I think that you have a crucial misunderstanding of the nature of privacy. What sort of privacy can you expect for, say, a pop can that you throw into a public trash can?
Oh wow, planning on selling devices. Thats surely worth $180million.
Think instead of devices, he was planning on selling drugs. He needn't actually sell the drugs to get busted as a trafficker -- that's why they call it "posession with intent" (at least where I live). The issue is a little more complicated because he may not have actually fabricated any of the devices (I read the article, but a long time ago, and I can't be bothered), but it's (obviously, or else he wouldn't have been found guilty) sufficient for the conspiracy charge to that he had plans to make the devices, and taken some overt act to further the conspiracy.
Let's get a few things straight here: the guy wasn't doing this to "liberate the information" or reverse engineer and GPL plans for satellite receivers; hell, he wasn't even going to put ads in the back of comic books so you could buy the plans and make the device out of parts from Radio Shack. The guy's a crook, he's been arrested for this kind of stuff before, and I have a hunch that the reasoning behind his sentence reflects this: it's never going to be profitable for him to pull this scam again. The other thing to clear up is about the whole "thoughtcrimes" thing. Conspiracy has been a part of law forever, and like any other crime it consists of a mental part (the plan) and an overt act (to further the plan). I don't think that being able to prosecute people for conspiracy is on-its-face facistic, but then we may just have a difference of opinion on that.
they don't put people to death for attempted murder, do they? that seems a little harsh to me.
Actually, if you look at the list of federal capital offenses, 18 USC sec. 1716, Mailing of injurious articles with intent to kill or resulting in death (emphasis added), is indeed listed. So I guess they do.
It still sets a ridiculous precedent, and might encourage other industries to use this sort of business model.
What business model? The "vigorously-defend-our-intellectual-property" business model or the "get-criminal-restitution-of-$6000-per-annum" business model? If they bust 10 or 11 more people, they might even be able to pay the salary and benefits of one employee. This guy, who'd been arrested for the same thing before, was planning to sell devices to allow people to steal satellite TV signals. I agree that the purported numbers are a little wacky, but the effective fine isn't overly harsh at all.
If you actually read the article, he has to pay the fine off in $500 monthly installments, so depending on how long he lives, the effective fine wil be an almost insignificant fraction of $180m.
Here's the text of the 8th amendment:
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
But it seems to me the fine meets neither test of being cruel (it's $500 a month for goodness sake, my landlord takes more than that) or unusual (people get fined more than the total amount he'll have to pay all the time), so I don't think that the 8th amendment comes into play.
This is a criminal prosecution, unlike the so-called "multi-million dollar judgements", so the restitution is a very different thing under law than the tort judgments that civil courts issue, and isn't subject to the same appeal processes.
. .. dyld:/usr/local/qt/bin/uic can't open library: libqt.3.1.2.dylib (No such file or directory, errno = 2)
make[4]: *** [listboxeditor.h] Trace/BPT trap
make[3]: *** [sub-designer] Error 2
make[2]: *** [sub-designer] Error 2
make[1]: *** [sub-tools] Error 2
make: *** [init] Error 2
farmhouse% And I wasn't 100% confident about getting arts, kdelibs, kdebase and koffice to all compile cleanly against qt-mac. But I'll probably go back to if after more people who know what they're doing have given it a shot.
This isn't a troll. I browse with either Safari or a Mozilladerivative, and use xhtml+css whenever I have to make a web page. That being said, if marketshare is the driving factor, then there's only one answer: MSIE for Windows. If you check out, say, Google's Zeitgeist survey, it's clear that the overwhelming majority of web surfers use MSIE, and that's what you have to cater too. Unfortunately for the rest of us.
This is designed for research and heavy-duty number crunching, something that XP and OSX aren't.
It looks like I'm the Apple troll today, so I have to point out that there is a specially designed Xserve U1 rackmount for clustering apps. I think that part of this has to do with the fact that Apple is still used disproportionately often in academia, and part of it has to do with the Apple-Pixar connection. But it turns out that OS X (the server edition, anyway) is a clustering OS. See here for more details.
(I think he was talking about video/streaming media players more than MP3 players, and to be fair, there are a number of codecs that Linux doesn't fully support.)
I bet Apple already knew IE would be gone on Mac OS, before starting to develop Safari.
Yeah, but I bet developing the iTunes Music store, with its need for embedded HTML rendering, had more to do with do with developing Safari and the WebCore stuff.
I don't really understand how sco can cancel AIX licenses when the issue is IBM and Linux. What am I missing?
What's at issue is that SCO is accusing IBM of putting AIX code into Linux, which is a violation of IBM's Unix license.
Or, in the words of SCO's lawyer:
"Through contributing AIX source code to Linux and using UNIX methods to accelerate and improve Linux as a free operating system, with the resulting destruction of UNIX, IBM has clearly demonstrated its misuse of UNIX source code and has violated the terms of its contract with SCO. SCO has the right to terminate IBM's right to use and distribute AIX. Today AIX is an unauthorized derivative of the UNIX System V operating system source code and its users are, as of this date, using AIX without a valid basis to do so."
Gotcha. Makes a lot of sense actually. Although you could make a case that in a lot of ways, Bill Clinton was Regan II. Not so much in terms of substantial policies, but in terms of political style. They both had a very good ability to communicate, and a good sense of the political centre (Regan might have been a right-wing wacko in practice, but you never felt like he was an extremist). There was a good piece in George magazine back in the day about how during his reelection campaign, Clinton appropriated a substantial amount of Regan's reelection campaign, down to Clinton's use of phrases like "It's morning again in America" during campaign rallies. I kinda get the impression that the distinction between Regan and George Herbert Walker Bush is pretty much required reading for anyone hoping to become a successful American politician these days. Regan for what you should do, and Bush for what you shouldn't.
If the 22nd goes, then: Welcome Back Bill Clinton. We missed you, you redneck horn-dog.
Can't fucking wait!
Also more than vaguely disturbing is your use of the term "Regan I"; were you thinking that little Ronnie Jr., or maybe his lesbian daughter was going to take over?
"Basically, I'd have to shoot the engineers when they came back," said one irate company executive.
Did anything in the DOJ settlement say anything about forcing potential licensees to perform human sacrifice? You'd think with Ashcroft as Attorney General, they'd crack down on stuff like that.
Seriously, the most galling thing about this is the intransigence of the feds. But it's not surprising: the U.S. federal government is run by a bunch of right-wing ideologues who believe the unfettered market is the answer for everything.
You should drink pure grain alcohol and rain water.
Depending on where you are, the rainwater would be enough to fuck you up pretty good. Hell, I'm a drunk, but you won't see me fuck my body up with the stuff that falls from the sky around where I live. I mean, there are limits.
Unfortunately, the Zionists and the fundamentalist Muslims have demonstrated that they won't play nice, therefore the adult countries are trying to seperate them for some quiet time.
By adult countries, do you mean the U.S.? I don't think that their recent international behaviour qualifies them as "adult", and 227 years barely puts them out of their adolescence. And I think adolsecent is a good description.
But my real point here is that I think you're trading on some distinctions that don't exist when you talk about "race oriented nationalism being inherently racist". For most non-immigrant nations (i.e. European and Asian nations), nationalism depends on specifying an in-group that defines the nation, and, guess what, those groups are defined by lineages (even if they aren't strictly "racial", whatever the hell that means anyway). Someone is French or Italian or Chinese preciesely because their parents and grandparents and ancestors all identified themselves and were identified as French or Italian or Chinese. And France, Italy and China are all set up along those lines: sure most western European states are more or less liberal democracies now, but most of them take steps to preserve specific national-identites based along pseudo-tribal (for lack of a better term) lines. It's awfully hard to get German citizenship if your grandparents weren't German (even if you're a Turkish or Kurdish worker who's bein in Germany for most of your life); the French have that silly office charged with preserving the purity of the French language; the Italians have an altogether too cozy relationship with the Catholic church for them to really consider themselves a secular state. Heck, even the English are guaranteed to have the head of the Anglican church as their head of state. So because you decide to make "Jew" a "racial" group, while, say, "French" isn't, Isreal becomes a racist state, and Zionism (which, historically, truly does have nothing to do with Palestinians, and ain't that the problem) becomes a racist urge, while we might still glow with pride about the 19th century European nationalist movements.
And the bottom line is this: regardless of our high-minded liberal liberal preference for secular states, the only way that there's going to be peace in the middle east is to have an Isaeli state and a Palestinian state, each with safe, clearly defined borders, and if the asshole politicans like Sharon and Arafat who maintain political power by maintaining a state of violent crisis disappear.
Anyone else here horribly disappointent by Matrix: Reloaded?
It's pretty hard to be disappointed by a movie staring Canoe Reeves. I mean, to be disappointed there has to be some sort of expectation that it's not going to suck in the first place, and, let's face it, brother can't act to save his life (Bill and Ted is a modern masterpiece though, don't get me wrong). Although frankly I thought Larry Fishburn was more than disappointing: he does Shakespeare regularly, he was Cowboy fucking Curtis -- why'd he have to suck? I've seen popsicle sticks give less wooden performances. The only redeeming performance in the movie was Agent Smith, who was just hilarious.
But getting back to your point -- the first movie was a little too "gee-whiz" with their adolescent philosophy, but at least the plot held together, more or less. But after a zillion fanboys telling them how deep the movie was, and seeing press clippings mentioning their names in the same sentence as, say, Plato or Kant or Buddah or whatever, the Whatemacallem brothers decided to lay the weirdass metaphysics on a little thick in the sequel. And what happened? The movie wasn't pseudo-cryptic, or an interesting conversation starter for people who think solipsism has to with worshiping the longest and shortest days. Nope, it just plain didn't make sense. Like you said, a bad story.
I think what SCO is hoping for is for IBM to respond by buying SCO out, at a premium on current stock prices. But I think that IBM sees through that and is calling SCO's bluff. And just maybe, if the case ends up in court, and IBM actually looks like it might be in legal hot water, they may actually buy SCO. But not unless it's really necessary. IBM is a huge company, with a huge history -- they probably have an enormous amount of arcane intellectual property agreements, and it sets an ugly precedent for a company like SCO to be able to leverage a licensing dispute into a buyout, so I'd expect IBM to play hardball.
So, bottom line, don't expect to hear much from IBM except for whatever lawyer-talk is for "I'll see you in court."
Okay, I'm really drunk, and in over my head here, but that doesn't stop most/. posters, so it certainly won't stop me. To suggest that XML is "just text" is to miss the point of XML, and the opportunity that XML presents. XML might be formatted as text, and presented in a text-format, but it's a specialized subset of text, and the grandparent's right: because XML has a lot more structure than just-plain-vanilla-text, and that structure should be taken advantage of by languages that are are designed with a sympathy to the inherent structure of XML documents.
Now excuse me while I drink some water so I'm not (too) hungover tomorrow. Also excuse me if i shot my mouth off beyond what my (feeble to begin with, but further enfeebled by the wonder that is alcohol) mind can back up.
I'm not sure what to say here. I could say "get a life", or "bet you're kinda pale", or "you should leave the house; there's a whole world out there for you". But who knows, you may be stricken with some sort of disease that doesn't allow you to leave the house: you might be allergic to sunlight, with the slightest exposure to natural light being fatal; you might require a constant i.v. drip of medication, which means you can't leave your desk; you might just have no legs. But really, what it comes down to is this: I admire your single-minded ability to focus on a task; I only wish that you'd use it for something productive. Imagine if someone with your ability to dedicate himself, and obvious vast expanses of free time were to work at somethign like fundraising for charities, or pharmaceutical research, or making meals for the homeless. We could solve urban hunger, or find a cure for cancer. So phyrestang, go out there, and face the sunlight and make the world a better place!
Slashdot Mirror
You new here by any chance?
I think that you have a crucial misunderstanding of the nature of privacy. What sort of privacy can you expect for, say, a pop can that you throw into a public trash can?
Indeed. Authors should be careful.
Think instead of devices, he was planning on selling drugs. He needn't actually sell the drugs to get busted as a trafficker -- that's why they call it "posession with intent" (at least where I live). The issue is a little more complicated because he may not have actually fabricated any of the devices (I read the article, but a long time ago, and I can't be bothered), but it's (obviously, or else he wouldn't have been found guilty) sufficient for the conspiracy charge to that he had plans to make the devices, and taken some overt act to further the conspiracy.
Let's get a few things straight here: the guy wasn't doing this to "liberate the information" or reverse engineer and GPL plans for satellite receivers; hell, he wasn't even going to put ads in the back of comic books so you could buy the plans and make the device out of parts from Radio Shack. The guy's a crook, he's been arrested for this kind of stuff before, and I have a hunch that the reasoning behind his sentence reflects this: it's never going to be profitable for him to pull this scam again. The other thing to clear up is about the whole "thoughtcrimes" thing. Conspiracy has been a part of law forever, and like any other crime it consists of a mental part (the plan) and an overt act (to further the plan). I don't think that being able to prosecute people for conspiracy is on-its-face facistic, but then we may just have a difference of opinion on that.
Actually, if you look at the list of federal capital offenses, 18 USC sec. 1716, Mailing of injurious articles with intent to kill or resulting in death (emphasis added), is indeed listed. So I guess they do.
What business model? The "vigorously-defend-our-intellectual-property" business model or the "get-criminal-restitution-of-$6000-per-annum" business model? If they bust 10 or 11 more people, they might even be able to pay the salary and benefits of one employee. This guy, who'd been arrested for the same thing before, was planning to sell devices to allow people to steal satellite TV signals. I agree that the purported numbers are a little wacky, but the effective fine isn't overly harsh at all.
Three points:
Me neither:
. /usr/local/qt/bin/uic can't open library: libqt.3.1.2.dylib (No such file or directory, errno = 2)
. .
dyld:
make[4]: *** [listboxeditor.h] Trace/BPT trap
make[3]: *** [sub-designer] Error 2
make[2]: *** [sub-designer] Error 2
make[1]: *** [sub-tools] Error 2
make: *** [init] Error 2
farmhouse%
And I wasn't 100% confident about getting arts, kdelibs, kdebase and koffice to all compile cleanly against qt-mac. But I'll probably go back to if after more people who know what they're doing have given it a shot.
Because we all know the old saying:
Or something like that, anyway.This isn't a troll. I browse with either Safari or a Mozilla derivative, and use xhtml+css whenever I have to make a web page. That being said, if marketshare is the driving factor, then there's only one answer: MSIE for Windows. If you check out, say, Google's Zeitgeist survey, it's clear that the overwhelming majority of web surfers use MSIE, and that's what you have to cater too. Unfortunately for the rest of us.
It looks like I'm the Apple troll today, so I have to point out that there is a specially designed Xserve U1 rackmount for clustering apps. I think that part of this has to do with the fact that Apple is still used disproportionately often in academia, and part of it has to do with the Apple-Pixar connection. But it turns out that OS X (the server edition, anyway) is a clustering OS. See here for more details.
One word:
iTunes.
(I think he was talking about video/streaming media players more than MP3 players, and to be fair, there are a number of codecs that Linux doesn't fully support.)
Yeah, but I bet developing the iTunes Music store, with its need for embedded HTML rendering, had more to do with do with developing Safari and the WebCore stuff.
Check out his old comment here. Good ol' Dave seems to have some issues.
What's at issue is that SCO is accusing IBM of putting AIX code into Linux, which is a violation of IBM's Unix license.
Or, in the words of SCO's lawyer:
Gotcha. Makes a lot of sense actually. Although you could make a case that in a lot of ways, Bill Clinton was Regan II. Not so much in terms of substantial policies, but in terms of political style. They both had a very good ability to communicate, and a good sense of the political centre (Regan might have been a right-wing wacko in practice, but you never felt like he was an extremist). There was a good piece in George magazine back in the day about how during his reelection campaign, Clinton appropriated a substantial amount of Regan's reelection campaign, down to Clinton's use of phrases like "It's morning again in America" during campaign rallies. I kinda get the impression that the distinction between Regan and George Herbert Walker Bush is pretty much required reading for anyone hoping to become a successful American politician these days. Regan for what you should do, and Bush for what you shouldn't.
Looks like i wasted my vote in that category on the Pope. Again.
If the 22nd goes, then: Welcome Back Bill Clinton. We missed you, you redneck horn-dog.
Can't fucking wait!
Also more than vaguely disturbing is your use of the term "Regan I"; were you thinking that little Ronnie Jr., or maybe his lesbian daughter was going to take over?
Did anything in the DOJ settlement say anything about forcing potential licensees to perform human sacrifice? You'd think with Ashcroft as Attorney General, they'd crack down on stuff like that.
Seriously, the most galling thing about this is the intransigence of the feds. But it's not surprising: the U.S. federal government is run by a bunch of right-wing ideologues who believe the unfettered market is the answer for everything.
Depending on where you are, the rainwater would be enough to fuck you up pretty good. Hell, I'm a drunk, but you won't see me fuck my body up with the stuff that falls from the sky around where I live. I mean, there are limits.
By adult countries, do you mean the U.S.? I don't think that their recent international behaviour qualifies them as "adult", and 227 years barely puts them out of their adolescence. And I think adolsecent is a good description.
But my real point here is that I think you're trading on some distinctions that don't exist when you talk about "race oriented nationalism being inherently racist". For most non-immigrant nations (i.e. European and Asian nations), nationalism depends on specifying an in-group that defines the nation, and, guess what, those groups are defined by lineages (even if they aren't strictly "racial", whatever the hell that means anyway). Someone is French or Italian or Chinese preciesely because their parents and grandparents and ancestors all identified themselves and were identified as French or Italian or Chinese. And France, Italy and China are all set up along those lines: sure most western European states are more or less liberal democracies now, but most of them take steps to preserve specific national-identites based along pseudo-tribal (for lack of a better term) lines. It's awfully hard to get German citizenship if your grandparents weren't German (even if you're a Turkish or Kurdish worker who's bein in Germany for most of your life); the French have that silly office charged with preserving the purity of the French language; the Italians have an altogether too cozy relationship with the Catholic church for them to really consider themselves a secular state. Heck, even the English are guaranteed to have the head of the Anglican church as their head of state. So because you decide to make "Jew" a "racial" group, while, say, "French" isn't, Isreal becomes a racist state, and Zionism (which, historically, truly does have nothing to do with Palestinians, and ain't that the problem) becomes a racist urge, while we might still glow with pride about the 19th century European nationalist movements.
And the bottom line is this: regardless of our high-minded liberal liberal preference for secular states, the only way that there's going to be peace in the middle east is to have an Isaeli state and a Palestinian state, each with safe, clearly defined borders, and if the asshole politicans like Sharon and Arafat who maintain political power by maintaining a state of violent crisis disappear.
It's pretty hard to be disappointed by a movie staring Canoe Reeves. I mean, to be disappointed there has to be some sort of expectation that it's not going to suck in the first place, and, let's face it, brother can't act to save his life (Bill and Ted is a modern masterpiece though, don't get me wrong). Although frankly I thought Larry Fishburn was more than disappointing: he does Shakespeare regularly, he was Cowboy fucking Curtis -- why'd he have to suck? I've seen popsicle sticks give less wooden performances. The only redeeming performance in the movie was Agent Smith, who was just hilarious.
But getting back to your point -- the first movie was a little too "gee-whiz" with their adolescent philosophy, but at least the plot held together, more or less. But after a zillion fanboys telling them how deep the movie was, and seeing press clippings mentioning their names in the same sentence as, say, Plato or Kant or Buddah or whatever, the Whatemacallem brothers decided to lay the weirdass metaphysics on a little thick in the sequel. And what happened? The movie wasn't pseudo-cryptic, or an interesting conversation starter for people who think solipsism has to with worshiping the longest and shortest days. Nope, it just plain didn't make sense. Like you said, a bad story.
Disclaimer: I'm drunk.
I think what SCO is hoping for is for IBM to respond by buying SCO out, at a premium on current stock prices. But I think that IBM sees through that and is calling SCO's bluff. And just maybe, if the case ends up in court, and IBM actually looks like it might be in legal hot water, they may actually buy SCO. But not unless it's really necessary. IBM is a huge company, with a huge history -- they probably have an enormous amount of arcane intellectual property agreements, and it sets an ugly precedent for a company like SCO to be able to leverage a licensing dispute into a buyout, so I'd expect IBM to play hardball.
So, bottom line, don't expect to hear much from IBM except for whatever lawyer-talk is for "I'll see you in court."
Okay, I'm really drunk, and in over my head here, but that doesn't stop most /. posters, so it certainly won't stop me. To suggest that XML is "just text" is to miss the point of XML, and the opportunity that XML presents. XML might be formatted as text, and presented in a text-format, but it's a specialized subset of text, and the grandparent's right: because XML has a lot more structure than just-plain-vanilla-text, and that structure should be taken advantage of by languages that are are designed with a sympathy to the inherent structure of XML documents.
Now excuse me while I drink some water so I'm not (too) hungover tomorrow. Also excuse me if i shot my mouth off beyond what my (feeble to begin with, but further enfeebled by the wonder that is alcohol) mind can back up.
I'm not sure what to say here. I could say "get a life", or "bet you're kinda pale", or "you should leave the house; there's a whole world out there for you". But who knows, you may be stricken with some sort of disease that doesn't allow you to leave the house: you might be allergic to sunlight, with the slightest exposure to natural light being fatal; you might require a constant i.v. drip of medication, which means you can't leave your desk; you might just have no legs. But really, what it comes down to is this: I admire your single-minded ability to focus on a task; I only wish that you'd use it for something productive. Imagine if someone with your ability to dedicate himself, and obvious vast expanses of free time were to work at somethign like fundraising for charities, or pharmaceutical research, or making meals for the homeless. We could solve urban hunger, or find a cure for cancer. So phyrestang, go out there, and face the sunlight and make the world a better place!