How would you feel if distribution were prohibited for every open source application that didn't provide and maintain comprehensive, correct documentation on all their interfaces and protocols?
I know of no Free Open Source application which uses any non-documented interface or protocol. Perhaps you could name one ?
Because it's effectively money for menaces. "Pay us this fee because you might infringe on one of our patents, and you wouldn't want anything nasty to happen to you, would you?"
If granted, this patent lets IBM to extract money from such protection rackets. Its intended victims are, therefore, the very people you described. "A nice protection racket you have here, better get insurance for it, 'cause you wouldn't want anything to happen to it."
This whole thing is about as tragic and unjust as Tony Soprano getting mugged. I'll be sure to cry and feel bad for the poor widdle patent trolls as soon as I stop laughing. This is an absolutely brilliant move from IBM.
If Hollywood thinks that 15 grand makes you rich and powerful, I think they need to examine more than their business model.
They promised to make him rich and powerful, but then altered the deal, and Robert Anderson couldn't pray that they wouldn't alter it any further, having already sold out... for sweeties.
It's like Grand Theft Auto, only you're playing the hooker.
While you propably meant that as a joke, Arcanum has a hooker mission and Fallout 2 lets you pay or get a disocunt with sex on some occasions. Then there's the Kunoichi and Kunoichi 2 modules for Neverwinter Nights, with sex being used as a weapon regularly.
What's missing is a managerial game - SimBrothel or something.
Yes... never mind the fact that a lot of hurricanes that assault the Eastern coast of the Americas (and Caribbean islands) form off the west coast of Africa and then cross the Atlantic towards us.
So they are caused either by an african voodoo curse or an ancient egyptian curse of the mummy. In Darkest Africa voodoo mummy terrorists send their curses of mass destruction on you !
Limited corporate liability is only supposed to protect stockholders who did nothing else other than own stock.
Did nothing else ? Stockholders are the owners of the company. Together they have the power to decide exactly how it operates. If they don't use this power to keep a company from screwing people over, it is because they don't want to, not because they can't.
Companies that provide poor service and drive themselves into the ground in the face of competition are supposed to be the natural order of capitalism.
Cartels, monopolies and bought politicians are the natural order of capitalism. Cooperation yields greater rewards than competition, so given the chance, rational people trying to maximize their personal benefit tend to cooperate.
Free-market capitalism is an unnatural and unstable state of affairs, since it requires people to go against their own interests by competing rather than peacefully dividing the market as a cartel, and as such requires considerable legislation to upkeep. But even there is a trend towards monopolies and corruption of the mechanisms designed to keep them from appearing.
I am referring to the GPL. The terms of the GPL *do* dictate terms for other people's work. If you're going to put your code out there to the benefit of others, do so, but saying that if they want to benefit from your work, they have to meet your ideals IS dictating terms. Thus, by advocating the GPL, Stallman advocates restriction of freedom (yes, yes, inflammatory term, but it's the most concise way to put it), while CLAIMING to promote freedom.
Incorrect. If I publish my code under the GPL, I do not and can not dictate terms for any code not copyrighted by me. I am merely dictating the terms about how my code may be used: specifically, I am stating that it may only be used in a work with GPL-compatible license.
Does that dictate how you may use your work ? No, of course not. You are perfectly free to publish your code (or a compiled version of it) under any terms you wish; the only thing you cannot do is take my code and use it in a manner incompatible with the GPL.
By your argument abolishing slavery restricts freedom.
A smart terrorist wouldn't get on the same plane with a bomb in it in the first place.
I was under the impression that airplanes don't accept luggage from people who aren't onboard for this very reason. I could be wrong, of course...
I can't begin to imagine why he'd want to blow it up after everyone's gotten off either.
Because the object of terrorism isn't to kill people, it is to create terror. As I explained, blowing a plane on the ground shortly after landing accomplishes this goal nicely, since it creates an impression that the passengers escaped death only narrowly; besides, it will likely kill mechanics or unloading personnel.
Terrorism is all about Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt, not actual body count or property damage. It is essentially psychological warfare: use shock and intimidation to make your enemies run around in panic, striking at shadows and damaging themselves, as well as making new enemies for themselves from the people who get hurt in the panic. As 9/11 and its ongoing aftermath show, it can be ridiculously effective as far as bang for buck goes.
Actually, any listed company has only one primary responsibility, which is investor return. Pursuing job security or customer service where those conflict with investor return is not only unethical, it's illegal.
A company has whatever responsibilities the law dictates, because it is simply a fictitious legal entity rather than a real natural one. There is no natural right to keep on getting profits while being shielded from any consequences - such as jail time - of the actions your hirelings - the CEO, for example - took in your name and with your authorization in the pursuit of said profit. This shield is entirely created and maintained by utilitarian laws designed to promote investment and thus benefit the society. As such, these laws can be altered if needed; specifically, the legally mandated responsibilities of a corporation can be altered if the best of the society so demands.
Given this, your statement that a corporation which pursues job security or customer service is acting unethically is absurd. Just like copyrights, corporations exist as a part of a social contract; while recent trends have perverted both contracts to the point where they are arguably working against their intended purpose and the good of society, I'm certain that we'll have corrective actions eventually.
Then again, last time fascism/corporatism rose it cost 50 million dead to put it down, so it might not be something to look forward to.
Charging to get your baggage first is the same as offering a discount if you don't mind them coming out last.
So what you're saying is that a smart terrorist can guarantee that his baggage is going to come out last. This means that he can hide a bomb in a bag, fly with said bag in cargo hold, and after landing walk away. When he is far enough away, he'll use a remote control to blow the bag which is still in the airplane's hold. The airplane goes up in flames, everyone gets scared thinking it must have been a timer which went off a bit too late, and the terrorist gets away with it.
Now if only I could think of some way to link copyright law to supporting terrorism... Fight fire with fire, so to speak.
No one has any right to dictate terms for what happens to anyone's work but their own, and the fact that Stallman does so, whilst simultaneously talking about freedom, irritates me to no end.
Interesting. When and for what work did this happen ? And, for that matter, how did Stallman enforce this dication on code he didn't own the copyrights to ?
I hope you aren't referring to him arguing for the GPL, as persuasion and dictation are hardly the same thing; and I hope you aren't referring to the viral nature of GPL either, as that merely means that GPL'd code cannot be combined with GPL-incombatible code, which is merely the author of the GPL'd code deciding terms for what happens to his work and no one else's.
If you take away all copyright then [url=http://www.reallifecomics.com/]these[/url] [url=http://www.penny-arcade.com/]people[/url] might stop producing work. Is this what you truly want? A society where all writers must take another job with NO possibility of making money?
Since the works of the people you linked to are publicly available, free of charge, from the very sites you linked to, it seems to me that you proved your own argument false, or at least gave strong evidence against it.
If you allowed that, you'd open the door to any country enforcing its copyright laws on every other country, simply because the content was potentially accessible to someone in their nation.
Isn't that the whole point with "harmonizing" copyright laws between nations - to make copyright law everywhere to be the superset of all copyright laws anywhere ?
Take the longest copyright duration anywhere, combine it with the widest scope, nastiest punishments, least consumer rights, etc. and you have the global copyright law the harmonizers are pushing for.
Like many people in the "entertainment" world, George Lucas is a megalomaniac, and needs constant "action" to feel personally validated.
Or he could be an artist who's not willing to retire and stop creating the second he got enough money to spend the rest of his days in comfort. Or he could be mindlessly greedy. Or he could just be bored. Or whatever.
Calling someone a "megalomaniac" just because they keep on coming up with plans well within their capability to implement is hardly justified.
At a certain point these guys didn't really need any more money, but a fate worse than being poor again would be to fade into the past.
Creating things can be a very fullfilling pasttime. If your financial future is secured, why not seek such fullfillment ? It doesn't imply mental problems, you know.
Also, their cable, their rules, don't like it, ditch Comcast.
While the cable is theirs, they have leased it - or some capacity on it - to the customer, and are now actively and purpsefully preventing the customer from using the service he has bought. While the contract likely has a clause which lets comcast terminate the service and/or alter it at any time at will, I wonder if such a clause wouldn't be ruled unconsciable; after all, it essentially states that Comcast is not really bound by the agreement.
Or, to put it another way: Your house, your rules, but if you rent it to someone else, you can't bar them from entering.
However, your advise - ditch Comcast - is certainly very sound.
These predictions and updates happen at a rate which makes it seem like your player is moving smoothly, when in reality, there's a bunch of micro deviations and stuttering.
In small enough timescales, what looks like smooth movement becomes subject to random deviations and stuttering. That sounds like... quantum physics ! And of course, in a quantum mechanical computer, the player could move at all directions at once, taking all possible routes to his destination.
In the World of Quarkcraft, the uncertainty is on you !
Let me guess... they've discovered that Mona Lisa's face is actually a combination of the faces of Da Vinci, Jesus, Dan Brown, and Tom Hanks?
Blended together in the Gimp.
But isn't this kind of reverse engineering of copyrighted work illegal ? And doesn't it make high-resolution cameras into copy protection circumvention devices ? After all, using colors which fade over time is a pretty effective way of stopping anyone from copying the original image.
Nice to hear those Microsoft people are about to catch up with the Java sandbox model from 1997;)
It's apparent you have no clue of the advantages of.NET over Java in this area.
And he still doesn't, since you didn't use this wonderful opportunity to state them ! What a lazy astroturfer. Go on, tell us, what are these advantages ?
Kind of like my response to Slashdotters objecting to an automated weapon designed to shoot down cruise missiles, which leave too little reaction time for human-controlled defenses to counter, which save lives of soldiers, airmen, and sailors from massive loss of life.
Thereby allowing the ship those sailors are on board of to launch its own cruise missiles and kill other people instead. Which is all fine and good if you happen to like the sailors more than their enemy, but shifting the death toll from one side to another is hardly the same as "saving lives".
I'd sure like to see these clowns claim that turning JS off is a "circumvention device."
I wouldn't. I like being able to turn off Javascript, and don't want that functionality removed when the judge decides that yes, it is indeed a circumvention device. After all, this is the copyright law we are talking about...
Slashdot Mirror
I know of no Free Open Source application which uses any non-documented interface or protocol. Perhaps you could name one ?
If granted, this patent lets IBM to extract money from such protection rackets. Its intended victims are, therefore, the very people you described. "A nice protection racket you have here, better get insurance for it, 'cause you wouldn't want anything to happen to it."
This whole thing is about as tragic and unjust as Tony Soprano getting mugged. I'll be sure to cry and feel bad for the poor widdle patent trolls as soon as I stop laughing. This is an absolutely brilliant move from IBM.
Considering the standard Microsoft tactic of Extinquishing after Embracing, I find the thought of Ballmer wooing anyone a bit disturbing.
They promised to make him rich and powerful, but then altered the deal, and Robert Anderson couldn't pray that they wouldn't alter it any further, having already sold out... for sweeties.
While you propably meant that as a joke, Arcanum has a hooker mission and Fallout 2 lets you pay or get a disocunt with sex on some occasions. Then there's the Kunoichi and Kunoichi 2 modules for Neverwinter Nights, with sex being used as a weapon regularly.
What's missing is a managerial game - SimBrothel or something.
And it shouldn't, any more than walking on the grass should be. Only real crime should be counted.
So they are caused either by an african voodoo curse or an ancient egyptian curse of the mummy. In Darkest Africa voodoo mummy terrorists send their curses of mass destruction on you !
Did nothing else ? Stockholders are the owners of the company. Together they have the power to decide exactly how it operates. If they don't use this power to keep a company from screwing people over, it is because they don't want to, not because they can't.
Cartels, monopolies and bought politicians are the natural order of capitalism. Cooperation yields greater rewards than competition, so given the chance, rational people trying to maximize their personal benefit tend to cooperate.
Free-market capitalism is an unnatural and unstable state of affairs, since it requires people to go against their own interests by competing rather than peacefully dividing the market as a cartel, and as such requires considerable legislation to upkeep. But even there is a trend towards monopolies and corruption of the mechanisms designed to keep them from appearing.
Incorrect. If I publish my code under the GPL, I do not and can not dictate terms for any code not copyrighted by me. I am merely dictating the terms about how my code may be used: specifically, I am stating that it may only be used in a work with GPL-compatible license.
Does that dictate how you may use your work ? No, of course not. You are perfectly free to publish your code (or a compiled version of it) under any terms you wish; the only thing you cannot do is take my code and use it in a manner incompatible with the GPL.
By your argument abolishing slavery restricts freedom.
I was under the impression that airplanes don't accept luggage from people who aren't onboard for this very reason. I could be wrong, of course...
Because the object of terrorism isn't to kill people, it is to create terror. As I explained, blowing a plane on the ground shortly after landing accomplishes this goal nicely, since it creates an impression that the passengers escaped death only narrowly; besides, it will likely kill mechanics or unloading personnel.
Terrorism is all about Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt, not actual body count or property damage. It is essentially psychological warfare: use shock and intimidation to make your enemies run around in panic, striking at shadows and damaging themselves, as well as making new enemies for themselves from the people who get hurt in the panic. As 9/11 and its ongoing aftermath show, it can be ridiculously effective as far as bang for buck goes.
A company has whatever responsibilities the law dictates, because it is simply a fictitious legal entity rather than a real natural one. There is no natural right to keep on getting profits while being shielded from any consequences - such as jail time - of the actions your hirelings - the CEO, for example - took in your name and with your authorization in the pursuit of said profit. This shield is entirely created and maintained by utilitarian laws designed to promote investment and thus benefit the society. As such, these laws can be altered if needed; specifically, the legally mandated responsibilities of a corporation can be altered if the best of the society so demands.
Given this, your statement that a corporation which pursues job security or customer service is acting unethically is absurd. Just like copyrights, corporations exist as a part of a social contract; while recent trends have perverted both contracts to the point where they are arguably working against their intended purpose and the good of society, I'm certain that we'll have corrective actions eventually.
Then again, last time fascism/corporatism rose it cost 50 million dead to put it down, so it might not be something to look forward to.
So what you're saying is that a smart terrorist can guarantee that his baggage is going to come out last. This means that he can hide a bomb in a bag, fly with said bag in cargo hold, and after landing walk away. When he is far enough away, he'll use a remote control to blow the bag which is still in the airplane's hold. The airplane goes up in flames, everyone gets scared thinking it must have been a timer which went off a bit too late, and the terrorist gets away with it.
Now if only I could think of some way to link copyright law to supporting terrorism... Fight fire with fire, so to speak.
Interesting. When and for what work did this happen ? And, for that matter, how did Stallman enforce this dication on code he didn't own the copyrights to ?
I hope you aren't referring to him arguing for the GPL, as persuasion and dictation are hardly the same thing; and I hope you aren't referring to the viral nature of GPL either, as that merely means that GPL'd code cannot be combined with GPL-incombatible code, which is merely the author of the GPL'd code deciding terms for what happens to his work and no one else's.
Since the works of the people you linked to are publicly available, free of charge, from the very sites you linked to, it seems to me that you proved your own argument false, or at least gave strong evidence against it.
More evidence: Girl Genius (my favorite comic, web or otherwise), Megatokyo, Kevin and Kell.
Isn't that the whole point with "harmonizing" copyright laws between nations - to make copyright law everywhere to be the superset of all copyright laws anywhere ?
Take the longest copyright duration anywhere, combine it with the widest scope, nastiest punishments, least consumer rights, etc. and you have the global copyright law the harmonizers are pushing for.
Or he could be an artist who's not willing to retire and stop creating the second he got enough money to spend the rest of his days in comfort. Or he could be mindlessly greedy. Or he could just be bored. Or whatever.
Calling someone a "megalomaniac" just because they keep on coming up with plans well within their capability to implement is hardly justified.
Creating things can be a very fullfilling pasttime. If your financial future is secured, why not seek such fullfillment ? It doesn't imply mental problems, you know.
While the cable is theirs, they have leased it - or some capacity on it - to the customer, and are now actively and purpsefully preventing the customer from using the service he has bought. While the contract likely has a clause which lets comcast terminate the service and/or alter it at any time at will, I wonder if such a clause wouldn't be ruled unconsciable; after all, it essentially states that Comcast is not really bound by the agreement.
Or, to put it another way: Your house, your rules, but if you rent it to someone else, you can't bar them from entering.
However, your advise - ditch Comcast - is certainly very sound.
In small enough timescales, what looks like smooth movement becomes subject to random deviations and stuttering. That sounds like... quantum physics ! And of course, in a quantum mechanical computer, the player could move at all directions at once, taking all possible routes to his destination.
In the World of Quarkcraft, the uncertainty is on you !
Blended together in the Gimp.
But isn't this kind of reverse engineering of copyrighted work illegal ? And doesn't it make high-resolution cameras into copy protection circumvention devices ? After all, using colors which fade over time is a pretty effective way of stopping anyone from copying the original image.
And he still doesn't, since you didn't use this wonderful opportunity to state them ! What a lazy astroturfer. Go on, tell us, what are these advantages ?
That's true of humans in general. Religions don't have a monopoly on arrogance.
That's right. Shrinwrap EULAs are the proper way to do that.
My dog once farted so loudly when asleep that it scared itself awake.
Thereby allowing the ship those sailors are on board of to launch its own cruise missiles and kill other people instead. Which is all fine and good if you happen to like the sailors more than their enemy, but shifting the death toll from one side to another is hardly the same as "saving lives".
I wouldn't. I like being able to turn off Javascript, and don't want that functionality removed when the judge decides that yes, it is indeed a circumvention device. After all, this is the copyright law we are talking about...