"Whether I license it to you under the GPL or the BSD license doesn't matter, you will never get all the rights to do what you want with it (by your definition), because in most countries you may not kill people at will."
It's not MY definition, it's GP's definition. If you don't like the "in any way I please" comment that I sarcastically parroted, take it up with him.
"Of course you have a choice to work for a company that represents Microsoft"
Question then.
Is it not considered "moral" to give a defendant the full consideration of the law? Is it not moral to perform your job to the best of your ability? Is it not moral to uphold the Constitution, despite the fact that you may dislike who the Constitution favors in this particular instance?
I would find it very hard to call someone moral who abandons their responsibilities because of personal differences. I would call that person petty and childish, and ask them why they had bothered to enter into law in the first place.
"Lawyers don't know jack about restraint. Lawyers don't have to consider the reputation of the larger institution of the court."
THOSE were your arguments. If you think those actually qualify as arguments, you're an idiot.
"A non-judge won't have the same longstanding reverent approach for the bench, and won't inspire the same confidence in the populace who needs a trustworthy judiciary."
This is your completely unsubstantiated, subjective, and yes, MORONIC opinion. Stop acting like you can state what you think and have it be a "supporting argument" especially when you're clearly an imbecile.
Now to the important fact that you failed to address from my post
WHAT DO YOU THINK JUDGES DID BEFORE THEY WERE JUDGES?
Yes, that's right, the VAST majority were... LAWYERS. Did you even KNOW that? Of course not, as evidenced by your half-witted post.
Why yes, as a matter of fact she did. She did pro bono work for Catholic Charities. I am assuming that it involved "poor people" as you so elegantly put it.
Personally, I prefer my Judges have a well rounded idea of the Law, rather than some idealistic fantasy.
"I think it matters for example if you choose to defend Microsoft or you choose to represent the people that use Microsoft products"
Well, since she was an EMPLOYEE at a firm that represented MS, I think it doesn't matter one iota. YMMV.
Now, if this was HER firm, founded and operated by HER, you might have a point.
And once again the mods give out a +5 insightful to a post with no real insight at all.
"It's exactly like a bait and switch, and Microsoft should not have been able to get away with this, on a technicality"
Then you should be pissed at the plaintiff's lawyers, as they are the people responsible for dealing with this.
No, they offered to hire the FIRM SHE WORKED FOR. Not the same. So, what happened to gettng the "economy of this correct"?
"As a business, she can refuse any offer for any reason, as long as it's not discriminatory." or illegal.
Correct, but since she was AN EMPLOYEE, doing so would have cost her her job. So, you're suggesting she give up her job?
"Does everyone agree with the principles or the parties in this case? No"
Agreed, but amazingly, this has nothing to do with her competency, conviction, or ethics. She did her job, to the best of her ability.
You could tell your boss you weren't going to do something because you found it unethical. You would most likely lose your job. If you are advocating she do the same, pony up some dough and pay the lady.
You may not like who she worked for, but that argument is a total red herring and you know it.
That should actually be "if you used the brakes, and they worked correctly, or if you used them, and they failed, but you weren't damaged in any way, you can't" By the way, that's why analogies are stupid. They never capture all the nuances.
What DAMAGES would you be suing for in that case? Chevy hurt your feelings?
The purpose of a court (and a suit in a court) is to correct an error and make you "whole".
So, what have you lost that deserves to be compensated, if the brakes never fail?
Should they be replaced? Yes, but that has NOTHING to do with this case. In this case, there were people who had NO DAMAGES. How can you make someone who is already "whole" more "whole"? (Insert GOOD joke here if you have one)
"and she helped ms not-lose a suit they should have lost"
MS won the case because the plaintiff created a "class" that included people who, legally, weren't eligible. She didn't argue that MS was right, just that the class action was done incorrectly. This is part of the law, and is well established. Just because you don't like it, that has no bearing on this discussion.
In other words, she argued the LAW.
MS won because the plaintiffs failed to follow up and correct their previous mistakes.
"we shouldn't reward disgusting lawyers who manage to weasel their clients out on some stupidity."
Agreed, but since that's not what she did, I don't see how your rant applies.
"A native of Oklahoma, Mr. Brown holds a bachelor's degree in Public Administration/Political Science from Central State University, Oklahoma. He received his J.D. from Oklahoma City University's School of Law."
Sounds like he's plenty educated to me. I suppose you could say the current head of FEMA is "uneducated" since he's a career firefighter, but since that's exactly the kind of education I'd want for the head of FEMA, I'd say you're completely wrong.
"This is a F#$#ing Joke."
I assume you're talking about your unfounded criticisms here.
"contracted the attorney general for my state"
Hmm, great, but try CONTACTING them first.
Seriously, if you plan to rail about ANYONE being uneducated, don't fill your post with spelling and grammatical errors.
"Bush nominee Former microsoft lawyer..." Who once knew someone who represented SCO, while allowing her son to be friends with a kid whose parents had heard about Intelligent Design.
Oh, and she knows someone that thinks Linux isn't ready for the desktop.
"I hate it when anyone refer's to US as America or Americans or this American government"
Get over it. The usage has been in the vernaculr for hundreds of years, so my guess is no one cares what you think about it.
And is there another country in the americas that calls itself "...of America"? I don't believe there is, but if there was, your point might not be pedantry.
Slashdot Mirror
"Whether I license it to you under the GPL or the BSD license doesn't matter, you will never get all the rights to do what you want with it (by your definition), because in most countries you may not kill people at will."
It's not MY definition, it's GP's definition. If you don't like the "in any way I please" comment that I sarcastically parroted, take it up with him.
"The GPL allows you to modify and to use GPLed code in any way you please"
Ok, I would like to modify the code, then release it as a closed source, proprietary product.
What?
"What the GPL does not give you is the right to give the GPLed code to someone else without giving that person the same rights you got."
So, not in ANY WAY I PLEASE then?
Then why did you...wait...but you said...
"Of course you have a choice to work for a company that represents Microsoft"
Question then.
Is it not considered "moral" to give a defendant the full consideration of the law? Is it not moral to perform your job to the best of your ability? Is it not moral to uphold the Constitution, despite the fact that you may dislike who the Constitution favors in this particular instance?
I would find it very hard to call someone moral who abandons their responsibilities because of personal differences. I would call that person petty and childish, and ask them why they had bothered to enter into law in the first place.
"Lawyers don't know jack about restraint. Lawyers don't have to consider the reputation of the larger institution of the court."
THOSE were your arguments. If you think those actually qualify as arguments, you're an idiot.
"A non-judge won't have the same longstanding reverent approach for the bench, and won't inspire the same confidence in the populace who needs a trustworthy judiciary."
This is your completely unsubstantiated, subjective, and yes, MORONIC opinion. Stop acting like you can state what you think and have it be a "supporting argument" especially when you're clearly an imbecile.
Now to the important fact that you failed to address from my post
WHAT DO YOU THINK JUDGES DID BEFORE THEY WERE JUDGES?
Yes, that's right, the VAST majority were... LAWYERS. Did you even KNOW that? Of course not, as evidenced by your half-witted post.
Shut up before you embarrass yourself further.
"Did she defend poor people"
Why yes, as a matter of fact she did. She did pro bono work for Catholic Charities. I am assuming that it involved "poor people" as you so elegantly put it.
Personally, I prefer my Judges have a well rounded idea of the Law, rather than some idealistic fantasy.
"I think it matters for example if you choose to defend Microsoft or you choose to represent the people that use Microsoft products"
Well, since she was an EMPLOYEE at a firm that represented MS, I think it doesn't matter one iota. YMMV.
Now, if this was HER firm, founded and operated by HER, you might have a point.
And once again the mods give out a +5 insightful to a post with no real insight at all.
"It's exactly like a bait and switch, and Microsoft should not have been able to get away with this, on a technicality" Then you should be pissed at the plaintiff's lawyers, as they are the people responsible for dealing with this.
And the definition of a red herring is when an individual detracts from a logical argument by introducing an irrelevant and unrelated one.
Would you like to know the difference between asbestos and these implants? By the way, I knew you'd try this argument.
Breast implants aren't damaging. Their PRESENCE isn't damaging. Look it up, and you'll see that this claim
"Since they are unsafe"
ia a lie.
So, since you can't even get your facts straight, tell me again why anyone should take you seriously?
And by the way, you're assesment of the asbestos rulings is completely incorrect as well.
"Let's all get the economy of this correct"
Ok, let's.
"Someone offered to hire her."
No, they offered to hire the FIRM SHE WORKED FOR. Not the same. So, what happened to gettng the "economy of this correct"?
"As a business, she can refuse any offer for any reason, as long as it's not discriminatory." or illegal.
Correct, but since she was AN EMPLOYEE, doing so would have cost her her job. So, you're suggesting she give up her job?
"Does everyone agree with the principles or the parties in this case? No"
Agreed, but amazingly, this has nothing to do with her competency, conviction, or ethics. She did her job, to the best of her ability.
You could tell your boss you weren't going to do something because you found it unethical. You would most likely lose your job. If you are advocating she do the same, pony up some dough and pay the lady.
You may not like who she worked for, but that argument is a total red herring and you know it.
"What stupidity."
Nice of you to summarize your post like that. I only wish I had believed you, and saved myself the pain of reading your screed.
I'll know better in the future.
"If you didn't, you can't."
That should actually be "if you used the brakes, and they worked correctly, or if you used them, and they failed, but you weren't damaged in any way, you can't" By the way, that's why analogies are stupid. They never capture all the nuances.
What DAMAGES would you be suing for in that case? Chevy hurt your feelings?
The purpose of a court (and a suit in a court) is to correct an error and make you "whole".
So, what have you lost that deserves to be compensated, if the brakes never fail?
Should they be replaced? Yes, but that has NOTHING to do with this case. In this case, there were people who had NO DAMAGES. How can you make someone who is already "whole" more "whole"? (Insert GOOD joke here if you have one)
"Non-judges may have been nominated before, I don't care. It's still a bad idea."
Why? Because you don't like lawyers? What do you think all of the other Supreme Court Justices did in their previous occupations?
By the way, this lady has been mentioned in rumors for months regarding her nomination. Do some research next time.
"and she helped ms not-lose a suit they should have lost"
MS won the case because the plaintiff created a "class" that included people who, legally, weren't eligible. She didn't argue that MS was right, just that the class action was done incorrectly. This is part of the law, and is well established. Just because you don't like it, that has no bearing on this discussion.
In other words, she argued the LAW.
MS won because the plaintiffs failed to follow up and correct their previous mistakes.
"we shouldn't reward disgusting lawyers who manage to weasel their clients out on some stupidity."
Agreed, but since that's not what she did, I don't see how your rant applies.
NOR is she a "Republican" judge. Look at the candidates she's supported in the past.
I have seen her compared to Souter, and I think the comparison may be accurate.
What damage has been inflicted on the women with said implants? How could "potential" damage be calculated?
The logic was spot on, you just don't like it.
None of which has anything to do with how this lady should have argued her case.
Her client hired her, she is required (yes REQUIRED) to do her best in the handling of the case, and since she won, I'd say she did a great job.
You obviously don't understand how the law works at all.
"A native of Oklahoma, Mr. Brown holds a bachelor's degree in Public Administration/Political Science from Central State University, Oklahoma. He received his J.D. from Oklahoma City University's School of Law."
Sounds like he's plenty educated to me. I suppose you could say the current head of FEMA is "uneducated" since he's a career firefighter, but since that's exactly the kind of education I'd want for the head of FEMA, I'd say you're completely wrong.
"This is a F#$#ing Joke."
I assume you're talking about your unfounded criticisms here.
"contracted the attorney general for my state"
Hmm, great, but try CONTACTING them first.
Seriously, if you plan to rail about ANYONE being uneducated, don't fill your post with spelling and grammatical errors.
"So remember, if a contractor ever builds your house out of paper mache instead of bricks like he promised, sue only AFTER it collapses."
No. You are talking about failure to make good on a contract, which the MS case doesn't have anything to do with.
Didn't you see all the people in here the other day railing against the idea that licenses should also guarantee that the software works properly?
This case illustrates why they were wrong.
Let's see
"Bush nominee Former microsoft lawyer..." Who once knew someone who represented SCO, while allowing her son to be friends with a kid whose parents had heard about Intelligent Design.
Oh, and she knows someone that thinks Linux isn't ready for the desktop.
If she had argued the case and lost.
Then she'd be a crappy lawyer, at which point there would be a genuine objection to her nomination.
C-O-U-N-T-R-Y
I'm assuming you know what that is.
What racial slur?
Russia is a COUNTRY, not a race.
Why are you attributing something to racism that isn't in any way racist?
So you didn't vote then?
"people of faith as simple-minded peons who have no understanding of logic and who rapidly embrace hypocrisy"
Ah, I see you've met them.
"I hate it when anyone refer's to US as America or Americans or this American government"
Get over it. The usage has been in the vernaculr for hundreds of years, so my guess is no one cares what you think about it.
And is there another country in the americas that calls itself "...of America"? I don't believe there is, but if there was, your point might not be pedantry.
But it is.