I'm very happy with mine. I can read books on it, surf the web, send email... and yes, this DOES come in handy.
I'm not annoyed by people who receive calls in public any more than I would be annoyed by someone conversing with a present human being.
The days of people gabbing on the flip-phone as a status symbol are over. So quit feeling inferior.
The same goes for driving. Talking to a passenger is no less distracting than talking on a cell phone. There are a lot of bad drivers in America. Yell at them. Flip them off. Honk your horn.
ACLU and courts have succesfully banned several public expressions of religion that were in no way endorsed by govt, for example, voluntary prayers by school students (not school led, student led), etc.
Every single one of those cases involved government assistance to a public religious performance. Just because it is "voluntary" and "student-led" does not prevent it from being government endorsed. If the students are allowed to recite their prayer over a public address system so that everyone in the entire high school stadium has to listen to them, then it is most definitely government endorsed.
It is not illegal to pray in school. Anyone who tells you that is lying to you.
once again the supreme court says the constitution isn't what it is...
The Supreme Court isn't a part of this case. If you are referring to the obscenity exception to free speech, that was created in 1957, before any of the current members of the Court joined it.
the court shouldn't fold and create a new law throwing a few more of our rights out the window...
The federal courts, including the Supreme Court, cannot simply ban a video game of their own volition.
They would have to be following a statute. In this case, it would be the state law that the plaintiff is suing under.
The obvious reason that the defendants removed this case to federal court, is that the federal court is MORE likely to throw the case out on First Amendment grounds. In theory, a federal court will be less hesitant to throw out a state law in favor of the Federal Constitution.
You should be pissed at the state that would provide a cause of action for this. The Supreme Court has nothing to do with it yet.
> Religion is not free speech.
>
>Why would you think that?
Because he doesn't understand the difference between exercising free speech and using the government to endorse his own religion.
It's a particularly ignorant statement, since religion doesn't even need to be free speech. The "free exercise" of religion gets its own specific protection, even if it only involves meditating by yourself (which would be neither speech nor expression).
Speaking as a former police officer, I'm not sure how many 'deadly force' situations your solving here. As I understand it, this *tractor beam* will cause a moving vehicle to stop, so without it - your talking about police shooting at a moving vehicle? Afraid that is something that happens primarily in Hollywood my friend.
Microsoft is not a generic term, whereas Windows is a generic term and is not even trademarked (the trademark is Microsoft Windows).
You can sue someone for infringing on your trademark even if you have never registered it at all. You have to show that you were the first to use it. So "Windows" could be Microsoft's trademark, assuming that the term is not too general to be trademarked.
Many of the survey questions sound like admissions that in certain ways Linux IS better... they probably wouldn't want that to appear on www.microsoft.com proper.
It could be a hoax, but it wouldn't be an impressive one. It's nothing amazing. It just appears to be a company trying to improve its product...
whooptedoo... "really took me for a ride there guys! yuckyuck"
16. List the top one or two improvements that you would like to see made to Linux.
Hmmm, Microsoft planning on releasing a Linux distro?
... or fishing for quotes to use in their marketing?
Regardless, I told them that the number one improvement I would like to see in Linux is more installations.... so many installations that there are no more Windows boxen left.
I think that would be a great improvement for Linux.
After you install the virus on my computer, I call the FBI (or its Canadian equivalent), and the jack-booted thugs break down your door and throw your ass in the pen.
Assuming that people will be okay with this is very far from a safe bet.
If the weed is grown in state and sold in state, there is nothing the feds can do. It's not interstate commerace. Therefore, it is the exclusive juristiction for the states to legislate on the matter under Article 1, sec 8 and the tenth amendment to the constitution.
The federal government can pass all the laws they want. It doesn't mean they legally have the right to.
While I wish this were the case, you had better speak to a lawyer before you start growing your weed.
Ever since FDR threatened to pack the Supreme Court with agreeable "young blood" justices, interstate commerce has meant pretty much whatever the Feds want it to mean. Anything that can possibly, in the most remote way imaginable, affect commerce among the states, is within the power of the Federal government.
You can pretty much take the 10th Amendment and wipe your ass with it if you like. It has no meaning any more.
You can pontificate all you want. It doesn't mean that the Supreme Court will agree with you... they have already made themselves very clear on this... they do not.
Copy protection did not work for computer software.
You are comparing apples and oranges.
Yes, the slightly above average computer user can pirate Windows (even with the product-activation BS)... but that's because MS controls only the software... not the hardware it runs on.
Once they control both the hardware and the media, it will be harder to crack.
The question is how much harder? And once it is cracked, will they have to put out a fixed version that will be incompatible with the old version?
And once that happens, will anyone ever buy any of their crap again?
Any electronics or media company that buys into this whole-hog will be making a huge mistake.
I'm confused about how this will preempt state law. The state and federal government regularly disagree on a particular issue and have different laws in place to handle such issues (see state marijuana laws vs federal) but that has never preempted a state law or deemed a state law unenforceable. Unless of course a court determines the law is unconstitutional.
Federal law is ALWAYS supreme unless the Federal government doesn't have the power to legislate in a given area (which is just about never).
See the second paragraph of US Constitution, Article 6,
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding."
California can "legalize" marijuana all it wants. Unfortunately, it doesn't work. The Federal government is still putting Californians in jail for growing marijuana.
The difficult part of this decicion is that yes, you can clear out any code that SCO claims is infringing, but doing so, you acknowledge that there was merit to their claims. ..
"Subsequent remedial measures" are not admissible as evidence of culpable conduct in any Federal court. Besides, if there is a question about whether code is legal, the most reasonable thing to do is to simply remove the code. It doesn't mean that you are admitting anything. It just means that you don't know and you are being smart.
The decision whether to remove code should be made based on what is best for the users and developers.
True, SCO should not get off that easy. Copyright law is strict. It doesn't matter if SCO didn't know... but that also applies to people running Linux. If there is infringing code in there, they could be liable even if they didn't know about it.
Exposing millions of innocent people to potential litigation is not something that should be done merely for principle's sake... if you can prove the code came from BSD or elsewhere (or was donated by SCO), then by all means, prove it in court... but if you don't know, you go ahead and replace the code to minimize the damage.
My Signal-to-Noise ratio on the article read a whopping zero. We all know a contract is different from a license. In fact, most licenses state that in X number of words.
Well, if you take a look at the number of comments from people still asking when they might be forced to release their code under the GPL, you would see that the article could be useful for some...
One of the defenses I've heard from GPL advocates regarding the SCO scandal is that SCO "gifted" their code because they didn't pull their Linux distribution right away. From what you're saying, it sounds like that wouldn't be the case. However, does that imply that SCO or any other contributer could pull their code since they choose not to abide by the license anymore, either?
No. That is an entirely different situation than what we are talking about here.
SCO actually released its own version of Linux under the GPL. The license that SCO used was the GPL.
SCO did not accidentally insert GPLed code into a proprietary software project. They released it themselves under the GPL.
Since the copyright owner has already released the code under the GPL, it has granted a license to others to use the code and redistribute it. They can't take that license back.
What this article is talking about are situations like the one Linksys found itself in, where the company discovers that it has GPLed code, but doesn't want to open source the project. Noone can force them to make that decision... Just like any other copyright violator, they are liable for damages under copyright law. Copyright law doesn't provide for "forced opensourcing". It provides for money damages.
Once a company chooses to release its code under the GPL, it is out under the GPL and they don't get to pretend that you don't have a license and sue you for using it.
As for the assertion that it is "wasn't supposed to be hacked". That's like saying that you can't upgrade a computer that you've purchased.
I think he meant that the reason for doing it is the joy of doing something that they don't want you to do. It wasn't "supposed to be" hacked, because Walgreen's wants you to bring it back, pay them for "processing", and let them "recycle" it (i.e. let them resell it).
If they are selling them under the same terms that they sell single use film cameras, they can't stop you from hacking it. You OWN it until you return it for processing and recycling.
Seriously, is this thing really worth 10 bucks, even after it's hacked?
The Constitution gives the Federal government "power to regulate commerce among the states."
Over the years, the Supreme Court has interpreted this as a statement that the states do not have that power unless Congress gives it to them. They have given it this interpretation even though it doesn't say anything about what role the states in regulating interstate commerce. This is why we call it the "Dormant Commerce Clause". It's part of the Commerce Clause, but it isn't explicitly stated.
The Dormant Commerce Clause says that the states may not significantly interfere with interstate commerce unless Congress gives them that right.
It was a reaction to the Articles of Confederation, which we had before the Constitution. Under the Articles, the Federal government had very little power. The states were passing all kinds of protectionist laws, imposing tariffs on each other, and regulating in other ways to give local businesses an advantage. So one reason for the new Constitution was to stop states from passing protectionist laws, and to create a stronger Federal government which would have the power to regulate, but which would not have an incentive to protect a particular state's industry over another's.
States may regulate interstate commerce, but they must do so only in the least burdensome way.
In one case, a state required 18 wheelers to use different mudflaps than what all the surrounding states required. This was found to be an unreasonable interference with interstate commerce, because it would require any 18-wheeler entering the state to stop and change the mudflaps.
I'll concede that just about anything is arguable.:-)
2: By that logic, I should be able to throw bags full of pennies off of tall buildings; how do *I* know that people will be walking underneath?
That would be recklessness... so come to think of it, I was wrong the first time. Recklessness is an additional mens rea (state of mind) requirement for crimes. And that is generally the minimum mens rea.
But even recklessness requires "knowledge of a significant risk".
He knows he's sending spam to random receipients; he knows it could end up just about anywhere.
That's a good point. But my commerce clause argument is closely related to the mens rea argument... If he is required to comply with the laws of every single state his packets go through, he has to follow the laws of all 50 states.
Let's say he wasn't a spammer, suppose he was a company sending notificiation of online bank statements. Let's say every single state has its own laws regarding electronic communications and banking. Even if the bank is local and only services in-state customers, it would have to comply with the laws of all 50 states, because its emails could travel through any state.
Now, what if those states have conflicting laws? One state requires the same thing that another state forbids. The bank is SOL. It simply can't use the internet in this way because it would be violating somebody's law no matter what.
Which leads to another interesting question; you spam me. I live in, say, Texas; the mail server I'm popping from, though, is in Mississipi. Which one has jurisdiction?
Well, if it's criminal charges, either state could claim jurisdiction. However, once any state impanels a jury "jeopardy" attaches, and the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution prevents any other state from prosecuting for the same crime.
If it is a civil suit with the same parties, they would not be allowed to file multiple times for the same individual claim. But it is the plaintiff's choice where to file, as the long as there is personal jurisdiction.
That brings up another constitutional argument... whether there are "sufficient contacts" for a state to assert personal jurisdiction over the act. But I don't feel like arguing that right now;-).
Remember, the Virginia law doesn't require that the email actually end up there. It only requires that the email "pass through" Virginia. So even with one individual email, there is no way to predict with certainty which states you will be going through.
This law will be invalid in a couple of weeks (due to the new Federal "CAN-SPAM" law, which will supercede it), but the danger is that states could use the precedent to regulate things other than spam.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm very happy with mine. I can read books on it, surf the web, send email... and yes, this DOES come in handy.
I'm not annoyed by people who receive calls in public any more than I would be annoyed by someone conversing with a present human being.
The days of people gabbing on the flip-phone as a status symbol are over. So quit feeling inferior.
The same goes for driving. Talking to a passenger is no less distracting than talking on a cell phone. There are a lot of bad drivers in America. Yell at them. Flip them off. Honk your horn.
But don't ban my cell phone.
This whole time they thought it was just for trading Metallica MP3s.
This is the single most compelling argument favoring Open Source migration.
If you want Red Hat Linux support, you can get it from Progeny. If you want Win98 support (or WinXP support in 5 years), you are SOL.
So, just where did they get this idea to call it "spiritrover" huh?
I'm going to sue.
If "Windows" can sue "Lindows", I should be able to sue "spiritrover".
Every single one of those cases involved government assistance to a public religious performance. Just because it is "voluntary" and "student-led" does not prevent it from being government endorsed. If the students are allowed to recite their prayer over a public address system so that everyone in the entire high school stadium has to listen to them, then it is most definitely government endorsed.
It is not illegal to pray in school. Anyone who tells you that is lying to you.
The Supreme Court isn't a part of this case. If you are referring to the obscenity exception to free speech, that was created in 1957, before any of the current members of the Court joined it.
the court shouldn't fold and create a new law throwing a few more of our rights out the window...
The federal courts, including the Supreme Court, cannot simply ban a video game of their own volition.
They would have to be following a statute. In this case, it would be the state law that the plaintiff is suing under.
The obvious reason that the defendants removed this case to federal court, is that the federal court is MORE likely to throw the case out on First Amendment grounds. In theory, a federal court will be less hesitant to throw out a state law in favor of the Federal Constitution.
You should be pissed at the state that would provide a cause of action for this. The Supreme Court has nothing to do with it yet.
>
>Why would you think that?
Because he doesn't understand the difference between exercising free speech and using the government to endorse his own religion.
It's a particularly ignorant statement, since religion doesn't even need to be free speech. The "free exercise" of religion gets its own specific protection, even if it only involves meditating by yourself (which would be neither speech nor expression).
Actually, I think they are talking about the kind of deadly force that is applied when a police or criminal's car hits a pedestrian.
That is something that you don't see in Hollywood movies, but it is quite common.
You can sue someone for infringing on your trademark even if you have never registered it at all. You have to show that you were the first to use it. So "Windows" could be Microsoft's trademark, assuming that the term is not too general to be trademarked.
It could be a hoax, but it wouldn't be an impressive one. It's nothing amazing. It just appears to be a company trying to improve its product...
whooptedoo... "really took me for a ride there guys! yuckyuck"
Hmmm, Microsoft planning on releasing a Linux distro?
Regardless, I told them that the number one improvement I would like to see in Linux is more installations.... so many installations that there are no more Windows boxen left.
I think that would be a great improvement for Linux.
And who exactly was George Washington then ... a florist? An origami artist? A writer of romantic novels?
Assuming that people will be okay with this is very far from a safe bet.
The federal government can pass all the laws they want. It doesn't mean they legally have the right to.
While I wish this were the case, you had better speak to a lawyer before you start growing your weed.
Ever since FDR threatened to pack the Supreme Court with agreeable "young blood" justices, interstate commerce has meant pretty much whatever the Feds want it to mean. Anything that can possibly, in the most remote way imaginable, affect commerce among the states, is within the power of the Federal government.
You can pretty much take the 10th Amendment and wipe your ass with it if you like. It has no meaning any more.
You can pontificate all you want. It doesn't mean that the Supreme Court will agree with you... they have already made themselves very clear on this... they do not.
You are comparing apples and oranges.
Yes, the slightly above average computer user can pirate Windows (even with the product-activation BS)... but that's because MS controls only the software... not the hardware it runs on.
Once they control both the hardware and the media, it will be harder to crack.
The question is how much harder? And once it is cracked, will they have to put out a fixed version that will be incompatible with the old version?
And once that happens, will anyone ever buy any of their crap again?
Any electronics or media company that buys into this whole-hog will be making a huge mistake.
Federal law is ALWAYS supreme unless the Federal government doesn't have the power to legislate in a given area (which is just about never).
See the second paragraph of US Constitution, Article 6,
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding."
California can "legalize" marijuana all it wants. Unfortunately, it doesn't work. The Federal government is still putting Californians in jail for growing marijuana.
"Subsequent remedial measures" are not admissible as evidence of culpable conduct in any Federal court. Besides, if there is a question about whether code is legal, the most reasonable thing to do is to simply remove the code. It doesn't mean that you are admitting anything. It just means that you don't know and you are being smart.
The decision whether to remove code should be made based on what is best for the users and developers.
True, SCO should not get off that easy. Copyright law is strict. It doesn't matter if SCO didn't know... but that also applies to people running Linux. If there is infringing code in there, they could be liable even if they didn't know about it.
Exposing millions of innocent people to potential litigation is not something that should be done merely for principle's sake... if you can prove the code came from BSD or elsewhere (or was donated by SCO), then by all means, prove it in court... but if you don't know, you go ahead and replace the code to minimize the damage.
No. If he pays for unlimited bandwidth... they shouldn't be comparing it to anything. It's none of their business.
It's pretty dumb to accuse your own customers of breaking the law. Especially when the law protects your business from any resulting liability.
Well, if you take a look at the number of comments from people still asking when they might be forced to release their code under the GPL, you would see that the article could be useful for some...
If they would bother to read it.
No. That is an entirely different situation than what we are talking about here.
SCO actually released its own version of Linux under the GPL. The license that SCO used was the GPL.
SCO did not accidentally insert GPLed code into a proprietary software project. They released it themselves under the GPL.
Since the copyright owner has already released the code under the GPL, it has granted a license to others to use the code and redistribute it. They can't take that license back.
What this article is talking about are situations like the one Linksys found itself in, where the company discovers that it has GPLed code, but doesn't want to open source the project. Noone can force them to make that decision... Just like any other copyright violator, they are liable for damages under copyright law. Copyright law doesn't provide for "forced opensourcing". It provides for money damages.
Once a company chooses to release its code under the GPL, it is out under the GPL and they don't get to pretend that you don't have a license and sue you for using it.
SCO has no case!
I think he meant that the reason for doing it is the joy of doing something that they don't want you to do. It wasn't "supposed to be" hacked, because Walgreen's wants you to bring it back, pay them for "processing", and let them "recycle" it (i.e. let them resell it).
If they are selling them under the same terms that they sell single use film cameras, they can't stop you from hacking it. You OWN it until you return it for processing and recycling.
Seriously, is this thing really worth 10 bucks, even after it's hacked?
The Constitution gives the Federal government "power to regulate commerce among the states."
Over the years, the Supreme Court has interpreted this as a statement that the states do not have that power unless Congress gives it to them. They have given it this interpretation even though it doesn't say anything about what role the states in regulating interstate commerce. This is why we call it the "Dormant Commerce Clause". It's part of the Commerce Clause, but it isn't explicitly stated.
The Dormant Commerce Clause says that the states may not significantly interfere with interstate commerce unless Congress gives them that right.
It was a reaction to the Articles of Confederation, which we had before the Constitution. Under the Articles, the Federal government had very little power. The states were passing all kinds of protectionist laws, imposing tariffs on each other, and regulating in other ways to give local businesses an advantage. So one reason for the new Constitution was to stop states from passing protectionist laws, and to create a stronger Federal government which would have the power to regulate, but which would not have an incentive to protect a particular state's industry over another's.
States may regulate interstate commerce, but they must do so only in the least burdensome way.
In one case, a state required 18 wheelers to use different mudflaps than what all the surrounding states required. This was found to be an unreasonable interference with interstate commerce, because it would require any 18-wheeler entering the state to stop and change the mudflaps.
I'll concede that just about anything is arguable. :-)
2: By that logic, I should be able to throw bags full of pennies off of tall buildings; how do *I* know that people will be walking underneath?
That would be recklessness... so come to think of it, I was wrong the first time. Recklessness is an additional mens rea (state of mind) requirement for crimes. And that is generally the minimum mens rea.
But even recklessness requires "knowledge of a significant risk".
He knows he's sending spam to random receipients; he knows it could end up just about anywhere.
That's a good point. But my commerce clause argument is closely related to the mens rea argument... If he is required to comply with the laws of every single state his packets go through, he has to follow the laws of all 50 states.
Let's say he wasn't a spammer, suppose he was a company sending notificiation of online bank statements. Let's say every single state has its own laws regarding electronic communications and banking. Even if the bank is local and only services in-state customers, it would have to comply with the laws of all 50 states, because its emails could travel through any state.
Now, what if those states have conflicting laws? One state requires the same thing that another state forbids. The bank is SOL. It simply can't use the internet in this way because it would be violating somebody's law no matter what.
Which leads to another interesting question; you spam me. I live in, say, Texas; the mail server I'm popping from, though, is in Mississipi. Which one has jurisdiction?
Well, if it's criminal charges, either state could claim jurisdiction. However, once any state impanels a jury "jeopardy" attaches, and the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution prevents any other state from prosecuting for the same crime.
If it is a civil suit with the same parties, they would not be allowed to file multiple times for the same individual claim. But it is the plaintiff's choice where to file, as the long as there is personal jurisdiction.
That brings up another constitutional argument... whether there are "sufficient contacts" for a state to assert personal jurisdiction over the act. But I don't feel like arguing that right now ;-).
Remember, the Virginia law doesn't require that the email actually end up there. It only requires that the email "pass through" Virginia. So even with one individual email, there is no way to predict with certainty which states you will be going through.
This law will be invalid in a couple of weeks (due to the new Federal "CAN-SPAM" law, which will supercede it), but the danger is that states could use the precedent to regulate things other than spam.
That must be the reason why you are enjoying this discussion so much.
When you use the phrase "liberal idiot," you are making a statement or at least an implication that one is an idiot for being a liberal.
You know this. Yet you ignore it. Thus, you are ignorant.
Nothing to get your panties all wadded up for... after all, it is typical for conservatives to be ignorant. ;-)