What I described is the existing procedure, not necessarily what I want. In any case,
the phone companies don't need to submit identifying information, just a list of phone numbers. And note that this information is publicly available anyhow, with somewhat more effort. The government can easily enough check whether a phone number has been changed, as can you.
No, there's another mechanism for dealing with this. Numbers are automatically removed from the do-not-call list when they are disconnected or reassigned.
I think you'll find that what gives the US the largest number of vetoes is the fact that it has
consistently vetoed the numerous attempts of Muslim and Communist countries at harassment of Israel.
That's a good thing.
So long as they aren't linking with the BusyBox code, yes, that's all they have to do to comply. That's what makes it so odd that they haven't complied.
All it will cost them is five minutes to set up and a little bandwidth.
Sorry, this is wrong. It is not true that the GPL constrains only the distribution of derived works. According to clause (3) of the GPL, if you distribute unmodified binaries you
must make the source available. Here is the relevant portion:
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections
1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
customarily used for software interchange; or,
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer
to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is
allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you
received the program in object code or executable form with such
an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
The Coop is not privately held. It is a cooperative, which provides rebates to members. Students, faculty, staff, and alumni of Harvard, MIT, and several other schools are eligible for membership. The shares are held by ten shareholders, five of whom are students. The Board of Directors consists of eleven students, eleven faculty, staff, or alumni, and the President of the Coop. See Election Info.
This has two implications. First, the Coop's purpose is to serve its members, not to make a profit. Second, if you are a member, you can change this policy by persuading your representatives to change it or running for the Board yourself. I am a member and will consider this issue when deciding how to vote in the next election if the candidates take positions on it.
People are talking as if SCO had only lost accountants, but I wonder if that is true. We know about the loss only because SCO has asked for permission to replace them. For all we know, lots of other SCO employees have left the sinking ship, only SCO hasn't asked for permission to replace them. Could it be that even with essentially no business left SCO needs the accountants to keep running but doesn't need the other staff who are leaving? Do they still have any use for developers? Can their sales people sell anything?
You need to move that decimal place at least six more places to the right.
Not a problem. If he wins, millions of other Chinese will follow suit.
I don't think that China has class actions, so Microsoft will have the fun and expense of defending each suit separately if they don't settle.
By making a false DMCA declaration, Geller did more than expose himself to a civil suit - he also committed perjury, which is a felony punishable by up to five years in prison (18 U.S.C. 1621). Why is he not being prosecuted criminally?
True. And one might add that Judge Siler's dissent points out that two other Circuits have ruled differently even on the point that the EFF won. So not only is this ruling valid only in the 9th Circuit but there is a good chance that other Circuits will hold differently and that the issue may reach the Supreme Court and be decided differently.
Every time I read a story like this, I think how glad I am that don't use MS Windows or any other MS product. It's like MS is trying to drive customers away.
Standards are different from programs. It may be okay to release a program with a bug, but it isn't okay to release standards with bugs. For one thing, there's no good reason to do so. There is already a perfectly fine standard, ODF, and even if there weren't, if we had to wait a little to get the bugs out, that would be okay. For another, a standard with a slew of undocumented tags simply cannot be implemented.
Furthermore, we have no guarantee that the bugs in OOXML actually will be fixed other than to refuse to approve it. What happens if OOXML is approved and MS then says: "Suckers!" and opposes any changes or refuses to provide the necessary information?
Finally, this backward compatibility stuff is totally unnecessary. If MS wants to provide for backward compatibility, they should write converters from, e.g., Word 95 format to the standard. Standards should be neat and clean, not loaded with random bits of old cruft.
This doesn't have to be evidence that Verizon is better or that Dolan is a hypocrite.
It may well be that he deserves credit for checking out the competition, or that his own service isn't available where he lives.
It's one thing to be accustomed to starting work at 06:00 and quite another for someone who normally starts work at, say, 09:00 to have to do something at 06:00, especially something like law for which you have to be alert. It isn't the early hour per se that is the problem, its the difference from what they are accustomed to. For those of us older than 2^5, such deviations from one's normal schedule can be pretty disruptive. I think it is quite reasonable for Amazon's lawyers to ask that the hearing be held at 13:00 Washington time. It makes things much more reasonable for them while, as far as I can see, imposing no real burden on the Patent Office. Why is it a problem for the Patent Office to hold the hearing at 13:00, well within their
normal work hours?
I have no sympathy for the one-click patent, but making Amazon's lawyers get up so early just seems petty.
The quotes are so extensive that unless the article is making them up it is clear that the article reflects the point of view of Mindbridge, not merely Linux.com's spin. In any case, if the OP had meant to refer to the article, he ought to have written "Linux.com" or "the publication". The obvious referent of "the company" is Mindbridge, the company discussed in the article.
I am unable to make any sense of your comment. You asked whether the words are contradictory. I agreed that they are. I then went on to point out that it makes no real difference to the point of the article. No, you didn't use the word "invalidate", but your title does say that the article is "misleading", which amounts to the same thing in this context. Use whatever words you like, but the fact remains that his description of his experience does not depend on whether the conversion was complete or almost complete.
They're a Linux company. They're telling us how great Linux is. They're not giving any details.
No, they aren't a Linux company. They don't sell Linux and their own products are not Linux-specific. The article says that they started out as a Microsoft shop but switched most of their servers to Linux after observing their customers' good experience with Linux.
Actually, the authority of the federal government to issue copyrights is directly provided for in the Constitution. One of the powers granted to Congress in Article I, Section 8 is: (Clause 8)
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
The argument that Ross appears to make is a non-sequitur. He says that fair use is not a consumer right because it is an affirmative defense to copyright infringement. There's no connection between the two. For those who don't know, an "affirmative defense" is a defense that does negate an essential element of the charge. For example, if you are charged with murder, one defense that you could offer is the prosecution hasn't demonstrated that you were the one who committed the murder. Another defense would be that the prosecution has not shown that a homicide occurred (if, say, there is no body). These are non-affirmative defenses because all the defense has to do is to argue that the prosecution has failed to meet some part of its burden. Another defense to a murder charge is self-defense. Self-defense is an affirmative defense. The defendant admits that a homicide occurred, that he or she did it, etc., but argues that he or she is nonetheless not legally responsible.
In the case of copyright infringement, civil or criminal, fair use is an affirmative defense because the defendant admits the elements. He or she says: "Yes, I copied material whose copyright does not belong to me", which is the essence of copyright
infringement, but its okay because the use was of a type that the law acknowledges as acceptable, just as self-defense is an acceptable reason for killing someone.
There is no reason to suppose that there should be a connection between whether a defense is affirmative or ordinary and whether it is a right. For example, surely self-defense is a right, but it is nonetheless an affirmative, not ordinary, defense. So the mere fact that fair use is an affirmative defense does not show, as Ross seems to think, that fair use is not a right.
The possible grain of truth in what he says is that the fact that fair use is a defense to copyright infringement does not mean that it is a right whose violation is actionable. Statements that describe copyright infringment in absolute terms, without mentioning fair use, are inaccurate, and possibly constitute deceptive advertising, but whether consumers have a legal right to fair use that makes technical measures, such as DRM, that interfere with fair use, actionable, is unclear. There is a colorable argument that there is a fair use right in this
sense, which is what the plaintiffs are arguing, but it is also true that this has not been established in court.
So, insofar as Ross is claiming that there is some sort of connection between the kind of defense provided by fair use and whether it is a right, he is wrong, but insofar as he is just claiming that the provision of fair use as a defense does not make it a right, what he says is true. I personally think that fair use is a right, for First Amendment reasons, but this right flows from the First Amendment and not from the fair use provisions of the copyright statutes.
Well, that's what I'm wondering about. I don't see why an airflow baseline would be useful, but then I don't have any detailed information on how this works.
If you can't participate in an adult debate, don't participate. You haven't explained why the analogy is stupid, and if you had an argument, you could present it in a civil fashion.
Slashdot Mirror
What I described is the existing procedure, not necessarily what I want. In any case, the phone companies don't need to submit identifying information, just a list of phone numbers. And note that this information is publicly available anyhow, with somewhat more effort. The government can easily enough check whether a phone number has been changed, as can you.
No, there's another mechanism for dealing with this. Numbers are automatically removed from the do-not-call list when they are disconnected or reassigned.
I think you'll find that what gives the US the largest number of vetoes is the fact that it has consistently vetoed the numerous attempts of Muslim and Communist countries at harassment of Israel. That's a good thing.
The chemicals found at the UN turned out not to be phosgene. It was a non-toxic cleaning solution, according to the police
So long as they aren't linking with the BusyBox code, yes, that's all they have to do to comply. That's what makes it so odd that they haven't complied. All it will cost them is five minutes to set up and a little bandwidth.
Sorry, this is wrong. It is not true that the GPL constrains only the distribution of derived works. According to clause (3) of the GPL, if you distribute unmodified binaries you must make the source available. Here is the relevant portion:
The Coop is not privately held. It is a cooperative, which provides rebates to members. Students, faculty, staff, and alumni of Harvard, MIT, and several other schools are eligible for membership. The shares are held by ten shareholders, five of whom are students. The Board of Directors consists of eleven students, eleven faculty, staff, or alumni, and the President of the Coop. See Election Info.
This has two implications. First, the Coop's purpose is to serve its members, not to make a profit. Second, if you are a member, you can change this policy by persuading your representatives to change it or running for the Board yourself. I am a member and will consider this issue when deciding how to vote in the next election if the candidates take positions on it.
People are talking as if SCO had only lost accountants, but I wonder if that is true. We know about the loss only because SCO has asked for permission to replace them. For all we know, lots of other SCO employees have left the sinking ship, only SCO hasn't asked for permission to replace them. Could it be that even with essentially no business left SCO needs the accountants to keep running but doesn't need the other staff who are leaving? Do they still have any use for developers? Can their sales people sell anything?
Not a problem. If he wins, millions of other Chinese will follow suit. I don't think that China has class actions, so Microsoft will have the fun and expense of defending each suit separately if they don't settle.
By making a false DMCA declaration, Geller did more than expose himself to a civil suit - he also committed perjury, which is a felony punishable by up to five years in prison (18 U.S.C. 1621). Why is he not being prosecuted criminally?
True. And one might add that Judge Siler's dissent points out that two other Circuits have ruled differently even on the point that the EFF won. So not only is this ruling valid only in the 9th Circuit but there is a good chance that other Circuits will hold differently and that the issue may reach the Supreme Court and be decided differently.
Every time I read a story like this, I think how glad I am that don't use MS Windows or any other MS product. It's like MS is trying to drive customers away.
Standards are different from programs. It may be okay to release a program with a bug, but it isn't okay to release standards with bugs. For one thing, there's no good reason to do so. There is already a perfectly fine standard, ODF, and even if there weren't, if we had to wait a little to get the bugs out, that would be okay. For another, a standard with a slew of undocumented tags simply cannot be implemented.
Furthermore, we have no guarantee that the bugs in OOXML actually will be fixed other than to refuse to approve it. What happens if OOXML is approved and MS then says: "Suckers!" and opposes any changes or refuses to provide the necessary information?
Finally, this backward compatibility stuff is totally unnecessary. If MS wants to provide for backward compatibility, they should write converters from, e.g., Word 95 format to the standard. Standards should be neat and clean, not loaded with random bits of old cruft.
This doesn't have to be evidence that Verizon is better or that Dolan is a hypocrite. It may well be that he deserves credit for checking out the competition, or that his own service isn't available where he lives.
It's one thing to be accustomed to starting work at 06:00 and quite another for someone who normally starts work at, say, 09:00 to have to do something at 06:00, especially something like law for which you have to be alert. It isn't the early hour per se that is the problem, its the difference from what they are accustomed to. For those of us older than 2^5, such deviations from one's normal schedule can be pretty disruptive. I think it is quite reasonable for Amazon's lawyers to ask that the hearing be held at 13:00 Washington time. It makes things much more reasonable for them while, as far as I can see, imposing no real burden on the Patent Office. Why is it a problem for the Patent Office to hold the hearing at 13:00, well within their normal work hours?
I have no sympathy for the one-click patent, but making Amazon's lawyers get up so early just seems petty.
The quotes are so extensive that unless the article is making them up it is clear that the article reflects the point of view of Mindbridge, not merely Linux.com's spin. In any case, if the OP had meant to refer to the article, he ought to have written "Linux.com" or "the publication". The obvious referent of "the company" is Mindbridge, the company discussed in the article.
I am unable to make any sense of your comment. You asked whether the words are contradictory. I agreed that they are. I then went on to point out that it makes no real difference to the point of the article. No, you didn't use the word "invalidate", but your title does say that the article is "misleading", which amounts to the same thing in this context. Use whatever words you like, but the fact remains that his description of his experience does not depend on whether the conversion was complete or almost complete.
Strictly speaking, yes, it's a contradiction. He should have said "almost completely". Big deal. It hardly invalidates the story.
No, they aren't a Linux company. They don't sell Linux and their own products are not Linux-specific. The article says that they started out as a Microsoft shop but switched most of their servers to Linux after observing their customers' good experience with Linux.
Actually, the authority of the federal government to issue copyrights is directly provided for in the Constitution. One of the powers granted to Congress in Article I, Section 8 is: (Clause 8)
The argument that Ross appears to make is a non-sequitur. He says that fair use is not a consumer right because it is an affirmative defense to copyright infringement. There's no connection between the two. For those who don't know, an "affirmative defense" is a defense that does negate an essential element of the charge. For example, if you are charged with murder, one defense that you could offer is the prosecution hasn't demonstrated that you were the one who committed the murder. Another defense would be that the prosecution has not shown that a homicide occurred (if, say, there is no body). These are non-affirmative defenses because all the defense has to do is to argue that the prosecution has failed to meet some part of its burden. Another defense to a murder charge is self-defense. Self-defense is an affirmative defense. The defendant admits that a homicide occurred, that he or she did it, etc., but argues that he or she is nonetheless not legally responsible.
In the case of copyright infringement, civil or criminal, fair use is an affirmative defense because the defendant admits the elements. He or she says: "Yes, I copied material whose copyright does not belong to me", which is the essence of copyright infringement, but its okay because the use was of a type that the law acknowledges as acceptable, just as self-defense is an acceptable reason for killing someone.
There is no reason to suppose that there should be a connection between whether a defense is affirmative or ordinary and whether it is a right. For example, surely self-defense is a right, but it is nonetheless an affirmative, not ordinary, defense. So the mere fact that fair use is an affirmative defense does not show, as Ross seems to think, that fair use is not a right.
The possible grain of truth in what he says is that the fact that fair use is a defense to copyright infringement does not mean that it is a right whose violation is actionable. Statements that describe copyright infringment in absolute terms, without mentioning fair use, are inaccurate, and possibly constitute deceptive advertising, but whether consumers have a legal right to fair use that makes technical measures, such as DRM, that interfere with fair use, actionable, is unclear. There is a colorable argument that there is a fair use right in this sense, which is what the plaintiffs are arguing, but it is also true that this has not been established in court.
So, insofar as Ross is claiming that there is some sort of connection between the kind of defense provided by fair use and whether it is a right, he is wrong, but insofar as he is just claiming that the provision of fair use as a defense does not make it a right, what he says is true. I personally think that fair use is a right, for First Amendment reasons, but this right flows from the First Amendment and not from the fair use provisions of the copyright statutes.
Well, that's what I'm wondering about. I don't see why an airflow baseline would be useful, but then I don't have any detailed information on how this works.
If you can't participate in an adult debate, don't participate. You haven't explained why the analogy is stupid, and if you had an argument, you could present it in a civil fashion.
Actually, there is another, quite standard and uncontroversial, crime that is based on what might have been, namely reckless endangerment.
This post is so garbled that I can only conclude that it was written under the influence of alcohol or some other mind-altering substance.