do not pay taxes.
-Jacob
Ever since Plato outlined the Republic as an organization of people representing the human mind, our basic concept of the group acting as a whole has changed. The fact is that an organization is a person for the most part, and our constant "reorganization" is just an attempt an innovation that would make the whole act more like a person. This is a perfect example of a case where the corporation acting as a person. We are debating whether the corporations actions are just. But none of us really has a good definition of justice. However we seem to have a good idea of how a just person would react in a given situation. An organization of people is either corporate or it is ruled by an individual. Wal-mart is a corporation which consists of executives and managers who are responsible to the share holders and who's decisions are carried out by the employees. This is Plato's model of the human mind: the rulers, the gaurdians and the workers. If you're saying that calling a corporation a person is "asinine" then you are also calling most of western philosophy "asinine". If that is in fact what you are saying I'd love to hear your ideas about philosophy. -Jacob
Iii don't knooooooow how I am going tttttttttoooo oppppperaaaaate thesssssse damn devvvvvvvvices if I HHHhhhhavee to reguuuuuuuuuulllllate how llllllong IIIIIIIII hold dddddddooooown the bbbbbbbbuttonnns on my pooocketpppppppccc.
-Jacooooooooooob
I personally find it pretty funny and definitely on topic. Wish I'd thought of it first. -Jake
In WWII we were not very discriminating in the buildings that were hit. Primarily because we didn't have any control. We just lobbed huge amounts of munitions into populated areas.
And when we took over Germany and Japan we decided who ran the economies there too.
-Jacobe
AFAIK these laws are different from state to state. From what I understand in Texas, my home state, only one party of the conversation has to consent. That means that you cannot record a conversation to which you are not a party without at least one party's permission.
However, I don't understand the legality of a recorded chat session anyways. Unless there is a certificate that gaurantees that the text has not been altered from what was originally transmitted, I would not trust a chat session log if I was a juror or jurist. With a voice recording, there can be a modest amount of verification through voice analysis which is then reinforced by the witness of the conversation giving authenticity through testimony. The two together (testimony and recording) provide a very reliable source of evidence. However, a text log is not verifiable. If I change the text as it is recorded and then testify that it represents the conversation, it is really just my word against theirs. In that sense a text log is not really any additional authentication of a text conversation. Sure any "recording" could be forged, but the ease of forging chat logs makes them completely useless in my opinion. The testimony of the participant is not authenticated in any way and no extra weight should be given to the testimony by means of the chat log. It should be treated in the same way as if the participant had scribbled it on a sheet of paper moments after it was said. And in that case you could not exclude it, since documenting a conversation is not illegal of you participated in it in any state. (Eavesdropping on a chat session without the knowledge of participants would be a different situation.)
-Jacob