Yes, that definitely *was* odd. I know that MS has some operations in CA, but 18K jobs? They'd have to be claiming a huge number of indirectly-funded jobs (i.e. fueling some city's local economy, bringing in additional cash), like construction workers and so forth.
Piracy also seizes the privilege to use software. You're not buying the software itself so much as media, documentation, support and a *license* to use it -- e.g. check the GPL, where it notes that the license is the only thing that grants you the privilege to use any GPL'd package. If you don't agree w/ that license and you use it anyway, you're still stealing.
You can steal intangibles, like space (squatting), as well. And so forth.
There is no basic *right* to use software unless the publisher/author gives you the right to do so, perhaps indirectly (via a transferrable license).
That calculation is only meaningful if every pirate *could* and potentially *would* have paid for their product. If a home user would never have bought the product, but has a burned CD, it's arguably not true that the user now can spend that money elsewhere; perhaps he never had the money in the first place, and is living with a constant credit card debt, say.
It's not like most end users can sell the pirated product and convert it back into $150 of cash that's spent elsewhere.
Hmmmm. If you're making active use of it, and presuming that the other isn't also an ISP, you might be safe here. {shrug} (since, say, it wouldn't be "dilution of trademark").
Hrrrrrrm. Particularly given the timing...
Most browsers that 'guess' will choose.com first, right? So there's also that issue that's mostly gone.
Perhaps you should keep your logs for records; given that you've got.org and.net, it seems unlikely that many who want the.com would stumble across it. Now, if it were the other way 'round...
Re: last names: READ the section on 'bad-faith intent', which is an absolute requirement of using this law to justify a suit.
The US itself has been bitten by trademarks and local names already overseas; if memory serves, 'Budweiser', for instance, cannot be marketed as 'Bud' in... Czechoslovakia, because of a small (comparatively...) brewery there that's already using that name. It's going to be interesting to see whether such issues can be resolved w/o necessarily ruling case-by-case.
* Why, precisely, is it OK for *you* to pursue your own interests (registering *another* domain to get more traffic... unless the name is very relevant to your service, you're on extremely poor ethical ground already), but not somebody else?
* The law has no business giving "little guys" arbitrary preferences that supercede such things like trademark law and the idea of fair use.
Did you read the section regarding 'bad-faith intent'? The courts are to take into consideration a whole horde of factors, so this bill wouldn't suddenly render liable any but the most egregious of cases.
If you're already running unrelated services that are relatively innocent, you're fine. If you've got a business selling dragon miniatures at "dragon.com", then it's harder for TSR, er, WoTC, to come after you simply because they own the trademark -- as a *magazine* name.
If you're, say, running a hard-core porn site called "reddhat.com", featuring group sex clips which bizzarely happen to include a red felt hat in every frame, then RHAT is probably going to be able to nail you big-time for it. The same might happen if Nader went nuts, registered 'pinto.com', and used it to show footage of cars whose gas tanks explode because they've been conveniently rigged with small charges ala _Dateline:NBC-style_ (IIRC, it was them that did this, but my memory could be lying and it might have been ABC's _Prime Time Live_...).
Is there really a lack of information out there? As a Pittsburgher, for instance, I might get news from:
* The _NY Times_, pretty good for in-depth (for a newspaper), and thoughtful even if I don't agree with them, * The _Pittsburgh Post-Gazette_, a fairly provincial, somewhat lefty/human-interest paper, * The _Pittsburgh Tribune-Review_, a rightist and extremely anti-Clinton rag, * The _Militant_, a leftist rag put out by local Socialists, * The _Wall Street Journal_, for the business side of things, * The _Economist_, which carries interesting comment online,
and so forth. And that's even w/o mentioning the light-n-fluffy, often remarkably one-sided and superficial (both likely due to time constraints; few want to see the same story in depth for an hour...) drivel that passes for network news.
Overall, that's a pretty broad spectrum.
There's a lot of information out there. Much of it is remarkably biased and frequently incorrect, due to oft-repeated myths... and people tend to have a "confirmatory bias", meaning largely that they notice / accept mostly what they already agree with, which in effect reduces the utility of trying to inform them.
Not to mention the fact that many are not only uninformed (including not having the background to comprehend what's going on, like understanding their own Constitution...), but completely uninterested. That's not a good situation. Short of forcing *far* more analytical thinking, logic, and so forth from a young age, I'm not sure what can be done about that.
What, like when foreign contributors funnel money into campaigns, and members of the party at all levels (in DoJ, and Congress) block the investigation, by coaching witnesses on when to take the Fifth, and not bothering to look until witnesses have had time to flee the country? That's not a special interest?
Do unions, which spend their dues on donations -- even when the members don't want 'em used that way -- meet your definition, as well?
It's done at all levels, ranging from international (e.g. "recognize that `country` and we'll cut off trade", or "support us in the Sec. Council and we'll give you an oil deal"), to national (you don't give money to candidates who'd go *against* you, after all...), to local...
Fact is, 'tho, it's a drop in the bucket. Even if transferred all of its cash reserves to the Treasury, it wouldn't be *that* much compared to the Federal budget. A donation of $51K is peanuts except at the individual-legislator level, and there are too many that wouldn't be caught dead supporting MS here (like Orrin Hatch, whose motivations are similar to that of Gorton's...) unless they actually agree in principle that anti-trust stuff should be repealed. Money *can't* necessarily buy off somebody who's ready to lop off yer head. Now, if you're dealing with somebody who does not have to uphold any principles, because he hasn't bothered to actually ennunciate any (or because the people already consider him an unethical SOB), that's different...
As for donations in general, most of what's allowed is "soft money"; direct contributions to campaigns are limited, but "soft money" is not; arguably the latter should be regulated far more strongly.
...on *32-bit systems*, courtesy of things like the size of an offset or file length. Even 'tho ext2 itself (design-wise) can handle larger files, the programming interface doesn't.
"Mr. Gates, there is a widespread perception among users that your company knowingly releases buggy software, followed by not only service packs, but 'upgrades' that have been labelled primarily as bug-fix collections by some -- but they keep using it, partly due to its sheer ubiquity. Do you have pride in your products? If so, then how can your company do this?"
And _I_ thought that the Artemis satellite would be a powerful smart space mine to protect the solar system from invaders.
;)
Re:Cannot publish your term paper?!?
on
One for the Kids
·
· Score: 2
Um, the implication there is that it's wrong to TAKE somebody else's work and claim it as your own.
That's wrong in the scientific community, too -- it's called plagiarism.
Re:What's good for the goose...
on
One for the Kids
·
· Score: 2
Should any old schmo be allowed to preside over a trial, or test-fly a prototype jet, or declare war on a major country? Or decide to scribble all over the federal budget?
The law establishes structure. Part of that is enforcement, since no matter what the law is, somebody's almost certainly going to violate it. That means the long arm of the law has to be able to investigate.
Re:DOJ teaches that selling used items == theft
on
One for the Kids
·
· Score: 2
Selling games would be theft if you kept a copy.
Simple, no, when you think?
You've paid for it once, and if you sell it *once* AND DON'T KEEP A COPY, the publisher still got it's price-per-copy.
Well, it *doth* say that, for instance, it is legal to refuse to quarter troops in your home...
It's mostly prohibitions (either the citizen shouldn't do something, or certain laws shouldn't be made), but some of it does have the effect of explicitly noting rights (for the latter purpose).
Everything from leaving deformed infants to die, to classifying females as inferior and executing them, and so forth.
There's a difference, 'tho, with Singer's position: the National Socialists imposed it from the Government's will, while Singer's comes from the parents. That's a *huge* difference.
Well, there's at least one difference that he may have had in mind.
It can be argued that the widespread presence of firearms -- accompanied by responsibility and training -- belonging to citizens inhibits coercion by others, and may possibly reduce crime rates; see Switzerland for an example of a remarkably armed, yet non-self-destructive society. Conversely, witness other nations, with armed criminals butchering unarmed civillians (such as in Algeria and South Africa).
It is more difficult to argue the existence of such a benefit for certain controlled substances, like heroin or crystal meth, while many drawbacks tend to be obvious.
That dichotomy is artificial. For instance, I choose what to write; it's not worth anybody's time to force me to type rambling submissions to Slashdot, say.
Ex. Try lying on your next tax return. The IRS will clearly consider *you* responsible, and not just condemn the text...
Ergo, if a post of mine seems fairly bizarre for some reason, it validly reflects on my opinions and mentality. Except when I'm simply trying to roil the waters, or play the legal-trained employee of a diabolical infernal creature -- a strong temptation, I must admit -- the odds are decent that the presented opinions reflect at least somewhat on ME.
In the same way, if Singer _chooses_ to speak what he will, that's a reflection on HIM. To criticize or praise the idea without criticizing or praising his judgement would therefore be silly.
* Actually, East Timor was covered decently well by the _Times_. And papers like the local _Militant_, put out by local socialist groups, are free to use hyperbole as much as they want, to.
* Laos was a perfectly valid target, because the Ho Chi Minh trail within in was a conduit for conveying troops and supplies. Take the fight where the enemy is -- duh!
* Um, you *do* know that we have numerous Spanish stations, right? And whole neighborhoods...
* No dissent in the press? Whatever. You must not read *at all*.
Why must an art gallery rely on public money? Unless it specializes in art that nobody wishes to support, that is...
You don't see Gov't-owned major metropolitan newspapers, do you? They're also covered by the 1st, in case you didn't realize, and yet there's no taxpayer obligation to fund them. And that's a good thing, because anytime you ask for the Gov't's money, you require Gov't judgement, discretion, opinions, etc.... and are no longer independent.
* So, is there anything wrong with, say, NY State revoking *all* funding for *all* Museums, regardless of that exhibit or not? Give, say, 4 years to find sponsors before it takes effect. There are sufficient people with disposable income and a liking for arts that they'll likely put their money where their mouth is.
That's nicely even-handed, and as long as it's an _irrevocable decision_, not coercive because there's no way to avoid that cut.
It lets all the private folks who DO want to support art support what they like, and avoids controversy because the Gov't suddenly loses leverage -- in much the same way that the Gov't tries to avoid much to do with organized religion, also over 1st Amendment concerns. Art that nobody likes, well -- time for the "artist" to get another job. That's in much the same way that nobody _has_ to publish a chap's treatise, and so forth.
* Was it a lease violation, or not? The lease could be interpreted as meaning that exhibits must be open to *all* -- including children.
* Single people and small groups make decisions all the time. Did you personally OK any Presidential troop deployment? Did you OK last year's Federal budget? Do you participate in all your applicable stockholder meetings, or do you go through proxies? Here, the Gov't is a proxy...
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, that definitely *was* odd. I know that MS has some operations in CA, but 18K jobs? They'd have to be claiming a huge number of indirectly-funded jobs (i.e. fueling some city's local economy, bringing in additional cash), like construction workers and so forth.
The whole thing's rather strange.
Piracy also seizes the privilege to use software. You're not buying the software itself so much as media, documentation, support and a *license* to use it -- e.g. check the GPL, where it notes that the license is the only thing that grants you the privilege to use any GPL'd package. If you don't agree w/ that license and you use it anyway, you're still stealing.
You can steal intangibles, like space (squatting), as well. And so forth.
There is no basic *right* to use software unless the publisher/author gives you the right to do so, perhaps indirectly (via a transferrable license).
That calculation is only meaningful if every pirate *could* and potentially *would* have paid for their product. If a home user would never have bought the product, but has a burned CD, it's arguably not true that the user now can spend that money elsewhere; perhaps he never had the money in the first place, and is living with a constant credit card debt, say.
It's not like most end users can sell the pirated product and convert it back into $150 of cash that's spent elsewhere.
Hmmmm. If you're making active use of it, and presuming that the other isn't also an ISP, you might be safe here. {shrug} (since, say, it wouldn't be "dilution of trademark").
.com first, right? So there's also that issue that's mostly gone.
.org and .net, it seems unlikely that many who want the .com would stumble across it. Now, if it were the other way 'round...
Hrrrrrrm. Particularly given the timing...
Most browsers that 'guess' will choose
Perhaps you should keep your logs for records; given that you've got
Re: last names: READ the section on 'bad-faith intent', which is an absolute requirement of using this law to justify a suit.
The US itself has been bitten by trademarks and local names already overseas; if memory serves, 'Budweiser', for instance, cannot be marketed as 'Bud' in... Czechoslovakia, because of a small (comparatively...) brewery there that's already using that name. It's going to be interesting to see whether such issues can be resolved w/o necessarily ruling case-by-case.
* Why, precisely, is it OK for *you* to pursue your own interests (registering *another* domain to get more traffic... unless the name is very relevant to your service, you're on extremely poor ethical ground already), but not somebody else?
* The law has no business giving "little guys" arbitrary preferences that supercede such things like trademark law and the idea of fair use.
Did you read the section regarding 'bad-faith intent'? The courts are to take into consideration a whole horde of factors, so this bill wouldn't suddenly render liable any but the most egregious of cases.
If you're already running unrelated services that are relatively innocent, you're fine. If you've got a business selling dragon miniatures at "dragon.com", then it's harder for TSR, er, WoTC, to come after you simply because they own the trademark -- as a *magazine* name.
If you're, say, running a hard-core porn site called "reddhat.com", featuring group sex clips which bizzarely happen to include a red felt hat in every frame, then RHAT is probably going to be able to nail you big-time for it. The same might happen if Nader went nuts, registered 'pinto.com', and used it to show footage of cars whose gas tanks explode because they've been conveniently rigged with small charges ala _Dateline:NBC-style_ (IIRC, it was them that did this, but my memory could be lying and it might have been ABC's _Prime Time Live_...).
Is there really a lack of information out there? As a Pittsburgher, for instance, I might get news from:
* The _NY Times_, pretty good for in-depth (for a newspaper), and thoughtful even if I don't agree with them,
* The _Pittsburgh Post-Gazette_, a fairly provincial, somewhat lefty/human-interest paper,
* The _Pittsburgh Tribune-Review_, a rightist and extremely anti-Clinton rag,
* The _Militant_, a leftist rag put out by local Socialists,
* The _Wall Street Journal_, for the business side of things,
* The _Economist_, which carries interesting comment online,
and so forth. And that's even w/o mentioning the light-n-fluffy, often remarkably one-sided and superficial (both likely due to time constraints; few want to see the same story in depth for an hour...) drivel that passes for network news.
Overall, that's a pretty broad spectrum.
There's a lot of information out there. Much of it is remarkably biased and frequently incorrect, due to oft-repeated myths... and people tend to have a "confirmatory bias", meaning largely that they notice / accept mostly what they already agree with, which in effect reduces the utility of trying to inform them.
Not to mention the fact that many are not only uninformed (including not having the background to comprehend what's going on, like understanding their own Constitution...), but completely uninterested. That's not a good situation. Short of forcing *far* more analytical thinking, logic, and so forth from a young age, I'm not sure what can be done about that.
What, like when foreign contributors funnel money into campaigns, and members of the party at all levels (in DoJ, and Congress) block the investigation, by coaching witnesses on when to take the Fifth, and not bothering to look until witnesses have had time to flee the country? That's not a special interest?
Do unions, which spend their dues on donations -- even when the members don't want 'em used that way -- meet your definition, as well?
It's done at all levels, ranging from international (e.g. "recognize that `country` and we'll cut off trade", or "support us in the Sec. Council and we'll give you an oil deal"), to national (you don't give money to candidates who'd go *against* you, after all...), to local...
Fact is, 'tho, it's a drop in the bucket. Even if transferred all of its cash reserves to the Treasury, it wouldn't be *that* much compared to the Federal budget. A donation of $51K is peanuts except at the individual-legislator level, and there are too many that wouldn't be caught dead supporting MS here (like Orrin Hatch, whose motivations are similar to that of Gorton's...) unless they actually agree in principle that anti-trust stuff should be repealed. Money *can't* necessarily buy off somebody who's ready to lop off yer head. Now, if you're dealing with somebody who does not have to uphold any principles, because he hasn't bothered to actually ennunciate any (or because the people already consider him an unethical SOB), that's different...
As for donations in general, most of what's allowed is "soft money"; direct contributions to campaigns are limited, but "soft money" is not; arguably the latter should be regulated far more strongly.
Considering that the Gov't is very likely a major customer, and one with very particular procedures at that, why not?
Various parts of the Gov't are, no doubt, major customers. It makes sense to take that into account. {shrug}
Bzzzzzzt, you lose. Amendments change the Constitution, and are a part of the document itself.
Now where's that amendment restricting campaign financing, eh?
...on *32-bit systems*, courtesy of things like the size of an offset or file length. Even 'tho ext2 itself (design-wise) can handle larger files, the programming interface doesn't.
"Mr. Gates, there is a widespread perception among users that your company knowingly releases buggy software, followed by not only service packs, but 'upgrades' that have been labelled primarily as bug-fix collections by some -- but they keep using it, partly due to its sheer ubiquity. Do you have pride in your products? If so, then how can your company do this?"
And _I_ thought that the Artemis satellite would be a powerful smart space mine to protect the solar system from invaders.
;)
Um, the implication there is that it's wrong to TAKE somebody else's work and claim it as your own.
That's wrong in the scientific community, too -- it's called plagiarism.
Should any old schmo be allowed to preside over a trial, or test-fly a prototype jet, or declare war on a major country? Or decide to scribble all over the federal budget?
The law establishes structure. Part of that is enforcement, since no matter what the law is, somebody's almost certainly going to violate it. That means the long arm of the law has to be able to investigate.
Selling games would be theft if you kept a copy.
Simple, no, when you think?
You've paid for it once, and if you sell it *once* AND DON'T KEEP A COPY, the publisher still got it's price-per-copy.
Got a clue now?
Well, it *doth* say that, for instance, it is legal to refuse to quarter troops in your home...
It's mostly prohibitions (either the citizen shouldn't do something, or certain laws shouldn't be made), but some of it does have the effect of explicitly noting rights (for the latter purpose).
Ah yes, my bad. Danke.
But yeah, my point was that swap needs were based on, well, memory needs.
(I remember once loading a many-frame sequence of 320x200 JPEGs into xanim for testing... gah. Not a good idea.)
Bah. It's _ancient_ and worldwide.
Everything from leaving deformed infants to die, to classifying females as inferior and executing them, and so forth.
There's a difference, 'tho, with Singer's position: the National Socialists imposed it from the Government's will, while Singer's comes from the parents. That's a *huge* difference.
Well, there's at least one difference that he may have had in mind.
It can be argued that the widespread presence of firearms -- accompanied by responsibility and training -- belonging to citizens inhibits coercion by others, and may possibly reduce crime rates; see Switzerland for an example of a remarkably armed, yet non-self-destructive society. Conversely, witness other nations, with armed criminals butchering unarmed civillians (such as in Algeria and South Africa).
It is more difficult to argue the existence of such a benefit for certain controlled substances, like heroin or crystal meth, while many drawbacks tend to be obvious.
That dichotomy is artificial. For instance, I choose what to write; it's not worth anybody's time to force me to type rambling submissions to Slashdot, say.
Ex. Try lying on your next tax return. The IRS will clearly consider *you* responsible, and not just condemn the text...
Ergo, if a post of mine seems fairly bizarre for some reason, it validly reflects on my opinions and mentality. Except when I'm simply trying to roil the waters, or play the legal-trained employee of a diabolical infernal creature -- a strong temptation, I must admit -- the odds are decent that the presented opinions reflect at least somewhat on ME.
In the same way, if Singer _chooses_ to speak what he will, that's a reflection on HIM. To criticize or praise the idea without criticizing or praising his judgement would therefore be silly.
* Actually, East Timor was covered decently well by the _Times_. And papers like the local _Militant_, put out by local socialist groups, are free to use hyperbole as much as they want, to.
* Laos was a perfectly valid target, because the Ho Chi Minh trail within in was a conduit for conveying troops and supplies. Take the fight where the enemy is -- duh!
* Um, you *do* know that we have numerous Spanish stations, right? And whole neighborhoods...
* No dissent in the press? Whatever. You must not read *at all*.
Why must an art gallery rely on public money? Unless it specializes in art that nobody wishes to support, that is...
You don't see Gov't-owned major metropolitan newspapers, do you? They're also covered by the 1st, in case you didn't realize, and yet there's no taxpayer obligation to fund them. And that's a good thing, because anytime you ask for the Gov't's money, you require Gov't judgement, discretion, opinions, etc.... and are no longer independent.
* So, is there anything wrong with, say, NY State revoking *all* funding for *all* Museums, regardless of that exhibit or not? Give, say, 4 years to find sponsors before it takes effect. There are sufficient people with disposable income and a liking for arts that they'll likely put their money where their mouth is.
That's nicely even-handed, and as long as it's an _irrevocable decision_, not coercive because there's no way to avoid that cut.
It lets all the private folks who DO want to support art support what they like, and avoids controversy because the Gov't suddenly loses leverage -- in much the same way that the Gov't tries to avoid much to do with organized religion, also over 1st Amendment concerns. Art that nobody likes, well -- time for the "artist" to get another job. That's in much the same way that nobody _has_ to publish a chap's treatise, and so forth.
* Was it a lease violation, or not? The lease could be interpreted as meaning that exhibits must be open to *all* -- including children.
* Single people and small groups make decisions all the time. Did you personally OK any Presidential troop deployment? Did you OK last year's Federal budget? Do you participate in all your applicable stockholder meetings, or do you go through proxies? Here, the Gov't is a proxy...