What if a 15 y-o stores self pics in the computer ? Is this a felony ?
I believe it is in a crime in most countries (and one would not have to store the pictures - just take them).
However, I think there are very good reasons why child porn is banned as it should be.
I am not sure about where exactly one stands with the law of the USA. Is it online anywhere? I could not find US legislation on any goverment websites. Is the law in the USA even publicly available or is it a Goverment secret?
Suprisingly, I did manage to find the Constitution of the USA on a goverment website at http://memory.loc.gov/const/const.html. Unfortunately, it appears from the notice, "Permission is hereby granted to download, reprint, and/or otherwise redistribute this file, provided appropriate point of origin credit is given to the preparer(s) and the National Public Telecomputing Network.", that it is copyrighted.
I was going to quote from the constitution but I might be extradited to the US for copying it (because, of course, the USA now have jurisdiction over the World), so I will not. I just hope that they do not extradite me to the USA over copying the copyright notice on the Constitution. It probably doesn't matter anyway, because, now Bush rules the world, all your laws apply to me including the DMCA. This means that my vocal cords and fingers should be removed as DMCA-circumvention devices, because, if I wanted to, I could use my vocal cords to speak or my fingers to type the USA Constitution (even though I have no intention of doing so).
[Please do not mod the this down as it is true (unlike a lot of comments) and is not meant to criticise the US people as most of us non-USAns (including myself) feel solidarity with the people of the USA who are under the dictatorship of George W. Bush.]
Iso is Greek for equal. The Iso are called, in full, "The International Organisation for Standardi{s/z}ation" (which would be IOS if they were to abbreviate it) in English, and a variety of other names in other languages (which are all shortned to Iso).
Some people assume it must be "International Standards Organi{s/z}ation" when they see "Iso".
Maybe "Iso" was a bad word to choose or maybe it should always be lower case or title case to avoid confusion.
when it became clear that AC would not continue to pay AA $2 billion/year just for the value of the name
AC's have to be pay for the value of being an AC now? Is this part of the new/. money-making scheme? Why do they have to send it to Alcholics Anonymous? Is this because AA have helped the editors of/., and so/. itself, so much in the past (we now have sober editors...uhh...wait) that the kind powers that be want to pay them back with our money.
I guess no one will complain about taking money from AC's so I can see the logic here. However, isn't there an issue here with people having to give the evil powers that be at/. (who are obviously not on anything (drug-like in nature) at all) their credit-card details to pay them to be anonymous when surely this makes them less so. In fact this may have been CmdrTaco's evil plan of bringing in AC posts in the first place (i mean, why else?) as is demonstrated below by this step-by-step plan I found on some discarded packets of substances of a questionable nature near CmdrTaco's house:
1. Bring in AC posts
2. Get the trolls used to the idea that posting AC is really anonymous [even though an account is equally anonymous (or seperate accounts for your various levels of posting depending on your mood, (e.g.: artistic well-hacked troll; troll with a very small twist of humour; totally crap things that aren't deserving of the name, troll, which you in the guise of your other accounts can laugh at and say are examples of/. going down hill; goatse; M$ FUD; OSS FUD; analogies that don't work, but you hope everyone is too scared to mention this in case they do; stories about your boring life which no one is interested but that you post on/. because you need to talk to someone and cannot afford a shrink; actually mildly interesting stuff that someone might read in a fit of madness; comments on the mildly interesting stuff to make it look like someone reads it and maybe increase your karma, and so you can argue fine academic points that no one else understands with yourself))].
3. Charge for the service of being AC and then publish (only to/. subscribers obviously - they want $ (see 8. below)) the real account names, credit-card details and IP addresses of all the best (and worst) trolls.
4. Realise that all the AC trolls who can be bothered spending money to troll are all the same idiots who subscribe to/. (and, incidentally, the ones who complain of the trolls).
5. Watch all the subscribers get really pissed off at seeing their own credit card details.
6. Get your arse sued.
7. ??? [bankruptcy?]
8. Profit!!!!
This is interesting because how much value does posting as AC really have. I certainly wouldnt pay $2 bn/yr. I haven't heard about this before. Where did this figure come from?
replicating the process that created AC in the first place
Sounds horrible. I always thought that move was bad.
So, is this like old AC without the charges (so we will not only get trolls but poor trolls or trolls who cant even be bothered stealing someones credit card to troll? - I've been saying for ages that the quality of trolls is going down hill - in the good ol' days they used to take pride in their beatifully perfected masterpieces of trolling) or is this like having another AC who, maybe, pays more and gets called an "Anonymous Slightly-Less-of-a-Coward"?
IMO standardisation is a very good thing (except maybe the Iso way because they do not make their standards freely-available - they cost money (although you can often get pirated copies (of last-call drafts on the Web))).
BTW, is the word, "Iso", supposed to be uppercase like in the post. I wondered. I don't know. Maybe it is a bit like "USENET".
Especially so when you have to figure out which stories are real in the middle of the other junk.
Uhh you don't go to/. much on a normal day do you?
Re:Why can't we have some convincing APJ's this ye
on
BSDs to be Merged
·
· Score: 1
AFG's...why to use the preview..grrr.
Why can't we have some convincing APJ's this year
on
BSDs to be Merged
·
· Score: 1
...or at least funny ones. Something like the Gates Open Directory Project (GOD) last year.
I think the joke this year is that, in a post-modern ironic twist, there are not any april fools (except the bad attempts at humour on/.), except on The Onion which does them all year round (i mean, techincally The Onion should have some true stories for a change - that'd be funny).
At least they are leaving something for our imaginations, but, really, what kind of thunking editors does/. have these days?
They say RTFA, what about the posters of the summaries of the articles reading the articles or even reading their own summaries. Or even better the editors reading the posted summaries or even, shock horror, the editors reading their redundant additions to the summaries of the f'ing articles (TERTRATTSOTFA has a nice ring).
P.S. I like my thunks especially long. Good long thunks are the best kind.
Basically, in a similar way to most web (and internet, and computer, for that matter,) standards, none of the implementors implements the W3C standards fully (but most tend to follow the standards for features they do implement or else make it clear that they want to do a different thing with a very limited number of features), and M$ make a different version of CSS or whatever (in their design software and UA) that fails to implement many of the useful features of the standards, cannot interpret CSS not made with M$ tools and adds useless features, and then make out this is standard.
P.S. BTW:
joeblakesley@netsc[ ].net ['ape' in gap]
I'm no apeman - I'm descended from a long line of...uuh...hairdressers;-) (STR)
The site in the article is quite cool. I haven't seen it before.
Another useful site that uses an alternative interface for Google is Fagan Finder. It has all the difference google searches and related options on one page. (There is also an MSIE-only JS version which I have not used). Fagan Finder is a guide to SE's and directories; probably quite a useful site for those new to the web (and its SE's and directories) for getting around (and if one cannot find info on something in particular easily).
I don't think it's in IBM's interest to actually win the case, because that would poison any chance of IBM's bringing similar claims against other companies
You may be right. Similar in what way, though? (Maybe I'm missing something here.) Similar in that they would be related to trade secrets (I mean it is not like this is setting any precedent in that suing over trade secets is a new thing), or in that they would be related to developers working on open source after working on proprietary code, or what?
I'm sure someone can chime in and correct me as to whether or not Guatemala is part of North America.
You are wrong;-). Look at the shape of America on the map; where is the obvious division? Also, where is the actual division in the tectonic plates? Read any book which mentions continents. Central America is not a continent. The division between North America and South America is the Panama Canal.
[1] they cannot distribute under the GPL, which means they cannot distribute the code at all, and they cannot make it a part of their Linux Distribution.
[2] it means that we -do- have the right to distribute.
2 does not follow from 1. In fact they may be considered contradictory.
SCO cannot distribute the code if they have not freely licensed the (hypothetical) patent(s) to everyone. I agree. Nor can anyone else distribute the code. (Therefore, assuming SCO have patents which are infringed by the kernel, Linux, all distributions including Linux which have been produced by SCO have been knowingly and blatantly mass-pirated by SCO, but they probably do not care as they are going down in flames.)
And if Caldera has included those binaries, we still have rights to it
Where does it say this in the GPL? In fact it says the complete opposite (i.e.: one cannot distribute code which is subject to patent(s) under the GPL if the owner of the patent(s) does not license everyone to use their patent indefinitely and freely).
It may be true that the GPL could be interpreted as also being a patent license but this is definitely questionable. It is also true that SCO would be admitting to commiting serious IP piracy, but if they are going bankrupt they do not care about that (unless the directors can be prosecuted for that - i am not sure).
Below is the section discussing patents:
7.
If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent
infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues),
conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or
otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not
excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot
distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this
License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you
may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent
license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by
all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then
the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to
refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
If any portion of this section is held invalid or unenforceable under
any particular circumstance, the balance of the section is intended to
apply and the section as a whole is intended to apply in other
circumstances.
It is not the purpose of this section to induce you to infringe any
patents or other property right claims or to contest validity of any
such claims; this section has the sole purpose of protecting the
integrity of the free software distribution system, which is
implemented by public license practices. Many people have made
generous contributions to the wide range of software distributed
through that system in reliance on consistent application of that
system; it is up to the author/donor to decide if he or she is willing
to distribute software through any other system and a licensee cannot
impose that choice.
This section is intended to make thoroughly clear what is believed to
be a consequence of the rest of this License.
8.
If the distribution and/or use of the Program is restricted in
certain countries either by patents or by copyrighted interfaces, the
original copyright holder who places the Program under this License
may add an explicit geographical distribution limitation excluding
those countries, so that distribution is permitted only in or among
countries not thus excluded. In such case, this License incorporates
the limitation as if written in the body of this License.
Usually "light pollution" is considered to be lighting up the sky.
Light pollution that lights up the sky is generally called sky glow. There are many other forms of LP. <plug type="shameless">see the links, FAQ's and description at ODP</plug>.
See http://ch.dmoz.org/Society/Issues/Environment/Ligh t_Pollution/Regulation/
Yes, I campaign against this, but this is about very excessive quantities of light causing a nuisance to humans (and causing mortality of flora/fauna, human health problems (e.g.: cancer due to disruption of melatonin production), stopping astronomical observation &c), therefore is probably even more justified than current regulation of other wavelengths.
IANAL, but don't you think that some of these would have been sued already if they had a copyright on Windows?
None of these pieces of software use any M$ Windows code (who would want to?) and M$ do have copyright on M$ Windows.
They also have a trademark, which they gained under very suspicious circumstances, on the word "Windows" when used to describe software. This is what is under discussion. Hence the recent change of Windows Commander (a file explorer for Windows) to Total Commander.
(The trademark circumstances are suspicious because the USPTO said they would never give out a trademark on "Windows" because it is a generic term for GUI's. However, later, when M$ had more power, M$ appealed and where given the trademark. The judge in the Microsoft v. Lindows.com case has redacted (i.e.: censored) (with black ink) the part [PDF] of the court papers where Lindows.com explains the reason that the trademark was given to M$ despite the earlier rulings that it was a generic term - a term can never lose its genericness. If you look very carefully, you will prbably be able to read a few words;-).)
They're not releasing that piece of source as part of some GPL requirements, they're releasing to show that it's
not covered by the GPL.
(My emaphasis)
It may be the case that they claim that it was not released as part of some GPL requirements, but, nonetheless, they themeselves are releasing the HAL source code under the GNU GPL. The floppy disk I received from CTL includes a copy of the GPL and says on the label "Issued under the GPL". AFAICC, that could not be clearer.
This is interesting, because if they are still claiming that they have not infringed copyright, why release it under the GPL? Also, there is no indication that it is a derived work - is this not a requirement of the GPL?
If they issue an apology and make that it is a derived work then I'm sure that no one would sue them for damages. However, even then, would they have to issue their entire source or can the HAL (which they have now issued under the GPL) be considered a seperate work from the rest of their OS?
This should've been blindingly obvious - I read it and did not understand wtf it was on about then realised it was a typo and should've been lose.
Talking about things not making sense, did ne1 else understand the second (no pun intentended) paragraph of the parent post or maybe the poster could shed light there? The first paragraph was funny then the second just started going a bit crazy.
Well...I guess the laser won't make any sound. Seriously though, why do they need things this accurate? I don't know but I'm sure there are some scientific experiments (atomic &c) which require extremely accurate timing. It is amazing that for instance radio telescopes need at least a picosecond accuracy (so that the computers can line up signals from different telescopes in an array) so they all have atomic clocks on site.
It appears that these clocks are still in the early conceptual stages but they sound a helluva accurate (doubt they'll need more accuracy but u don't know).
There are more prosaic applications as well, speeding up telecommunications and making them more secure from hackers.
Why does that require 1 second in billions of years accuracy?
Also, shouldnt these clocks use the measurement system detailed in the official CGPM SI defintion of the second to be used as scientific master clocks.
Official Systeme International d'Unites definition:
#The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation
#corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of
#the ground state of the caesium 133 atom.
Can they be sure that what they are measuring does not change (especially if it involves light - although I think scientists have now decided to just assume c is constant now even if it is not and now base other measures (e.g.: the metre) on the value of c)?
This is just crazy...it will just piss off their customers and is not even effective (in fact it is extremely easy to circumvent). If they do not prominently warn about this then it is criminal. People who have programs (e.g.: AV software) to stop this or replace their boot sector after TurboTax FUBAR it will not be able to use the software and othe people will have their machines ruined by it. Many mundane M$ W*nd*ze users have dual-boot or utilities in the boot sector. Basically it looks like a virus and quacks like a virus. We should treat it as such.
My post (the grandparent) may've sounded a tad condescending and like I was putting down MG's. This was not my intention. I'm sure many people find them useful, but I do think there are ways in which they could be improved.
It may even sound mundane or even suitish. I am as geeky as the next/.er and like trying out new features like MG's. I did this for a while but in the end I decided that (in their current form (in Mozilla and Opera)) they were more trouble than they were worth (and to some extent, I did not have the time to work out how to use them properly and, also, not make them accidentally).
If I found I could not be bothered then I cannot see that Joe Random is going to be (i.e.: MG's - at least as they stand - are not going to become mainstream). However, this does not mean it is a useless technology or that the Linux project is useless, by any means, and I'm sure MG's will find a niche user base (and possibly niche applications).
I think that this project should be supported as, undoubtedly, some people will find it helpful. I may even start using MG's a lot one day (if they improved or if I can be bothered learning/using them).
Slashdot Mirror
I am not sure about where exactly one stands with the law of the USA. Is it online anywhere? I could not find US legislation on any goverment websites. Is the law in the USA even publicly available or is it a Goverment secret?
Suprisingly, I did manage to find the Constitution of the USA on a goverment website at http://memory.loc.gov/const/const.html. Unfortunately, it appears from the notice, "Permission is hereby granted to download, reprint, and/or otherwise redistribute this file, provided appropriate point of origin credit is given to the preparer(s) and the National Public Telecomputing Network.", that it is copyrighted.
I was going to quote from the constitution but I might be extradited to the US for copying it (because, of course, the USA now have jurisdiction over the World), so I will not. I just hope that they do not extradite me to the USA over copying the copyright notice on the Constitution. It probably doesn't matter anyway, because, now Bush rules the world, all your laws apply to me including the DMCA. This means that my vocal cords and fingers should be removed as DMCA-circumvention devices, because, if I wanted to, I could use my vocal cords to speak or my fingers to type the USA Constitution (even though I have no intention of doing so).
[Please do not mod the this down as it is true (unlike a lot of comments) and is not meant to criticise the US people as most of us non-USAns (including myself) feel solidarity with the people of the USA who are under the dictatorship of George W. Bush.]
Some people assume it must be "International Standards Organi{s/z}ation" when they see "Iso".
Maybe "Iso" was a bad word to choose or maybe it should always be lower case or title case to avoid confusion.
I guess no one will complain about taking money from AC's so I can see the logic here. However, isn't there an issue here with people having to give the evil powers that be at /. (who are obviously not on anything (drug-like in nature) at all) their credit-card details to pay them to be anonymous when surely this makes them less so. In fact this may have been CmdrTaco's evil plan of bringing in AC posts in the first place (i mean, why else?) as is demonstrated below by this step-by-step plan I found on some discarded packets of substances of a questionable nature near CmdrTaco's house:
This is interesting because how much value does posting as AC really have. I certainly wouldnt pay $2 bn/yr. I haven't heard about this before. Where did this figure come from?
Sounds horrible. I always thought that move was bad.
So, is this like old AC without the charges (so we will not only get trolls but poor trolls or trolls who cant even be bothered stealing someones credit card to troll? - I've been saying for ages that the quality of trolls is going down hill - in the good ol' days they used to take pride in their beatifully perfected masterpieces of trolling) or is this like having another AC who, maybe, pays more and gets called an "Anonymous Slightly-Less-of-a-Coward"?
IMO standardisation is a very good thing (except maybe the Iso way because they do not make their standards freely-available - they cost money (although you can often get pirated copies (of last-call drafts on the Web))). BTW, is the word, "Iso", supposed to be uppercase like in the post. I wondered. I don't know. Maybe it is a bit like "USENET".
Uhh you don't go to /. much on a normal day do you?
AFG's...why to use the preview..grrr.
I think the joke this year is that, in a post-modern ironic twist, there are not any april fools (except the bad attempts at humour on /.), except on The Onion which does them all year round (i mean, techincally The Onion should have some true stories for a change - that'd be funny).
At least they are leaving something for our imaginations, but, really, what kind of thunking editors does /. have these days?
They say RTFA, what about the posters of the summaries of the articles reading the articles or even reading their own summaries. Or even better the editors reading the posted summaries or even, shock horror, the editors reading their redundant additions to the summaries of the f'ing articles (TERTRATTSOTFA has a nice ring).
P.S. I like my thunks especially long. Good long thunks are the best kind.
P.S. BTW:
I'm no apeman - I'm descended from a long line of...uuh...hairdressersAnother useful site that uses an alternative interface for Google is Fagan Finder. It has all the difference google searches and related options on one page. (There is also an MSIE-only JS version which I have not used). Fagan Finder is a guide to SE's and directories; probably quite a useful site for those new to the web (and its SE's and directories) for getting around (and if one cannot find info on something in particular easily).
SCO cannot distribute the code if they have not freely licensed the (hypothetical) patent(s) to everyone. I agree. Nor can anyone else distribute the code. (Therefore, assuming SCO have patents which are infringed by the kernel, Linux, all distributions including Linux which have been produced by SCO have been knowingly and blatantly mass-pirated by SCO, but they probably do not care as they are going down in flames.)
It may be true that the GPL could be interpreted as also being a patent license but this is definitely questionable. It is also true that SCO would be admitting to commiting serious IP piracy, but if they are going bankrupt they do not care about that (unless the directors can be prosecuted for that - i am not sure).
Below is the section discussing patents:
See http://ch.dmoz.org/Society/Issues/Environment/Ligh t_Pollution/Regulation/
Yes, I campaign against this, but this is about very excessive quantities of light causing a nuisance to humans (and causing mortality of flora/fauna, human health problems (e.g.: cancer due to disruption of melatonin production), stopping astronomical observation &c), therefore is probably even more justified than current regulation of other wavelengths.
He could've just used 500GB HDD's. Although it wouldn't have been half as fun...
They also have a trademark, which they gained under very suspicious circumstances, on the word "Windows" when used to describe software. This is what is under discussion. Hence the recent change of Windows Commander (a file explorer for Windows) to Total Commander.
(The trademark circumstances are suspicious because the USPTO said they would never give out a trademark on "Windows" because it is a generic term for GUI's. However, later, when M$ had more power, M$ appealed and where given the trademark. The judge in the Microsoft v. Lindows.com case has redacted (i.e.: censored) (with black ink) the part [PDF] of the court papers where Lindows.com explains the reason that the trademark was given to M$ despite the earlier rulings that it was a generic term - a term can never lose its genericness. If you look very carefully, you will prbably be able to read a few words ;-).)
It may be the case that they claim that it was not released as part of some GPL requirements, but, nonetheless, they themeselves are releasing the HAL source code under the GNU GPL. The floppy disk I received from CTL includes a copy of the GPL and says on the label "Issued under the GPL". AFAICC, that could not be clearer.
This is interesting, because if they are still claiming that they have not infringed copyright, why release it under the GPL? Also, there is no indication that it is a derived work - is this not a requirement of the GPL?
If they issue an apology and make that it is a derived work then I'm sure that no one would sue them for damages. However, even then, would they have to issue their entire source or can the HAL (which they have now issued under the GPL) be considered a seperate work from the rest of their OS?
I know that. It just wasn't funny ;-)
Talking about things not making sense, did ne1 else understand the second (no pun intentended) paragraph of the parent post or maybe the poster could shed light there? The first paragraph was funny then the second just started going a bit crazy.
It appears that these clocks are still in the early conceptual stages but they sound a helluva accurate (doubt they'll need more accuracy but u don't know).
Why does that require 1 second in billions of years accuracy?Also, shouldnt these clocks use the measurement system detailed in the official CGPM SI defintion of the second to be used as scientific master clocks.
Can they be sure that what they are measuring does not change (especially if it involves light - although I think scientists have now decided to just assume c is constant now even if it is not and now base other measures (e.g.: the metre) on the value of c)?
This is just crazy...it will just piss off their customers and is not even effective (in fact it is extremely easy to circumvent). If they do not prominently warn about this then it is criminal. People who have programs (e.g.: AV software) to stop this or replace their boot sector after TurboTax FUBAR it will not be able to use the software and othe people will have their machines ruined by it. Many mundane M$ W*nd*ze users have dual-boot or utilities in the boot sector. Basically it looks like a virus and quacks like a virus. We should treat it as such.
My post (the grandparent) may've sounded a tad condescending and like I was putting down MG's. This was not my intention. I'm sure many people find them useful, but I do think there are ways in which they could be improved.
It may even sound mundane or even suitish. I am as geeky as the next /.er and like trying out new features like MG's. I did this for a while but in the end I decided that (in their current form (in Mozilla and Opera)) they were more trouble than they were worth (and to some extent, I did not have the time to work out how to use them properly and, also, not make them accidentally).
If I found I could not be bothered then I cannot see that Joe Random is going to be (i.e.: MG's - at least as they stand - are not going to become mainstream). However, this does not mean it is a useless technology or that the Linux project is useless, by any means, and I'm sure MG's will find a niche user base (and possibly niche applications).
I think that this project should be supported as, undoubtedly, some people will find it helpful. I may even start using MG's a lot one day (if they improved or if I can be bothered learning/using them).