Their logic is: "We don't want to tie the hands of prosecutors behind their backs," said Mark Corallo, a Justice Department spokesman, "and it's our responsibility when we find weaknesses in the law to make suggestions to Congress on how to fix them."
So constitutional protections are now marketed as "weaknesses" which need to be fixed. That whole 4th amendment thing is just a big loophole for criminals and evildoers who want to kill us because they hate our freedoms.
Yep. Only big business should be allowed to make chemicals. That way they can make lots of money. Little people and ma and pa business making chemicals cuts into their revenue stream. So let's just call those people what they are--terrorists.
I saw him on FoxNews with Tony Snow last week (safe haven for him, no tough questions). He was saying how little the patriot act does and how "we still need judges to sign all these warrants, it's not like we do anything on a whim." His basic spiel was "oh come on, it's nothing! Really, we would never use it in a bad way, trust us! We love jesus! Praise!"
We can only hope 4 year terms run in the bush family. And I voted for dubya.
I'm pretty sure they were talking about using silly putty to copy pages from comic books. Ya know, spread it on the page, hold it down, and lift it up -- up comes the ink. Instant derivative work.
The process to make silly putty itself would be patented, but i'm assuming that since silly putty has been around a long, long time, and since these instructions on the web have not been taken down yet, that the patent has expired. So the silly putty recipe is public domain.
As for the name "silly putty" that would be trademarked, and trademark protection lasts forever, unless the name is not defended and it becomes something like kleenex or xerox (a generic term). One could argue that silly putty has reached this level of generality.
As for saying "putting the instructions for making silly putty online violates the silly putty copyright"... well, you're an idiot and you have no idea what you're talking about.
It's clear that SCO has filed its suit against IBM with absolutely no chance of winning (much like the fox news vs al franken "fair and balanced" suit). Not only has SCO filed a frivilous suit (a civil cause of action to do so) but has made baseless threats causing undue emotional distress to many users of Linux. Once SCO's suit is dismissed, look for some really nice lawsuits right back at 'em from many different parties. Should make for good popcorn munching entertainment. If it were me, I would sue Darly McB individually, in his personal capacity, as well as SCO.
Unless minorities will be forbidden to get licenses or will have to pay more for them, then any disparate impact is not intentional and, while unfortunate, is too fucking bad. Every idea hurts minorities and children, so we need to collectively get over it.
I agree with you; I'm a 14-year (or until death, whichever comes first) copyright wacko as well. I don't believe CR should last past the life of the author, and 14 years is plenty. A second 14 year term is too much, IMHO (yes, the founding fathers went overboard). I was merely pointing out that Dali and Walt Disney started this project together as co-authors, and Walt's family will be prospering from it, while Dali's most likely won't.
somehow I have the feeling that even though the original work had multiple authors (disney, dali), this "finished" version will be entirely disney's and not a cent will go to the Dali estate. Mickey just wouldn't have it any other way. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.
I'll call one of the many people who are leashed to their cell phone, and would freak out if they missed a call. In other words, pretty much everyone. Just because *I* don't answer my phone doesn't mean everyone else doesn't. I fail to see how you can come to such an illogical conclusion.
Even if everyone did act like me, I'd simply leave a message (but only if I actually had something of value to communicate) and maybe the person would call me back, if necessary. Leaving messages should be utilized more often (by the one with the answering service).
When you are driving, you are busy. When you are exercising at the gym, you are busy. Despite that, everyone in their car and on the stairmaster at the gym is yapping on their cellphone. "hey what's up, nothing, you, nada, yeah, yeah, uh huh, yep, ok, yeah... uh huh... no way... no way... uh.. i think.. yeah.. ok, ok, bye." Only to have it ring again a minute later and repeat the process. It's not a question of importance/ego. I don't think i'm any more important than the people trying to call me. But if i'm doing something, there is nothing so important that can't be left in a message. Now, were I ACTUALLY important (i.e. president of the US, etc.) then I would answer, because there could be things that are so important that, were they left in a message, would be detrimental to me and others. But i'm not the president.
you're confusing fuzzy math with fuzzy logic. There's a difference. One is an adaptive algorith (fuzzy logic), the other is deceptive bullshit (fuzzy math).
I don't think you need to be taught it. I think such mathematics comes naturally to stupid, uneducated people. We should be teaching people why such 'fuzzy math' is extremely wrong and intellectually dishonest. This way people will not only spew such bullshit, but they'll be able to readily identify it when they see it. Then the RIAA will be even more fucked than they already are.
I think it would be infinitely more beneficial to the music to supply the musicians with beer (and other drugs, preferably pot and heroin) versus fucking up your CDs with fungus. Of course, it's not an either-or, but the musicians presumably know what they're doing and what sound they are after. Random (and that's what it is, no matter how many times you use neato k-spiff l33t words fractal and branches) fungus growth on a CD does not add anything special to the music.
Interestingly, if you add beer to both the CD, to fuck it up, and the listener, to fuck them up, I think both effects would cancel each other out.
Yep, and the cost of advertising on the uniforms will be a function of the company's stock price. I fucking hate what this country is becoming. There need to be limits on advertising. It's ruining the country and the world.
Well said. My cellphone is a one-way street. It's for ME to call you, and not vice-versa. I usually leave it in my car. If you (and i mean the global 'you') have something to tell me, leave a message and if it's worth my time, I'll get back to you. I don't do the "hey what's up? Nuthin'" thing.
Likewise, no phone conversation is worth getting into a pool and isolation helmet for. Blowjob, maybe. Phone call... no fucking way.
Re:How does that make any sense?
on
Beatles Bite Apple
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Well, the argument is, you never confused Apple computer with Apple Music because the agreement was that they'd do separate things, and that apple computer would not enter the music industry. Now, Apple Computer has entered the music industry with iMusic. The article even says they're calling it "Apple Music." So, I hate to say it, but apple music (the beatles) does have a good case here. They've won worse cases in the past (such as apple computer shipping speakers with their computers).
That being said, these companies have been around so long, anyone who is confused needs to be shot and have his wallet taken away from him.
Should be a statute of limitations for "confusion"
on
Beatles Bite Apple
·
· Score: 1
Once you have a name for X number of years (say, 5) you should be immune from suits such as this. No matter what you do with your business.
well that's questionable because, at least without UCITA, there is no consideration for those additional terms which occurred after purchase. So they're invalid. I think two states have adopted UCITA, so there MS would arguably be off the hook. But everyplace that has not adopted UCITA could hold MS liable, as those additional terms are not binding. But if they get federal "anti-terror seal of approval" then it can be argued that any liability suits against them are pre-empted by federal law.
Who wants to bet me that MS gets this lame ass seal of approval on all their insecure, dangerous-to-national-security products? And of course, they won't be liable (federal pre-emption) for any damage their software actually causes. How clever.
There is a thin line between civil and criminal. The big difference is burden of proof... it's easier to be found liable (the civil word for guilty) in a civil trial. A $150,000 civil fine looks the same on your bank account as a $150,000 criminal fine. Of course, there is no jail in civil cases, but that can come after the civil case in the latter criminal case (and it is not 'double jeopardy').
Slashdot Mirror
Their logic is: "We don't want to tie the hands of prosecutors behind their backs," said Mark Corallo, a Justice Department spokesman, "and it's our responsibility when we find weaknesses in the law to make suggestions to Congress on how to fix them."
So constitutional protections are now marketed as "weaknesses" which need to be fixed. That whole 4th amendment thing is just a big loophole for criminals and evildoers who want to kill us because they hate our freedoms.
Yep. Only big business should be allowed to make chemicals. That way they can make lots of money. Little people and ma and pa business making chemicals cuts into their revenue stream. So let's just call those people what they are--terrorists.
*sigh*
Yeah, well, call me an idealist but I still believe in free speech and free discourse, especially when talking about the government and its actions.
I saw him on FoxNews with Tony Snow last week (safe haven for him, no tough questions). He was saying how little the patriot act does and how "we still need judges to sign all these warrants, it's not like we do anything on a whim." His basic spiel was "oh come on, it's nothing! Really, we would never use it in a bad way, trust us! We love jesus! Praise!"
We can only hope 4 year terms run in the bush family. And I voted for dubya.
I just woke up and hadn't had my coffee (it was still brewing). Give me a break, ehh buddy? ;)
I'm pretty sure they were talking about using silly putty to copy pages from comic books. Ya know, spread it on the page, hold it down, and lift it up -- up comes the ink. Instant derivative work.
... well, you're an idiot and you have no idea what you're talking about.
The process to make silly putty itself would be patented, but i'm assuming that since silly putty has been around a long, long time, and since these instructions on the web have not been taken down yet, that the patent has expired. So the silly putty recipe is public domain.
As for the name "silly putty" that would be trademarked, and trademark protection lasts forever, unless the name is not defended and it becomes something like kleenex or xerox (a generic term). One could argue that silly putty has reached this level of generality.
As for saying "putting the instructions for making silly putty online violates the silly putty copyright"
I hear it's nice this time of year.
I have not been threatened by SCO. So no, it is not. Were I to bring a suit against them, I would not have standing.
It's clear that SCO has filed its suit against IBM with absolutely no chance of winning (much like the fox news vs al franken "fair and balanced" suit). Not only has SCO filed a frivilous suit (a civil cause of action to do so) but has made baseless threats causing undue emotional distress to many users of Linux. Once SCO's suit is dismissed, look for some really nice lawsuits right back at 'em from many different parties. Should make for good popcorn munching entertainment. If it were me, I would sue Darly McB individually, in his personal capacity, as well as SCO.
Unless minorities will be forbidden to get licenses or will have to pay more for them, then any disparate impact is not intentional and, while unfortunate, is too fucking bad. Every idea hurts minorities and children, so we need to collectively get over it.
I agree with you; I'm a 14-year (or until death, whichever comes first) copyright wacko as well. I don't believe CR should last past the life of the author, and 14 years is plenty. A second 14 year term is too much, IMHO (yes, the founding fathers went overboard). I was merely pointing out that Dali and Walt Disney started this project together as co-authors, and Walt's family will be prospering from it, while Dali's most likely won't.
somehow I have the feeling that even though the original work had multiple authors (disney, dali), this "finished" version will be entirely disney's and not a cent will go to the Dali estate. Mickey just wouldn't have it any other way. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.
I'll call one of the many people who are leashed to their cell phone, and would freak out if they missed a call. In other words, pretty much everyone. Just because *I* don't answer my phone doesn't mean everyone else doesn't. I fail to see how you can come to such an illogical conclusion.
Even if everyone did act like me, I'd simply leave a message (but only if I actually had something of value to communicate) and maybe the person would call me back, if necessary. Leaving messages should be utilized more often (by the one with the answering service).
When you are driving, you are busy. When you are exercising at the gym, you are busy. Despite that, everyone in their car and on the stairmaster at the gym is yapping on their cellphone. "hey what's up, nothing, you, nada, yeah, yeah, uh huh, yep, ok, yeah... uh huh... no way... no way... uh.. i think.. yeah.. ok, ok, bye." Only to have it ring again a minute later and repeat the process. It's not a question of importance/ego. I don't think i'm any more important than the people trying to call me. But if i'm doing something, there is nothing so important that can't be left in a message. Now, were I ACTUALLY important (i.e. president of the US, etc.) then I would answer, because there could be things that are so important that, were they left in a message, would be detrimental to me and others. But i'm not the president.
you're confusing fuzzy math with fuzzy logic. There's a difference. One is an adaptive algorith (fuzzy logic), the other is deceptive bullshit (fuzzy math).
I don't think you need to be taught it. I think such mathematics comes naturally to stupid, uneducated people. We should be teaching people why such 'fuzzy math' is extremely wrong and intellectually dishonest. This way people will not only spew such bullshit, but they'll be able to readily identify it when they see it. Then the RIAA will be even more fucked than they already are.
I think it would be infinitely more beneficial to the music to supply the musicians with beer (and other drugs, preferably pot and heroin) versus fucking up your CDs with fungus. Of course, it's not an either-or, but the musicians presumably know what they're doing and what sound they are after. Random (and that's what it is, no matter how many times you use neato k-spiff l33t words fractal and branches) fungus growth on a CD does not add anything special to the music.
Interestingly, if you add beer to both the CD, to fuck it up, and the listener, to fuck them up, I think both effects would cancel each other out.
Yep, and the cost of advertising on the uniforms will be a function of the company's stock price. I fucking hate what this country is becoming. There need to be limits on advertising. It's ruining the country and the world.
Well said. My cellphone is a one-way street. It's for ME to call you, and not vice-versa. I usually leave it in my car. If you (and i mean the global 'you') have something to tell me, leave a message and if it's worth my time, I'll get back to you. I don't do the "hey what's up? Nuthin'" thing.
Likewise, no phone conversation is worth getting into a pool and isolation helmet for. Blowjob, maybe. Phone call... no fucking way.
Well, the argument is, you never confused Apple computer with Apple Music because the agreement was that they'd do separate things, and that apple computer would not enter the music industry. Now, Apple Computer has entered the music industry with iMusic. The article even says they're calling it "Apple Music." So, I hate to say it, but apple music (the beatles) does have a good case here. They've won worse cases in the past (such as apple computer shipping speakers with their computers).
That being said, these companies have been around so long, anyone who is confused needs to be shot and have his wallet taken away from him.
Once you have a name for X number of years (say, 5) you should be immune from suits such as this. No matter what you do with your business.
well that's questionable because, at least without UCITA, there is no consideration for those additional terms which occurred after purchase. So they're invalid. I think two states have adopted UCITA, so there MS would arguably be off the hook. But everyplace that has not adopted UCITA could hold MS liable, as those additional terms are not binding. But if they get federal "anti-terror seal of approval" then it can be argued that any liability suits against them are pre-empted by federal law.
Who wants to bet me that MS gets this lame ass seal of approval on all their insecure, dangerous-to-national-security products? And of course, they won't be liable (federal pre-emption) for any damage their software actually causes. How clever.
or will they just get it automatically for whatever products/services they want?
There is a thin line between civil and criminal. The big difference is burden of proof... it's easier to be found liable (the civil word for guilty) in a civil trial. A $150,000 civil fine looks the same on your bank account as a $150,000 criminal fine. Of course, there is no jail in civil cases, but that can come after the civil case in the latter criminal case (and it is not 'double jeopardy').