Not all of us look at marriage as some prize that can be won on a reality show, or some tool that should be manipulated to pursue an agenda.
No, not all of us, but you certainly do. You view marriage as a reward for your heterosexuality, and are using it as a tool in your anti-gay agenda.
The only thing pro-gay legislation is "against" is the anti-gay agenda.
I would love to hear you argue otherwise, by explaining how two homosexuals getting married affects your marriage negatively in any way shape or form.
But thank you for making it clear just how explicitly the "pro marriage" view is in reality nothing but a purely "anti gay" view. The support is helpful.
Well I'm assuming that's just some initial hacks they got working.
What I really want to know is if you can disable the software that prevents the camera from stealing the souls of those photographed. Digital cameras are amazingly convenient and powerful compared to their non-digital ancestors, but they're useless to me unless I can steal souls.
You know, the democratic party, as a whole, sucks just as much. The last 2 years, Pelosi and friends were playing politics to get in the White House and have not been doing the job they were elected to do: end Iraq War, etc.
Oh, nonsense. The Democratic party sucks a lot, but not just as much as the Republicans. The Democrats have failed to make any progress toward getting us out of Iraq in the last two years, while the Republicans have spent the last 6 doing everything they can to entrench us further.
Spineless cowards owned by corporations, brazen warmongers owned by corporations. In my opinion there is very much room for one to suck worse than the other.
This notion that if two guys have done bad things, then they are automatically just as bad regardless of what those things actually were, is a foolish notion and has been actively damaging our ability to reason.
I see, so Pro Marriage legislation is anti-gay. Would that make all the Pro Gay legislation anti Marriage?
If not, why not?
Because "pro marriage" legislation is explicitly anti-gay, in that it denies homosexuals the ability to get married. It's only "pro" heterosexual marriage, and actively "anti" gay marriage.
Whereas "pro gay" legislation would allow homosexuals to marry, and has no impact whatsoever on the marriages of heterosexuals. So it is not in any way "anti" anything.
It's really not that hard, but it requires looking past the most shallow of surface layers.
The funny exception to this is that Hillary Clinton gets scrutinized by the media all the time. Maybe they think she's a Republican in disguise?
Rush thinks the media is giving Hillary a free pass and has since she started her presidential bid.
But then again Rush is a cook, and I think a little obsessed with the Clintons.
Re:GPL does pretty much the same thing ...
on
Who Owns Software?
·
· Score: 1
I'm just going by what the FSF lawyers say, that compliance with the license is the *only* thing that grants you access to the copyrighted work.
They FSF lawyers never say that. The line you keep misinterpreting only means that you can make, run, and propagate (i.e. perform a number of copyright-restricted actions) without condition if the license is in force. That does not mean that if the license is not in force, then some magical unspecified restriction on running the program comes into being. There is no such restriction, nowhere in copyright law nor in the GPLv3 itself.
There are restrictions against "propagation", specified by copyright law.
As Keith Olbermann reminds viewers of "Countdown" regularly, the technical definition of "insanity" is trying the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results.
That "definition" has always bothered me, as I would find those considered "sane" under that definition to be extremely crazy themselves.
How crazy would you have to be to think that your previous actions would have no impact on future attempts?
If you swung an axe at a door and made a small chip, which would be more insane: Thinking that the next or subsequent blow would put the blade entirely through the door, or thinking that you could swing the axe at the door all day and do nothing but make small cuts?
It is very rare in real life that a certain event has the "memoryless" property (i.e. the outcome is based only on that event, not on the outcome of any previous events). That's a special case, not the general rule.
Look at this case. They tried the same thing, and got a different result: Their motion was dismissed even more rapidly than before. If they keep trying this, it is highly unlikely that the outcome would be the same each time; eventually they would be found in contempt. Judges in particular do not often suffer from being "memoryless".:)
Once you have voided your license the copy on your hard drive is infringing
Ah, another misconception. See, the only way the copy on your hard drive is infringing is if you obtained it illegally, i.e. the person who gave you the copy was not granted distribution rights. Once you have legally obtained that copy, certain further acts you perform could violate copyright, but even such a violation does not make the presence of the legally obtained copy itself a violation.
Re:GPL does pretty much the same thing ...
on
Who Owns Software?
·
· Score: 1
The *license* is the only thing that gives you any rights.
You do not need to be granted the right to run the program. The license cannot be necessary to grant such a right, because you already have it.
It can only grant rights that are exclusive to the copyright holder, and those rights are specific and spelled out in copyright law. Running a program is not one of them.
You can keep reading that one line of the GPLv3 out of context, or you can read some copyright law and see why that line does not mean what you think it means.
Re:GPL does pretty much the same thing ...
on
Who Owns Software?
·
· Score: 1
The GPL cannot require compliance to run in the way you take that sentence to mean, since that is not an exclusive right granted by copyright. That's why it explicitly affirms your unlimited right to run the program. The only term in that sentence that is meaningful is the word "propagate", which is by definition an act restricted by copyright.
Re:GPL does pretty much the same thing ...
on
Who Owns Software?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
The copy on the hard drive is there subject to a license. RAM is unnecessarily confusing the issue.
But the necessary copying from disk to RAM is the foundation of their whole argument!
And once again you say in generic terms that a copy is "subject to a license" but you don't say for what. If you still aren't getting it, copyright is not a blanket statement that you can't do anything at all with a legally obtained copy of a work without permission. It grants specific rights to the copyright owner, and only certain actions violate that right.
So until you start talking about performing an action that violates the copyright holders rights, then no the copy on the hard drive is not subject to needing a license to be in compliance with copyright law.
Furthermore, the game downloads code at run-time after connecting. So violating the license at run-time applies as well.
Is that a necessary step of using the software? Yes it is, and thus no it is not a copyright violation.
Instead, Blizzard claims that any time a user runs WoW, the copy of the game (or the portions of it) that are copied into RAM are infringements. Or, at least, they would be, but for the generosity of Blizzard, which grants users a license to make these RAM copies. Utter fucking lunacy. Indeed, that is lunacy, because copies made as a necessary step in using the program (i.e. copying it from disk to ram) are explicitly exempted from being possible infringements. This isn't even "fair use", it is as the section header says a limitation on the exclusive rights of the copyright holder. They do not have the right to prevent such copies. Therefore they cannot grant permission to do this through their EULA, nor can performing this copy in violation of their EULA be a copyright violation.
They're out on a limb here, and the wind is going to pick up shortly. Any EFF lawyer could argue this down in seconds.
By the way, the next paragraph (b) also directly addresses the notion of selling a legally obtained copy of a copyrighted work. It directly and explicitly puts to pasture the idea that you need a company's (like MSFT's) permission to re-sell a singular copy of their software. At least from the standpoint of copyright.
Re:GPL does pretty much the same thing ...
on
Who Owns Software?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
since the license is the only thing that grants permission to the copyrighted work
Only thing that grants permission to what the copyrighted work?
Use the copyrighted work? As in run the program? No, you need no permission whatsoever to do that. The only types of "use" copyright covers are public performances.
Copy and distribute the copyrighted work? Yes, because that's something that copyright actually covers.
Copy into memory for purposes of using the copyrighted work? No, because copyright law explicitly exempts copies made as a necessary part of using the work from being infringement.
Using the generic "grants permission to the work" is completely wrong. Copyright law only prohibits certain things. It is not a blanket grant of rights to control every aspect of the copyrighted work. The copyright holder does not have to grant permission "to" the work; they have nothing to do with that. If you purchase a legally created copy of a book, you can give that book to me, and the copyright holder has no say. If I try to create a duplicate of the book and give it away without permission, that is a violation of copyright.
GPL only attempts to grant things that are otherwise prohibited by copyright. EULAs try to prohibit things that are, otherwise, completely legal. The difference is huge.
In the absense of such laws, the the EU has taken actions against MS that get no promise of interoperability from the rest of the industry. They have saddled MS with regulatory oversight, fines, and forced them to sell IP at rates below what their competitors would charge.
Why yes, monopolies have different legal restraints than other companies, and when said monopoly breaks the law, the penalty applies only to them.
In the long run this solves nothing -- it just makes it likely that in the future we'll face the exact same problem, but from some company other than MS.
No, not enforcing the law would make it more likely that in the future we'll face the exact same problem, either from MS or from another company, because they'd know there's no penalty for breaking the law. Enforcing the law means that the next company after MS will be more likely to think twice before illegally abusing its monopoly.
I get your point that the current laws and the EU's decision don't address the greater underlying issues in a way that fixes the problem entirely, rather than just in the specific case of MS. That's true, but means nothing as to whether the EU's action against MS was appropriate. You may as well say that because the law as it stands does not address the underlying problems of violent crime, we should not prosecute a particular case of aggravated assault. That's nonsense. If the problem is that the law is not over-arching enough, the solution is not to enforce the law less.
Depends on how you take the analogy. After all, in the nominal case, you have a completely legitimate claim on the money the ATM gives you (it's yours). So, maybe they meant that the EU is taking the money it is owed, but that this does present a challenge to whoever is running Microsoft when the "withdrawals" occur?
Haha, but seriously. Sounds more to me like the whole "being punished for success" line wrt the original US DOJ vs MS case... basically requires not knowing anything about why the legal action is taking place. And I guess if you don't know anything about ATMs, some guy taking a hand full of cash from the machine would seem pretty sketchy.
The now extinct Red Go Faster Striped Zebras easily outran cheetahs. They didn't actually go extinct; they just migrated so fast, time stopped for them.
The Red Go Faster Striped Zebras weren't actually red, they just ran away so fast that they appeared so.
The closely related Blue Go Faster Striped Zebras were equally fast, but they would always run towards predators.
The Blue Zebras really did go extinct, as one would expect.
Re:Second person narration as a method of aggravat
on
Second Person
·
· Score: 1
Well, I know people exactly like that except for that bs about narrow torque bands. Why would you not want to have increased responsiveness at all rpms? To make your high torque band seem larger in comparison?
But if that's not your particular bag, don't buy a Tesla. Big deal. There's a thousand sports cars catered around peoples' tastes of what is "ideal". With cars who run in series of only a few thousand, at those prices, they can afford to be of limited appeal.
Drag racer, sports car, whatever. I've never known anyone who was happy that their torque curves sucked outside a narrow range. An unavoidable parameter of the technology of the engine, yes, a "feature", no.
But if you like having to slow down before you can feel the thrill of high acceleration, that's your bag, and this ain't your car.
Yeah, I know, I'm always hearing street racers say how exciting it is to have to wait until they're halfway through the gear before the acceleration really kicks in, and also how awesome it is to be already at speed and stomp on the gas and get a completely anemic response because they're above peak torque rpm. No, wait, they're always complaining about that.
I appreciate that for some people the excitement of driving may be all about the 3rd derivative. For a lot of drivers, a "golf cart" that can do 0-60 in 4s and still has plenty of kick left at 90mph would be a freaking blast.
The only complaint I've heard about EVs from actual drag racers is that they don't make the impressive noise they're used to that says "I'm a bad-ass big-block". On the other hand, a lot of them are getting turned on to the aesthetic of a machine that kicks ass in eerie silence.
Re:Choose your own adventure
on
Second Person
·
· Score: 1
Indeed, and I wish real life was more like them. Specifically, I wish that whenever I was presented with a difficult choice, I could put my finger on the page I'm currently on, and if I don't like the page I turn to, I just go back.
Re:Second person narration as a method of aggravat
on
Second Person
·
· Score: 3, Funny
"I did not do that and I'm offended that you would say I did," you say in breathy undertones as you stuff the cantaloupe into your pants.
This thing is first and foremost a bad-ass sports car. It does 0-60 faster than cars costing twice as much.
The "green" aspect is just a way for them to one-up the Ferrari drivers who might try to talk trash. They can just respond "well I just kicked your ass in the quarter mile, and I'm saving the environment". And at least compared to driving a Ferrari or any other sports car, they are.
Slashdot Mirror
Not all of us look at marriage as some prize that can be won on a reality show, or some tool that should be manipulated to pursue an agenda.
No, not all of us, but you certainly do. You view marriage as a reward for your heterosexuality, and are using it as a tool in your anti-gay agenda.
The only thing pro-gay legislation is "against" is the anti-gay agenda.
I would love to hear you argue otherwise, by explaining how two homosexuals getting married affects your marriage negatively in any way shape or form.
But thank you for making it clear just how explicitly the "pro marriage" view is in reality nothing but a purely "anti gay" view. The support is helpful.
Well I'm assuming that's just some initial hacks they got working.
What I really want to know is if you can disable the software that prevents the camera from stealing the souls of those photographed. Digital cameras are amazingly convenient and powerful compared to their non-digital ancestors, but they're useless to me unless I can steal souls.
You know, the democratic party, as a whole, sucks just as much. The last 2 years, Pelosi and friends were playing politics to get in the White House and have not been doing the job they were elected to do: end Iraq War, etc.
Oh, nonsense. The Democratic party sucks a lot, but not just as much as the Republicans. The Democrats have failed to make any progress toward getting us out of Iraq in the last two years, while the Republicans have spent the last 6 doing everything they can to entrench us further.
Spineless cowards owned by corporations, brazen warmongers owned by corporations. In my opinion there is very much room for one to suck worse than the other.
This notion that if two guys have done bad things, then they are automatically just as bad regardless of what those things actually were, is a foolish notion and has been actively damaging our ability to reason.
I see, so Pro Marriage legislation is anti-gay. Would that make all the Pro Gay legislation anti Marriage?
If not, why not?
Because "pro marriage" legislation is explicitly anti-gay, in that it denies homosexuals the ability to get married. It's only "pro" heterosexual marriage, and actively "anti" gay marriage.
Whereas "pro gay" legislation would allow homosexuals to marry, and has no impact whatsoever on the marriages of heterosexuals. So it is not in any way "anti" anything.
It's really not that hard, but it requires looking past the most shallow of surface layers.
The funny exception to this is that Hillary Clinton gets scrutinized by the media all the time. Maybe they think she's a Republican in disguise?
Rush thinks the media is giving Hillary a free pass and has since she started her presidential bid.
But then again Rush is a cook, and I think a little obsessed with the Clintons.
I'm just going by what the FSF lawyers say, that compliance with the license is the *only* thing that grants you access to the copyrighted work.
They FSF lawyers never say that. The line you keep misinterpreting only means that you can make, run, and propagate (i.e. perform a number of copyright-restricted actions) without condition if the license is in force. That does not mean that if the license is not in force, then some magical unspecified restriction on running the program comes into being. There is no such restriction, nowhere in copyright law nor in the GPLv3 itself.
There are restrictions against "propagation", specified by copyright law.
Hope that helps clear things up.
As Keith Olbermann reminds viewers of "Countdown" regularly, the technical definition of "insanity" is trying the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results.
:)
That "definition" has always bothered me, as I would find those considered "sane" under that definition to be extremely crazy themselves.
How crazy would you have to be to think that your previous actions would have no impact on future attempts?
If you swung an axe at a door and made a small chip, which would be more insane: Thinking that the next or subsequent blow would put the blade entirely through the door, or thinking that you could swing the axe at the door all day and do nothing but make small cuts?
It is very rare in real life that a certain event has the "memoryless" property (i.e. the outcome is based only on that event, not on the outcome of any previous events). That's a special case, not the general rule.
Look at this case. They tried the same thing, and got a different result: Their motion was dismissed even more rapidly than before. If they keep trying this, it is highly unlikely that the outcome would be the same each time; eventually they would be found in contempt. Judges in particular do not often suffer from being "memoryless".
Once you have voided your license the copy on your hard drive is infringing
Ah, another misconception. See, the only way the copy on your hard drive is infringing is if you obtained it illegally, i.e. the person who gave you the copy was not granted distribution rights. Once you have legally obtained that copy, certain further acts you perform could violate copyright, but even such a violation does not make the presence of the legally obtained copy itself a violation.
The *license* is the only thing that gives you any rights.
You do not need to be granted the right to run the program. The license cannot be necessary to grant such a right, because you already have it.
It can only grant rights that are exclusive to the copyright holder, and those rights are specific and spelled out in copyright law. Running a program is not one of them.
You can keep reading that one line of the GPLv3 out of context, or you can read some copyright law and see why that line does not mean what you think it means.
The GPL cannot require compliance to run in the way you take that sentence to mean, since that is not an exclusive right granted by copyright. That's why it explicitly affirms your unlimited right to run the program. The only term in that sentence that is meaningful is the word "propagate", which is by definition an act restricted by copyright.
The copy on the hard drive is there subject to a license. RAM is unnecessarily confusing the issue.
But the necessary copying from disk to RAM is the foundation of their whole argument!
And once again you say in generic terms that a copy is "subject to a license" but you don't say for what. If you still aren't getting it, copyright is not a blanket statement that you can't do anything at all with a legally obtained copy of a work without permission. It grants specific rights to the copyright owner, and only certain actions violate that right.
So until you start talking about performing an action that violates the copyright holders rights, then no the copy on the hard drive is not subject to needing a license to be in compliance with copyright law.
Furthermore, the game downloads code at run-time after connecting. So violating the license at run-time applies as well.
Is that a necessary step of using the software? Yes it is, and thus no it is not a copyright violation.
They're out on a limb here, and the wind is going to pick up shortly. Any EFF lawyer could argue this down in seconds.
By the way, the next paragraph (b) also directly addresses the notion of selling a legally obtained copy of a copyrighted work. It directly and explicitly puts to pasture the idea that you need a company's (like MSFT's) permission to re-sell a singular copy of their software. At least from the standpoint of copyright.
since the license is the only thing that grants permission to the copyrighted work
Only thing that grants permission to what the copyrighted work?
Use the copyrighted work? As in run the program? No, you need no permission whatsoever to do that. The only types of "use" copyright covers are public performances.
Copy and distribute the copyrighted work? Yes, because that's something that copyright actually covers.
Copy into memory for purposes of using the copyrighted work? No, because copyright law explicitly exempts copies made as a necessary part of using the work from being infringement.
Using the generic "grants permission to the work" is completely wrong. Copyright law only prohibits certain things. It is not a blanket grant of rights to control every aspect of the copyrighted work. The copyright holder does not have to grant permission "to" the work; they have nothing to do with that. If you purchase a legally created copy of a book, you can give that book to me, and the copyright holder has no say. If I try to create a duplicate of the book and give it away without permission, that is a violation of copyright.
GPL only attempts to grant things that are otherwise prohibited by copyright. EULAs try to prohibit things that are, otherwise, completely legal. The difference is huge.
In the absense of such laws, the the EU has taken actions against MS that get no promise of interoperability from the rest of the industry. They have saddled MS with regulatory oversight, fines, and forced them to sell IP at rates below what their competitors would charge.
Why yes, monopolies have different legal restraints than other companies, and when said monopoly breaks the law, the penalty applies only to them.
In the long run this solves nothing -- it just makes it likely that in the future we'll face the exact same problem, but from some company other than MS.
No, not enforcing the law would make it more likely that in the future we'll face the exact same problem, either from MS or from another company, because they'd know there's no penalty for breaking the law. Enforcing the law means that the next company after MS will be more likely to think twice before illegally abusing its monopoly.
I get your point that the current laws and the EU's decision don't address the greater underlying issues in a way that fixes the problem entirely, rather than just in the specific case of MS. That's true, but means nothing as to whether the EU's action against MS was appropriate. You may as well say that because the law as it stands does not address the underlying problems of violent crime, we should not prosecute a particular case of aggravated assault. That's nonsense. If the problem is that the law is not over-arching enough, the solution is not to enforce the law less.
Depends on how you take the analogy. After all, in the nominal case, you have a completely legitimate claim on the money the ATM gives you (it's yours). So, maybe they meant that the EU is taking the money it is owed, but that this does present a challenge to whoever is running Microsoft when the "withdrawals" occur?
Haha, but seriously. Sounds more to me like the whole "being punished for success" line wrt the original US DOJ vs MS case... basically requires not knowing anything about why the legal action is taking place. And I guess if you don't know anything about ATMs, some guy taking a hand full of cash from the machine would seem pretty sketchy.
I believe this post will be the one I get nostalgic about when I reminisce in the work camp while the robotic overseers aren't looking.
They're always looking. Now get back to work before we all lose our gruel ration!
The other option is Red. Red is always faster.
The now extinct Red Go Faster Striped Zebras easily outran cheetahs. They didn't actually go extinct; they just migrated so fast, time stopped for them.
The Red Go Faster Striped Zebras weren't actually red, they just ran away so fast that they appeared so.
The closely related Blue Go Faster Striped Zebras were equally fast, but they would always run towards predators.
The Blue Zebras really did go extinct, as one would expect.
No idea what you're talking about.
Well, I know people exactly like that except for that bs about narrow torque bands. Why would you not want to have increased responsiveness at all rpms? To make your high torque band seem larger in comparison?
But if that's not your particular bag, don't buy a Tesla. Big deal. There's a thousand sports cars catered around peoples' tastes of what is "ideal". With cars who run in series of only a few thousand, at those prices, they can afford to be of limited appeal.
Drag racer, sports car, whatever. I've never known anyone who was happy that their torque curves sucked outside a narrow range. An unavoidable parameter of the technology of the engine, yes, a "feature", no.
But if you like having to slow down before you can feel the thrill of high acceleration, that's your bag, and this ain't your car.
I'll have to keep my eye out for it then.
Yeah, I know, I'm always hearing street racers say how exciting it is to have to wait until they're halfway through the gear before the acceleration really kicks in, and also how awesome it is to be already at speed and stomp on the gas and get a completely anemic response because they're above peak torque rpm. No, wait, they're always complaining about that.
I appreciate that for some people the excitement of driving may be all about the 3rd derivative. For a lot of drivers, a "golf cart" that can do 0-60 in 4s and still has plenty of kick left at 90mph would be a freaking blast.
The only complaint I've heard about EVs from actual drag racers is that they don't make the impressive noise they're used to that says "I'm a bad-ass big-block". On the other hand, a lot of them are getting turned on to the aesthetic of a machine that kicks ass in eerie silence.
Indeed, and I wish real life was more like them. Specifically, I wish that whenever I was presented with a difficult choice, I could put my finger on the page I'm currently on, and if I don't like the page I turn to, I just go back.
"I did not do that and I'm offended that you would say I did," you say in breathy undertones as you stuff the cantaloupe into your pants.
No, I think you're missing the point.
This thing is first and foremost a bad-ass sports car. It does 0-60 faster than cars costing twice as much.
The "green" aspect is just a way for them to one-up the Ferrari drivers who might try to talk trash. They can just respond "well I just kicked your ass in the quarter mile, and I'm saving the environment". And at least compared to driving a Ferrari or any other sports car, they are.