By using closed code in your kernel you are putting an unknown in it. This is bad, the kernel developers can't help you, you can't fix it yourself, you're just stuck with broken software.
I think removing the ability to fix a problem is a dramatic change, particularly when that is a major benefit of free software.
What we need is accountability on the parts of all parents for the actions of their children, and a fundamental change from the #1/#2 parenting styles.
Yes, but accountable and blame aren't fair. There are excellent parents with terrible kids. I also think that no person should ever be responsible for the actions of another. This garbage with jailing parents because their kids skip school is unacceptable. You really can't force responsibility.
Because parents feel that they cannot simply order their children to stay away from the arcades, they put their trust in the laws of the land to prevent their children from what is seen as an unproductive, unhealthy activity.
Well here in Canada (and the US) parents don't feel they can simply order their children around either. But rather then expect law enforcement to do anything about it, they whine and bitch about freedom and rights. Then schools and law enforcement try to cover the gap left by bad parenting, constantly overstepping reasonable bounds and cause more trouble. (I actually had a principal that gloated about how he was more powerful then a court, he didn't even need evidence to punish students)
Bad parenting exists everywhere, you have busy hardworking overworked parents, lazy parents, non existant parents. Making laws to compensate isn't going to help, we need parents to get back to work. (No, I'm not a parent. Yes I know it's hard, which is why I'm not a parent yet, I'm not ready.)
Registration number 1582251 is for Dus-tek, that's funny. 1645824 is for Sniffer, they filed for it May 30, 1989. Now the discussion is if it is a valid trademark or not. I would guess the term sniffer was in widespread use before 89, so it is probaly not an issue.
Who cares. They will not force MS to act in a manner that fosters competition. They won't enforce a penalty on MS. It just isn't going to happen in the US.
Normal people think MS Windows and MS Office are what makes the computer industry, by that logic any action against MS would be an attack agains the industry, so they don't want to do anything.
They are copying this image willfully, there is no accident. The question that is more important is if they made a reasonable attempt to ensure they had permission to do so. If they just "found it on the net" they're in trouble. If someone who could have reasonably owned the copyright had frauduelently sold it to them, they are probaly not in so much trouble.
Sen Hatch is proposing the copyright holder, and no legal restraint on their action. Many have proposed the copyright holder be given these powers, and only demonstrate they thought there was infringement.
Here we have clear proof of willful infringement. By the logic the copyright enforcers are proposing that is enough to destroy his computer.
Yes we realize he isn't directly responsible, and knowledgable about what he did wrong. But the same can be said for some of the people trading files, or ripping CD's.
BTW in Canada you can copy a musical recording for personal use.
Sorry we can call him a pirate. By the proposals he's making there is no due process to determine guilt or innocence, you just make the accusation then act.
I think destruction/confiscation of tools used in the commission of a crime is fine, they do this all the time. What I think is wrong is destroying/confiscating without having to prove guilt.
I think that the penalty for copyright violations SCO over IBM is strong. SCO breaking the licensing contract, who knows what the damages could be, probaly just lost future sales, assuming that SCO doesn't have a valid reason to terminate.
I'm not from Europe, but from the article there already is a right of reply law. These laws did exist in the US, but don't anymore.
I think this is a generally a good thing, and quite polite. The problem is it may be open to abuses, which could be solved simply by linking to the persons web site with the post about them, if they care enough to respond they can do it there.
It is time some of the "computer rights campaigners" got real. Patents for software inventions will not go away.
Why not? Patents are purely a legal construct, change the law, and it's done.
We keep fighting to get rid of crime and it is even less likely to go away.
Sorry the helpless arguement is garbage.
She clearly has the view that patents allow one to level the playing field, if the system worked right that would be true. But as an employee considering a patent fight the lawyers say "don't bother", you can't prove obviousness. Prior art doesn't count if they are good and tune their claims right. And governments don't like to let home companies lose.
Slashdot Mirror
If quick and dirty works good enough, then it should be the final solutions.
If it does not work good enough, then no matter how quick it is, it isn't a solution.
The procedure is there for a reason, follow it. If the procedure is wrong correct it.
Yeah, but this time it is with Cell Phones!!!!!!
Some of the biggest bashing on CueCat was that it was connected to your computer, take away that and it could be a good idea.
I think this has some promise.
Horsepower is a bigger number.
Bigger is better.
That's the point.
By using closed code in your kernel you are putting an unknown in it.
This is bad, the kernel developers can't help you, you can't fix it yourself, you're just stuck with broken software.
I think removing the ability to fix a problem is a dramatic change, particularly when that is a major benefit of free software.
What we need is accountability on the parts of all parents for the actions of their children, and a fundamental change from the #1/#2 parenting styles.
Yes, but accountable and blame aren't fair.
There are excellent parents with terrible kids.
I also think that no person should ever be responsible for the actions of another. This garbage with jailing parents because their kids skip school is unacceptable.
You really can't force responsibility.
Because parents feel that they cannot simply order their children to stay away from the arcades, they put their trust in the laws of the land to prevent their children from what is seen as an unproductive, unhealthy activity.
Well here in Canada (and the US) parents don't feel they can simply order their children around either. But rather then expect law enforcement to do anything about it, they whine and bitch about freedom and rights.
Then schools and law enforcement try to cover the gap left by bad parenting, constantly overstepping reasonable bounds and cause more trouble. (I actually had a principal that gloated about how he was more powerful then a court, he didn't even need evidence to punish students)
Bad parenting exists everywhere, you have busy hardworking overworked parents, lazy parents, non existant parents.
Making laws to compensate isn't going to help, we need parents to get back to work.
(No, I'm not a parent. Yes I know it's hard, which is why I'm not a parent yet, I'm not ready.)
No this isn't.
It is a simple law, which if followed would reduce SPAM to those who don't want it, and allow those who do to keep it.
Those who break this new law would break any other law. They try to evade any technical solution too.
Registration number 1582251 is for Dus-tek, that's funny.
1645824 is for Sniffer, they filed for it May 30, 1989.
Now the discussion is if it is a valid trademark or not. I would guess the term sniffer was in widespread use before 89, so it is probaly not an issue.
Who cares. They will not force MS to act in a manner that fosters competition. They won't enforce a penalty on MS. It just isn't going to happen in the US.
Normal people think MS Windows and MS Office are what makes the computer industry, by that logic any action against MS would be an attack agains the industry, so they don't want to do anything.
They are copying this image willfully, there is no accident.
The question that is more important is if they made a reasonable attempt to ensure they had permission to do so. If they just "found it on the net" they're in trouble. If someone who could have reasonably owned the copyright had frauduelently sold it to them, they are probaly not in so much trouble.
Hey, it appears they have Linux code in their OS.
Some people may suspect they are violating the copyright.
Since all the copyright holder needs is suspicion, not proof, or court order, perhas they should attack all SCO users.
Not if you do it twice.
What about the other ones
Flightgear comes to mind, and being open source there should be the capacity to do this too.
Who gets to decide if it was willful and obvious?
Sen Hatch is proposing the copyright holder, and no legal restraint on their action.
Many have proposed the copyright holder be given these powers, and only demonstrate they thought there was infringement.
Here we have clear proof of willful infringement.
By the logic the copyright enforcers are proposing that is enough to destroy his computer.
Yes we realize he isn't directly responsible, and knowledgable about what he did wrong. But the same can be said for some of the people trading files, or ripping CD's.
BTW in Canada you can copy a musical recording for personal use.
Sorry we can call him a pirate.
By the proposals he's making there is no due process to determine guilt or innocence, you just make the accusation then act.
I think destruction/confiscation of tools used in the commission of a crime is fine, they do this all the time. What I think is wrong is destroying/confiscating without having to prove guilt.
You can not just buy a company for their market cap.
That is just the latest transaction price of a share trade times outstanding shares.
It reflects the lowest value a current holder thinks their portion is worth.
Everyone who holds shares today thinks they are worth more then the listed share price (or they would have sold)
That is a great link!
I didn't have an authoritative document that said this is legal, now I do.
Who wins?
I think that the penalty for copyright violations SCO over IBM is strong.
SCO breaking the licensing contract, who knows what the damages could be, probaly just lost future sales, assuming that SCO doesn't have a valid reason to terminate.
I'm not from Europe, but from the article there already is a right of reply law.
These laws did exist in the US, but don't anymore.
I think this is a generally a good thing, and quite polite.
The problem is it may be open to abuses, which could be solved simply by linking to the persons web site with the post about them, if they care enough to respond they can do it there.
Simple, bank these hours
6 weeks, 7 days, 12 hours = 504 hours
at 40 hours/wk this is 12.6 weeks
Yeah, you lose 6 rought weeks, but then almost 7 weeks of banked vacation to draw on, that's pretty sweet.
Another alternative if they argue some OT is expected, bank the weekends and everything over 9 or 10 hours a day, that would still be a few weeks off.
Not in My Back Yard.
People are too selfish, and they don't really care.
As long as it doesn't affect them, they don't care.
When it starts to bother them, they might consider doing something, but not until.
Sorry, high voltage does not need thicker wire.
High current requires thicker wire.
There may be "miles of cable" in a car, but no signal will travel for much more then the overall length of a car.
It is time some of the "computer rights campaigners" got real. Patents for software inventions will not go away.
Why not? Patents are purely a legal construct, change the law, and it's done.
We keep fighting to get rid of crime and it is even less likely to go away.
Sorry the helpless arguement is garbage.
She clearly has the view that patents allow one to level the playing field, if the system worked right that would be true.
But as an employee considering a patent fight the lawyers say "don't bother", you can't prove obviousness. Prior art doesn't count if they are good and tune their claims right. And governments don't like to let home companies lose.
20% leakage is a lot.
If they include system monitoring (like that wonderful check engine light) We should be able to get very low leakage rates.
Yes people ignore the check engine light, but that is only because they aren't losing 20% of their fuel.
I thought the article was about some closed extensions that created an incompatibility.