The point is engineers chose to use a type of foam that was inferior for environmental reasons. I can't tell you why the engineers ignored the evidence of the foam problem, but switching to the environmentally friendly foam made the problem a lot worse, and yet they continued to use it. That seems irrational, usless you conclude they were more interested in saving the environment than saving the astronauts.
Re:I may be just dumb, but...
on
Open Source Law
·
· Score: 1
If you owned the copyright for the text of a law, you could charge a royalty every time the govt. printed a copy of it, or refuse to allow them to make copies altogether.
It only started happening after they switched to a non-freon based foam to make the environmentalists happy. Despite that this was a known problem on quite a few missions, they were more interested in being politically correct than in insuring the safety of the missions.
It's amazing how a group of people who claim people like Jose Padilla are having their rights violated, then turn around and support infringement on the basic rights of Bill Gates, etc. They have a right to free trade, like anyone else, without govt. imposed restrictions that make them slaves to the consumer. You're a hypocrite if you complain about the Patriot act and then support antitrust legislation. Those who would give up a little liberty to avoid monopolies deserve communism.
"Ms. Rowling is a billionaire now. Does she really need more? Is she even owed more? Does she not owe a little to the millions of fans that have made her so rich?"
That's for her to decide, not her fans through copyright infringement.
"RIAA types keep telling us that if artists can't make music, then they won't create. Have you ever met a real artist who felt this way?"
If you're working in a factory 40 hrs a week, that impedes your time to create. Plus you don't have the income to travel as much and experience things that will help your creativity. Sure people aren't solely driven by money, but saying money isn't a factor is naive.
"Oh yea, there happens to be these guys called Beethoven, Mozart, and Bach. Beethoven -- some 200 pieces. Mozart -- some 600. Bach -- some 1,200 pieces. That's a hell of alot of very popular non-infringing music (all of which is better than the best of the modern crap that you can get now)."
Wrong. Most of the performances are copyrighted, even if the music itself is public domain
He's trying to spin the issue because people are predjudiced against corporations in the US, and most people don't feel sorry for a corporation who's property's value has declined due to illegal copying. In the end though, artist's are also harmed because they can't sell their music to labels for as much if its value has been lowered through copyright infringement, so his point is valid.
If someone puts an ad in the paper saying "human organs for sale", it's not a private transaction. This is IMHO, a better analogy since people don't really restrict who the share with on p2p networks, and anyone (including the RIAA) can legally search for files on these networks.
In the CIVIL case of SCO vs. IBM, SCO gets to look at everything IBM's been doing involving AIX and Linux during the discovery phase. How is this any different? I don't if they call it probable cause, but unless a judge dismisses it... As for getting caught, if you offer a song for download on a p2p network, you're guilty of contributing to copyright infringement, even if no one actually downloads the song.
"No. Wrong. Only a law official can take actions (like intrusion) with probabable cause. The RIAA is just a bunch of private corporations.
"
This arguement is just trying to protect criminals using beuracracy. If you have a list of thousands of people who have shared songs illegally, you shouldn't need to have a judge look at every case. From there, I doubt the RIAA is going to be the one collecting evidence. More likely it'll be the police.
You don't need proof for search and seizure, just probable cause. Otherwise you have a catch-22. I can't search someones house until proven guilty, but I can't prove him guilty until I search his house.
Truth in advertizing is on the lines of breech of contract. It's not a free speech issue. It just means that if you sell something, it better do what you claim it does. Saying you can't accuse someone of something without showing the world proof is an infringement on free speech. If they want to sue you for slander, fine. But the burden of proof is on them at that point, not you. You should examine what's inside your own head before making statements like "You have shit for brains.".
""The 1,500 companies who received letters from SCO [about potential infringements] should be worried, big time," said Rob Enderle, a research fellow for the Giga Information Group (Santa Clara, Calif.). Based on what he saw, Enderle said, "The evidence appears to be very compelling." "
Hmmm, most people who see the code say SCO's claims aren't FUD. Keep believing what you want, however, like everyone else on slashdot. Don't let facts, or lack of facts, get in the way.
"What they want to do is exactly the opposite. They want to come into my computer w/o proof or a warrant (which in most cases would show they had proof I did something wrong) and look at what I have and then ask questions later."
Wrong. They've already caught you uploading songs to other users on the internet, which is probable cause to search your computer.
"He says: "By the way, the term "file swapping" is inaccurate. Nobody is swapping, people are making copies.", but later in the same paragraph says "Just as we would never agree that it is right to steal someone's clothes or furniture, it is not right to steal music." I think his second assumption is safe to make, but if he worded it in a way that was consistent with his earlier comment, would it still be as universally accepted? Sure people would protest if you stole their furniture, but would anybody see it as wrong if you copied their furniture? He's right about people breaking the law, but he should at least get his story straight."
Quit equivocating. If you do something illegal that lowers the value of my property, you're stealing from me.
"Sure, store owners should be allowed to prosecute shoplifters, but they have to catch them in the act. Nobody should be forced to produce a receipt for their stuff weeks later because the store thinks they're short an item and they have a security camera shot of you looking at it. The question really should be "Why should copyright holders have more rights than somebody who owns clothing or televisions and tries to sell them?""This is purse BS. The RIAA caught people trading files red-handed, and in the act. Just because they couldn't identify them at the time by name is irrelevant. That's like saying if I arrest a murderer based on forensic evidence two weeks later instead of catching him in the act, that he should be let go.
Given that their are legitimate ways to download music online, why would the RIAA dispute this claim. It's somewhat irrelavent to the discussion. The RIAA's point is that it is illegal to trade music on Freenet, and the guys goes on to point out that most legitimate uses of p2p networks already exist in other forms that make more sense.
I think Adobe's point is that Macs are a dead-end platform, and there is no money in supporting it, unless they're guaranteed a monopoly. Steve Jobs himself follows this same policy, which is why you can't buy a Mac clone, or boot MacOS on an x86. I don't think Adobe is going to die anytime soon supporting Windows exclusively.
Slashdot Mirror
The point is engineers chose to use a type of foam that was inferior for environmental reasons. I can't tell you why the engineers ignored the evidence of the foam problem, but switching to the environmentally friendly foam made the problem a lot worse, and yet they continued to use it. That seems irrational, usless you conclude they were more interested in saving the environment than saving the astronauts.
If you owned the copyright for the text of a law, you could charge a royalty every time the govt. printed a copy of it, or refuse to allow them to make copies altogether.
that these robots are taking away their jobs. Re:"Learn how smarter robots can relieve us of the most tedious -- and dangerous -- tasks" :-)
It only started happening after they switched to a non-freon based foam to make the environmentalists happy. Despite that this was a known problem on quite a few missions, they were more interested in being politically correct than in insuring the safety of the missions.
It's amazing how a group of people who claim people like Jose Padilla are having their rights violated, then turn around and support infringement on the basic rights of Bill Gates, etc. They have a right to free trade, like anyone else, without govt. imposed restrictions that make them slaves to the consumer. You're a hypocrite if you complain about the Patriot act and then support antitrust legislation. Those who would give up a little liberty to avoid monopolies deserve communism.
Sounds like from your link, the ex-employee was the one stealing the ideas.
But the original post labels the case as censorship, which shows how far out in left field the /. editors are.
"Ms. Rowling is a billionaire now. Does she really need more? Is she even owed more? Does she not owe a little to the millions of fans that have made her so rich?"
That's for her to decide, not her fans through copyright infringement.
Freenet:thoughtful, valid answer my ass, more like:
Freenet:it helps political dissidents communicate (completely ignoring the existance of email and pgp).
"RIAA types keep telling us that if artists can't make music, then they won't create. Have you ever met a real artist who felt this way?"
If you're working in a factory 40 hrs a week, that impedes your time to create. Plus you don't have the income to travel as much and experience things that will help your creativity. Sure people aren't solely driven by money, but saying money isn't a factor is naive.
"Oh yea, there happens to be these guys called Beethoven, Mozart, and Bach. Beethoven -- some 200 pieces. Mozart -- some 600. Bach -- some 1,200 pieces. That's a hell of alot of very popular non-infringing music (all of which is better than the best of the modern crap that you can get now)."
Wrong. Most of the performances are copyrighted, even if the music itself is public domain
He's trying to spin the issue because people are predjudiced against corporations in the US, and most people don't feel sorry for a corporation who's property's value has declined due to illegal copying. In the end though, artist's are also harmed because they can't sell their music to labels for as much if its value has been lowered through copyright infringement, so his point is valid.
If someone puts an ad in the paper saying "human organs for sale", it's not a private transaction. This is IMHO, a better analogy since people don't really restrict who the share with on p2p networks, and anyone (including the RIAA) can legally search for files on these networks.
Funny how this is modded up as insightful when the general opinion on /. is that no network is 100% secure.
In the CIVIL case of SCO vs. IBM, SCO gets to look at everything IBM's been doing involving AIX and Linux during the discovery phase. How is this any different? I don't if they call it probable cause, but unless a judge dismisses it... As for getting caught, if you offer a song for download on a p2p network, you're guilty of contributing to copyright infringement, even if no one actually downloads the song.
"No. Wrong. Only a law official can take actions (like intrusion) with probabable cause. The RIAA is just a bunch of private corporations. "
This arguement is just trying to protect criminals using beuracracy. If you have a list of thousands of people who have shared songs illegally, you shouldn't need to have a judge look at every case. From there, I doubt the RIAA is going to be the one collecting evidence. More likely it'll be the police.
You don't need proof for search and seizure, just probable cause. Otherwise you have a catch-22. I can't search someones house until proven guilty, but I can't prove him guilty until I search his house.
Truth in advertizing is on the lines of breech of contract. It's not a free speech issue. It just means that if you sell something, it better do what you claim it does. Saying you can't accuse someone of something without showing the world proof is an infringement on free speech. If they want to sue you for slander, fine. But the burden of proof is on them at that point, not you. You should examine what's inside your own head before making statements like "You have shit for brains.".
""The 1,500 companies who received letters from SCO [about potential infringements] should be worried, big time," said Rob Enderle, a research fellow for the Giga Information Group (Santa Clara, Calif.). Based on what he saw, Enderle said, "The evidence appears to be very compelling." "
Hmmm, most people who see the code say SCO's claims aren't FUD. Keep believing what you want, however, like everyone else on slashdot. Don't let facts, or lack of facts, get in the way.
Or maybe he only obfuscated 2/3s of the code.
That's a great solution for industry. Keep it quiet. Someone may be reading
"What they want to do is exactly the opposite. They want to come into my computer w/o proof or a warrant (which in most cases would show they had proof I did something wrong) and look at what I have and then ask questions later."
Wrong. They've already caught you uploading songs to other users on the internet, which is probable cause to search your computer.
"He says: "By the way, the term "file swapping" is inaccurate. Nobody is swapping, people are making copies.", but later in the same paragraph says "Just as we would never agree that it is right to steal someone's clothes or furniture, it is not right to steal music." I think his second assumption is safe to make, but if he worded it in a way that was consistent with his earlier comment, would it still be as universally accepted? Sure people would protest if you stole their furniture, but would anybody see it as wrong if you copied their furniture? He's right about people breaking the law, but he should at least get his story straight."
Quit equivocating. If you do something illegal that lowers the value of my property, you're stealing from me.
"Sure, store owners should be allowed to prosecute shoplifters, but they have to catch them in the act. Nobody should be forced to produce a receipt for their stuff weeks later because the store thinks they're short an item and they have a security camera shot of you looking at it. The question really should be "Why should copyright holders have more rights than somebody who owns clothing or televisions and tries to sell them?""This is purse BS. The RIAA caught people trading files red-handed, and in the act. Just because they couldn't identify them at the time by name is irrelevant. That's like saying if I arrest a murderer based on forensic evidence two weeks later instead of catching him in the act, that he should be let go.
Given that their are legitimate ways to download music online, why would the RIAA dispute this claim. It's somewhat irrelavent to the discussion. The RIAA's point is that it is illegal to trade music on Freenet, and the guys goes on to point out that most legitimate uses of p2p networks already exist in other forms that make more sense.
I think Adobe's point is that Macs are a dead-end platform, and there is no money in supporting it, unless they're guaranteed a monopoly. Steve Jobs himself follows this same policy, which is why you can't buy a Mac clone, or boot MacOS on an x86. I don't think Adobe is going to die anytime soon supporting Windows exclusively.