They can't protect the citizens of this country from a confluence of physical forces, why should I think that they can protect us from sentient beings determined to kill as many of us as possible. And, even if they were so capable, why is it necessary for them to infringe on the civil liberties of hundreds of thousands of innocent Americans to do so?
As for "kissing Billy's butt," I never voted for him and I probably wouldn't vote for him if he could run again, but that's all beside the point as Bill Clinton has nothing to do with this discussion.
And another thing, the only reason we have the "lowest unemployment in decades" is because vast numbers of people have given up on finding a job. If we had the same number of job seekers as when Clinton gave us sub-5% unemployment the rate would be more like 6.5%. I have a doctoral degree and I'm finding it hard to find a job, don't tell me about how great this economy is. It sucks unless you're sitting at the top siphoning wealth off everyone below you.
He got permission from his own counsel and political appointees in the DOJ. As far as I know there is no court that has approved of his wiretapping Americans without warrants. And, by the way, he has essentially claimed himself to be Congress by virtue of the fact that he makes "signing statements" when he signs a bill that flatly contradict the plain meaning of the langugage of the bill and insists that his interpretation is the one to be given effect.
That's a valid take. And you are also admitting that Congress has the right to define the militia. Now, don't complain if Congress says that you must pass a firearms course before being part of the militia. Or if Congress says that you must be an "officer" in the militia to own large caliber rifles.
I do, actually, because of a letter released by Sen. Rockefeller after Bush admitted to the program. The letter was handwritten because he was not permitted to have a secretary transcribe it for him.
Tell that to the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit who have consistently held that prefatory remarks to patent claims can limit the scope of the claim. I realize that there is a difference between patents, statutes, and the constitution, but the english language does not change, nor do the rules of statutory construction. Further, the quote you give comes from the DOJ under Bush, do you really think they're going to say anything different? Let me know when the Supreme Court takes the same view.
Yes, this refers to a civil lawsuit. Unfortunately, in this instance, the courts in the United States have no power other than to decide the cases and controversies brought before them. They cannot go out and pick cases they want to hear. The only entity with the power to bring criminal charges against Bush and Gonzales is, you guessed it, run by Bush and Gonzales. Congress could always start impeachment proceedings, but then again, it's controlled by Republicans, so the chances of that happening unless they try to retroactively impeach Clinton again are pretty slim.
Not one single Democratic congressperson accepted money from Jack Abramoff. Do not conflate some groups with tenuous connections to Abramoff with Abramoff himself.
A Congressional subcommittee was informed several times of what was going on and gave it's approval...even the Dems on the committee approved it several times.
You're living in la-la-land, aren't you? Some members of a Congressional committe were notified that the program was in place and required to keep confidential any knowledge they had regarding the program. They were not asked for approval, much less did they give it. They were not allowed to discuss the matter with counsel. They were not allowed to voice their disapproval in any meaningful way.
The Seond Amendment does not recognize an individual right. If you're going to insist that we strictly hew to the words of the First Amendment you must do the same for the Second. The words "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" must also have a meaning. The way I take it, the government has the duty to establish a "well regulated militia" and all members of that militia have the right to keep and bear arms. This clearly recognizes the possibility that individuals may be licensed before they purchase firearms and that gun ownership may be restricted based on position in the hierarchy of the militia.
The ACLU very much supports the right to freely exercise one's religion. You must be careful not to conflate the Establishment Clause with the Free Exercise Clause. Just because the ACLU advocates on the one hand that the government cannot coerce religious speach or give its imprimatur to religious expression does not mean that they do not support your right to freely exercise your religion, even on government property. You have the right to use every pulic forum for private religious exercise. You do not have the right to have the government create a semi-private forum solely for your private religious exercise.
As for the latest talking point about physical searches during the Clinton administration, remember that was before FISA required warrants for physical searches. That provision was not inserted until the PATRIOT Act. I'm not saying Clinton was entirely without fault, but attempting to smear him certainly does not clear Bush.
If you think that there are only around 36 phone calls that were tapped you're seriously deluded. We're talking around 500 "individuals" monitored per day. Even if each of those persons only made one phone call that's more than 500,000 calls that have been monitored. Stop drinking the kool aid and start thinking for yourself. This administration is destroying this country. Don't help them do it.
Perhaps he filed a provisional application in 11/03 and did not file the actual application until 5/04. If my memory of Patent Practice and Procedure serves you have one year after filing a provisional application to submit your claims and finish the application.
Did you miss the part about novelty and nonobviousness? Novelty means that it must present something new to the state of the art, i.e., not contained in the prior art. Nonobviousness means that whatever is novel in the new application must not be an obvious combination of elements of two or more pieces of prior art. That said, the extent of the prior art consideration is generally a basic search of prior patents and applications, all other prior art is generally left to later challenges to the validity of an issued patent.
Get it right. Even the article does. These are patent applications that are being published because of a recent statutory change requiring publication of all patent applications 18 months after filing. This has nothing to do with whether or not letters patent will be granted.
Reading the license, as you suggest, leads me to think that BSD-licensed code can indeed be relicensed. The license grants the right to modify and redistribute provided two conditions are met. Those conditions require that the "copyright notice," which is "Copyright 1994-2005 The FreeBSD Project. All rights reserved," must be included along with the list of conditions and the disclaimer. It says nothing about whether the license to modify and redistribute must be included. The conditions placed on the license are separate and distinct from the license itself.
Creation of a derivative work is prohibited unless explicitly authorized. The right to "prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work" is an exclusive right guaranteed to a copyright holder. See17 U.S.C. 106(2). You're right that copyright in a derivative work only extends to the new portions, but I'm not sure that, for example, you could remove the BSD licensed portions of Windows and distribute them under the BSD license as Microsoft will claim that their arrangement and selection of code from the original BSD sources is copyrightable and, given a favorable court, they may win. As an example, consider a photograph of a BSD-licensed object among other objects. Could you take a knife and cut out the BSD-licensed object from the photo and use that portion of the photo any way you want? Is it really and trully severed from the more restrictively licensed photo?
Have you ever read the BSD license? There is no requirement that derivatives be licensed under the same terms. That's why there's BSD-derived code in Windows as well as Linux.
Poppycock. You do have to license derived works under BSD, it's just that the BSD requirements are minimal (Reproduce this copyright statement and disclaimer, and don't use us in your advertising), and you can add additional terms, such as the GPL.
Read what I said again. The BSD license does not require that derivatives be licensed under the same terms. If you can add additional terms, the derivative is not licensed under the same terms.
Have you ever read the BSD license? There is no requirement that derivatives be licensed under the same terms. That's why there's BSD-derived code in Windows as well as Linux.
Nokia isn't placing restrictions on code they have licensed under the GPL, nor are they placing additional restrictions on other people's code. What they've done is simply say that they will not sue anyone for using their patents in the Linux kernel. They make no promises with respect to other projects. That is no different that the status quo ante where those products that took from the kernel were subject to infringement claims from Nokia. There are no additional restrictions on distribution or use, simply no guarantee that you won't be sued if you take code to another project that Nokia hasn't promised not to sue.
It's fairly common for studios to show workprints to test audiences during the editing phase to get a sense for what works and what doesn't. I'm not so sure what makes this any different.
Then, perhaps, the military should have the sense to use effective obfuscation techniques before releasing such details to the public. How difficult would it have been to physically redact a paper copy with a black marker before scanning it into a PDF rather than simply layering images of black boxes over the text?
Slashdot Mirror
As for "kissing Billy's butt," I never voted for him and I probably wouldn't vote for him if he could run again, but that's all beside the point as Bill Clinton has nothing to do with this discussion.
And another thing, the only reason we have the "lowest unemployment in decades" is because vast numbers of people have given up on finding a job. If we had the same number of job seekers as when Clinton gave us sub-5% unemployment the rate would be more like 6.5%. I have a doctoral degree and I'm finding it hard to find a job, don't tell me about how great this economy is. It sucks unless you're sitting at the top siphoning wealth off everyone below you.
He got permission from his own counsel and political appointees in the DOJ. As far as I know there is no court that has approved of his wiretapping Americans without warrants. And, by the way, he has essentially claimed himself to be Congress by virtue of the fact that he makes "signing statements" when he signs a bill that flatly contradict the plain meaning of the langugage of the bill and insists that his interpretation is the one to be given effect.
That's a valid take. And you are also admitting that Congress has the right to define the militia. Now, don't complain if Congress says that you must pass a firearms course before being part of the militia. Or if Congress says that you must be an "officer" in the militia to own large caliber rifles.
I do, actually, because of a letter released by Sen. Rockefeller after Bush admitted to the program. The letter was handwritten because he was not permitted to have a secretary transcribe it for him.
Tell that to the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit who have consistently held that prefatory remarks to patent claims can limit the scope of the claim. I realize that there is a difference between patents, statutes, and the constitution, but the english language does not change, nor do the rules of statutory construction. Further, the quote you give comes from the DOJ under Bush, do you really think they're going to say anything different? Let me know when the Supreme Court takes the same view.
Yes, this refers to a civil lawsuit. Unfortunately, in this instance, the courts in the United States have no power other than to decide the cases and controversies brought before them. They cannot go out and pick cases they want to hear. The only entity with the power to bring criminal charges against Bush and Gonzales is, you guessed it, run by Bush and Gonzales. Congress could always start impeachment proceedings, but then again, it's controlled by Republicans, so the chances of that happening unless they try to retroactively impeach Clinton again are pretty slim.
Not one single Democratic congressperson accepted money from Jack Abramoff. Do not conflate some groups with tenuous connections to Abramoff with Abramoff himself.
You're living in la-la-land, aren't you? Some members of a Congressional committe were notified that the program was in place and required to keep confidential any knowledge they had regarding the program. They were not asked for approval, much less did they give it. They were not allowed to discuss the matter with counsel. They were not allowed to voice their disapproval in any meaningful way.
The Seond Amendment does not recognize an individual right. If you're going to insist that we strictly hew to the words of the First Amendment you must do the same for the Second. The words "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" must also have a meaning. The way I take it, the government has the duty to establish a "well regulated militia" and all members of that militia have the right to keep and bear arms. This clearly recognizes the possibility that individuals may be licensed before they purchase firearms and that gun ownership may be restricted based on position in the hierarchy of the militia.
As for the latest talking point about physical searches during the Clinton administration, remember that was before FISA required warrants for physical searches. That provision was not inserted until the PATRIOT Act. I'm not saying Clinton was entirely without fault, but attempting to smear him certainly does not clear Bush.
If you think that there are only around 36 phone calls that were tapped you're seriously deluded. We're talking around 500 "individuals" monitored per day. Even if each of those persons only made one phone call that's more than 500,000 calls that have been monitored. Stop drinking the kool aid and start thinking for yourself. This administration is destroying this country. Don't help them do it.
There is one Microsoft Windoze and how many different Eunuchs?
Since he appears to be a Deadhead, yeah, probably.
Perhaps he filed a provisional application in 11/03 and did not file the actual application until 5/04. If my memory of Patent Practice and Procedure serves you have one year after filing a provisional application to submit your claims and finish the application.
Did you miss the part about novelty and nonobviousness? Novelty means that it must present something new to the state of the art, i.e., not contained in the prior art. Nonobviousness means that whatever is novel in the new application must not be an obvious combination of elements of two or more pieces of prior art. That said, the extent of the prior art consideration is generally a basic search of prior patents and applications, all other prior art is generally left to later challenges to the validity of an issued patent.
Get it right. Even the article does. These are patent applications that are being published because of a recent statutory change requiring publication of all patent applications 18 months after filing. This has nothing to do with whether or not letters patent will be granted.
No it would be: i I use Vim you insensitive clod! ZZ
Reading the license, as you suggest, leads me to think that BSD-licensed code can indeed be relicensed. The license grants the right to modify and redistribute provided two conditions are met. Those conditions require that the "copyright notice," which is "Copyright 1994-2005 The FreeBSD Project. All rights reserved," must be included along with the list of conditions and the disclaimer. It says nothing about whether the license to modify and redistribute must be included. The conditions placed on the license are separate and distinct from the license itself.
Creation of a derivative work is prohibited unless explicitly authorized. The right to "prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work" is an exclusive right guaranteed to a copyright holder. See 17 U.S.C. 106(2). You're right that copyright in a derivative work only extends to the new portions, but I'm not sure that, for example, you could remove the BSD licensed portions of Windows and distribute them under the BSD license as Microsoft will claim that their arrangement and selection of code from the original BSD sources is copyrightable and, given a favorable court, they may win. As an example, consider a photograph of a BSD-licensed object among other objects. Could you take a knife and cut out the BSD-licensed object from the photo and use that portion of the photo any way you want? Is it really and trully severed from the more restrictively licensed photo?
Have you ever read the BSD license? There is no requirement that derivatives be licensed under the same terms. That's why there's BSD-derived code in Windows as well as Linux.
Nokia isn't placing restrictions on code they have licensed under the GPL, nor are they placing additional restrictions on other people's code. What they've done is simply say that they will not sue anyone for using their patents in the Linux kernel. They make no promises with respect to other projects. That is no different that the status quo ante where those products that took from the kernel were subject to infringement claims from Nokia. There are no additional restrictions on distribution or use, simply no guarantee that you won't be sued if you take code to another project that Nokia hasn't promised not to sue.
It's fairly common for studios to show workprints to test audiences during the editing phase to get a sense for what works and what doesn't. I'm not so sure what makes this any different.
Then, perhaps, the military should have the sense to use effective obfuscation techniques before releasing such details to the public. How difficult would it have been to physically redact a paper copy with a black marker before scanning it into a PDF rather than simply layering images of black boxes over the text?
Damn straight, I won't even get off the bus at 3d and Main with my Rio in plain sight. You never know, might start another riot.
Yeah, but you can still miss the Oregon District by blinking. You've got Newcoms, The Trolly Stop, Sloopy's, then, that's it.