But the difference between this, and say, a single, manual, prank call to 911 is just a matter of scale. Any prank call will tie up valuable resources and be an "admittedly small" DOS attack. And undeniably, pranking 911 is wrong, but its not the sort of thing that should be paralleled with, say, planting a car bomb.
in the exploding mailbox case, since not only would I be hesistant to check my mail, I'd assume letter carriers would be hesitant to deliver them
I don't think the grandparent was talking about letter bombs - rather the stupid, teenage-prank variety. Drop a cherry bomb in someone's mailbox and watch it go bang. Stupid, yes. Destructive, yes. But it's not terrorism, it's just idiotic vandalism. It's not likely to hurt anyone either, since the moron's who perpetrate these things usually do it in the dead of night.
The problem with terrorist charges is simply that the charge allows so much outside the scope of a normal criminal charge - IIRC, terrorists can be treated as enemy combatants, which is the excuse used to perpetrate such things as indefinite detention without trial. By broadening the definition of terrorist, you also broaden the scope of these new powers. If alleged terrorists were treated the same as other alleged criminals, I wouldn't mind playing by your definitions, but when alleged terrorists are treated so differently, we need to make sure those powers don't begin to creep.
I don't think "causing terror" is enough to define terrorist - terror is highly subjective. The sort of terrorists these powers were introduced to counter, are those who use violence and chaos to further a political agenda. Some guy who just goes nuts and shoot people isn't a terrorist - he's just a garden variety homicidal maniac, and should be treated as such. Just because people are afraid of someone doesn't make that person a terrorist.
If Richard M Stallman were to purchase a copy of Windows...could MS terminate his license because he's publicly said all software should be free?
No...but if he publicly stated that he didn't consider himself bound by the license he agreed to, I reckon they'd have a good chance.
We've got two slightly different readings of the word "accept" here. One is a legal definition; by accepting the license, you agree to be bound by the conditions of said license. The second is a moral definition, in that you agree with the philosophy behind the license.
Issuing a release stating that you think that the GPL license is invalid and unenforcable probably comes under the heading of "not accepting this licence". If you don't accept the licence, you can't distribute the software. And SCO has publicly stated they don't accept the GPL.
...THEY are violating the GPL by not licencing it under the GPL to ALL third parties...
First of all, it is impossible for the copyright owner to violate the GPL on the software that he himself wrote
I think what the granparent meant, is that once you start adding additional restrictions to GPL licensed software, it's not GPLed anymore. It's under a license that's almost like the GPL.
The other point is that this addition to the license is simply a re-affirmation in specific of what the GPL states in general; SCO doesn't agree to the terms of the GPL, therefore they can't distribute the software. Even without this additional note, that would still be the case, but the extra lines just make it clear. It is clarifying the GPL, not adding extra restrictions.
The thing with this would be actually getting a book like this published. You see, with print publishing, there are natural barriers that restrict the publishing of certain material (material with little interest will not get published, bad material will not get published, matieral likely to get the pants sued off the publisher will not get published). Because these natural barriers exist, it may not have been necessary to draft laws that explicity outlaw it.
In other words, it is possible that it is possible to publish such a books, but not feasible, and that the law-makers relied on the infeasibility of the act to prevent it, rather than the law.
So what you're saying is that we should ignore the definition of a word, simply because it will change in the future. Generalizing that, the meaning of any word is indeterminate, because future usage will change the meaning.
English students of the world rejoice! All literature has now become meaningless!
Anything that is to be precise needs solid definitions. The law needs to be precise. Ergo, the law needs solid definitions. To say that the law cannot rely on definitions because definitions change is to totally distort the law. The word "piracy" now commonly refers to copyright infringement. How would you like it if the courts laid out penalties for "software piracy" in accordance to the penalty for piracy on the high seas?
If you want to change the laws regarding marriage, you need to chanage the official meaning of marriage. I don't mean going round scribbling errata in dictionaries; I mean simply redefining the term marriage in official legal parlance.
What you say is true, of course...unless they factor in the development cost of these packages into the cost of Windows, which of course they do. Windows is not an Operating System these days; it's a software package, just as much as a Linux distribution is.
You pay for IE, Outlook Express, MSN Messenger and Media Player whenever you fork out money for the shiny new Windows box.
I've seen a whole lot of people complaining about antitrust issues, but to be honest, that's not my problem with this issue. My problem is how much control I'm going to have over my own machine.
I use a number of programs for which Microsoft has "integrated" alternatives. I use ACDSee Classic as an image viewer, I use Nero for burning CDs, I use WinRAR for archiving, I use Mozilla for web-browsing, I use Miranda for IM.
But to get ACDSee to work, I had to wend my way through assorted registry entries to disable the MS integrated version (changing registered filetypes wasn't enough). To uninstall MSN Messenger, I had to fiddle around with an.ini file and then uninstall it, and the system now generates an error message when a new user logs on for the first time because it can't find MSN.
If Microsoft bundled an AV solution with Windows, and included it in the "Add/Remove Software" selection, as every other application is, or provided an uninstallation tool, I wouldn't mind. But based on track history, I'm going to be stuck with a lump of code taking up at the least disk space, and probably memory space and CPU time, that I don't use, don't want, and can't get rid of.
I'm sure there's plenty of ways to use biometric data as identification that can be changed in case of compromise.
For example, store a secret number on your card (X). Define some standard process for converting a retina scan into a number (Y). Plug both into a certain function to get a third number (Z). When you want money out of an ATM, the machine reads X and Y from the two sources, generates Z and checks against the bank records.
If it's ever compromised, issue a new card with a new X, and update Z on the bank's server.
IANACryptologist, but there's a simple example that would be just as easy to correct as it is today if someone nabs your PIN.
Unix and Windows both provide absolutely no access control for network communications, allowing viruses to perform all of their tasks with ease.
Not necessarily true. Linux users (not sure about UNIX) are restricted in their ability to open low-level ports. Which means no more spam-relay-creating viruses. Also, Linux has more advanced network control capabilities (ipchains) than Windows XP (tick-a-box firewall). Granted, they're still difficult to setup, but the option's there, and better interfaces are always a possibility.
But there's a difference between a successor and a replacement. According to the grandparent, a replacement would be another implementation of the X standard. Y is an attempt at an implementation and definition of a new windowing standard.
It is a replacement for X, in that it performs the same role, but it's not a replacement for X, in that it doesn't fulfil its role in the same way.
I think what happens is that by the time guilt has been established, the story is not news anymore. I was a member of the jury on a negligent driving case. The accident had happened over twelve months before the case appeared before the court, and it took a week for the trial to finish. Actually, that was only half the trial, as we decided that the prosecutor hadn't met the burden of proof, so we never actually heard the defendant's argument.
I'd imagine that for high-profile cases the time taken would increase dramatically. Unless it was an incredibly heinous crime, the public loses interest after a week or so. Hearing that last years con-man just got jailed is not news. It's boring.
No, it costs nothing to file prior art. But they're not going to re-examine the patent just because you tell them of prior art. You have to pay them $9,000 for a re-examination.
Can you provide an example of one of these nessicary Mozilla hacks please?
Try making a file input type for a form, and using CSS to set its width to 100%. It won't size properly under Firebird (I assume FireFox as well; the bug was still open last time I checked). If you want the box to look like it should you have to manually create two seperate controls, a textbox and a button, and use javascript to get the functionality working.
I said nothing about Australia being an "enlightened free trader". And I said nothing, really, about America being protectionist. What I was really saying is that the US is the biggest, wealthiest nation in the world, and as such, the threat of economic penalties, such as tariffs or sanctions, carries a lot of weight.
Because of the US' power (economic, military, political), other countries have to be wary before saying "No" to America. And it seems the current administration is very quick to brand people who disagree with their policies as enemies, or cowards.
It doesn't say Australian tariff rates are higher than the US. That statistic might just as well mean that the US exports to Autralia 10 times the amount Australia exports to the US. And how many Australian goods are not exported to the US because tariffs make it prohibitive to do so? How does that go again? Lies, damn lies and statistics?
I've seen (and own) Shakespeare in Love. I've also read the script for Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead. That doesn't mean I can't find other forms of humour funny. The primary reason I find the quote I posted funny is because of stuck up people who refuse to see value in anything accessible to the people who don't subject it to continual analysis. I should know; I'm in the middle of a Creative Arts (Writing) degree, and spend 5 days a week hanging around people like that. Anything that lets the air out of them is fine by me.
Just because you can point to one point in time and say "things were worse then" doesn't mean there's a reason we should accept the crap we're given today. Not to mention that in the times of Nixon and Reagan, the US wasn't as influential as it is now. What those guys did primarily screwed the US. Now, I don't have anything against American citizens, but if you're governments screwing you over, that's your business. I get concerned when decisions in America start having knock-on effects throughout the rest of the world.
It wouldn't be fraud unless it was advertised as the writers own work. The site offers two versions of Romeo and Juliet; the "classic" version and the "irreverent" version. It provides an excerpt from the latter:
Romeo What the heck was that big scene all about?
Juliet Who knows? I just passed out for a second and everybody's losing it. Luckily the dagger wasn't sharp.
Romeo And the apothecary screwed up big-time! What do you say we head home?
Juliet Sounds like a plan, my medieval man!
[Exeunt Romeo and Juliet hand in hand]
I actually find that quite hilarious as a spoof. Credits are usually given to both original author and abridger in the case of abridgements, and "apalling" really depends on your definitions.
I'm definately not saying that Johnny Howard hasn't been spit-polishing Bush's shoes, but I have my doubts that Labour would have done anything at all different.
America is big. Under its current leadeship, it is also not kindly disposed to people not playing ball with it. Considering how much Australia relies on the US, it would be politically irresponsible not to go along with America.
Compared to the size of its borders, Australia has a terribly small military force. Being on the US' nice side means we might be able to borrow some of their nice, shiny killing machines if something nasty happens in the world. It also means they might buy more of our stuff, and cheaper, which our economy would really like (although I'm not sure 18 years in the future is going to greatly help).
Basically, what I'm saying is that if Mark Latham had been PM at the time, he'd have done exactly the same thing, and Little Johnny would have called him an ass-licker, except more politely.
Slashdot Mirror
But the difference between this, and say, a single, manual, prank call to 911 is just a matter of scale. Any prank call will tie up valuable resources and be an "admittedly small" DOS attack. And undeniably, pranking 911 is wrong, but its not the sort of thing that should be paralleled with, say, planting a car bomb.
in the exploding mailbox case, since not only would I be hesistant to check my mail, I'd assume letter carriers would be hesitant to deliver them
I don't think the grandparent was talking about letter bombs - rather the stupid, teenage-prank variety. Drop a cherry bomb in someone's mailbox and watch it go bang. Stupid, yes. Destructive, yes. But it's not terrorism, it's just idiotic vandalism. It's not likely to hurt anyone either, since the moron's who perpetrate these things usually do it in the dead of night.
The problem with terrorist charges is simply that the charge allows so much outside the scope of a normal criminal charge - IIRC, terrorists can be treated as enemy combatants, which is the excuse used to perpetrate such things as indefinite detention without trial. By broadening the definition of terrorist, you also broaden the scope of these new powers. If alleged terrorists were treated the same as other alleged criminals, I wouldn't mind playing by your definitions, but when alleged terrorists are treated so differently, we need to make sure those powers don't begin to creep.
I don't think "causing terror" is enough to define terrorist - terror is highly subjective. The sort of terrorists these powers were introduced to counter, are those who use violence and chaos to further a political agenda. Some guy who just goes nuts and shoot people isn't a terrorist - he's just a garden variety homicidal maniac, and should be treated as such. Just because people are afraid of someone doesn't make that person a terrorist.
If Richard M Stallman were to purchase a copy of Windows...could MS terminate his license because he's publicly said all software should be free?
No...but if he publicly stated that he didn't consider himself bound by the license he agreed to, I reckon they'd have a good chance.
We've got two slightly different readings of the word "accept" here. One is a legal definition; by accepting the license, you agree to be bound by the conditions of said license. The second is a moral definition, in that you agree with the philosophy behind the license.
Issuing a release stating that you think that the GPL license is invalid and unenforcable probably comes under the heading of "not accepting this licence". If you don't accept the licence, you can't distribute the software. And SCO has publicly stated they don't accept the GPL.
...THEY are violating the GPL by not licencing it under the GPL to ALL third parties ...
First of all, it is impossible for the copyright owner to violate the GPL on the software that he himself wrote
I think what the granparent meant, is that once you start adding additional restrictions to GPL licensed software, it's not GPLed anymore. It's under a license that's almost like the GPL.
The other point is that this addition to the license is simply a re-affirmation in specific of what the GPL states in general; SCO doesn't agree to the terms of the GPL, therefore they can't distribute the software. Even without this additional note, that would still be the case, but the extra lines just make it clear. It is clarifying the GPL, not adding extra restrictions.
The thing with this would be actually getting a book like this published. You see, with print publishing, there are natural barriers that restrict the publishing of certain material (material with little interest will not get published, bad material will not get published, matieral likely to get the pants sued off the publisher will not get published). Because these natural barriers exist, it may not have been necessary to draft laws that explicity outlaw it.
In other words, it is possible that it is possible to publish such a books, but not feasible, and that the law-makers relied on the infeasibility of the act to prevent it, rather than the law.
So what you're saying is that we should ignore the definition of a word, simply because it will change in the future. Generalizing that, the meaning of any word is indeterminate, because future usage will change the meaning.
English students of the world rejoice! All literature has now become meaningless!
Anything that is to be precise needs solid definitions. The law needs to be precise. Ergo, the law needs solid definitions. To say that the law cannot rely on definitions because definitions change is to totally distort the law. The word "piracy" now commonly refers to copyright infringement. How would you like it if the courts laid out penalties for "software piracy" in accordance to the penalty for piracy on the high seas?
If you want to change the laws regarding marriage, you need to chanage the official meaning of marriage. I don't mean going round scribbling errata in dictionaries; I mean simply redefining the term marriage in official legal parlance.
What you say is true, of course...unless they factor in the development cost of these packages into the cost of Windows, which of course they do. Windows is not an Operating System these days; it's a software package, just as much as a Linux distribution is.
You pay for IE, Outlook Express, MSN Messenger and Media Player whenever you fork out money for the shiny new Windows box.
the "code" between the keyboard and the chair is outside of Microsoft's control, right ?
Ah-ha, I see you are not aware of Microsoft's new innovation - Trusted Computing Users Architecture.
I've seen a whole lot of people complaining about antitrust issues, but to be honest, that's not my problem with this issue. My problem is how much control I'm going to have over my own machine.
.ini file and then uninstall it, and the system now generates an error message when a new user logs on for the first time because it can't find MSN.
I use a number of programs for which Microsoft has "integrated" alternatives. I use ACDSee Classic as an image viewer, I use Nero for burning CDs, I use WinRAR for archiving, I use Mozilla for web-browsing, I use Miranda for IM.
But to get ACDSee to work, I had to wend my way through assorted registry entries to disable the MS integrated version (changing registered filetypes wasn't enough). To uninstall MSN Messenger, I had to fiddle around with an
If Microsoft bundled an AV solution with Windows, and included it in the "Add/Remove Software" selection, as every other application is, or provided an uninstallation tool, I wouldn't mind. But based on track history, I'm going to be stuck with a lump of code taking up at the least disk space, and probably memory space and CPU time, that I don't use, don't want, and can't get rid of.
I'm sure there's plenty of ways to use biometric data as identification that can be changed in case of compromise.
For example, store a secret number on your card (X). Define some standard process for converting a retina scan into a number (Y). Plug both into a certain function to get a third number (Z). When you want money out of an ATM, the machine reads X and Y from the two sources, generates Z and checks against the bank records.
If it's ever compromised, issue a new card with a new X, and update Z on the bank's server.
IANACryptologist, but there's a simple example that would be just as easy to correct as it is today if someone nabs your PIN.
Unix and Windows both provide absolutely no access control for network communications, allowing viruses to perform all of their tasks with ease.
Not necessarily true. Linux users (not sure about UNIX) are restricted in their ability to open low-level ports. Which means no more spam-relay-creating viruses. Also, Linux has more advanced network control capabilities (ipchains) than Windows XP (tick-a-box firewall). Granted, they're still difficult to setup, but the option's there, and better interfaces are always a possibility.
Yeah, but at least the moderators think you're an Informative idiot.
But there's a difference between a successor and a replacement. According to the grandparent, a replacement would be another implementation of the X standard. Y is an attempt at an implementation and definition of a new windowing standard.
It is a replacement for X, in that it performs the same role, but it's not a replacement for X, in that it doesn't fulfil its role in the same way.
I think what happens is that by the time guilt has been established, the story is not news anymore. I was a member of the jury on a negligent driving case. The accident had happened over twelve months before the case appeared before the court, and it took a week for the trial to finish. Actually, that was only half the trial, as we decided that the prosecutor hadn't met the burden of proof, so we never actually heard the defendant's argument.
I'd imagine that for high-profile cases the time taken would increase dramatically. Unless it was an incredibly heinous crime, the public loses interest after a week or so. Hearing that last years con-man just got jailed is not news. It's boring.
A member of the patent bar posted above.
No, it costs nothing to file prior art. But they're not going to re-examine the patent just because you tell them of prior art. You have to pay them $9,000 for a re-examination.
Can you provide an example of one of these nessicary Mozilla hacks please?
Try making a file input type for a form, and using CSS to set its width to 100%. It won't size properly under Firebird (I assume FireFox as well; the bug was still open last time I checked). If you want the box to look like it should you have to manually create two seperate controls, a textbox and a button, and use javascript to get the functionality working.
I said nothing about Australia being an "enlightened free trader". And I said nothing, really, about America being protectionist. What I was really saying is that the US is the biggest, wealthiest nation in the world, and as such, the threat of economic penalties, such as tariffs or sanctions, carries a lot of weight.
Because of the US' power (economic, military, political), other countries have to be wary before saying "No" to America. And it seems the current administration is very quick to brand people who disagree with their policies as enemies, or cowards.
It doesn't say Australian tariff rates are higher than the US. That statistic might just as well mean that the US exports to Autralia 10 times the amount Australia exports to the US. And how many Australian goods are not exported to the US because tariffs make it prohibitive to do so? How does that go again? Lies, damn lies and statistics?
Yup! I tried to include the reference, but Slashdot cut it off, cause it was too long.
I've seen (and own) Shakespeare in Love. I've also read the script for Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead. That doesn't mean I can't find other forms of humour funny. The primary reason I find the quote I posted funny is because of stuck up people who refuse to see value in anything accessible to the people who don't subject it to continual analysis. I should know; I'm in the middle of a Creative Arts (Writing) degree, and spend 5 days a week hanging around people like that. Anything that lets the air out of them is fine by me.
Just because you can point to one point in time and say "things were worse then" doesn't mean there's a reason we should accept the crap we're given today. Not to mention that in the times of Nixon and Reagan, the US wasn't as influential as it is now. What those guys did primarily screwed the US. Now, I don't have anything against American citizens, but if you're governments screwing you over, that's your business. I get concerned when decisions in America start having knock-on effects throughout the rest of the world.
It wouldn't be fraud unless it was advertised as the writers own work. The site offers two versions of Romeo and Juliet; the "classic" version and the "irreverent" version. It provides an excerpt from the latter:
Romeo What the heck was that big scene all about? Juliet Who knows? I just passed out for a second and everybody's losing it. Luckily the dagger wasn't sharp. Romeo And the apothecary screwed up big-time! What do you say we head home? Juliet Sounds like a plan, my medieval man! [Exeunt Romeo and Juliet hand in hand]
I actually find that quite hilarious as a spoof. Credits are usually given to both original author and abridger in the case of abridgements, and "apalling" really depends on your definitions.
I'm definately not saying that Johnny Howard hasn't been spit-polishing Bush's shoes, but I have my doubts that Labour would have done anything at all different.
America is big. Under its current leadeship, it is also not kindly disposed to people not playing ball with it. Considering how much Australia relies on the US, it would be politically irresponsible not to go along with America.
Compared to the size of its borders, Australia has a terribly small military force. Being on the US' nice side means we might be able to borrow some of their nice, shiny killing machines if something nasty happens in the world. It also means they might buy more of our stuff, and cheaper, which our economy would really like (although I'm not sure 18 years in the future is going to greatly help).
Basically, what I'm saying is that if Mark Latham had been PM at the time, he'd have done exactly the same thing, and Little Johnny would have called him an ass-licker, except more politely.
I'm sincerely hoping that in eighteen years time, there will be no more America, or at the very least, not as we know it now.