I'm dialing 911 to get to the PSAP, not the police.
You're just arguing semantics, and you know it. Anyone with any common sense whatsoever knows that calling 911 about a burglary (as opposed to a fire or a heart attack) is functionally equivalent to calling the police.
I have to say I disagree with that decision, though: I don't see how a "castle law" ought to allow for defending somebody else's "castle," and purposefully confronting people and then shooting them in the back is not even slightly self-defense.
'Course then again, I'm from Georgia, not Texas. We like our Second Amendment around here too (we can carry guns on MARTA now!) but we're not quite that extreme.
I'm going to apply "security through obscurity" to that topic.
I was trying to see if you meant an actual security company or if you were being snarky again like with your "my-gun-is-my-life-insurance" thing from before.
Oh, also my neighbors just might decide to shoot any burglers out of common courtesy.
I'm pretty sure that's not legal anywhere -- not even in Texas -- unless the burglers were burgling them instead of you. And even if it were legal, they'd still get arrested and have to defend their actions in court and I doubt even the friendliest neighbor would do that out of mere "common courtesy." In other words, I don't buy it.
Besides, in that situation your neighbor would have to call the police (otherwise they'd obviously charge him with murder and his act of not calling would cause the jury to convict). Conversely, if the burgler was burgling your neighbor you'd obviously use the same common courtesy you expect from them and therefore have to call the police yourself -- unless you're a selfish bastard, of course. So either you're a selfish bastard, or there is a situation -- namely, you shooting someone who was burgling your neighbor -- where you would need the police.
It's unimplementable to anyone else; Microsoft has the advantage that they mostly just documented what MS Office does anyway (including the bugs).
MS Office is the reference implementation -- there is no validation testing software -- and trying to check if MS Office is conforming by comparing it to itself is useless for obvious reasons.
That is, they realise who it is in their organisation that really needs "more" and who need nothing more than a glorified WordPad.
The sad thing is, all those people who "need nothing more than a glorified WordPad" don't even need that either. All they actually need is WordPad, or maybe even NotePad.
(Those settings have also been deprecated, only for use when reading the small percentage of old documents that originally used those settings; new documents should not use them, period.)
They're still stupid, though. Why? Because there are no old documents that originally used them because all those old documents are written in formats other than OOXML! And if you're converting them, why don't you just go ahead and do those "fully detailed" things and skip the deprecated tag altogether?!
And here's my best shot at it. I couldn't figure out how to label the points (or the axes, for that matter) but I think we can all figure out which one is OOXML.
Also, I wonder if it would be better with a logarithmic scale (which the API doesn't appear to support)?
"The satirical board game was confiscated along with knives, chisels and bolt cutters, from climate protesters during a series of raids near Kingsnorth power station, in Kent, last week."
The game was one of the items they took along with the real dangerous stuff.
Bolt cutters? "Real dangerous stuff?!" What are you, a damn toddler? Are you scared you'd poke your eye out with them or something?
They're tools! Everybody has them! They can't even slightly be construed as any kind of evidence for any kind of wrongdoing or even thought of wrongdoing at any time anywhere whatsoever! Even if the cop were tripping on LS-fucking-D he would have no excuse for mistaking perfectly normal household tools for any sort of incriminating objects!
What's next? Are you gonna scream in terror and call in the fucking Green Berets because you saw me trimming my hedges?!!
b) the state loves a good, "look at us, we are stopping police corruption" headline.
I imagine the state loves not publicly admitting that police corruption exists even more. I suppose they probably prosecute vigorously once they're forced to, but I'll bet they vigorously resist starting the process at all.
WTF? So they raided some poor sap's tool box? My god, man! Every fucking household in the entire country probably has all that and more! Imagine:
"OMG we found matches! [for lighting candles] And gasoline! [for running the fucking lawnmower] And bomb-making supplies! [whoops, I have some damn plants that I put fertilizer on] And dangerous chemicals! [what, am I not allowed to do laundry or clean the bathroom now?!]"
I'm surprised they didn't confiscate the guy's fucking toilet paper and the beer from his fridge!
If I need the police, it means I'm in immediate and unavoidable danger of losing my life or being severely injured.
Counterexample: you arrive home and find that your house has been burgled. You can't recover your property yourself, and your insurance won't honor your claim unless you have a police report. Do you just eat the loss? How does Beretta & Colt life insurance help you then?
If a cop comes under investigation for a crime, it is a lot more likely to make it to Court than if it is a private citizen, at least in Canada anyways.
Is that actually because cases against cops are pursued more vigorously than ones against private citizens, or could it be that cops are more likely to lawyer up and fight the charges (as opposed to plea bargaining or pleading guilty)?
Between the UK and Germany (see the article about Germany now refusing to prosecute less sharers of less than 3000 songs, a little bit below this one on the Slashdot front page).
Not really; if that were the case then he would have skipped straight to the litigation instead of harassing Bob Jacobsen (the primary JMRI guy) through his employer by filing a FOIA request claiming that he worked on JMRI at work (Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory). Instead, Katzer is a genuine greedy asshole.
Without the GPL, you would not be allowed to copy/install/compile the work on a single computer, let alone many, without violating the copyright.
Whoa there, champ. Read Section 9:
9. Acceptance Not Required for Having Copies.
You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or run a copy of the Program. Ancillary propagation of a covered work occurring solely as a consequence of using peer-to-peer transmission to receive a copy likewise does not require acceptance. However, nothing other than this License grants you permission to propagate or modify any covered work. These actions infringe copyright if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or propagating a covered work, you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so.
So either the lawyers who wrote the GPL were wrong, or you are. (Guess who I'm siding with.) Also, see my other post about the "copy/install/compile is copyright infringement" argument.
Okay, but Section 9 contradicts that. Considering that it explicitly says that you don't have to accept the GPL to run the program, does that mean that the warranty and liability are not actually disclaimed until one conveys the program (and thus agrees to the GPL)?
The mere fact that that text was there doesn't mean it had any actual legal force. What gives Nintendo the right to dictate what you can do with your own property? Nothing!
It's as absurd as Ford trying to tell you that you can't add a supercharger to your Mustang. Ford can't do that (the most it can do is deny your warranty claim, and even then it has to prove that your modification caused the problem), and Nintendo can't either!
What difference does it make when "using" the software entails making a copy to your hard drive, and then another copy into ram, and then another copy into cache? Using it entails copying it.
Although I admit that some judges have been stupid enough to buy it, that argument is bullshit because those copies are incidental to the physical workings of the medium, and express no intent on the part of a human.
By the same argument, DVDs would require an EULA because they're decrypted and stored in the DVD player's RAM, the Internet couldn't exist as we know it because routers would violate copyright if they were set to store-and-forward (and I'm not even going to mention proxy and mail servers!), books would require an EULA because their information is copied into photons by the light reflecting off them and into the reader's eyes, etc. It's absurd.
And this isn't even a Fair Use argument: the installation of software onto hard drives and duplication into RAM shouldn't even count, legally, as copies to begin with! (As long as there's a one-to-one correspondence between the installed program and its installation media, of course.)
And the courts have ALREADY made rulings that apply copyright infringement to occurring in an unauthorized 'disk to RAM' copy made by that WoW cheat program. (glider?)
Slashdot Mirror
You're just arguing semantics, and you know it. Anyone with any common sense whatsoever knows that calling 911 about a burglary (as opposed to a fire or a heart attack) is functionally equivalent to calling the police.
Well damn -- you learn something new every day.
I have to say I disagree with that decision, though: I don't see how a "castle law" ought to allow for defending somebody else's "castle," and purposefully confronting people and then shooting them in the back is not even slightly self-defense.
'Course then again, I'm from Georgia, not Texas. We like our Second Amendment around here too (we can carry guns on MARTA now!) but we're not quite that extreme.
I think you replied to the wrong post there. I was just quoting that statement; it was the guy above me (Atheil (1184445)) who said it.
I was trying to see if you meant an actual security company or if you were being snarky again like with your "my-gun-is-my-life-insurance" thing from before.
I'm pretty sure that's not legal anywhere -- not even in Texas -- unless the burglers were burgling them instead of you. And even if it were legal, they'd still get arrested and have to defend their actions in court and I doubt even the friendliest neighbor would do that out of mere "common courtesy." In other words, I don't buy it.
Besides, in that situation your neighbor would have to call the police (otherwise they'd obviously charge him with murder and his act of not calling would cause the jury to convict). Conversely, if the burgler was burgling your neighbor you'd obviously use the same common courtesy you expect from them and therefore have to call the police yourself -- unless you're a selfish bastard, of course. So either you're a selfish bastard, or there is a situation -- namely, you shooting someone who was burgling your neighbor -- where you would need the police.
The sad thing is, all those people who "need nothing more than a glorified WordPad" don't even need that either. All they actually need is WordPad, or maybe even NotePad.
They're still stupid, though. Why? Because there are no old documents that originally used them because all those old documents are written in formats other than OOXML! And if you're converting them, why don't you just go ahead and do those "fully detailed" things and skip the deprecated tag altogether?!
Also, I wonder if it would be better with a logarithmic scale (which the API doesn't appear to support)?
What you really need is a scatter plot. (Note: I'm deciphering the Google Chart API as I write this; check for a link in a reply to this post.)
What security company is that?
Bolt cutters? "Real dangerous stuff?!" What are you, a damn toddler? Are you scared you'd poke your eye out with them or something?
They're tools! Everybody has them! They can't even slightly be construed as any kind of evidence for any kind of wrongdoing or even thought of wrongdoing at any time anywhere whatsoever! Even if the cop were tripping on LS-fucking-D he would have no excuse for mistaking perfectly normal household tools for any sort of incriminating objects!
What's next? Are you gonna scream in terror and call in the fucking Green Berets because you saw me trimming my hedges?!!
So fucking what? They volunteered for it! End of discussion!
I imagine the state loves not publicly admitting that police corruption exists even more. I suppose they probably prosecute vigorously once they're forced to, but I'll bet they vigorously resist starting the process at all.
WTF? So they raided some poor sap's tool box? My god, man! Every fucking household in the entire country probably has all that and more! Imagine:
I'm surprised they didn't confiscate the guy's fucking toilet paper and the beer from his fridge!
Counterexample: you arrive home and find that your house has been burgled. You can't recover your property yourself, and your insurance won't honor your claim unless you have a police report. Do you just eat the loss? How does Beretta & Colt life insurance help you then?
Is that actually because cases against cops are pursued more vigorously than ones against private citizens, or could it be that cops are more likely to lawyer up and fight the charges (as opposed to plea bargaining or pleading guilty)?
Between the UK and Germany (see the article about Germany now refusing to prosecute less sharers of less than 3000 songs, a little bit below this one on the Slashdot front page).
Remember, that definition has to work for managers at McDonald's too.
Not really; if that were the case then he would have skipped straight to the litigation instead of harassing Bob Jacobsen (the primary JMRI guy) through his employer by filing a FOIA request claiming that he worked on JMRI at work (Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory). Instead, Katzer is a genuine greedy asshole.
Whoa there, champ. Read Section 9:
So either the lawyers who wrote the GPL were wrong, or you are. (Guess who I'm siding with.) Also, see my other post about the "copy/install/compile is copyright infringement" argument.
Okay, but Section 9 contradicts that. Considering that it explicitly says that you don't have to accept the GPL to run the program, does that mean that the warranty and liability are not actually disclaimed until one conveys the program (and thus agrees to the GPL)?
The mere fact that that text was there doesn't mean it had any actual legal force. What gives Nintendo the right to dictate what you can do with your own property? Nothing!
It's as absurd as Ford trying to tell you that you can't add a supercharger to your Mustang. Ford can't do that (the most it can do is deny your warranty claim, and even then it has to prove that your modification caused the problem), and Nintendo can't either!
Although I admit that some judges have been stupid enough to buy it, that argument is bullshit because those copies are incidental to the physical workings of the medium, and express no intent on the part of a human.
By the same argument, DVDs would require an EULA because they're decrypted and stored in the DVD player's RAM, the Internet couldn't exist as we know it because routers would violate copyright if they were set to store-and-forward (and I'm not even going to mention proxy and mail servers!), books would require an EULA because their information is copied into photons by the light reflecting off them and into the reader's eyes, etc. It's absurd.
And this isn't even a Fair Use argument: the installation of software onto hard drives and duplication into RAM shouldn't even count, legally, as copies to begin with! (As long as there's a one-to-one correspondence between the installed program and its installation media, of course.)
And those courts were wrong.
Wow, that was a trainwreck of a post!
What did you expect? The name of the thing is a pun!