There is nothing in there discussing harassment. Defamation != harassment. There is overlap, but they are not equal.
I didn't say there was anything in there discussing harassment, nor did I say that defamation == harassment. The link was merely meant to explain what a juristic person is. I'm not quite sure what your point was, though, since you quoted text showing that defamation against a corporation is possible, and implied that I was using that to mean that harassment against a corporation is not possible.
Are you trying to say that harassment against a corporation is possible? Can you find any actual examples of individuals being charged with harassing a corporation? Can you find any legal definitions that explicitly (or implicitly) define harassment laws as applying to juristic persons as well as natural persons?
I am, of course, not a lawyer, nor in any way involved in the legal profession, so I will readily admit that I may actually be wrong here. But, to the best of my knowledge, laws that involve the infliction of physical or emotional damage, which is what the various types of harassment do, generally apply only to natural persons, who, unlike juristic persons, have both a physical body and emotions. Defamation is specifically mentioned in the previously mentioned link as an exception to that, as defamation can result in another kind of damage — financial damage — which does apply to juristic persons as well.
I've seen "The Corporation". As I stated originally, I am well aware that corporations have far too much power, particularly with respect to their status as "legal persons", which gives them many rights similar to "natural persons", but not all rights. But that still doesn't make this bill magically apply to corporations in ways that existing harassment laws have never applied before.
"Person" in that sentence refers to a juristic person. They have many of the rights of a "real" person, but not all of them. You still can't be charged with harassing a corporation.
Until Apple find your criticism of the iPhone hostile.
Apple isn't a person. It's not possible to illegally harass a corporation.
Corporations have waaaay too much power, but they don't have that much power (yet). And if someone tries to give them that power, well then, that's the bill we need to stop. Not this one.
In the inner city, "No Computer" could hit 80% or more. In an artsy neighbourhood, "Mac" might get up into the 20% range. In a suburb with lots of teenagers living in the basement, "Linux" might even creep up into the double digits.
As a general rule, whatever the majority of Slashdot visitors think about desktop Linux use, the reality will be significantly smaller. We're a particularly non-representative demographic.
Plus that one download could be used to install an unlimited number of computers, so even counting people that complete the download might not be correct.
Plus there's people like me who download multiple different releases of multiple different distributions just to try them out, or to use them on servers, but still use Windows on the desktop.
Your story describes another problem that I have seen all too frequently: the problem of "I can't be doing something wrong, it must be a bug in the system".
The problem basically boils down to programmers blaming the language/library/framework/tool/operating system/environment/anything-but-themselves when they can't figure out what's wrong. After all, it couldn't possibly be that there's a bug in their own code that they just can't seem to find, or — as is the case in your story — a lack of understanding of the library on their part.
The simple rule is this: if you find yourself saying "I've found a bug in X" where "X" is anything other than your own code, stop. You haven't. What you've found is a problem with your own code, or your own understanding of your own code, or your own understanding of X. The bug is not in X.
(Yes, sometimes the bug really is in X, but this is very, very, very infrequently the case.)
What about Best of Youtube" [bestofyoutube.com] Does that step on YouTube's trademark?
No, because it's clearly using the "YouTube" name to refer to the real "YouTube". This is considered fair use.
In the Wikipedia Art situation, the EFF is arguing that they're using the "Wikipedia" name to refer to the real "Wikipedia". However, that's not really clear from the name. "Wikipedia Art" sounds to me like it's actually a sub-site of Wikipedia, rather than a site about Wikipedia. It's a bit ambiguous, and that's the problem.
The term "fair use" is used in trademark law as well. But I do somewhat agree with your second point. The name they've chosen does seem to suggest an extension of Wikipedia more than a critique of Wikipedia. The main page of the site plainly explains that they are not connected to Wikipedia, but that doesn't change the implication of the name, which is the only thing the Wikipedia folks are going after.
Government and private businesses all hire from the same pool of eligible candidates. There are government offices filled with hard-working, efficient go-getters, and there are government offices filled with slackers. Similarly, there are private company offices filled with hard-working, efficient go-getters, and there are private company offices filled with slackers.
To put that in a context that ordinary nerds without astronomy backgrounds can understand, it's 37,842,113,600,000,000,000,000,000 beard seconds from Earth.
I have at least 3 normal applications minimized to tray using a 3rd party tool most of the time here.
Not sure how it work with your third-party tool, but the article does say that some "minimize to tray" utilities avoid the limit (ClipMate is mentioned specifically).
Whatever the case, it sounds like you're not the target market for this edition anyway.
It's not like Microsoft is saying "everyone should only use three applications". They're saying "in addition to all the other editions of Windows 7, we also have one for people who buy really inexpensive, low-power systems to do simple tasks like write emails and surf the web".
Artificial limitations like this seem to me to be an invitation for problems and end user frustration.
Given that this is designed for especially low-cost (and hence low-power) small notebook PCs, it may not really be an artificial limitation, but rather a valid means of managing extremely limited resources.
Yes and yes. They don't count toward the 3 app limit.
What about apps that launch other apps as part of their functionality?
If they open multiple tabs (ex. Firefox, Internet Explorer) or windows (ex. Messenger), that's fine. If they launch completely separate applications, well, those would be completely separate applications.
Would Chrome be limited to two tabs? (One for the host window, two and three for the first two tabs.)
Nope.
Some other interesting details:
"Windows Explorer windows don't count."
"Basic Windows tools don't trigger the limit."
"Most Control Panel applets don't count either."
"Program installers run without triggering the limit."
"Desktop gadgets are free, too."
"Some system utilities get to bypass the three-app limit."
"Antivirus programs that run as a system service don't count."
All in all, according to the ZDNet writer, "when I used this system as a netbook, it worked just fine".
As others have pointed out, Microsoft has announced that the Windows 7 Starter Edition will be available worldwide.
However, this is still the ultimate non-story. It's only being sold to specific makers of specific extremely low-cost, low-performance hardware. Anyone buying a "real" computer will still get the "real" Windows 7.
Microsoft is providing more options, people — and you're complaining about it, FFS.
Relevant quote from Microsoft:
These engineering investments allow small notebook PCs to run any version of Windows 7, and allow customers complete flexibility to purchase a system which meets their needs. For OEMs that build lower-cost small notebook PCs, Windows 7 Starter will now be available in developed markets. For the most enhanced, full-functioning Windows experience on small notebook PCs, however, consumers will want to go with Windows 7 Home Premium, which lets you get the most out of your digital media and easily connect with other PCs.
Google shouldn't be building a Windows only web while using Linux to do all of their heavy lifting.
Even if they refused to make a Linux version of Chrome, it's still only one (barely used) web browser. There are plenty of others out there, and most of them run on Linux. Google couldn't build a "Windows only web" if they tried.
The community expecting something back is not "entitlement".
The community getting something back, but constantly insisting that it's never enough, even when they get back exactly what they asked for in the first place, is most definitely a sense of entitlement.
First off, I didn't say he rigged it, or even that he didn't win fair and square. What he did was demonstrate a fundamental flaw in the democratic process — that it's more of a popularity contest than anything else.
He didn't win because a plurality genuinely thought that "Colbert" was a better name for the module than the other choices. He won because a plurality thought it would be funny to have a write-in vote driven by a comedy show win.
Colbert won doing what people do in every voting situation and won.
Exactly. That's the fundamental flaw he was exposing through comedy.
...people need to stop bitching about how he did something wrong and realize this is how voting functions.
Not many people are actually bitching about what Colbert did. Most are bitching about NASA not respecting the vote. I personally didn't expect NASA to respect the vote simply because I can't imagine they would ever name a module after a living person. Everyone needs to stop bitching and get on with life.
Slashdot Mirror
It just sounds more like 150,000 projects is a whole lot more than they expected to get.
Now if only they could find someone who's really adept at searching through large quantities of documents and ranking the relevant results....
There is nothing in there discussing harassment. Defamation != harassment. There is overlap, but they are not equal.
I didn't say there was anything in there discussing harassment, nor did I say that defamation == harassment. The link was merely meant to explain what a juristic person is. I'm not quite sure what your point was, though, since you quoted text showing that defamation against a corporation is possible, and implied that I was using that to mean that harassment against a corporation is not possible.
Are you trying to say that harassment against a corporation is possible? Can you find any actual examples of individuals being charged with harassing a corporation? Can you find any legal definitions that explicitly (or implicitly) define harassment laws as applying to juristic persons as well as natural persons?
I am, of course, not a lawyer, nor in any way involved in the legal profession, so I will readily admit that I may actually be wrong here. But, to the best of my knowledge, laws that involve the infliction of physical or emotional damage, which is what the various types of harassment do, generally apply only to natural persons, who, unlike juristic persons, have both a physical body and emotions. Defamation is specifically mentioned in the previously mentioned link as an exception to that, as defamation can result in another kind of damage — financial damage — which does apply to juristic persons as well.
I've seen "The Corporation". As I stated originally, I am well aware that corporations have far too much power, particularly with respect to their status as "legal persons", which gives them many rights similar to "natural persons", but not all rights. But that still doesn't make this bill magically apply to corporations in ways that existing harassment laws have never applied before.
"Person" in that sentence refers to a juristic person. They have many of the rights of a "real" person, but not all of them. You still can't be charged with harassing a corporation.
The speech itself should never be punished it's the crime that is indicated by that speech that should be punished.
And this bill doesn't seem to be trying to punish speech. It's punishing the harassment that is indicated by the speech.
Until Apple find your criticism of the iPhone hostile.
Apple isn't a person. It's not possible to illegally harass a corporation.
Corporations have waaaay too much power, but they don't have that much power (yet). And if someone tries to give them that power, well then, that's the bill we need to stop. Not this one.
It all depends on the neighbourhood you choose.
In the inner city, "No Computer" could hit 80% or more. In an artsy neighbourhood, "Mac" might get up into the 20% range. In a suburb with lots of teenagers living in the basement, "Linux" might even creep up into the double digits.
As a general rule, whatever the majority of Slashdot visitors think about desktop Linux use, the reality will be significantly smaller. We're a particularly non-representative demographic.
Plus that one download could be used to install an unlimited number of computers, so even counting people that complete the download might not be correct.
Plus there's people like me who download multiple different releases of multiple different distributions just to try them out, or to use them on servers, but still use Windows on the desktop.
is the bastard offspring of the union of the hexdecimal and the decimal, literally 16*10
all of us techies straddle these two worlds. 160 is our numerology of frustration, the techie 666
Now where the hell did Slashdot's 120 character sig limit come from?
Your story describes another problem that I have seen all too frequently: the problem of "I can't be doing something wrong, it must be a bug in the system".
The problem basically boils down to programmers blaming the language/library/framework/tool/operating system/environment/anything-but-themselves when they can't figure out what's wrong. After all, it couldn't possibly be that there's a bug in their own code that they just can't seem to find, or — as is the case in your story — a lack of understanding of the library on their part.
The simple rule is this: if you find yourself saying "I've found a bug in X" where "X" is anything other than your own code, stop. You haven't. What you've found is a problem with your own code, or your own understanding of your own code, or your own understanding of X. The bug is not in X.
(Yes, sometimes the bug really is in X, but this is very, very, very infrequently the case.)
...you can't use it when you don't have an internet connection. Why doesn't anyone think about this?
Everyone thinks about this. It's mentioned repeatedly in every thread on this subject. And every one of those posts gets modded up to +5.
As a perfect example, the second reply to the first post in this discussion.
They word the pricing to make it sound attractive, only 10c/GB, but that makes this 500GB disk a hideously expensive $50! That's too much.
And they're not even mentioning the cost of the drive, since this is only a disc.
IANAL. Commercial speech != free speech. That's why false advertising laws are constitutional.
No, that's not why.
There are limitations on non-commercial speech as well (ex. libel/slander).
Of course, IANAL also.
What about Best of Youtube" [bestofyoutube.com] Does that step on YouTube's trademark?
No, because it's clearly using the "YouTube" name to refer to the real "YouTube". This is considered fair use.
In the Wikipedia Art situation, the EFF is arguing that they're using the "Wikipedia" name to refer to the real "Wikipedia". However, that's not really clear from the name. "Wikipedia Art" sounds to me like it's actually a sub-site of Wikipedia, rather than a site about Wikipedia. It's a bit ambiguous, and that's the problem.
The term "fair use" is used in trademark law as well. But I do somewhat agree with your second point. The name they've chosen does seem to suggest an extension of Wikipedia more than a critique of Wikipedia. The main page of the site plainly explains that they are not connected to Wikipedia, but that doesn't change the implication of the name, which is the only thing the Wikipedia folks are going after.
Government and private businesses all hire from the same pool of eligible candidates. There are government offices filled with hard-working, efficient go-getters, and there are government offices filled with slackers. Similarly, there are private company offices filled with hard-working, efficient go-getters, and there are private company offices filled with slackers.
This raises the larger question of who really owns a commercial open software application: the corporate copyright holders, or the community?
No one. Or, perhaps, everyone. That's kind of the point, isn't it? It isn't locked into anyone's individual grip.
It's 20 (or so) light years from Earth.
To put that in a context that ordinary nerds without astronomy backgrounds can understand, it's 37,842,113,600,000,000,000,000,000 beard seconds from Earth.
What about "minimize to tray" software?
I have at least 3 normal applications minimized to tray using a 3rd party tool most of the time here.
Not sure how it work with your third-party tool, but the article does say that some "minimize to tray" utilities avoid the limit (ClipMate is mentioned specifically).
Whatever the case, it sounds like you're not the target market for this edition anyway.
It's not like Microsoft is saying "everyone should only use three applications". They're saying "in addition to all the other editions of Windows 7, we also have one for people who buy really inexpensive, low-power systems to do simple tasks like write emails and surf the web".
Many of these new netbooks have much better specs than my computer...
And those are not the netbooks that this edition is targeted at.
Artificial limitations like this seem to me to be an invitation for problems and end user frustration.
Given that this is designed for especially low-cost (and hence low-power) small notebook PCs, it may not really be an artificial limitation, but rather a valid means of managing extremely limited resources.
What is an application?
Ed Bott took it for a test drive and answered that question...
Are tool tray apps possible, or allowed?
Yes and yes. They don't count toward the 3 app limit.
What about apps that launch other apps as part of their functionality?
If they open multiple tabs (ex. Firefox, Internet Explorer) or windows (ex. Messenger), that's fine. If they launch completely separate applications, well, those would be completely separate applications.
Would Chrome be limited to two tabs? (One for the host window, two and three for the first two tabs.)
Nope.
Some other interesting details:
All in all, according to the ZDNet writer, "when I used this system as a netbook, it worked just fine".
As others have pointed out, Microsoft has announced that the Windows 7 Starter Edition will be available worldwide.
However, this is still the ultimate non-story. It's only being sold to specific makers of specific extremely low-cost, low-performance hardware. Anyone buying a "real" computer will still get the "real" Windows 7.
Microsoft is providing more options, people — and you're complaining about it, FFS.
Relevant quote from Microsoft:
These engineering investments allow small notebook PCs to run any version of Windows 7, and allow customers complete flexibility to purchase a system which meets their needs. For OEMs that build lower-cost small notebook PCs, Windows 7 Starter will now be available in developed markets. For the most enhanced, full-functioning Windows experience on small notebook PCs, however, consumers will want to go with Windows 7 Home Premium, which lets you get the most out of your digital media and easily connect with other PCs.
Google shouldn't be building a Windows only web while using Linux to do all of their heavy lifting.
Even if they refused to make a Linux version of Chrome, it's still only one (barely used) web browser. There are plenty of others out there, and most of them run on Linux. Google couldn't build a "Windows only web" if they tried.
The community expecting something back is not "entitlement".
The community getting something back, but constantly insisting that it's never enough, even when they get back exactly what they asked for in the first place, is most definitely a sense of entitlement.
First off, I didn't say he rigged it, or even that he didn't win fair and square. What he did was demonstrate a fundamental flaw in the democratic process — that it's more of a popularity contest than anything else.
He didn't win because a plurality genuinely thought that "Colbert" was a better name for the module than the other choices. He won because a plurality thought it would be funny to have a write-in vote driven by a comedy show win.
Colbert won doing what people do in every voting situation and won.
Exactly. That's the fundamental flaw he was exposing through comedy.
...people need to stop bitching about how he did something wrong and realize this is how voting functions.
Not many people are actually bitching about what Colbert did. Most are bitching about NASA not respecting the vote. I personally didn't expect NASA to respect the vote simply because I can't imagine they would ever name a module after a living person. Everyone needs to stop bitching and get on with life.
PUT HIM ON NOTICE!!!
Done.