. . . to its members. That's why you always hear about them voting on resolutions. It's screwed-up because a lot of its members are screwed-up.
People who bash the UN don't seem to realize that there's no alternative. There's only one "everybody." I guess you could disband it, but sooner or later you'd need it again.
You'd need an organization that represents the whole world (not just people who are or could be accused of being in your pocket) to endorse your plan for Iraq. You'd need the help of every nation that diseases spread to in order to fight the next SARS. You'd need a forum where nations can discuss and study things that affect everyone.
You'd end up with essentially the same organization under a different name, accountable to the same screwed-up members. Because you need it.
"But everyone agreed that journaling was good,
now that Linux had it. Pretty significant shift in stance, eh?"
Amazing anecdotal story. It makes me wonder how Linux ever got journaling at all. Maybe God alone understood your brilliant insight and added it in.
Every few days I see another bozo whining, "No one listens to me when I point out problems. You're all zealots!" At yet, somehow, problems do get fixed.
For instance: When a crook in New York City cracked a safe and stole a gun, then used it in a crime and shot somebody, they provided lawyers for the shooting victim to sue the gunowner whose gun had been stolen.
This sounds like one of those bogus stories that people repeat because, if it were true, it would justify their beliefs.
I have never heard of the ACLU helping to sue one individual simply for causing a physical injury to another (directly or otherwise). That's just not what they do.
Prison abuse, yes. Discrimination, yes. Denial of due process, yes. Robbery, attempted murder, or negligence? No, those aren't considered civil liberties issues.
Yeah, those guys already love the "walkie-talkie" feature. Actual overheard conversation:
*be-deet*
"Where are you?"
*be-deet*
"Taking a shit."
*be-deet*
"Wanna see a movie?"
*be-deet*
"Okay, when?"
*be-deet*
"Five-thirty."
I swear, video conferencing will take off when they put it on a cellphone with a built-in wall projector. And people in restaurants will use it to talk to people who are taking a shit.
"First, that the universe is the same everywhere; thus, the physics on earth is representative of the universe."
For people who believe that, they sure spend a lot on telescopes.
"Second, that there were things in the past that seemed impossible to understand, but have since been determined as predictable; thus, things that seem to be unpredictable/unknowable at this time are still probably determinable even though we don't have the slightest clue how to do it, yet."
Thinking that something is probably true, based on similar experience in the past, is not faith. Faith is when you believe that something is definitely true, especially something that your past experience does not support. Believing that good people go to heaven is faith. Believing that you will probably receive another morning paper tomorrow is not faith.
The second half of your post seems to contradict the first half. If it's all based on faith, why are they in the process of (repeatedly) talking themselves into changing their minds?
5) Detailed review of the hardware detection capabilities.
Why should this differ from distro to distro? Hardware detection is done by the kernel, and they are run pretty much the same kernel, unless it's one of those uber-patched piles of dung.
The kernel can spit out a list of your hardware, and it can load most of the right drivers, but I think he's talking about automatic configuration.
That means probing your hardware and automatically generating XF86Config, detecting apm and/or acpi support and installing the right daemon, etc.
Some distros do it, some don't, and some do it better than others.
I think you might have set a new record for "longest post that never mentioned the topic of the article." You could at least mention the legislation that everyone else is talking about, but I guess it never occurs to anyone to cut, paste, then edit.
How about Song of the RIAA Apologist:
"I believe that if something is wrong, illegal, and cuts into my bottom line, it's okay to prevent it by buying legislation and spending massive amounts of other people's money, while being a pain in the ass for people who aren't even doing it."
I find it funny that you say gentoo cannot get grub to work on the first boot on your systems when gentoo does not in fact install grub... you do.
I'd say that not trying to do it at all counts as not doing it successfully.
What you actually mean is that left to install grub on your own you can't make it work. Personal problem? I think so.
He can't install grub and neither can Gentoo. Who's fault is it? No one's, since no one is really obligated to install grub. That said, a distro that can install grub is probably better in that respect than one that can't -- even if someone else can pick up the slack.
I use Gentoo, among others, and installing grub was not that difficult. It's still something that people are justified in saying they'd rather not have to do.
It depends on what your definition of "is" is. Maybe an example would help. Suppose that you're in the following situation:
"Saddam almost certainly has WMD's, but we can't prove it conclusively."
And suppose you go around telling people that Saddam certainly (not almost certainly, but certainly) has WMD's. Then suppose you tell them that you do have conclusive proof, in the form of reliable witnesses, satellite photos, drawings of mobile weapons labs, etc.
Definitely. I live in a state with a lot of golf courses, and runoff (both fertilizer and pesticide) is already a big problem.
Golf courses are huge--one hole is the size of a neighborhood, and only four people at a time can use it. It's time for golfers to be a little less anal about their grass.
"He's talking about using the kind of electron beam used inside a TV to write sales totals on a photograph card. Not really related."
It sounds pretty similar. Not made of plastic and not a spinning disc, but the electron beam is the same, and that's what makes this disc different than a DVD.
"I'm not really very impressed with this guy. He predicted a lot of solid ideas, but his implementations were short-sighted. He didn't predict the transistor, so his department-store cash register was based on punch cards and dry photographs."
Isn't that good? Ideally, you get revolutionary ideas and proof-of-concept implementations.
I guess he could have proposed an implementation based on Star Trek-style phasers, but how would that be better? He was trying to get people to do these things, not become Nostradamus.
"That's one point of trusted computing people don't mention much - It doesn't stop you from running dodgy apps or hacking your machine to pieces, but it tells anyone you interact with that the integrity of your application through which you're interacting has been violated."
Wrong. It tells any other software it interacts with that integrity has been violated. That other software, unless it is also hacked, will then refuse to cooperate.
The person at the other end may not mind your unauthorized software. They may understand that you have a good reason. They may even be you. But they will not be able to read the file you created or connect with you over a network without using a similar hacked or unauthorized piece of software.
"For someone to be pissy and scared of trusted computing means they haven't given it more than 2 seconds thought and are suffering a knee-jerk reaction. If you're into IT, you're gonna love TC when you see it. If you're paranoid, it'll scare the pants off you, then you'll love it once you realise just what it can do for you:-P"
Good thing I'm able to feel emotions other than fear and love.
In this case, I'm very irritated. Trusted Computing is security through incompatibility. If you're into IT, you know that deliberate incompatibility is always a scam to suck the life out of you and turn it into profits.
Gee, I thought it was really good. I haven't read all of the other books, but I could see the difference.
It's not that the quality has gone down, it's just a different type of book. The main characters are (almost) all big shots now, so there's a different focus.
I can see how someone might like the early books but not the more recent ones -- or the other way around -- but I kind of like both.
"Did you read my post? I never said that. That would be stupid. I said that section 101 applies only in the context of TITLE 17, of which section 101 is the first section."
I've finally figured out what it is you don't understand: you agree that the definition applies to all of Title 17 and that Title 17 is the US copyright law. You do not, however, feel that the definition applies to a discussion of the purpose of copyright law.
I apologize for misunderstanding your argument, but your conclusions are still wrong. You say you're going to be lawyer, so here's something you should already know: the law is the most important source of information about the law.
Try walking into a courtroom and saying: "That argument is irrelevant to the purpose of copyright law because it's based on a definition found in copyright law. I pulled these claims out of my ass, so they can't rebut me unless they do the same."
Put so plainly, it sounds silly. That's why I (and maybe some other people) had a hard time understanding what you were trying to say.
I'm not going to discuss this any more because it's soaking up too much time and space. That's partly my fault for not realizing how strange a position you had. I was arguing against the only logical reason I thought you could have, rather than your actual position.
I also don't want to hear yet another claim that you are right because you are an expert. That wouldn't impress me even if I had seen evidence that it was true. In the end, your failure to persuade anyone to agree with you says more about your skills as a lawyer than any claims you might make.
'Just because "financial gain" is defined in sec. 101 does not mean that definition applies to the whole of U.S. copyright law. You have to look at how "financial gain" is used (verbatim) in the text of Title 17 itself.'
Section 101 is the first section of the first chapter of Title 17. The chapter is called "SUBJECT MATTER AND SCOPE OF COPYRIGHT." The section is called "Definitions." Section 101 is part of Title 17. It was written by the same people who wrote the rest of Title 17.
If the definitions do not apply outside of section 101, why does that section contain nothing but definitions? Section 101 is at the beginning of Title 17 and it serves the same purpose as the glossary at the end of a book: it defines the terms that are used throughout the rest of the document. There's no other reason to have a separate section called "Definitions" with nothing in it but definitions.
If you don't believe me, follow the link and RTFLaw.
'The sec. 101 definition of financial gain therefore applies only to uses of the term "financial gain" in title 17. Linus's analysis would be correct if somewhere else the law said something like "Copyright law should be interpreted to promote financial gain." But it doesn't.'
Darl claims that's what it says. Linus's analysis is therefore correct: it shows that Darl's premise does not lead to Darl's conclusion. The fact that Darl's premise is bogus is another reason that Darl is wrong, not Linus.
'The fact that sec. 101 defines financial gain doesn't mean a anything outside of that very narrow context which is inapplicable to the discussion.'
"That narrow context" is the whole of U.S. copyright law, which is the topic of this discussion.
Re:Well, since the conclusion of his last book
on
Human Accomplishment
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
"The conclusion of The Bell Curve was that you can find IQ trends amongst races, and if you recall correctly, Asians had the highest rate of geniuses. Murray is White, so where is his bias?"
Pandering to stereotytpes in order to sell books.
"I always find it astounding how people will readily admit that certain breeds of dogs have undeniable traits (Jack Russel Terriers are smart, Bloodhounds have highly sensitive noses, etc.) but then look at humans and refuse to admit any bio-level distinctions might be there."
Compare the average size of a Great Dane to the average size of a chihuahua. Compare the jaw strength of a pit bull with that of a terrier. The physical differences among dog breeds are way beyond anything in humans. By the way, what gives poodles their distinctive hair? What makes Dobermans so vicious?
Dog analogies are crap, especially analogies between a dog's physical features and a person's mental ability. I don't know of any esteemed scientists who are dogs.
"I guess that's why 75+% of the NBA is Black - because Asians and Whites are every bit as athletic, right?"
Maybe blacks are more likely to be brought up believing that their only chance is to shoot for the moon in sports. Maybe whites and asians are more likely to pursue success in other fields because they're more likely to believe that their education gives them a chance.
"If you ask the question, 'Are there really differences between races?' and eliminate 'Yes' as a possible answer, you aren't being intellectually honest."
If you assume that the obvious differences are both genetic and significant, based on crap analogies and examples taken out of context, you aren't being intellectually honest.
"Unless you and Clark are secretly smarter than Einstein and Hawking, it can't be done."
No, that's not true.
If I come up with a brilliant theory that happens to be wrong, and someone with down syndrome flips a coin and decides to disagree with me, I'm wrong and they're right.
<sarcasm>
That crazy Clark! Let's have Bush explain the Theory of Relativity to him.
</sarcasm>
Seriously, why does everyone who repeats this story put it in terms of time travel? He talks about traveling faster than light.
Sure, they're linked by current theory, but current theory says they're not possible. Someone who denies current theory by saying faster-than-light travel is possible might not think there's a connection to time travel.
It would make more sense to repeat his words as he said them, but I guess "time travel" sounds crazier.
"Of course it is, if he knowingly misused copyrighted code. Even if your employee didn't tell him the code was stolen, the
client has a responsibility to make sure he is operating within the bounds of the law. Ignorance of the law is rarely a successful defense."
First, get the cliche straight: "Ignorance of the law" refers to people not knowing what's written in the law books.
Copyright doesn't give you the right to block people from using the code. It only gives you the right to control the making and distribution of copies, though you can decide to only distribute it to people who pay you and agree to conditions.
The client in this example has done nothing wrong, and has every reason to assume that the transfer of code is legitimate. When you buy something at the supermarket, do you call the owner and check that the cashier isn't ripping him off by pocketing the money?
You say, "I thought of that first!"
on
Back To SCO
·
· Score: 1
And if it's a design, song, etc., you say "I designed (or wrote) that! He just copied it."
Philosophy of ownership aside, I'm surprised you haven't heard those phrases before.
"Iraq - no nukes - gets invaded - lots of dead people on both sides. (and counting). N Korea has nukes - no sign of it getting invaded - nobody has died."
The two countries with the largest stockpiles of nukes are both at war (Russia is fighting in Chechnya). Many small countries have no nukes and are not at war.
The correct conclusion from your two examples is "Nukes stop the U.S. from invading you."
"The fine State of CA has many illegal immigrants on its soil, (in fact it depends on those people for many "lowly" jobs IIRC). Are you planning on REAL citizens covering the insurance costs for these illegal immigrants and their children? Don't you see this as a large enough burden on the population as it is?"
First you say you depend on them to get shit done, then you turn around and call them a "burden" and treat everything they receive as an undeserved gift. Nice doublethink.
If blaming the victim doesn't work, you can always become a stark raving legalist. (Only on this issue, of course. Jaywalking is your god-given right.)
Slashdot Mirror
. . . to its members. That's why you always hear about them voting on resolutions. It's screwed-up because a lot of its members are screwed-up.
People who bash the UN don't seem to realize that there's no alternative. There's only one "everybody." I guess you could disband it, but sooner or later you'd need it again.
You'd need an organization that represents the whole world (not just people who are or could be accused of being in your pocket) to endorse your plan for Iraq. You'd need the help of every nation that diseases spread to in order to fight the next SARS. You'd need a forum where nations can discuss and study things that affect everyone.
You'd end up with essentially the same organization under a different name, accountable to the same screwed-up members. Because you need it.
Amazing anecdotal story. It makes me wonder how Linux ever got journaling at all. Maybe God alone understood your brilliant insight and added it in.
Every few days I see another bozo whining, "No one listens to me when I point out problems. You're all zealots!" At yet, somehow, problems do get fixed.
This sounds like one of those bogus stories that people repeat because, if it were true, it would justify their beliefs.
I have never heard of the ACLU helping to sue one individual simply for causing a physical injury to another (directly or otherwise). That's just not what they do.
Prison abuse, yes. Discrimination, yes. Denial of due process, yes. Robbery, attempted murder, or negligence? No, those aren't considered civil liberties issues.
Yeah, those guys already love the "walkie-talkie" feature. Actual overheard conversation:
*be-deet*
"Where are you?"
*be-deet*
"Taking a shit."
*be-deet*
"Wanna see a movie?"
*be-deet*
"Okay, when?"
*be-deet*
"Five-thirty."
I swear, video conferencing will take off when they put it on a cellphone with a built-in wall projector. And people in restaurants will use it to talk to people who are taking a shit.
For people who believe that, they sure spend a lot on telescopes.
Thinking that something is probably true, based on similar experience in the past, is not faith. Faith is when you believe that something is definitely true, especially something that your past experience does not support. Believing that good people go to heaven is faith. Believing that you will probably receive another morning paper tomorrow is not faith.
The second half of your post seems to contradict the first half. If it's all based on faith, why are they in the process of (repeatedly) talking themselves into changing their minds?
The kernel can spit out a list of your hardware, and it can load most of the right drivers, but I think he's talking about automatic configuration.
That means probing your hardware and automatically generating XF86Config, detecting apm and/or acpi support and installing the right daemon, etc.
Some distros do it, some don't, and some do it better than others.
I think you might have set a new record for "longest post that never mentioned the topic of the article." You could at least mention the legislation that everyone else is talking about, but I guess it never occurs to anyone to cut, paste, then edit.
How about Song of the RIAA Apologist:
"I believe that if something is wrong, illegal, and cuts into my bottom line, it's okay to prevent it by buying legislation and spending massive amounts of other people's money, while being a pain in the ass for people who aren't even doing it."
I'd say that not trying to do it at all counts as not doing it successfully.
He can't install grub and neither can Gentoo. Who's fault is it? No one's, since no one is really obligated to install grub. That said, a distro that can install grub is probably better in that respect than one that can't -- even if someone else can pick up the slack.
I use Gentoo, among others, and installing grub was not that difficult. It's still something that people are justified in saying they'd rather not have to do.
It depends on what your definition of "is" is. Maybe an example would help. Suppose that you're in the following situation:
And suppose you go around telling people that Saddam certainly (not almost certainly, but certainly) has WMD's. Then suppose you tell them that you do have conclusive proof, in the form of reliable witnesses, satellite photos, drawings of mobile weapons labs, etc.
That would be a lie.
Definitely. I live in a state with a lot of golf courses, and runoff (both fertilizer and pesticide) is already a big problem. Golf courses are huge--one hole is the size of a neighborhood, and only four people at a time can use it. It's time for golfers to be a little less anal about their grass.
It sounds pretty similar. Not made of plastic and not a spinning disc, but the electron beam is the same, and that's what makes this disc different than a DVD.
Isn't that good? Ideally, you get revolutionary ideas and proof-of-concept implementations.
I guess he could have proposed an implementation based on Star Trek-style phasers, but how would that be better? He was trying to get people to do these things, not become Nostradamus.
Good.
Someone in the RNC is going to be fired for doing this without asking regular people whether it's a good idea. (Answer: No.)
Wrong. It tells any other software it interacts with that integrity has been violated. That other software, unless it is also hacked, will then refuse to cooperate.
The person at the other end may not mind your unauthorized software. They may understand that you have a good reason. They may even be you. But they will not be able to read the file you created or connect with you over a network without using a similar hacked or unauthorized piece of software.
Good thing I'm able to feel emotions other than fear and love.
In this case, I'm very irritated. Trusted Computing is security through incompatibility. If you're into IT, you know that deliberate incompatibility is always a scam to suck the life out of you and turn it into profits.
Gee, I thought it was really good. I haven't read all of the other books, but I could see the difference.
It's not that the quality has gone down, it's just a different type of book. The main characters are (almost) all big shots now, so there's a different focus.
I can see how someone might like the early books but not the more recent ones -- or the other way around -- but I kind of like both.
I've finally figured out what it is you don't understand: you agree that the definition applies to all of Title 17 and that Title 17 is the US copyright law. You do not, however, feel that the definition applies to a discussion of the purpose of copyright law.
I apologize for misunderstanding your argument, but your conclusions are still wrong. You say you're going to be lawyer, so here's something you should already know: the law is the most important source of information about the law.
Try walking into a courtroom and saying: "That argument is irrelevant to the purpose of copyright law because it's based on a definition found in copyright law. I pulled these claims out of my ass, so they can't rebut me unless they do the same."
Put so plainly, it sounds silly. That's why I (and maybe some other people) had a hard time understanding what you were trying to say.
I'm not going to discuss this any more because it's soaking up too much time and space. That's partly my fault for not realizing how strange a position you had. I was arguing against the only logical reason I thought you could have, rather than your actual position.
I also don't want to hear yet another claim that you are right because you are an expert. That wouldn't impress me even if I had seen evidence that it was true. In the end, your failure to persuade anyone to agree with you says more about your skills as a lawyer than any claims you might make.
Section 101 is the first section of the first chapter of Title 17. The chapter is called "SUBJECT MATTER AND SCOPE OF COPYRIGHT." The section is called "Definitions." Section 101 is part of Title 17. It was written by the same people who wrote the rest of Title 17.
If the definitions do not apply outside of section 101, why does that section contain nothing but definitions? Section 101 is at the beginning of Title 17 and it serves the same purpose as the glossary at the end of a book: it defines the terms that are used throughout the rest of the document. There's no other reason to have a separate section called "Definitions" with nothing in it but definitions.
If you don't believe me, follow the link and RTFLaw.
Darl claims that's what it says. Linus's analysis is therefore correct: it shows that Darl's premise does not lead to Darl's conclusion. The fact that Darl's premise is bogus is another reason that Darl is wrong, not Linus.
"That narrow context" is the whole of U.S. copyright law, which is the topic of this discussion.
Pandering to stereotytpes in order to sell books.
Compare the average size of a Great Dane to the average size of a chihuahua. Compare the jaw strength of a pit bull with that of a terrier. The physical differences among dog breeds are way beyond anything in humans. By the way, what gives poodles their distinctive hair? What makes Dobermans so vicious?
Dog analogies are crap, especially analogies between a dog's physical features and a person's mental ability. I don't know of any esteemed scientists who are dogs.
Maybe blacks are more likely to be brought up believing that their only chance is to shoot for the moon in sports. Maybe whites and asians are more likely to pursue success in other fields because they're more likely to believe that their education gives them a chance.
If you assume that the obvious differences are both genetic and significant, based on crap analogies and examples taken out of context, you aren't being intellectually honest.
No, that's not true.
If I come up with a brilliant theory that happens to be wrong, and someone with down syndrome flips a coin and decides to disagree with me, I'm wrong and they're right.
<sarcasm>
That crazy Clark! Let's have Bush explain the Theory of Relativity to him.
</sarcasm>
Seriously, why does everyone who repeats this story put it in terms of time travel? He talks about traveling faster than light.
Sure, they're linked by current theory, but current theory says they're not possible. Someone who denies current theory by saying faster-than-light travel is possible might not think there's a connection to time travel.
It would make more sense to repeat his words as he said them, but I guess "time travel" sounds crazier.
First, get the cliche straight: "Ignorance of the law" refers to people not knowing what's written in the law books.
Copyright doesn't give you the right to block people from using the code. It only gives you the right to control the making and distribution of copies, though you can decide to only distribute it to people who pay you and agree to conditions.
The client in this example has done nothing wrong, and has every reason to assume that the transfer of code is legitimate. When you buy something at the supermarket, do you call the owner and check that the cashier isn't ripping him off by pocketing the money?And if it's a design, song, etc., you say "I designed (or wrote) that! He just copied it."
Philosophy of ownership aside, I'm surprised you haven't heard those phrases before.
The two countries with the largest stockpiles of nukes are both at war (Russia is fighting in Chechnya). Many small countries have no nukes and are not at war.
The correct conclusion from your two examples is "Nukes stop the U.S. from invading you."
Of course it isn't vaporized. It's blasted into outer space.
First you say you depend on them to get shit done, then you turn around and call them a "burden" and treat everything they receive as an undeserved gift. Nice doublethink.
If blaming the victim doesn't work, you can always become a stark raving legalist. (Only on this issue, of course. Jaywalking is your god-given right.)