You're forgetting the law which requires your police officer buddy from high school, who comes over to a party at your place, to rat on you if he sees someone smoking pot. If he just looks the other way because no-one is being harmed, then he can be in bigger trouble than you'd be in for simple possession.
To carry that analogy to Sony, that would be like a store clerk who sells you a DVD duplicator or a disssembler, and then is required to call Sony or the MPAA to report you.
This coercion is wrong.
Also, breaking a software license is not morally equivalent to stealing property which is scarce, although criminal laws have tried to equate the two. Breaking a license is a civil disagreement between two parties which should not be reified into criminal law. Doing so is, frankly, socialism.
In this context, your ownership of the media (private property) which contains the bits, trumps any private contract involving those bits, which in turn trumps any constitution and any law.
So while Sony may have "violated" the GPL, it still retains the rights to sell and copy the media containing its games. Just as you have the right to copy and disassemble media containing Sony's games, and the right to do PlayStation console mods.
All these "violations" do is nullify any contracts between you and Sony. They do not make immoral any voluntary acts involving physical property you or Sony obtained through voluntary means.
Copyrights are not the same as private property, although laws at the bottom of the trump pile have tried to make them equivalent, and the FSF stoops to them too, by invoking the GPL.
But I could not find an "Intelligentia International AB", just a FL organization called Intelligentsia International, which does not mention him.
Here is his patent for "A system for controlling an apparatus, which system comprises
a control unit adapted to transfer control signals to the
apparatus dependent on the control data..."
The First Amendment has nothing to do with whether individuals or corporations are allowed to say things, or override contracts.
The Constitution does not "apply" to individuals or corporations. It applies to governments.
The First Amendment limits what Congress can do. It has nothing to do with mediating a contract dispute between Verizon and its customers.
Verizon should be making Fourth Amendment search and seizure claims against the government to protect its customers and its own privacy, not arguing for violating an implicit contract with its customers on the basis of the First Amendment which applies to Congress and not Verizon.
Lee Conrad, national coordinator for the Alliance which is based in New
York, called Cringely's figure of 100,000 "over the top." However, Conrad
stressed that major changes are in store for IBM's workforce. "But having
said that," Conrad said in reference to his "over the top" comment, "there
will be at least 12,000 layoffs this year."
"Thanks to automatically assigned "cookies", the scientists were able to reconstruct the browsing history of about 250,000 visitors to the site over the course of a month."
Did they have enough controls in place to ensure the cookies were accurate representations of user's tastes?
Blocking cookies, for political privacy and other reasons, is common nowadays.
Did they ensure that the cookies they saw were the ones they baked, by adding SHA-256 (a data preservative)?
Did they make sure that the visitors without cookies had not visited before and stolen their cookies?
High-speed File Sharing Through GFS: GFS (Global File System) is a file system that enables sharing between several nodes within a SAN (Storage Area Network) environment built on Fibre Channel. By using the TX7 series GFS, NEC offers high-speed file sharing with the SX supercomputer series.
Imagine a 16-processor TX-7 Itanium GFS server dedicated to serving GFS for a 128-processor SX system.
Most people are overwhelmed just by the thought of a 16-processor TX-7 by itself. Now imagine the TX-7 being dedicated solely for use as a file server for a SX supercomputer. Separate machines, separate OSes.
The GFS fileserver runs on an Itanium Linux server, the TX-7, while the number-crunching computation runs on the SX vector machine.
Some customers who buy such hybrid SX/TX-7 systems want to use their TX-7 nodes for computation and not just I/O, and so NEC sells software development tools for Itanium systems as well. But the competition in Itanium server space is fierce, with SGI, HP, et.al. having similar offerings.
No it's not... the ruling seemed to center around a registered trademark.
copyright!=trademark
Amen, Brother.
Me, I think it's crap... trademarks aren't all encompassing (or shouldn't be)... now if the owner of the site was in the same industry, maybe it would make more sense...
Well, they are in the same "industry" sort of -- issue-oriented activism. And if they both sell products around their activism (T-shirts, books, etc.), that makes them all the more related.
If "Jerry Falwell" becomes synonymous with homophobic teachings, and sells items promoting an anti-gay lifestyle using his name as a trademark, then another business selling other activist items under the Fallwell.com domain, becomes a potential infringement, whether they agree with Falwell or not.
I bet if Fallwell.com agreed with Falwell, there wouldn't be this lawsuit, but that would undermine Falwell's trademark claim. I mean, he has every right to defend a trademark, and must do so at every opportunity whether he agrees with the other guy or not, but I think the main motivation in this case is personal.
Of trademarks, copyrights, and patents, trademarks are the least troublesome to me.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe they're out playing Perl Golf.
Reports of CS AP's death have been greatly exaggerated.
Only the harder AB is being eliminated. The easy A (no pun intended) will remain.
When I took CS AP 21 years ago, there was only one CS AP test, and it had Pascal.
There were two Calculus tests, AB and BC. This CS change would be analogous to eliminating the harder Calculus BC, but keeping the AB.
It represents a dumbing down.
People would have another reason to complain about their ISP's quirks.
You're forgetting the law which requires your police officer buddy from high school, who comes over to a party at your place, to rat on you if he sees someone smoking pot. If he just looks the other way because no-one is being harmed, then he can be in bigger trouble than you'd be in for simple possession.
To carry that analogy to Sony, that would be like a store clerk who sells you a DVD duplicator or a disssembler, and then is required to call Sony or the MPAA to report you.
This coercion is wrong.
Also, breaking a software license is not morally equivalent to stealing property which is scarce, although criminal laws have tried to equate the two. Breaking a license is a civil disagreement between two parties which should not be reified into criminal law. Doing so is, frankly, socialism.
Speaking of trumps:
Private property trumps private contracts trumps constitutions trumps statutes.
In this context, your ownership of the media (private property) which contains the bits, trumps any private contract involving those bits, which in turn trumps any constitution and any law.
So while Sony may have "violated" the GPL, it still retains the rights to sell and copy the media containing its games. Just as you have the right to copy and disassemble media containing Sony's games, and the right to do PlayStation console mods.
All these "violations" do is nullify any contracts between you and Sony. They do not make immoral any voluntary acts involving physical property you or Sony obtained through voluntary means.
Copyrights are not the same as private property, although laws at the bottom of the trump pile have tried to make them equivalent, and the FSF stoops to them too, by invoking the GPL.
Or will it join forces with the NSA Borg?
Old story.
They're a bunch of SASies.
PC Joe won't understand SCSI isn't old enough.
United Keys looks real enough.
But I could not find an "Intelligentia International AB", just a FL organization called Intelligentsia International, which does not mention him.
Here is his patent for "A system for controlling an apparatus, which system comprises a control unit adapted to transfer control signals to the apparatus dependent on the control data..."
Does that include hop tracking and filter insurance?
The Constitution does not "apply" to individuals or corporations. It applies to governments.
The First Amendment limits what Congress can do. It has nothing to do with mediating a contract dispute between Verizon and its customers.
Verizon should be making Fourth Amendment search and seizure claims against the government to protect its customers and its own privacy, not arguing for violating an implicit contract with its customers on the basis of the First Amendment which applies to Congress and not Verizon.
While it is unarguably legitimate income that is required to be reported for U.S. residents
You mean U.S. citizens. U.S. citizens are taxed on their income by the IRS even if they live outside the U.S.
From Freedom to Fascism -- that's what it this really is.
HTC's phones are much better.
But they are relatively unknown outside of XDA-dev and Pocket PC circles.
My Blue Angel came out over two years ago, but I can do more with it than with an iPhone:
HTC phones are the best in the world for tech users. The only reason iPhone gets the hype is because of Apple's brand.
It's the same reason iPod sold so well, even though iRiver's H140 / iHP-40 is superior in many ways.
The one that screws you?
I can already visualize Republican and Democratic phishers mailing out fake ballots :)
?AO ERROR
OK
"Thanks to automatically assigned "cookies", the scientists were able to reconstruct the browsing history of about 250,000 visitors to the site over the course of a month."
Did they have enough controls in place to ensure the cookies were accurate representations of user's tastes?
Blocking cookies, for political privacy and other reasons, is common nowadays.
Did they ensure that the cookies they saw were the ones they baked, by adding SHA-256 (a data preservative)?
Did they make sure that the visitors without cookies had not visited before and stolen their cookies?
Replace television with interactive media which encourage thinking.
Replace television with open alternatives which encourage democratic participation, as in open source.
Make every participant an actor, but let them decide how to act -- don't force people into predetermined roles, or roles they are uncomfortable with.
Encourage bottom-up instead of top-down management and government.
So there's really no confusion.
Correct, and that's only for Single Precision. For double precision, it drops to 14.6 GFLOP/s. See this paper.
Well said.
There is no mystery about "porting" GFS to SX, because it runs on a TX-7 Itanium Linux server, as a dedicated SX peripheral.
Here is another example
Imagine a 16-processor TX-7 Itanium GFS server dedicated to serving GFS for a 128-processor SX system.
Most people are overwhelmed just by the thought of a 16-processor TX-7 by itself. Now imagine the TX-7 being dedicated solely for use as a file server for a SX supercomputer. Separate machines, separate OSes.
Some customers who buy such hybrid SX/TX-7 systems want to use their TX-7 nodes for computation and not just I/O, and so NEC sells software development tools for Itanium systems as well. But the competition in Itanium server space is fierce, with SGI, HP, et.al. having similar offerings.
Don't forget Apollo.
And in the HPC area, Convex.
copyright!=trademark
Amen, Brother.
Me, I think it's crap... trademarks aren't all encompassing (or shouldn't be)... now if the owner of the site was in the same industry, maybe it would make more sense...
Well, they are in the same "industry" sort of -- issue-oriented activism. And if they both sell products around their activism (T-shirts, books, etc.), that makes them all the more related.
If "Jerry Falwell" becomes synonymous with homophobic teachings, and sells items promoting an anti-gay lifestyle using his name as a trademark, then another business selling other activist items under the Fallwell.com domain, becomes a potential infringement, whether they agree with Falwell or not.
I bet if Fallwell.com agreed with Falwell, there wouldn't be this lawsuit, but that would undermine Falwell's trademark claim. I mean, he has every right to defend a trademark, and must do so at every opportunity whether he agrees with the other guy or not, but I think the main motivation in this case is personal.
Of trademarks, copyrights, and patents, trademarks are the least troublesome to me.
die gay if /^Jerry Fall?well$/;