It's one thing to call for censoring blatant lies and misinformation. You shouldn't have any trouble finding examples of that on radio talk-shows. Unfortunately, you every single example you provide is of an asshole expressing an asinine *opinion*--not misrepresenting fact.
Yeah. Tell that to the Cuban refugees still detained in Atlanta for the last 20-some years who can't get a writ of habeus corpus because the U.S. pretends they havn't actually entered the U.S. And get this... they can't even get a deportation hearing.
Habeus Corpus is a writ/paper issued by a court to bring a prisoner before a judge to determine if the detention is allowed/permitted. The writ of Habeus Corpus is guaranteed by the Constitution of the U.S.
You don't get it. The 'refund' or 'rebate' is an advance on your returns for next year. If you get a $300 'refund' or 'rebate' and then as you suggest (because of tax cuts or what have you) you fill out your taxes and your 2002 refund is $0 then you owe $300-$0=$300. It is absolutly not part of the lowering of taxes. I'm just pointing out that the spin has been that these refund checks are somehow a refund the high 2001 taxes, when in fact it is simply a shuffling of money from next year's return. When you go to file next year, the IRS will just pretend you had withheld $300 (or whatever your 'refund' was) less despite the fact that you really did withhold more. So you recieve a $300 rebate this summer and pay back $300 in next year's withholdings. How is that lowering taxes? There are tax cuts in the budget, but these rebates are not part of them.
The 'tax refund' isn't. It's an advance on next years tax return. So suppose you recieve the $300 'refund' this Summer. Then next year comes around and you fill out your 2002 return and determine that you are elegible for a $600 refund on your 2002 taxes. Guess what? You'll get $300.
You should also consider that Roe v. Wade _was_ reviewed by the Supreme Court despite the fact that there was no longer any remedy. Imagine trying to obtain any diffinitive Supreme Court ruling on the issue of abortion but everytime your case is thrown out of review because the nine months had already passed. I believe the arguement was that since it was possible for Roe to become pregnant in the future, the case was nevertheless ripe for review.
Don't forget that the so-called 'tax refund' is nothing more than an advance on next year's refund. Next year's refund will be that much smaller. The idea is to get us to spend the money now to stimulate the economy and earn Bush some propaganda points.
Don't fall for the Conservitive propaganda. The tax 'refund' is really an 'advance' on your 2002 refund. Next year you will recieve that much smaller of a refund...
On the otherhand, don't you think that the name KIllustrator was chosen specifically as a reference to the Adobe product? Can anyone really see the name "KIllustrator" and not associate with Illustrator. It is confusing in some respects even if Adobe is not producing a Linux Illustrator. Perhaps Adobe is considering marketing a Linux port of Illustrator in which case there is a real possibility of confusing these programs.
The bottom line is this: The developers of KIllustrator selected the name specifically because it was similar to Illustrator. They did this because the name instantly tells you what the project intends to do: write an Illustrator clone for KDE. I don't think it is right that anyone should be able to manufacture and sell cars under the Ford name. And what if Dell sold "Macintosh" computers? How is this case any different? KIllustrator should just pick some new name.
Re:anti-bsd posts up 75% on slashdot!!!!!
on
USENIX Reports
·
· Score: 1
That would be cool... If slashdot logged the submitter OS and browser type... especially for AC... we could even have aggregate statistics for each user...
Notwithstanding the fairly obvious facts that WINE doesn't run on PowerPC and MacOS X doesn't use X Windows, I would say that "yeah, you really do know what you're talking about."
The problem is that the author (of the slashdot question we are posting to) is _NOT_ the original author of the GPL code. How can he then add components that have "special exceptions"?
Seriously, if he is legally able to add a Bison-like "special exception" to portions of GPL-derived code, anyone use any GPL code and not release key modifications as a "special exception".
I find this post curious. Who is permitted to make "special exceptions"? The author of any derived code?
My understanding is this: The copyright holder has absolute control over the code. Period. The GPL does not apply to the copyright owner since GPL is only one of many ways for the owner to distribute the code. In addition to distributing by GPL the owner *could* distribute the same code under a BSD-style licence, or (horror) sell propietary licences.
That having been said, under GPL what are the dynamics of copyright ownership in derived works? This issue is totally ignored in the text of the GPL.
Are derived works copyright to the original author?
-OR-
Is the copyright for the derived work entirely transferred to the author of the derived code?
-OR-
Is there joint ownership of the code?
Under joint ownership does it suffice to obtain use permission from one of the owners or must permission from all of the owners be obtained?
Slashdot Mirror
It's one thing to call for censoring blatant lies and misinformation. You shouldn't have any trouble finding examples of that on radio talk-shows. Unfortunately, you every single example you provide is of an asshole expressing an asinine *opinion*--not misrepresenting fact.
Yeah. Tell that to the Cuban refugees still detained in Atlanta for the last 20-some years who can't get a writ of habeus corpus because the U.S. pretends they havn't actually entered the U.S. And get this... they can't even get a deportation hearing.
Habeus Corpus is a writ/paper issued by a court to bring a prisoner before a judge to determine if the detention is allowed/permitted. The writ of Habeus Corpus is guaranteed by the Constitution of the U.S.
You don't get it. The 'refund' or 'rebate' is an advance on your returns for next year. If you get a $300 'refund' or 'rebate' and then as you suggest (because of tax cuts or what have you) you fill out your taxes and your 2002 refund is $0 then you owe $300-$0=$300. It is absolutly not part of the lowering of taxes. I'm just pointing out that the spin has been that these refund checks are somehow a refund the high 2001 taxes, when in fact it is simply a shuffling of money from next year's return. When you go to file next year, the IRS will just pretend you had withheld $300 (or whatever your 'refund' was) less despite the fact that you really did withhold more. So you recieve a $300 rebate this summer and pay back $300 in next year's withholdings. How is that lowering taxes? There are tax cuts in the budget, but these rebates are not part of them.
The 'tax refund' isn't. It's an advance on next years tax return. So suppose you recieve the $300 'refund' this Summer. Then next year comes around and you fill out your 2002 return and determine that you are elegible for a $600 refund on your 2002 taxes. Guess what? You'll get $300.
You should also consider that Roe v. Wade _was_ reviewed by the Supreme Court despite the fact that there was no longer any remedy. Imagine trying to obtain any diffinitive Supreme Court ruling on the issue of abortion but everytime your case is thrown out of review because the nine months had already passed. I believe the arguement was that since it was possible for Roe to become pregnant in the future, the case was nevertheless ripe for review.
Don't forget that the so-called 'tax refund' is nothing more than an advance on next year's refund. Next year's refund will be that much smaller. The idea is to get us to spend the money now to stimulate the economy and earn Bush some propaganda points.
Don't fall for the Conservitive propaganda. The tax 'refund' is really an 'advance' on your 2002 refund. Next year you will recieve that much smaller of a refund...
On the otherhand, don't you think that the name KIllustrator was chosen specifically as a reference to the Adobe product? Can anyone really see the name "KIllustrator" and not associate with Illustrator. It is confusing in some respects even if Adobe is not producing a Linux Illustrator. Perhaps Adobe is considering marketing a Linux port of Illustrator in which case there is a real possibility of confusing these programs.
The bottom line is this: The developers of KIllustrator selected the name specifically because it was similar to Illustrator. They did this because the name instantly tells you what the project intends to do: write an Illustrator clone for KDE. I don't think it is right that anyone should be able to manufacture and sell cars under the Ford name. And what if Dell sold "Macintosh" computers? How is this case any different? KIllustrator should just pick some new name.
That would be cool... If slashdot logged the submitter OS and browser type... especially for AC... we could even have aggregate statistics for each user...
Notwithstanding the fairly obvious facts that WINE doesn't run on PowerPC and MacOS X doesn't use X Windows, I would say that "yeah, you really do know what you're talking about."
Emmigrate.
The problem is that the author (of the slashdot question we are posting to) is _NOT_ the original author of the GPL code. How can he then add components that have "special exceptions"?
Seriously, if he is legally able to add a Bison-like "special exception" to portions of GPL-derived code, anyone use any GPL code and not release key modifications as a "special exception".
I find this post curious. Who is permitted to make "special exceptions"? The author of any derived code?
My understanding is this: The copyright holder has absolute control over the code. Period. The GPL does not apply to the copyright owner since GPL is only one of many ways for the owner to distribute the code. In addition to distributing by GPL the owner *could* distribute the same code under a BSD-style licence, or (horror) sell propietary licences.
That having been said, under GPL what are the dynamics of copyright ownership in derived works? This issue is totally ignored in the text of the GPL.
Are derived works copyright to the original author?
-OR-
Is the copyright for the derived work entirely transferred to the author of the derived code?
-OR-
Is there joint ownership of the code?
Under joint ownership does it suffice to obtain use permission from one of the owners or must permission from all of the owners be obtained?