A method for inducing cats to exercise consists of directing a beam of invisible light produced by a hand-held laser apparatus
Just to point out that the green laser beam is visible. So, exercising apparatus employing a green beam laser seems not to be covered by this patent (IANAL, though, hire the real one for the real legal advice.)
I have a (hopefully correct) layman knowledge that in the UK, unlike as in the US, the loser pays all, which serves as a guard against the nuisance lawsuites. However, The SCO Group is unlikely to have any money left in 1-2 quarters, so how does the UK's justice system operate in such cases, i.e. when the defendant is unlikely to recover litigation costs?
They aware about it so well that that they do not want SCO's 400,000 shares with the-sky-is-the-limit earning potential anymore, prefering however capped $31M pile of cold hard cash.
What is ridiculous is your arguments. I happened to have some moderation points and should have modded you down, but it would not help much because common impression is that moderators are stupid. And they are by the virtue of giving you 'Insightful' rating.
First, and foremost, MS is monopoly, unlike Debian, Gentoo or even Red Hat. In the course of civilization monopolies are proven to be harmful for both producers and consumers, therefore, there are anti-monopoly laws.
Second, moving into monopolistic position in OS market, MS is or should have been aware about various limitations, the law imposes on a company in such position. However, they decided not just to ignore these laws, but rather actively abuse their position and pay funeral fees to dead competitors instead.
Third, what is equal is the right to opportunity, not to action, hence monopoly and non-monopoly companies should and do operate in two different modes and anti-monopoly laws are well known to all existing and/or aspiring future monopolists, so these limitations should come as no surprise for them.
Neither you, having applied your logic to a false definition of equality, should be in much of a surprise, when I called your arguments ridicuolus.
Um... no. I'm fairly certain you are talking about the serving temperature, and your parent is talking about the brewing one.
Thanks to famous McD case (and I do not call it 'infamous' because they were absolutely correctly slapped with punitive damages) even they know that there is a difference:)
Hi, my name is Billy Longhorn and this is my er... business associate, name's Balmey. You are using our software and so we are considering you our customer. I and Balmey here are very conserned about wellbeing of our customers, that's why we are offering you an additional er... protection for a very reasonable fee. You would not want anything bad happened to your computer, right?
However, if it were two private citizens, or citizen and company, or citizen and the law, then constitutionally protected privacy exists.
Two things. First and foremost constitutionally protected privacy does not exist (I assume we are both talking about The US Constitution which is the only one relevant in this context.) See, for example, Things that are not in the U.S. Constitution. It is easy to understand why if to keep in mind that Constitution formalizes relationships between the US Citizens and The US Government.
Privacy is not a citizen's right it is 'a basic human right' and thus should be protected regardless whether you are a US Citizen or not. Consequently, much better place for it is in a law, not in The Constitution.
Second thing is, whether corporations are legally persons? Short answer is 'Yes' for about 116 years. AFAIK it is called 'Equal Protection Right'. You can find some legal view point here. Look for "Are Corporations Legally Persons?" about 3/5 down the page (and subsequent link.)
Next you'll be telling me that Michael Jackson's settlements were somehow related to the $20 million that he forked out, rather than plaintiffs reaching mutual understanding.
There is a small difference, however, in these two cases. The boy and MJ acted as private individuals and settled as private individuals. Mr. Black, OTOH, acted as an official but netted the money as a private individual. This is why MJ's case is a settlement and the CCIA case is a bribery.
I would not care less if he got $10M 'pension' from MS just to resign but this is not what has happened, has it?
First, you go from the wrong premises. It the same as ask 'What would you do if you were J. Stalin?'. The answer -- I would not be one in the first place.
Second, maximizing shareholders value has a little if something to do with the lobbying. For example, IBM also maximizes its shareholders value but AFAIK its policy forbids financial support of politicians.
Third, the convergence of corporate power with the Government is not called Capitalism, it is called Fascism. See, for example, 14 defining characteristics of Fascism (and see how 'well' we are faring there.) And only for this reason alone soft money support should be banned.
So, please, do not put your answer in my mouth, for it is not mine.
Your opinion is marked as 'Interesting', so it can not be a troll. But comparing Konqueror to WE + IE is like comparing a Porsche with two kid's bicycles held together by a piece of duct tape.
You must have been never worked with files located on different computers. I have my local FS on Linux, I am using FTP client to login to a Solaris box and Smb4K to connect to my 'official' Win98 box. So ability of Konqueror to display all three in three panes of the same tab and allow me to move files around just draggin and dropping is a life saver.
Actually I'm almost positive that regardless of who put the code in, if the ACTUAL owner of the code distributes it knowingly and continues to do so then said code is GPL'd
It is not entirely correct. You can not GPL code de facto. However, if you continue distribution of your own code which you do not want to GPL as part of GPLed work, it severely cripples your chances to collect the damages.
The reason for this comes not from the copyright law, but from the equity law. By distributing code under GPL SCO gives the recepients the reason to believe the latter receive certain rights according to the license. Hence, SCO's denial of the rights contrary to the license puts them into position where they did not hold their end of the promise (have 'dirty hands') and equity law does not allow plaintiffs with 'dirty hands' to collect damages.
Similarly by distributing their code within GPLed work they give a reason to believe that it is OK for the code to be there and be distributed.
Code itself, however, is still not GPLed and should be removed as soon as SCO will care to point to the code in question and prove that they have either copyrights or other interest preventing the copyright holder from choosing certain types of licensing.
Obviousness of the patent is striking. I was in seventh grade I made (however, not invented) my first (and last) color music device, which, arguably is more complex than this hack, which implementation can be put into Reader's Excercises Section of 'Programming Serial Ports: 101'.
Hey, I already have a cool blue light tube in my modcase, I would suggest ThinkGeek start selling green and red ones:) Free advice guys, no strings attached (no responsibility for marketability either.)
I'm eligible for jury duty, but I've never been asked to serve.
Really? What state are you living in? I had been living in New York for less than a year when I received my first summon to serve the jury duty (On which I wrote 'No sitizen. I not speack English.') and still I received two more summons during next two years. Now I live in New Jersey and every 3 years and 3 months (works as a chime - by a court clerk advice I keep undeposited checks as a proof of service) I am receiving these things from my County Court.
PS. Perhaps, undeposited checks is what makes them think that I would make a good juror.
Since you have started from the wrong proposition that IP is a real property, which is itself controversial, your logical constructs are simply wrong.
Your argument, that if an author would not create a work it would have never existed, is as lame as Jack Valenti's argument that all creative works need proprietary ownership to be preserved. It can be argued that if you did not build up on existing culture, you would have never created your work in the first place. So, you get from public almost fair trade to start with. However, public recognizes necessity to compensate authors, inventors and the like fairly in order to encourage this type of activity. And this is where 'mental property' rights are coming from.
Unfortunately, for practical reasons, monetary value of creative works which are subject of copyright and patent laws may not be easily evaluated. This is the only reason for the 'limited monopoly' bargain, otherwise, public would fairly compensate an author, allienate his/her work and leave to him/her only the honorary attribution.
Thomas Jefferson conceived that 14 years of monopoly is enough for an author to try to profit from their works. And this is under late XVIII- early XIX centuries means of of communication in the United States. In XXI century, when RIAA posesses means of promotion and distribution far beyond XVIII-XIX centuries authors' wildest dreams copyrights should be shorter. And corporate copyrights should be even shorter still.
Since the copyright law arises from the rights the public granted to the authors or their proxies on the condition of fair balance,
the first thing is that the period of a work's copyright protection must be the one, when the work was made accessible to public, because that was a contract at that time and an author knew the terms and still decided to publish. It must not be retroactively extended. This will create fair stability for both the public and the vested interests.
Second, term 'limited times' must be taken not literally but rather practically. It is just unacceptable that 3 generations of the mankind are and being deprived from the rights the previous generations used to have.
Third, pigopolies akin Disney Corporation, RIAA, MPAA, Clear Channel, etc. are unacceptable and must be outlawed as a matter of bargain or, at least, their rights (copy and otherwise) must be adjusted to reflect their ever increasing ability to promote and dissiminate creative works, in order to keep the balance fair.
Let alone, this constant necessity to explain simple things you have long as lost any interest in but which other people are still struggling to understand.
It is like explaining that 2 X 2 = 4 and 3 X 3 = 9 and after spending another hour talking about powers and logarithms people would ask you: 'Yeah, and by the way what is 2 X 3, again?'
I am being serious. Anyone who tought in college would know how frustrating it might be sometimes.
And would not it be much cooler anyway if that thermonuclear reaction started chain reaction with the hydrogen from the water?
Unfortunately, plasma has quite high thermal conductivity and quite low thermal capacitance. Which means it cools fast and through the whole volume. So, in real life it would most probably gone with pshhh as fast as it does in thermonuclear chambers when it escapes from the magnetic trap and touches the chamber wall.
Well, while I am at it, both magnetic traps and sun glasses are as effective against gamma radiation as a kevlar jacket against ICBM.
Slashdot Mirror
Just to point out that the green laser beam is visible. So, exercising apparatus employing a green beam laser seems not to be covered by this patent (IANAL, though, hire the real one for the real legal advice.)
I have a (hopefully correct) layman knowledge that in the UK, unlike as in the US, the loser pays all, which serves as a guard against the nuisance lawsuites. However, The SCO Group is unlikely to have any money left in 1-2 quarters, so how does the UK's justice system operate in such cases, i.e. when the defendant is unlikely to recover litigation costs?
They aware about it so well that that they do not want SCO's 400,000 shares with the-sky-is-the-limit earning potential anymore, prefering however capped $31M pile of cold hard cash.
First, and foremost, MS is monopoly, unlike Debian, Gentoo or even Red Hat. In the course of civilization monopolies are proven to be harmful for both producers and consumers, therefore, there are anti-monopoly laws.
Second, moving into monopolistic position in OS market, MS is or should have been aware about various limitations, the law imposes on a company in such position. However, they decided not just to ignore these laws, but rather actively abuse their position and pay funeral fees to dead competitors instead.
Third, what is equal is the right to opportunity, not to action, hence monopoly and non-monopoly companies should and do operate in two different modes and anti-monopoly laws are well known to all existing and/or aspiring future monopolists, so these limitations should come as no surprise for them.
Neither you, having applied your logic to a false definition of equality, should be in much of a surprise, when I called your arguments ridicuolus.
Thanks to famous McD case (and I do not call it 'infamous' because they were absolutely correctly slapped with punitive damages) even they know that there is a difference:)
Hi, my name is Billy Longhorn and this is my er... business associate, name's Balmey. You are using our software and so we are considering you our customer. I and Balmey here are very conserned about wellbeing of our customers, that's why we are offering you an additional er... protection for a very reasonable fee. You would not want anything bad happened to your computer, right?
Do they call us lusers too?
What if the game did not have Nothern Ireland as a separate entity?
Sorry could not help.
If you want real fun ask Armenians about Turkey. Hint: Do not forget to mention Ararat Mountain.
I hope it did not forward you to the AOL Sign-Up page. At least not before I have mentioned it:)
Two things. First and foremost constitutionally protected privacy does not exist (I assume we are both talking about The US Constitution which is the only one relevant in this context.) See, for example, Things that are not in the U.S. Constitution. It is easy to understand why if to keep in mind that Constitution formalizes relationships between the US Citizens and The US Government.
Privacy is not a citizen's right it is 'a basic human right' and thus should be protected regardless whether you are a US Citizen or not. Consequently, much better place for it is in a law, not in The Constitution.
Second thing is, whether corporations are legally persons? Short answer is 'Yes' for about 116 years. AFAIK it is called 'Equal Protection Right'. You can find some legal view point here. Look for "Are Corporations Legally Persons?" about 3/5 down the page (and subsequent link.)
There is a small difference, however, in these two cases. The boy and MJ acted as private individuals and settled as private individuals. Mr. Black, OTOH, acted as an official but netted the money as a private individual. This is why MJ's case is a settlement and the CCIA case is a bribery.
I would not care less if he got $10M 'pension' from MS just to resign but this is not what has happened, has it?
Second, maximizing shareholders value has a little if something to do with the lobbying. For example, IBM also maximizes its shareholders value but AFAIK its policy forbids financial support of politicians.
Third, the convergence of corporate power with the Government is not called Capitalism, it is called Fascism. See, for example, 14 defining characteristics of Fascism (and see how 'well' we are faring there.) And only for this reason alone soft money support should be banned.
So, please, do not put your answer in my mouth, for it is not mine.
Your opinion is marked as 'Interesting', so it can not be a troll. But comparing Konqueror to WE + IE is like comparing a Porsche with two kid's bicycles held together by a piece of duct tape.
You must have been never worked with files located on different computers. I have my local FS on Linux, I am using FTP client to login to a Solaris box and Smb4K to connect to my 'official' Win98 box. So ability of Konqueror to display all three in three panes of the same tab and allow me to move files around just draggin and dropping is a life saver.
I would put it differently - They certainly have the money to afford not doing this.
I just wonder, how did they translate J. Swift's "Gulliver's Travels. Part III. Chapter V. Voyage to Laputa" to Spanish?
It is not entirely correct. You can not GPL code de facto. However, if you continue distribution of your own code which you do not want to GPL as part of GPLed work, it severely cripples your chances to collect the damages.
The reason for this comes not from the copyright law, but from the equity law. By distributing code under GPL SCO gives the recepients the reason to believe the latter receive certain rights according to the license. Hence, SCO's denial of the rights contrary to the license puts them into position where they did not hold their end of the promise (have 'dirty hands') and equity law does not allow plaintiffs with 'dirty hands' to collect damages.
Similarly by distributing their code within GPLed work they give a reason to believe that it is OK for the code to be there and be distributed.
Code itself, however, is still not GPLed and should be removed as soon as SCO will care to point to the code in question and prove that they have either copyrights or other interest preventing the copyright holder from choosing certain types of licensing.
Obviousness of the patent is striking. I was in seventh grade I made (however, not invented) my first (and last) color music device, which, arguably is more complex than this hack, which implementation can be put into Reader's Excercises Section of 'Programming Serial Ports: 101'.
Hey, I already have a cool blue light tube in my modcase, I would suggest ThinkGeek start selling green and red ones:) Free advice guys, no strings attached (no responsibility for marketability either.)
Really? What state are you living in? I had been living in New York for less than a year when I received my first summon to serve the jury duty (On which I wrote 'No sitizen. I not speack English.') and still I received two more summons during next two years. Now I live in New Jersey and every 3 years and 3 months (works as a chime - by a court clerk advice I keep undeposited checks as a proof of service) I am receiving these things from my County Court.
PS. Perhaps, undeposited checks is what makes them think that I would make a good juror.
Being a latin word 'cacti' is the proper plural form.
Your argument, that if an author would not create a work it would have never existed, is as lame as Jack Valenti's argument that all creative works need proprietary ownership to be preserved. It can be argued that if you did not build up on existing culture, you would have never created your work in the first place. So, you get from public almost fair trade to start with. However, public recognizes necessity to compensate authors, inventors and the like fairly in order to encourage this type of activity. And this is where 'mental property' rights are coming from.
Unfortunately, for practical reasons, monetary value of creative works which are subject of copyright and patent laws may not be easily evaluated. This is the only reason for the 'limited monopoly' bargain, otherwise, public would fairly compensate an author, allienate his/her work and leave to him/her only the honorary attribution.
Thomas Jefferson conceived that 14 years of monopoly is enough for an author to try to profit from their works. And this is under late XVIII- early XIX centuries means of of communication in the United States. In XXI century, when RIAA posesses means of promotion and distribution far beyond XVIII-XIX centuries authors' wildest dreams copyrights should be shorter . And corporate copyrights should be even shorter still.
Since the copyright law arises from the rights the public granted to the authors or their proxies on the condition of fair balance,
the first thing is that the period of a work's copyright protection must be the one, when the work was made accessible to public, because that was a contract at that time and an author knew the terms and still decided to publish. It must not be retroactively extended. This will create fair stability for both the public and the vested interests.
Second, term 'limited times' must be taken not literally but rather practically. It is just unacceptable that 3 generations of the mankind are and being deprived from the rights the previous generations used to have.
Third, pigopolies akin Disney Corporation, RIAA, MPAA, Clear Channel, etc. are unacceptable and must be outlawed as a matter of bargain or, at least, their rights (copy and otherwise) must be adjusted to reflect their ever increasing ability to promote and dissiminate creative works, in order to keep the balance fair.
It is like explaining that 2 X 2 = 4 and 3 X 3 = 9 and after spending another hour talking about powers and logarithms people would ask you: 'Yeah, and by the way what is 2 X 3, again?'
I am being serious. Anyone who tought in college would know how frustrating it might be sometimes.
Unfortunately, plasma has quite high thermal conductivity and quite low thermal capacitance. Which means it cools fast and through the whole volume. So, in real life it would most probably gone with pshhh as fast as it does in thermonuclear chambers when it escapes from the magnetic trap and touches the chamber wall.
Well, while I am at it, both magnetic traps and sun glasses are as effective against gamma radiation as a kevlar jacket against ICBM.
You mean tin-foil hat?