Searches at the border are legally reasonable. This has been held for a very very long time.
Sure, and in fact I agree that searches at the border are reasonable. Seizure (without cause) is not. Copying is even less reasonable, and I suspect is on very dubious grounds legally. Copyright treaties apply internationally. Anyone want to tell the MPAA and RIAA that border guards now have the authority to copy their stuff?
Are you suggesting that it is impossible to sell public domain material? So there are, for example, no works by William Shakespeare or Charles Dickens available at your local bookstore? And before copyright laws no music or art was produced?
Free markets always will find a price mechanism. In the absence of copyright prices would be much lower than they are now, and many people (with vested interests) would strongly dislike that. There may also be a legitimate argument that artists need some form of government subsidy, and that copyrights are a good way to provide that subsidy. But it's certainly not true that in the absence of copyright all "content" would be free.
confiscatory government policy
on
The Demise of IP?
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Replace "IP" with "government mandated monopoly" (which is what "IP" really is) in the article to realize just how silly it is. "Confiscatory government policy thrusting privately risked IP out of the hands of legitimate property owners"? Sounds just like what the government does when a patent is enforced against someone who has independently developed a piece of software.
There is a time and place for government protectionism, and some forms of "IP" do serve a greater good. But what the government grants, the government can take away. Ms. Whine^H^H^H^H^HWyne would do well to remember that.
The linked article and summary act as if the cost of borrowing to cover the initial cost of the vehicle and the cost of gas are the only factors to consider. (To be fair, the article does mention some of the other factors at the end... but just in a hand-waving way, and does no actual inclusion of them in the cost/benefit analysis.) The costs involved in running a vehicle include other significant factors such as insurance, maintenance, and depreciation (unless you plan to keep the car forever). Maintenance in particular will be a tricky factor to calculate for hybrids. There's the electric generator & battery to maintain (increased cost) but on the other hand the regenerative breaking will take a lot of wear off of the brakes, and perhaps the electric motor assist will prolong the life of the engine (decreased cost).
Last year I did a comparison of "total cost of ownership" on edmunds.com, and the Prius came out ahead of all of the conventional vehicles I was comparing it to. A lot of that was probably due to depreciation (hybrids have kept their value really well in practice). I ended up buying one, and found that insurance was also lower than I expected. I doubt this would necessarily apply to other hybrids like the Civic hybrid, but who knows? The full story is certainly more complicated than the simplistic (car cost - gas cost) analysis that is usually presented.
(Me, I'm happy with the Prius. Other people may prefer other cars. That's why it's so nice that we can actually choose to buy different models of cars, instead of just having one or a few maximally cost effective vehicles.)
In his criticism of the original series, Card writes:
As science fiction, the series was trapped in the 1930s -- a throwback to spaceship adventure stories with little regard for science or deeper ideas...
Which was a shame, because science fiction writing was incredibly fertile at the time, with writers like Harlan Ellison and Ursula LeGuin, Robert Silverberg and Larry Niven, Brian W. Aldiss and Michael Moorcock, Ray Bradbury and Isaac Asimov, and Robert A. Heinlein and Arthur C. Clarke creating so many different kinds of excellent science fiction that no one reader could keep track of it all.
It's ironic that Card chose these examples, since
Harlan Ellison wrote for the original Star Trek, and Larry Niven wrote for the animated series. Other notable SF and horror writers like Theodore Sturgeon and Robert Bloch did so as well. If only Star Trek had continued to pay attention to good writing, the franchise might not have spiralled into the ground the way it did.
Now if TaxCut or Turbo Tax has a defect like that, the company agrees to assume responsibility for calculation errors.
Really? Is that what they say in the EULA? Do they put a limit on how much financial risk they assume? I suggest you read the fine print.
Proprietary software companies generally try very hard to absolve themselves of all responsibility for errors, just like OSS software producers. The difference is that the proprietary ones might not be able to get away with it (there are laws about warranties and such like)... but do you want to foot the bill for the legal case to find out?
It's the government that makes all laws, including laws regulating trade secrets. The 1st amendment would apply to these, too. I believe the wording is "Congress shall make no law..." abridging various freedoms. Apple is, it appears, trying to use a law passed by Congress (or a state legislature, but that's also covered by the constitution) to force journalists to reveal sources. That should be a non starter.
The *contractual* issue between Apple and whoever leaked this stuff in the first place is another matter, of course, and Apple could properly pursue them for breach of contract.
I wonder how much simulation and testing you need before we feel safe about affecting an entire planet.
None, apparently, if you're one of those who thinks that the uncertain economic effects of the Kyoto accord are more significant than the uncertain environmental effects of dumping more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
Patents are valid for 20 years, not 7. I don't have much 20 year old software that I still use regularly (although certainly such software does exist).
Take for instance RMS, who says not only should software be given away for $0, but if you charge money for software, you are committing an unethical act. Or, in his last interview publicized on/., RMS was quoted as saying people ought to quit their jobs if it requires them to use 'un-free' software.
Sigh. You're confusing "free as in speech" and "free as in beer". I challenge you to produce any evidence whatsoever that RMS has ever said that software should be given away for $0. In fact the GNU Manifesto specifically encourages charging for software (and/or support and warranties for software).
When RMS says that software should be "free", he means that you should be free to do whatever you like with any software you buy. Contrast the GNU GPL with the ridiculous shrink wrap licenses most proprietary software comes with. It's the GPL that best supports the idea of private property, i.e. you actually get to "own" your copy of GPL software!
Could the earth have been around millions, billions of years? No.
There's plenty of evidence that the earth has been around that long. Certainly the universe has been -- just look up in the night sky and you'll see light from stars that are millions of light years away, so they've been in existence at least that long.
(Or else the light was created in transit... in which case God wants the universe to look millions of years old, so there's no point in us trying to think otherwise!)
Why do you assume a hybrid car has to run on regular gasoline? There's no reason not to have a hybrid diesel/electric, assuming you can build a small diesel engine that satisfies any other constraints (environmental cleanliness, etc.) that you have.
Such a car would have killer mileage -- the great mileage of a diesel on the highway, and all of the advantages of a hybrid in the city (quick stop/start, and recapturing energy through regenerative braking).
Toyota Prius (was Re:Most Fuel Efficient)
on
The Bugatti Veyron
·
· Score: 1
The descision for me is between a Mazda Rx-8 and a Toyota Prius. Its like I have a little angle on one shoulder and a little devil on the other... What to do?
Go for the Prius. IMHO, it's the ideal car for a geek -- chock full of computers and cool features (I like the smart keyless entry -- just walk up to it and open the door, no fumbling for keys). Driving one is a lot like playing a video game. The environmentally friendly features and low gas mileage are really just a bonus:-).
Crossover Office (http://www.codeweavers.com) runs MS Office 2000 very well under Linux, and claims to run Office XP as well. I can't personally verify the latter claim, but can testify that Office 2000 works well.
(I have no affiliation with CodeWeavers, I'm just a happy customer.)
Many businesses want someone to be "resonsible" for the software they use.
They may want that, but do they get it? Try reading any EULA from Microsoft (or any other large software house). They disclaim everything under the sun. Whether those disclaimers will hold up in court is another matter; but then so is whether disclaimers in Open Source software would similarly hold up.
And what if the company you're dealing with goes under or (more likely in Microsoft's case) discontinues support for the product you're using? At least with free/open source software there's the option of hiring someone else to support the software or fix your problems.
And to think that I was actually worried that they might find some obscure loophole in the GPL that would allow them to get away with their extortion attempt. Trying to declare the GPL completely invalid is futile; no court is going to rule that copyright owners don't have the right to decide who can make copies (that's the whole "point" of copyright, for crying out loud!)
Intriguingly, SCO itself has very little to gain from a declaration that the GPL is invalid (since they themselves have distributed linux, this would make them guilty of a large number of copyright violations). So why this apparent kamikaze attack? Has some other party put them up to it?
I used to work at the "other half" of Atari (just plain Atari Corporation) and it was shut down nearly 7 years ago. A lot of the assets (including the Atari logo and rights to a bunch of games) were sold, and eventually made their way to Infogrames, but all of the employees were laid off and have long since been dispersed. A pity, really -- there were some good people and good technology at Atari.
An EULA is an End USER License Agreement -- it covers *use* of the software. The GPL, however, is a license to *distribute* the software under certain conditions. It explicitly disclaims any control over your own personal use of the software itself -- it only comes into play when you try to distribute the software (or derivatives thereof).
As others have pointed out, an EULA is an attempt to add additional restrictions to those imposed by copyright law, but the GPL actually removes some of those restrictions. For example, normal copyright law would forbid you from redistributing GPL'd work at all.
Slashdot Mirror
unreasonable searches and seizures
Searches at the border are legally reasonable. This has been held for a very very long time.
Sure, and in fact I agree that searches at the border are reasonable. Seizure (without cause) is not. Copying is even less reasonable, and I suspect is on very dubious grounds legally. Copyright treaties apply internationally. Anyone want to tell the MPAA and RIAA that border guards now have the authority to copy their stuff?
Are you suggesting that it is impossible to sell public domain material? So there are, for example, no works by William Shakespeare or Charles Dickens available at your local bookstore? And before copyright laws no music or art was produced?
Free markets always will find a price mechanism. In the absence of copyright prices would be much lower than they are now, and many people (with vested interests) would strongly dislike that. There may also be a legitimate argument that artists need some form of government subsidy, and that copyrights are a good way to provide that subsidy. But it's certainly not true that in the absence of copyright all "content" would be free.
Replace "IP" with "government mandated monopoly" (which is what "IP" really is) in the article to realize just how silly it is. "Confiscatory government policy thrusting privately risked IP out of the hands of legitimate property owners"? Sounds just like what the government does when a patent is enforced against someone who has independently developed a piece of software.
There is a time and place for government protectionism, and some forms of "IP" do serve a greater good. But what the government grants, the government can take away. Ms. Whine^H^H^H^H^HWyne would do well to remember that.
The linked article and summary act as if the cost of borrowing to cover the initial cost of the vehicle and the cost of gas are the only factors to consider. (To be fair, the article does mention some of the other factors at the end... but just in a hand-waving way, and does no actual inclusion of them in the cost/benefit analysis.) The costs involved in running a vehicle include other significant factors such as insurance, maintenance, and depreciation (unless you plan to keep the car forever). Maintenance in particular will be a tricky factor to calculate for hybrids. There's the electric generator & battery to maintain (increased cost) but on the other hand the regenerative breaking will take a lot of wear off of the brakes, and perhaps the electric motor assist will prolong the life of the engine (decreased cost).
Last year I did a comparison of "total cost of ownership" on edmunds.com, and the Prius came out ahead of all of the conventional vehicles I was comparing it to. A lot of that was probably due to depreciation (hybrids have kept their value really well in practice). I ended up buying one, and found that insurance was also lower than I expected. I doubt this would necessarily apply to other hybrids like the Civic hybrid, but who knows? The full story is certainly more complicated than the simplistic (car cost - gas cost) analysis that is usually presented.
(Me, I'm happy with the Prius. Other people may prefer other cars. That's why it's so nice that we can actually choose to buy different models of cars, instead of just having one or a few maximally cost effective vehicles.)
Really? Is that what they say in the EULA? Do they put a limit on how much financial risk they assume? I suggest you read the fine print.
Proprietary software companies generally try very hard to absolve themselves of all responsibility for errors, just like OSS software producers. The difference is that the proprietary ones might not be able to get away with it (there are laws about warranties and such like)... but do you want to foot the bill for the legal case to find out?
It's the government that makes all laws, including laws regulating trade secrets. The 1st amendment would apply to these, too. I believe the wording is "Congress shall make no law..." abridging various freedoms. Apple is, it appears, trying to use a law passed by Congress (or a state legislature, but that's also covered by the constitution) to force journalists to reveal sources. That should be a non starter.
The *contractual* issue between Apple and whoever leaked this stuff in the first place is another matter, of course, and Apple could properly pursue them for breach of contract.
I wonder how much simulation and testing you need before we feel safe about affecting an entire planet.
None, apparently, if you're one of those who thinks that the uncertain economic effects of the Kyoto accord are more significant than the uncertain environmental effects of dumping more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
Or does conservation only apply to other planets?
Patents are valid for 20 years, not 7. I don't have much 20 year old software that I still use regularly (although certainly such software does exist).
I guess you haven't heard of the wheel of reincarnation. GPUs and CPUs have diverged and re-merged many times before.
Sigh. You're confusing "free as in speech" and "free as in beer". I challenge you to produce any evidence whatsoever that RMS has ever said that software should be given away for $0. In fact the GNU Manifesto specifically encourages charging for software (and/or support and warranties for software).
When RMS says that software should be "free", he means that you should be free to do whatever you like with any software you buy. Contrast the GNU GPL with the ridiculous shrink wrap licenses most proprietary software comes with. It's the GPL that best supports the idea of private property, i.e. you actually get to "own" your copy of GPL software!
There's plenty of evidence that the earth has been around that long. Certainly the universe has been -- just look up in the night sky and you'll see light from stars that are millions of light years away, so they've been in existence at least that long.
(Or else the light was created in transit... in which case God wants the universe to look millions of years old, so there's no point in us trying to think otherwise!)
Why do you assume a hybrid car has to run on regular gasoline? There's no reason not to have a hybrid diesel/electric, assuming you can build a small diesel engine that satisfies any other constraints (environmental cleanliness, etc.) that you have.
Such a car would have killer mileage -- the great mileage of a diesel on the highway, and all of the advantages of a hybrid in the city (quick stop/start, and recapturing energy through regenerative braking).
Crossover Office (http://www.codeweavers.com) runs MS Office 2000 very well under Linux, and claims to run Office XP as well. I can't personally verify the latter claim, but can testify that Office 2000 works well.
(I have no affiliation with CodeWeavers, I'm just a happy customer.)
They may want that, but do they get it? Try reading any EULA from Microsoft (or any other large software house). They disclaim everything under the sun. Whether those disclaimers will hold up in court is another matter; but then so is whether disclaimers in Open Source software would similarly hold up.
And what if the company you're dealing with goes under or (more likely in Microsoft's case) discontinues support for the product you're using? At least with free/open source software there's the option of hiring someone else to support the software or fix your problems.
And to think that I was actually worried that they might find some obscure loophole in the GPL that would allow them to get away with their extortion attempt. Trying to declare the GPL completely invalid is futile; no court is going to rule that copyright owners don't have the right to decide who can make copies (that's the whole "point" of copyright, for crying out loud!)
Intriguingly, SCO itself has very little to gain from a declaration that the GPL is invalid (since they themselves have distributed linux, this would make them guilty of a large number of copyright violations). So why this apparent kamikaze attack? Has some other party put them up to it?
Now there's a memorable souvenir to take home with you from a signing -- a famous writer's lung!
I used to work at the "other half" of Atari (just plain Atari Corporation) and it was shut down nearly 7 years ago. A lot of the assets (including the Atari logo and rights to a bunch of games) were sold, and eventually made their way to Infogrames, but all of the employees were laid off and have long since been dispersed. A pity, really -- there were some good people and good technology at Atari.
An EULA is an End USER License Agreement -- it covers *use* of the software. The GPL, however, is a license to *distribute* the software under certain conditions. It explicitly disclaims any control over your own personal use of the software itself -- it only comes into play when you try to distribute the software (or derivatives thereof). As others have pointed out, an EULA is an attempt to add additional restrictions to those imposed by copyright law, but the GPL actually removes some of those restrictions. For example, normal copyright law would forbid you from redistributing GPL'd work at all.