Where the hell did this come from? The article makes no wild speculations like this.
He was alluding to the popular FPS game, DooM, where an experiment gone wrong opens a portal to another dimension (or Hell, or maybe they're the same thing, never was quite sure about that part) and demons, monsters, and Pauly Shore come out to kill you. It was a fun game and a lot of people on Slashdot played it and were expected to get the joke.
I mean, I can see how you might expect that kind of reporting from a Christian news site
Actually, despite the name, the Christian Science Monitor isn't really a religious publication. It was founded by the woman who founded the "Christian Science" cult, which is a bizzare distortion of Christianity (and is only tangentially related to either Christianity or Science).
But its purpose has always been to provide a balanced realistic source of news as a public service. I don't know how well they succeed but they have independent reporters all over the world and they're quoted by an awful lot of people, so I suspect that they must at least do a pretty good job.
No, no, no. It's "iddqd". Followed by "idkfa". And there is no console! You must be one of those young whipper snappers we've been hearing about lately.:-)
There's only one protection for trade secrets: contract law.
That was my suspicion. They've changed their story. First, they claimed that trade secrets were stolen (really standard stuff, I presume). Now, they're claiming copyright violation. Two very different things.
I'm not even understanding their original argument about violation of trade secrets. I thought that trade secrets were completely unprotected. That's what patents are for, correct? If you patent something and someone uses it without your permission, you can sue them. If you keep it a secret and somebody still manages to find out about it, tough luck--you should have kept your secrets better. Corrections?
Yep. GNUstep had a Display GhostScript graphical backend at one point but it couldn't really cut the mustard and nobody uses it anymore. The guy the FSF contracted to do the work couldn't finish it. It seems that the number of programmers competent to write the necessary code is extremely low.
That's meant as a joke but NeXTSTEP used PostScript to write their window server. Not quite an OS, but still low-level system software. They added some stuff for window management and event handling and so on. One of the nice features was that all NeXT software had perfect WYSIWYG.
Whoa, that's a good one! Makes you wonder why they don't just call off all the terrorists and rogue states and be done with it. Oh, that's right, they only *appear* to be trying to blow us up. They're *actually* working *for* us. Well, not for us. For Cheney and Bush.
And the International Jewish Conspiracy figures into it somehow, too. Those subhuman Zionist scum are really the ones running things. Even Bush and Cheney are just their puppets. Don't forget the Illuminati and the Black Helicopters.
So, how many times have *you* read the Protocols of the Elders of Zion?
Property rights indicate ownership. By definition, if you own something, it isn't just taken away and made public property after 14 or 28 years. Yet that is exactly what the founding fathers put into the first American Copyright act in 1790.
The power to pass Copyright and Patent laws were specially granted to the national legislature in Article I. Given how strongly the authors of that document believed in property rights, why would they have to grant a special POWER to the legislature to write such laws?
Additionally, Jefferson often referred to the artificial MONOPOLY nature of Copyright in his letters.
Clearly, Copyright did *NOT* fit into their understanding of property. The idea that Copyright and Patent were ever intended to be property rights is absurd.
Before you go off half-cocked and drill me for defending violation of law, I am *NOT* saying that violation of Copyright is OK. It is illegal and I have no problem with that. But it is not a property right and it never has been. The legal issues surrounding it have been corrupted over the years, like so many legal and Constitutional issues.
As they built up their "evidence" (which has yet to be publically documented in a satisfactory manner)
Yep. My suspicion is that they're taking so long because they need the time to find some plausible things in the Linux kernel and integrate them into their own codebase. After that, who's going to be able to prove that it wasn't in there a long time ago?
And why did they change their story, anyway? As far as I can tell, they started out with a charge that IBM simply used trade secrets. Now it's copyright? Hmmmm...
On an unrelated note, what I want to read at this point is a frank positional summary by Ransom Love who is becoming somewhat conspicuous by his "absense" through all this mess.
He's about the only one who isn't getting involved. With Microsoft and OSI jumping in on this, it's shaping up to look like the Battle of the Five Armies. Now we just need to hear from the Regents and resurrect USL for old times sake. Heck, maybe the RIAA and MPAA could even find a way to stick their oar in. One big happy quarreling family...
Of course I don't think you should be forced to put your full name on something. But it's still grossly incorrect to assume that anyone other than the government can be responsible for censorship. How many times have we heard some bozo claiming that his 1st amendment rights were violated because they revealed trade secrets and were fired for it?
Yes. But I don't see what that has to do with the conversation at hand. I was only pointing out the common misconception that the DMCA restricted copy controls. I wasn't defending CSS.
No, watch my lips move: Freedoms refer to government intervention. It doesn't matter how much some private individual dislikes you, it's still not a violation of rights because, by definition, only a government violates rights.
This is why Michael Moore, Susan Sarandon, and Tim Robbins are idiots. They think that the fact that people threaten to stop going to their movies is censorship or violation of rights.
Jeez, do you even listen to what you are saying?? If I say something, I should be forced to include my full name so that anyone can take 'action' against me.
I'm not even talking about that. I don't care if you include your full name or not. Hell, go make up a name. But you can't call someone's displeasure with your speech "oppression".
True, but instead you're labled unpatriotic if you protest against the Government.
Translation: a hell of a lot of people disagree with you and think you're a doofus. Isn't it terrible when people don't fall at your feet and worship your opinions for their brilliance and insight? Oh well, at least you don't have FBI agents busting down your door and splattering your brains all over the wall with a baseball bat. No. Instead, you're "oppressed". Poor you. Your belief in your own worldview is so weak that a little bit of popular opposition breaks you down. Wow.
Or if it is a nother country that does not agree to what you are doing they are almost considered your enemy and might get some sort of import restrictions imposed.
You mean France? The country that welcomed Hitler with open arms? The country that got us involved in VIETNAM and left us holding the bag (you know, the conflict that the left is perpetually angry about?) The country that has been selling weapons to terrorists for years? The country that built a nuclear reactor for Saddam? The country that opposed the war because they had a sweet oil deal with Iraq?
You know, you guys were right about one thing. That war *was* all about oil. At least, it was for France. But it's a good thing we have a vicious, vindictive, hateful, war-mongering president who turned France into a crater! Oh wait...he didn't? What a panzy...
Or perhaps you meant Russia. The country that killed more Jews than Hitler? The country that starved peasants to death in the 30s? The country that murdered and tortured people throughout the 20th century for every thing from being the wrong race to believing in God? The country that is still run by former KGB and Russian mafia? The country that sells nuclear weapons to rouge states? The country that supplied Iraq before and DURING the war? The country that sent agents in during the war to take out the documents implicating them in Iraqi intelligence and torture operations?
Ah, but Bush pounded those treacherous thugs into the ground, remember? Heh, good riddance, Putin! Oh wait, he's still there. Hmm, I guess we didn't do anything to them, either. Boy, Bush is such a coward. Doesn't he know he's supposed to turn the world into a glass desert? He's not following the prepared script...
I might not get arrested for saying something, but I could lose my job or lose oportinuties, etc.
Yeah, that's life. Freedom of speech is only about protection from government interference. Just because it's your right to speak out about something doesn't negate another's right to disagree with you, dislike you, or take action against you.
If I am afraid of this, then that might discourage me from speaking out, restricting my freedom of speach.
Your freedom is only relevant in relation to the government since they're the concentration of political power.
So, it's not OK to appear under a pseudonym on electrinic bulletin board, but it's just fine and dandy to let kornet.net continue as the world's number one source of spam, eh?
Preach it brother. My (previously pristine) Juno account is worthless now.
Oh, by the way, here's a list of e-mail contacts for the Korean spammers who made it impossible for me to use my last e-mail address. Have at them, harvestbots!
You, sir, are a patriot and I applaud your public-minded service...
Of course, if you work in a sysadmin capacity, you could easily plant the evidence on the machine in question. It certainly wouldn't be difficult.
And even if that's not the case, the way the FBI acts wrt confiscating evidence in cases like this can be devastating to the accused. Remember Steve Jackson?
Carbon/coca is ok but its limited to the mac platform.
Au contraire. I've got yer cross-platform Cocoa right here. We've got an XML-based GUI autolayout system called Renaissance that makes it easy to write and maintain a Linux/*BSD/Solaris version and a Mac OS X version of your software. And Objective-C code is a hell of a lot easier to understand and maintain than that C++ shite.
And to go along with that one, what about the countries besides the US who don't belong to intellectual property treaties with the US and who have copyright laws that are still thirty or fifty years.
Oh, I wouldn't worry about that. They'll come into line once we become one big happy global family and get rid of "big, bad, nasty old nationalism" See sig.
Actually, the DMCA only makes it illegal to circumvent access protection--not copy protection. The reasoning for this was really twisted.
Originally, the copyright industry wanted a law that restricted acts of circumvention (with no distinction about what kind of circumvention it was). Defenders of fair use complained, stating that excerpts could not be made for commentary if it were impossible to copy portions of a work.
The legislature decided that protection schemes that prevented copying of material would violate the fair use doctrine and would not be specially protected by law. Instead, copyright holders would be granted legal recourse in case of a breached access protection scheme.
This is convoluted, of course, since you can't copy something if you can't access it. But legislators never seemed to get that far in their reasoning.
Slashdot Mirror
He was alluding to the popular FPS game, DooM, where an experiment gone wrong opens a portal to another dimension (or Hell, or maybe they're the same thing, never was quite sure about that part) and demons, monsters, and Pauly Shore come out to kill you. It was a fun game and a lot of people on Slashdot played it and were expected to get the joke.
I mean, I can see how you might expect that kind of reporting from a Christian news site
Actually, despite the name, the Christian Science Monitor isn't really a religious publication. It was founded by the woman who founded the "Christian Science" cult, which is a bizzare distortion of Christianity (and is only tangentially related to either Christianity or Science).
But its purpose has always been to provide a balanced realistic source of news as a public service. I don't know how well they succeed but they have independent reporters all over the world and they're quoted by an awful lot of people, so I suspect that they must at least do a pretty good job.
That's the one where they discovered a small black hole in an abandoned complex on Mars, right?
No, no, no. It's "iddqd". Followed by "idkfa". And there is no console! You must be one of those young whipper snappers we've been hearing about lately. :-)
That was my suspicion. They've changed their story. First, they claimed that trade secrets were stolen (really standard stuff, I presume). Now, they're claiming copyright violation. Two very different things.
I'm not even understanding their original argument about violation of trade secrets. I thought that trade secrets were completely unprotected. That's what patents are for, correct? If you patent something and someone uses it without your permission, you can sue them. If you keep it a secret and somebody still manages to find out about it, tough luck--you should have kept your secrets better. Corrections?
Yep. GNUstep had a Display GhostScript graphical backend at one point but it couldn't really cut the mustard and nobody uses it anymore. The guy the FSF contracted to do the work couldn't finish it. It seems that the number of programmers competent to write the necessary code is extremely low.
That's meant as a joke but NeXTSTEP used PostScript to write their window server. Not quite an OS, but still low-level system software. They added some stuff for window management and event handling and so on. One of the nice features was that all NeXT software had perfect WYSIWYG.
Heh, so because people use gas for transportation, petroleum companies run the world. Your logic astounds me.
And the International Jewish Conspiracy figures into it somehow, too. Those subhuman Zionist scum are really the ones running things. Even Bush and Cheney are just their puppets. Don't forget the Illuminati and the Black Helicopters.
So, how many times have *you* read the Protocols of the Elders of Zion?
The power to pass Copyright and Patent laws were specially granted to the national legislature in Article I. Given how strongly the authors of that document believed in property rights, why would they have to grant a special POWER to the legislature to write such laws?
Additionally, Jefferson often referred to the artificial MONOPOLY nature of Copyright in his letters.
Clearly, Copyright did *NOT* fit into their understanding of property. The idea that Copyright and Patent were ever intended to be property rights is absurd.
Before you go off half-cocked and drill me for defending violation of law, I am *NOT* saying that violation of Copyright is OK. It is illegal and I have no problem with that. But it is not a property right and it never has been. The legal issues surrounding it have been corrupted over the years, like so many legal and Constitutional issues.
And then there's this old gem: "Intel--United We Stand, Dividing We Fail".
Hey, it's nothing compared to the damage we're doing by trying to fit inside Einstein's head. It's more messy than either phone booths or VW bugs.
Yep. My suspicion is that they're taking so long because they need the time to find some plausible things in the Linux kernel and integrate them into their own codebase. After that, who's going to be able to prove that it wasn't in there a long time ago?
And why did they change their story, anyway? As far as I can tell, they started out with a charge that IBM simply used trade secrets. Now it's copyright? Hmmmm...
On an unrelated note, what I want to read at this point is a frank positional summary by Ransom Love who is becoming somewhat conspicuous by his "absense" through all this mess.
He's about the only one who isn't getting involved. With Microsoft and OSI jumping in on this, it's shaping up to look like the Battle of the Five Armies. Now we just need to hear from the Regents and resurrect USL for old times sake. Heck, maybe the RIAA and MPAA could even find a way to stick their oar in. One big happy quarreling family...
Of course I don't think you should be forced to put your full name on something. But it's still grossly incorrect to assume that anyone other than the government can be responsible for censorship. How many times have we heard some bozo claiming that his 1st amendment rights were violated because they revealed trade secrets and were fired for it?
Well if you're going to be sneaky about it....
Yes. But I don't see what that has to do with the conversation at hand. I was only pointing out the common misconception that the DMCA restricted copy controls. I wasn't defending CSS.
This is why Michael Moore, Susan Sarandon, and Tim Robbins are idiots. They think that the fact that people threaten to stop going to their movies is censorship or violation of rights.
Jeez, do you even listen to what you are saying?? If I say something, I should be forced to include my full name so that anyone can take 'action' against me.
I'm not even talking about that. I don't care if you include your full name or not. Hell, go make up a name. But you can't call someone's displeasure with your speech "oppression".
Translation: a hell of a lot of people disagree with you and think you're a doofus. Isn't it terrible when people don't fall at your feet and worship your opinions for their brilliance and insight? Oh well, at least you don't have FBI agents busting down your door and splattering your brains all over the wall with a baseball bat. No. Instead, you're "oppressed". Poor you. Your belief in your own worldview is so weak that a little bit of popular opposition breaks you down. Wow.
Or if it is a nother country that does not agree to what you are doing they are almost considered your enemy and might get some sort of import restrictions imposed.
You mean France? The country that welcomed Hitler with open arms? The country that got us involved in VIETNAM and left us holding the bag (you know, the conflict that the left is perpetually angry about?) The country that has been selling weapons to terrorists for years? The country that built a nuclear reactor for Saddam? The country that opposed the war because they had a sweet oil deal with Iraq?
You know, you guys were right about one thing. That war *was* all about oil. At least, it was for France. But it's a good thing we have a vicious, vindictive, hateful, war-mongering president who turned France into a crater! Oh wait...he didn't? What a panzy...
Or perhaps you meant Russia. The country that killed more Jews than Hitler? The country that starved peasants to death in the 30s? The country that murdered and tortured people throughout the 20th century for every thing from being the wrong race to believing in God? The country that is still run by former KGB and Russian mafia? The country that sells nuclear weapons to rouge states? The country that supplied Iraq before and DURING the war? The country that sent agents in during the war to take out the documents implicating them in Iraqi intelligence and torture operations?
Ah, but Bush pounded those treacherous thugs into the ground, remember? Heh, good riddance, Putin! Oh wait, he's still there. Hmm, I guess we didn't do anything to them, either. Boy, Bush is such a coward. Doesn't he know he's supposed to turn the world into a glass desert? He's not following the prepared script...
Yeah, that's life. Freedom of speech is only about protection from government interference. Just because it's your right to speak out about something doesn't negate another's right to disagree with you, dislike you, or take action against you.
If I am afraid of this, then that might discourage me from speaking out, restricting my freedom of speach.
Your freedom is only relevant in relation to the government since they're the concentration of political power.
Preach it brother. My (previously pristine) Juno account is worthless now.
Oh, by the way, here's a list of e-mail contacts for the Korean spammers who made it impossible for me to use my last e-mail address. Have at them, harvestbots!
You, sir, are a patriot and I applaud your public-minded service...
Yeah, and he didn't even blackmail them. He's definitely not BOfH material.
And even if that's not the case, the way the FBI acts wrt confiscating evidence in cases like this can be devastating to the accused. Remember Steve Jackson?
Oh, I wouldn't worry about that. They'll come into line once we become one big happy global family and get rid of "big, bad, nasty old nationalism" See sig.
Originally, the copyright industry wanted a law that restricted acts of circumvention (with no distinction about what kind of circumvention it was). Defenders of fair use complained, stating that excerpts could not be made for commentary if it were impossible to copy portions of a work.
The legislature decided that protection schemes that prevented copying of material would violate the fair use doctrine and would not be specially protected by law. Instead, copyright holders would be granted legal recourse in case of a breached access protection scheme.
This is convoluted, of course, since you can't copy something if you can't access it. But legislators never seemed to get that far in their reasoning.