"IANAL, but I *do* know that civil disobedience has a very specific definition.
It does *not* apply to civil contracts - such as the GPL.
It does *not* allow you to harm others in any significant manner. You may cause a minor inconvenience by a sit in, for instance, but not by punching somebody in the nose.
Finally, civil disobedience *requires* that you be willing to pay the full legal price for your actions. You refuse to sit in the back of the bus? Fine - but be prepared to sit in jail as well. You think the draft is immoral? Fine, but be prepared to send the next year or two in prison, not Canada.
These rules sound strict..."
I have never seen this particular definition before, out of curiosity is it your own or are you getting it from somewhere else? Also it seems like under your definition only non-violent actions can be considered civil disobedience, how do you make a distinction between what calls for legitimate revolution and what for civil disobedience? Bradley (I realize this is somewhat off topic, but its these type of thought provoking discussions that make slashdot worth reading)
"Reading comprehension problem? Did you miss the phrase "they had a reason to think that you were not adhering to the personal/private terms of fair use"? Thus they would have something to demonstrate and you would therefore either have to defend yourself or bend over and take it like a man." Reason to think is quite a bit different then legal proof.
"In corporate America, it's practically illegal to do anything with money except distribute it to stockholders as quickly as possible."
This is actually somewhat misleading. Fewer and fewer companies are sending out dividend checks, which is how companies distribute money to their stockholders. Inasmuch as they are acting to increase the stock price, this is considered to be in the best interest of the stockholders.
I believe however that in many companies situations are arising where the interests of the stockholders are in opposition to the interests of the executives (issuing options, repricing options, golden parachutes, etc.). In these cases it is often the interests of the executives that win out, because the board of directors is controlled by other executives - and shareholder revolts are difficult and rare. This goes unprotested because the current stockmarket is such that even if stockholders are being cheated by the executives they still do very well. It will be interesting to see what happens when we have a downturn in the economy (and yes we will have a downturn eventually - if you believe otherwise you are an idiot). Bradley
"I make no assertion that there is a standard that you have to meet. The courts found that for personal, private use you could make copies. Once you start letting your friends use your CDs at the same time you are using copies of your CDs you are in violation of that finding and are breaking copyright law. If the RIAA approached you with a team of lawyers and they had a reason to think that you were not adhering to the personal/private terms of fair use, then they certainly could require you to demonstrate that you are, in fact, obeying copyright law."
The burden of proof would be on thier side. They would have to demonstrate the you were violating copyright law.
"And where is the line drawn between "petty" and "big"? If you give em anything, they will take it and run with it and erode our freedoms until nothing is left. Maybe this is a little issue, but it could be a precursor to a much bigger issue... or possibly a symptom. " I wonder how far you'd be willing to take this. Would you violate any law with which you disagreed, no matter how trivial? (I realize you don't consider this trivial but there must be some law somewhere which you consider trivial.) Bradley
"If someone wants to write and sell a software product, more power to them. However, should they have the right to suppress criticism of their software, and of how it's put together? I don't think so. Part of the "law" protects free speech, and an essential part of the working of any market is freely available information about products, sellers and prices. Suppress information about software products and you contribute to a market failure in that industry. Maximizing information is a goal of all advocates of the market, be they liberal or conservative..."
I am against the UCITA, and I belive that if it is passed parts of it will be invalidated by the courts. However I do not and will not ever support civil disobediance for such a trival reason. Bradley
"Respect for the rule of law is contingent upon the law deserving respect. The United States was founded upon disrespect for the laws of England. And as others have argued more eloquently than I could, this is more than a matter of petty convenience." I totally agree with this sentiment. Sometimes laws become intolerable and the people are forced to overthrough the oppresive government. I submit that this is not such a case and therefore the orderly working of society demands that we oppose it through legal channels. Bradley
The UCITA isn't law yet. Nothing like this has ever been law before, AFAIK. How can you think about all the good respect for it will do when it's never existed before to respect. Are you actually willing to speculate that something like this would be beneficial to you in some way?"
No this is not law yet, but the original poster suggested civil disobediance to combat this law. I don't know exactly what he had in mind, but civil disobediance by its definition implies breaking the law. Bradley
First they came for the Jews. But I did not say anything because I was not a jew.
Then they came for the christians. But I did not say anything because I was not a christian.
then they came for me. And there was no one left to speak up for me.
Computers are rapidly becoming an essential part of our infrastructure. You cannot ignore assaults on the Internet anymore. Or software. How would you like it if you were on a life support machine that was shipped buggy? It dies, you die, and no one has any recourse because some doctor clicked "OK".
If you don't want your freedom, go to China. But stop ridiculing those of us who do."
You are a spoiled little kid. Comparing the holocaust or the totalitarian oppression of china to having a buggy version of quake is offensive and stupid. As for life support machines this is a worthless strawman - no hospital would sign a contract that disclaimed responsibility for the software working correctly, and life support software doesn't come in a shrink-wrap package. Maybe if you learn about some real struggles for freedom you'll realize how very ridiculous your overdramatizations are. Bradley Gottfried
"This can be relevant in a court case. How do you defend yourself and prove that a certain digital "signature" was not done by you. You can't. Repeat after me: "I cannot prove in court that I did not digitally sign a document." "
And if someone puts on X on a contract claiming to be me (which a previous poster claimed was legally valid) how can I "prove" I didn't sign the document. I think you have the burden of proof backwards.
"I you feel Universities have a greater olbigation to their business partners than their students (who also pay money to attend school), then by all means support the university in their censorship. Help set precedents that limit consumber choice to whatever the hell they are told to choose. Break the people's will so when their ISP says "No you can't visit that site, it's a competitor of ours, Read clause #12563b of your Contract and bend over", it's taken as a matter of course." This is the great thing about capitalism - if you don't like the service one ISP (or school) provides there are thousands of others to choose from. My school for example doesn't block this service. If students feel strongly about this issue they will consider it when selecting a school and Clemson will lose money.
Plain and simple. This should not be tolerated and everyone at clemson should boycott using long distance services from their university. Unless of course they wish to simply be frisked and robbed by their university."
That's completely absurd. The university provides certain services to its students for a fee. The students enter this agreement of their own free will. Unless the university is contractually obligated to provide unlimited internet access they may do whatever they want. The reactions of outrage are typical and at the same time ridiculous. People here seem to believe that the world owes them something -- that unlimited internet access is a basic right, which should be provided free to everyone by "them." This ignores economic reality and is the hallmark of immature selfishness. Bradley
Two points: 1)Logically no perfect compiler can produce better code then a perfect human coder. Note this statement has a couple of implicit statements - given infinite time, and the code may be of equal quality. This is because the perfect human coder programmed the compiler, and programmed the application. Since the compiler acts in a deterministic fashion the programmer can create exactly the same code as the compiler. 2)The issue of dynamically recompiled code is indeed an interesting one. Whether or not the extra overhead need to monitor and recompile is worth it can not be determined ahead of time. Most likely this would be of most benefit to long running applications which use a variety of data sources (such as certain scientific applications). Bradley
"OTOH, shorting is just borrowing shares, so if I want to borrow shares from somebody outside the normal channels, how can they regulate that?" I'd be very very careful. They (the SEC) can and does regulate many things common sense would tell you they couldn't. And they don't fool around you could go to jail for a long time if you piss them off. I'm not sure of the particulars of this case, but the general warning still applies.
Just make sure you don't take a home office deduction (that is decide part of your house is really an office and have the company pay you rent.) This is a giant red flag, and virtually an invitation to be audited. Bradley
We've heard from a lot of people who recived lucrative friends and family shares for thier relativly modest condtributions, but I wonder what about the real giants of the movement. Have Linus, Alan Cox, RMS, etc. shared in any of the rewards?
"A limit says to sell at a certain point -- say, $250. That way, if it dips below $250 a share, your broker will sell it immediately. this is intended to keep you from losing value if the price drops. But if it goes up to $300 the broker doesn't sell. Then maybe you call later and raise the limit to $275, so if it drops down to $275 it will sell. " I think this may be slightly off. Market - sell immediatly at whatever price you can Limit - sell at this price or higher, will only execute if the price is currently at this price or higher. Stop Market - when the market gets to this price automatically put in a market order Stop Limit - when the market gets to this price automatically put in a Limit order at this price HTH
I'd say the head start should be measured by the number of people who use a given language as thier second (or third,fourth etc.) language. Another thing that should be taken into account is the need to communicate with others who don't share your own language - in other words peasents in the mountains of china have no real need to communicate with people who don't speak chinese, so we don't really need to take them into account. I think that under these critera English probably does have a significant lead. Bradley
I never really understood how the BSD style license minus the advertising clause is really any different from public domain, is the disclaimer of responsibility really necessary (in other words can you be sued for software you release into the public domain?) Bradley
If it doesn't have a description next to it (insightful, funny, etc.) that means that the number is the default number for that person' posts (due to the quality of thier previous posts).
Because alot of schools don't have a medicine major for undergraduates, so you get hoards of obnoxious premeds (note: not all people that go to medical school are obnoxious but all premeds are) flooding the natural science majors.
Slashdot Mirror
"By the way, by just citing the Grateful Dead's lyrics without their express written consent, you've violated copyrights."
I think an excerpt that short probably falls under fair use.
"IANAL, but I *do* know that civil disobedience has a very specific definition.
..."
It does *not* apply to civil contracts - such as the GPL.
It does *not* allow you to harm others in any significant manner. You may cause a minor inconvenience by a sit in, for instance, but not by punching somebody in the nose.
Finally, civil disobedience *requires* that you be willing to pay the full legal price for your actions. You refuse to sit in the back of the bus? Fine - but be prepared to sit in jail as well. You think the draft is immoral? Fine, but be prepared to send the next year or two in prison, not Canada.
These rules sound strict
I have never seen this particular definition before, out of curiosity is it your own or are you getting it from somewhere else? Also it seems like under your definition only non-violent actions can be considered civil disobedience, how do you make a distinction between what calls for legitimate revolution and what for civil disobedience?
Bradley
(I realize this is somewhat off topic, but its these type of thought provoking discussions that make slashdot worth reading)
"Reading comprehension problem? Did you miss the phrase "they had a reason to think that you were not adhering to the personal/private terms of fair use"? Thus they would have something to demonstrate and you would therefore either have to defend yourself or bend over and take it like a man."
Reason to think is quite a bit different then legal proof.
"In corporate America, it's practically illegal to do anything with money except distribute it to stockholders as quickly as possible."
This is actually somewhat misleading. Fewer and fewer companies are sending out dividend checks, which is how companies distribute money to their stockholders. Inasmuch as they are acting to increase the stock price, this is considered to be in the best interest of the stockholders.
I believe however that in many companies situations are arising where the interests of the stockholders are in opposition to the interests of the executives (issuing options, repricing options, golden parachutes, etc.). In these cases it is often the interests of the executives that win out, because the board of directors is controlled by other executives - and shareholder revolts are difficult and rare. This goes unprotested because the current stockmarket is such that even if stockholders are being cheated by the executives they still do very well. It will be interesting to see what happens when we have a downturn in the economy (and yes we will have a downturn eventually - if you believe otherwise you are an idiot).
Bradley
"I make no assertion that there is a standard that you have to meet. The courts found that for personal, private use you could make copies. Once you start letting your friends use your CDs at the same time you are using copies of your CDs you are in violation of that finding and are breaking copyright law. If the RIAA approached you with a team of lawyers and they had a reason to think that you were not adhering to the personal/private terms of fair use, then they certainly could require you to demonstrate that you are, in fact, obeying copyright law."
The burden of proof would be on thier side. They would have to demonstrate the you were violating copyright law.
"And where is the line drawn between "petty" and "big"? If you give em anything, they will take it and run with it and erode our freedoms until nothing is left. Maybe this is a little issue, but it could be a precursor to a much bigger issue... or possibly a symptom. "
I wonder how far you'd be willing to take this. Would you violate any law with which you disagreed, no matter how trivial? (I realize you don't consider this trivial but there must be some law somewhere which you consider trivial.)
Bradley
"If someone wants to write and sell a software product, more power to them. However, should they have the right to suppress criticism of their software, and of how it's put together? I don't think so. Part of the "law" protects free speech, and an essential part of the working of any market is freely available information about products, sellers and prices. Suppress information about software products and you contribute to a market failure in that industry. Maximizing information is a goal of all advocates of the market, be they liberal or conservative..."
I am against the UCITA, and I belive that if it is passed parts of it will be invalidated by the courts. However I do not and will not ever support civil disobediance for such a trival reason.
Bradley
"Respect for the rule of law is contingent upon the law deserving respect. The United States was founded upon disrespect for the laws of England. And as others have argued more eloquently than I could, this is more than a matter of petty convenience."
I totally agree with this sentiment. Sometimes laws become intolerable and the people are forced to overthrough the oppresive government. I submit that this is not such a case and therefore the orderly working of society demands that we oppose it through legal channels.
Bradley
"This is a troll, right?
The UCITA isn't law yet. Nothing like this has ever been law before, AFAIK. How can you think about all the good respect for it will do when it's never existed before to respect. Are you actually willing to speculate that something like this would be beneficial to you in some way?"
No this is not law yet, but the original poster suggested civil disobediance to combat this law. I don't know exactly what he had in mind, but civil disobediance by its definition implies breaking the law.
Bradley
"This doesn't have to do with convenience.
First they came for the Jews. But I did not say anything because I was not a jew.
Then they came for the christians. But I did not say anything because I was not a christian.
then they came for me. And there was no one left to speak up for me.
Computers are rapidly becoming an essential part of our infrastructure. You cannot ignore assaults on the Internet anymore. Or software. How would you like it if you were on a life support machine that was shipped buggy? It dies, you die, and no one has any recourse because some doctor clicked "OK".
If you don't want your freedom, go to China. But stop ridiculing those of us who do."
You are a spoiled little kid. Comparing the holocaust or the totalitarian oppression of china to having a buggy version of quake is offensive and stupid. As for life support machines this is a worthless strawman - no hospital would sign a contract that disclaimed responsibility for the software working correctly, and life support software doesn't come in a shrink-wrap package. Maybe if you learn about some real struggles for freedom you'll realize how very ridiculous your overdramatizations are.
Bradley Gottfried
"This can be relevant in a court case. How do you defend yourself and prove that a certain digital "signature" was not done by you. You can't. Repeat after me: "I cannot prove in court that I did not digitally sign a document." "
And if someone puts on X on a contract claiming to be me (which a previous poster claimed was legally valid) how can I "prove" I didn't sign the document. I think you have the burden of proof backwards.
"I you feel Universities have a greater olbigation to their business partners than their students (who also pay money to attend school), then by all means support the university in their censorship. Help set precedents that limit consumber choice to whatever the hell they are told to choose. Break the people's will so when their ISP says "No you can't visit that site, it's a competitor of ours, Read clause #12563b of your Contract and bend over", it's taken as a matter of course."
This is the great thing about capitalism - if you don't like the service one ISP (or school) provides there are thousands of others to choose from. My school for example doesn't block this service. If students feel strongly about this issue they will consider it when selecting a school and Clemson will lose money.
"Theft.
Plain and simple. This should not be tolerated and everyone at clemson should boycott using long distance services from their university. Unless of course they wish to simply be frisked and robbed by their university."
That's completely absurd. The university provides certain services to its students for a fee. The students enter this agreement of their own free will. Unless the university is contractually obligated to provide unlimited internet access they may do whatever they want. The reactions of outrage are typical and at the same time ridiculous. People here seem to believe that the world owes them something -- that unlimited internet access is a basic right, which should be provided free to everyone by "them." This ignores economic reality and is the hallmark of immature selfishness.
Bradley
Two points:
1)Logically no perfect compiler can produce better code then a perfect human coder.
Note this statement has a couple of implicit statements - given infinite time, and the code may be of equal quality.
This is because the perfect human coder programmed the compiler, and programmed the application. Since the compiler acts in a deterministic fashion the programmer can create exactly the same code as the compiler.
2)The issue of dynamically recompiled code is indeed an interesting one. Whether or not the extra overhead need to monitor and recompile is worth it can not be determined ahead of time. Most likely this would be of most benefit to long running applications which use a variety of data sources (such as certain scientific applications).
Bradley
"OTOH, shorting is just borrowing shares, so if I want to borrow shares from somebody outside the normal channels, how can they regulate that?"
I'd be very very careful. They (the SEC) can and does regulate many things common sense would tell you they couldn't. And they don't fool around you could go to jail for a long time if you piss them off. I'm not sure of the particulars of this case, but the general warning still applies.
Just make sure you don't take a home office deduction (that is decide part of your house is really an office and have the company pay you rent.) This is a giant red flag, and virtually an invitation to be audited.
Bradley
We've heard from a lot of people who recived lucrative friends and family shares for thier relativly modest condtributions, but I wonder what about the real giants of the movement. Have Linus, Alan Cox, RMS, etc. shared in any of the rewards?
"A limit says to sell at a certain point -- say, $250. That way, if it dips below $250 a share, your broker will sell it immediately. this is intended to keep you from losing value if the price drops. But if it goes up to $300 the broker doesn't sell. Then maybe you call later and raise the limit to $275, so if it drops down to $275 it will sell.
"
I think this may be slightly off.
Market - sell immediatly at whatever price you can
Limit - sell at this price or higher, will only execute if the price is currently at this price or higher.
Stop Market - when the market gets to this price automatically put in a market order
Stop Limit - when the market gets to this price automatically put in a Limit order at this price
HTH
I put in an order for 100 @ $30 reconfirmed both times, and got nothing. It doesn't seem like anyone did.
most of the time its at least intelligible, if not intellgent, what is this supposed to mean?
I'd say the head start should be measured by the number of people who use a given language as thier second (or third,fourth etc.) language. Another thing that should be taken into account is the need to communicate with others who don't share your own language - in other words peasents in the mountains of china have no real need to communicate with people who don't speak chinese, so we don't really need to take them into account. I think that under these critera English probably does have a significant lead.
Bradley
I never really understood how the BSD style license minus the advertising clause is really any different from public domain, is the disclaimer of responsibility really necessary (in other words can you be sued for software you release into the public domain?)
Bradley
How about Dow Corning for a product that has never even proved to be defective (breast implants). Our system is definatly messed up.
If it doesn't have a description next to it (insightful, funny, etc.) that means that the number is the default number for that person' posts (due to the quality of thier previous posts).
Because alot of schools don't have a medicine major for undergraduates, so you get hoards of obnoxious premeds (note: not all people that go to medical school are obnoxious but all premeds are) flooding the natural science majors.