So each political and religious leader should sue all of his followers for stealing the ideas he had to work so hard to make them accept?
Should scientists start suing each other for building research on earlier published papers and referencing them in their new publications?
Do these "researchers" really think news outlets and "original" bloggers put out information hoping no one else will discuss it in print or online? Am I stealing their research by discussing it here?
Yes, and if he had his way, the customers would all have root access to the computer that's storing my credit card number after I make a purchase at a store.
The executive order referenced exempts a specific group in the Navy from federal labor law, adding them to a huge list of intelligence agencies that was instituted by Exexcutive Order in 1979 by President Ford, as provided for in Section 7103(b) of Title 5 of the United States Code. What the hell does that have to do with a coverup? Are you asserting that Clinton exempted that Group and then threatened to fire them all from the Navy if they tried to form a labor union, which somehow got them to be quiet about shooting down a plane?
No one's asking you to remove your tin foil hat, but please, if you're going to provide "evidence" of a coverup, at least make some sense. If the executive order had suspended some part of the uniform laws that prohibits shooting down civilian planes, you might have something.
Yeah, but why would you want to reduce emissions? Everyone knows that any study saying auto emissions are bad for the environment is not "sound science" and that we need more research.
Because the companies that produce the databases want to be able to license the use of the databases to others without allowing the people accessing it to just copy the entire database and stop paying for a subscription, or re-selling it.
Of course, it gets really ridiculous when (as in a court case I won't bother to look up) a sports league decides that statistics about the league are copyrighted and that anyone who wants to publish a newspaper with a sports section should have to pay if they want to tell their readers how many points a given player has scored.
I know exactly what the electoral college is and why the American people aren't allowed to choose their president directly. I'm also not whining. I'm simply replying to your assertion that the US system is better because the people select the president when they do not, in fact, do so. The states, not the people, select the president.
Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if Darl shorted as much AZO stock as he could right before making the announcement. Sure their actions are illegal, but they've already got one of the best law firms in the country representing them so they can sue people; they might as well take their chances in criminal court later.
We can all comfort ourselves with the knowledge that Boies has a history of losing really high profile cases, like Bush v. Gore.
Well since they had $5.52 billion in revenue last year, I hardly think they'd even notice if every Linux user in the country who was buying their auto parts elsewhere decided to switch to buying them there.
I haven't looked too in depth at their financials to see if this is actually true, but I'd think that they probably sell more directly to auto repair shops than they do through their retail business, anyway, and I doubt many mechanics really care enough about Linux to base their purchasing decisions on anything besides cost and getting the part quick enough to finish the repair they're doing quickly. If they're right next door to an Advance store, they're probably not going to buy a part from an AutoZone across town just because SCO is suing them.
Or it could be because Panther is a lot easier to develop software for, if you don't care about it being compatible with easier versions of the OS. Cocoa bindings/NSControllers are really nice, and I'd expect that most developers would rather write a whole lot less code than support users who don't want to upgrade.
The article summary is misleading. What they're doing is accepting payment to guarantee that your site gets spidered more often (or, technically, at all, but unless their web crawling technology is completely useless any site that would want to be crawled probably will be; they're trying to compete with Google which they can't do with fewer sites indexed). This is separate from their also offered service of paid advertising links like google's (which are set apart from the actual results and marked as ads). They also claim, contrary to what the summary seems to imply, that payment will not affect the order in which search results are displayed; the only benefit they're claiming for their paying customers is more frequent spidering.
If he couldn't get a plurality of Democrats from any state except his own to vote for him in a primary, why should he think running in the general election would have any effect except splitting the left wing vote and re-electing Bush?
Well, ok, maybe he's completely insane like Ralph Nader and he thinks Republicans would want to vote for him.
Maybe so, but I'd be surprised if you could find half a dozen Americans who know how the British Prime Minister is chosen, so I hardly think you want to get into a who's more ignorant than whom contest.
"At least one, but more likely two" does not equal three. Where exactly did you learn how to count? Or is the problem with where you learned how to read?
Since when do you prove in court that you're right before you sue someone? What exactly is the point of the defendant having a lawyer if the plaintiff could go to court before filing a lawsuit to prove that he should win?
Microwaves are non-ionizing anyway, so the worst that will happen in that situation is that you get a little warm. Well, ok, if you're expose long enough you could probably boil all of the water in your body, but that would take a really long time.
Well, yeah, there is that. But I still think letting 2 other branches of government permanently place possibly bad judges is a lot safer than direct election of judges for short terms so they need to raise money to campaign.
Besides, when you look at how some of the more liberal Supreme Court justices were actually nominated by Republican presidents, you see that attempts to pack the courts with people who will support you can backfire.
On the other hand, the very fact that anyone would want a judge to make any judgements based on partisan politics shows how screwed up the system is. Most cases should be decided on what the law actually says, not on politics, yet an enormous number of SCOTUS cases are decided on 5-4 votes, and you can pretty certainly predict how 3 or 4 justices on each side will vote on any case, given very little information about the case.
You can't lobby congress effectively without money. My point was that the comment to which I was replying was wrong in suggesting that you can lobby the judicial system with money effectively. You're probably much more likely to go to a federal prison for attempting to bribe a judge than you are to get lucky and have a corrupt judge presiding over your case.
All legislators are corrupt, mainly because giving money to them is completely legal and is the accepted practice for getting things done; if there was ever real campaign finance reform it would become possible to effectively lobby congress without money, but since the people who benefit from the system are the ones making the rules, that's not going to happen any time soon. If judges were allowed to preside over their own corruption trials, you'd see the judicial branch start working just as badly as the legislative branch does. In state courts, where the tradition of elections of judges being almost completely independent from party politics and fundraising is pretty much being abandoned, it's already starting to happen.
Slashdot Mirror
Should scientists start suing each other for building research on earlier published papers and referencing them in their new publications?
Do these "researchers" really think news outlets and "original" bloggers put out information hoping no one else will discuss it in print or online? Am I stealing their research by discussing it here?
Yes, and if he had his way, the customers would all have root access to the computer that's storing my credit card number after I make a purchase at a store.
Anyone want to bet on how long it takes a major ISP to ban its users from using any encryption because of this?
The executive order referenced exempts a specific group in the Navy from federal labor law, adding them to a huge list of intelligence agencies that was instituted by Exexcutive Order in 1979 by President Ford, as provided for in Section 7103(b) of Title 5 of the United States Code. What the hell does that have to do with a coverup? Are you asserting that Clinton exempted that Group and then threatened to fire them all from the Navy if they tried to form a labor union, which somehow got them to be quiet about shooting down a plane?
No one's asking you to remove your tin foil hat, but please, if you're going to provide "evidence" of a coverup, at least make some sense. If the executive order had suspended some part of the uniform laws that prohibits shooting down civilian planes, you might have something.
Yeah, that's just horrible because I need to change the spark plugs on my car at least twice a month.
Yeah, but why would you want to reduce emissions? Everyone knows that any study saying auto emissions are bad for the environment is not "sound science" and that we need more research.
Of course, it gets really ridiculous when (as in a court case I won't bother to look up) a sports league decides that statistics about the league are copyrighted and that anyone who wants to publish a newspaper with a sports section should have to pay if they want to tell their readers how many points a given player has scored.
Well, installing virtual PC doesn't add 10 pounds to the weight of a machine, so the powerbook is still a better solution.
I know exactly what the electoral college is and why the American people aren't allowed to choose their president directly. I'm also not whining. I'm simply replying to your assertion that the US system is better because the people select the president when they do not, in fact, do so. The states, not the people, select the president.
Emacs is free. It always has been. You don't have to buy it, and if you try to sell it Richard Stallman will rip your head off. HTH.
Of course, since the site posting these challenges is a gave developers' site, this entire thread is pretty much off topic.
We can all comfort ourselves with the knowledge that Boies has a history of losing really high profile cases, like Bush v. Gore.
I haven't looked too in depth at their financials to see if this is actually true, but I'd think that they probably sell more directly to auto repair shops than they do through their retail business, anyway, and I doubt many mechanics really care enough about Linux to base their purchasing decisions on anything besides cost and getting the part quick enough to finish the repair they're doing quickly. If they're right next door to an Advance store, they're probably not going to buy a part from an AutoZone across town just because SCO is suing them.
Well, since more US citizens voted for Al Gore than Bush, you can hardly argue that our system is any better in that regard than the Brits' system.
Or it could be because Panther is a lot easier to develop software for, if you don't care about it being compatible with easier versions of the OS. Cocoa bindings/NSControllers are really nice, and I'd expect that most developers would rather write a whole lot less code than support users who don't want to upgrade.
The article summary is misleading. What they're doing is accepting payment to guarantee that your site gets spidered more often (or, technically, at all, but unless their web crawling technology is completely useless any site that would want to be crawled probably will be; they're trying to compete with Google which they can't do with fewer sites indexed). This is separate from their also offered service of paid advertising links like google's (which are set apart from the actual results and marked as ads). They also claim, contrary to what the summary seems to imply, that payment will not affect the order in which search results are displayed; the only benefit they're claiming for their paying customers is more frequent spidering.
RTFA, asshat. It's very clear what they mean to anyone with about a 3rd grade reading comprehension level.
Well, ok, maybe he's completely insane like Ralph Nader and he thinks Republicans would want to vote for him.
Maybe so, but I'd be surprised if you could find half a dozen Americans who know how the British Prime Minister is chosen, so I hardly think you want to get into a who's more ignorant than whom contest.
"At least one, but more likely two" does not equal three. Where exactly did you learn how to count? Or is the problem with where you learned how to read?
Since when do you prove in court that you're right before you sue someone? What exactly is the point of the defendant having a lawyer if the plaintiff could go to court before filing a lawsuit to prove that he should win?
He's obviously not using a spellchecker.
Microwaves are non-ionizing anyway, so the worst that will happen in that situation is that you get a little warm. Well, ok, if you're expose long enough you could probably boil all of the water in your body, but that would take a really long time.
Besides, when you look at how some of the more liberal Supreme Court justices were actually nominated by Republican presidents, you see that attempts to pack the courts with people who will support you can backfire.
On the other hand, the very fact that anyone would want a judge to make any judgements based on partisan politics shows how screwed up the system is. Most cases should be decided on what the law actually says, not on politics, yet an enormous number of SCOTUS cases are decided on 5-4 votes, and you can pretty certainly predict how 3 or 4 justices on each side will vote on any case, given very little information about the case.
All legislators are corrupt, mainly because giving money to them is completely legal and is the accepted practice for getting things done; if there was ever real campaign finance reform it would become possible to effectively lobby congress without money, but since the people who benefit from the system are the ones making the rules, that's not going to happen any time soon. If judges were allowed to preside over their own corruption trials, you'd see the judicial branch start working just as badly as the legislative branch does. In state courts, where the tradition of elections of judges being almost completely independent from party politics and fundraising is pretty much being abandoned, it's already starting to happen.