Sure you have the right to say whatever you want. Just not over the internet. Just like if you walk in my store I can stop you from talking about a competitor by *forcing* you to leave.
Wrong. The only reason you can block people from speaking your store is because it's your store. Ie, it's private property, and you have the right to control peoples access to it. The government or private citizens can compile a list of people who are spammers, and ISPs can *choose* to not allow them access to the internet. The government does not have a right to bar your speech (people have been known to write books from within jail). The government can at best put you behind bars for a time to limit your means of speaking to others. Once the government extends to directing private individuals to no longer relate with you, they're extending beyond their control. And the moment that there's specialized laws for certain people (ie, that which is necessary to punish parolers, which are now a separate class of people), the legal code is no longer a fair system set for all people.
Just who's side are you on?
I'm on the side of having a clear legal system with clear punishment that's doable without creating classes of people or controlling private citizens. Once you've been punished, the government should treat you as any other citizen. Private citizens can obviously do whatever they like, however. There's nothing about blocking internet access for an otherwise free person or punishing speech based on how solicited it was that I can see as fair.
I don't know if you're trying to be a troll or not, so I'll reply back hoping you're not. Using the net is a right because freedom of speech is a right. And spammers can spam all they want so long as they don't commandeer another computer. I hate spam, no doubt. And I hate having to pay for, process, and discard all the spam that's out there. But, the same spam that could be selling you viagra could just as well be a movement to overthrow a corrupt government. The method, like P2P, is not just grounds for punishment.
At the same time, people who commandeer computers should very much be punished with a few months or years in jail. While people who buy stuff from spam should be admonished because advertisement (which much of the spam is) only works so long as there are customers who spend money. That's not to say such people shouldn't be able to bring charges of fraud open the spammer, if applicable.
Your last line brings up my exact point, though. You're unwilling to take away all the rights from a person, yet you're willing to arbitrarily (you can spam with junk mail) remove rights from a person because you don't like their actions. Their actions don't actually harm you, though (any claims of paying "extra" for the bandwidth to use your account is something you some amortize before even getting an email account). When spam becomes fraud, theft, or any other already existing crime, we can lock up a person for several years and people don't have to feel "bad" about locking up a person for 10 years. But if we make up low-entry laws and arbitrarily remove rights, we allow for rationalizing the suffering we cause them by knowing we're not sending them to jail.
Or do you think we should, for example, ban j-walkers from walking on the street for a few years? Doesn't it seem a little ridiculous claiming there's all sorts of other means to get from place to place, so we're just easing everyone else's burden without the harsh punishment of jail time? A person out of jail is meant to be a free (wo)man. Mixing the free with the imprisoned is but a single step towards the tolerance of the ones who make the rules being the only ones free.
How about, if you take away someone's rights you have to keep them in jail/prison? Now, that's not to say that driving is a right (though it's basically a necessity in some places), but the use of the internet or to vote are fundamentally rights. Of course, this doesn't mean you don't have to pay to use the internet--freedom of speech doesn't mean anyone can freely put text in your newspaper. It does mean, however, that most states would have to make lifetime sentences for all felonies and hackers would spend a lot more time in jail.
Now, you might think I state this because I want hackers to spend more time in jail. It's actually to the contrary. I want juries to be more aware of just how much time a person will be sentenced to for a crime. Paroles and probations are clear signs that there's a problem with the current punishment system. They're half-assed ways to cut down on the cost of punishment while still having a "feel good" feeling that justice is being served. If a sentence against someone cannot stand justly for the time alloted, then the sentence should not be. Mincing the issue does nothing to punish people or provide real justice for those who are punished.
Is piping several small geothermal vents into one large to generate power "humans boiling the water"? It'd seem like that the situation is not so much humans splitting the atom as humans exploiting the splitting atoms. To a lot of people, the distinction is actually very relevant.
Exactly. Why aren't more shareholders voting to outsource entire companies to other countries? It'd mean a higher profit margin, right? Oh, that's right. Majority share holders are normally the management, so they can ensure they're not outsourced or fired.
Used to be places of rehabilitation? At least in the US, prisons have never been explicitly designed as places of rehabilitation. It's only since the beginning of the drug war has there been any reason talk of rehabilitation. Why? Because short of brain washing it's nearly impossible to force someone to give up their deviant behavior (ever watch Clockwork Orange?). The same is true with drugs, but many people are convinced that drugs "ensnare" people. In fact, it's the opposite. People ensnare themselves with drugs, trying to escape responsibility/life.
If they want to do that, fine. Instead of putting such people in jail, their families should take care of them. Of course, their families are probably the chief reason they're doing drugs to such a visible extent. But are prisons as a rehabilitation clinic that never works the real solution? Or will stopping the drug flow into the US simply divert their behavior to another self-destructive activity? Drugs are the symptom. If our country is unwilling to work to fix the cause, then killing the symptom will just change the symptom. More alchies, anyone? Btw, the politicians are primarily doing this because parents and the like are unwilling to admit that they're the source of the drug problem, so they'd rather vote in a politician who espouses that drugs are the problem.
Okay, so is Metroid Prime good are bad? I mean, the only woman is the main character, but she goes around killing different enemies. There's no blood, but there's "graphic" animation when you shoot or kill a space pirate. How about Super Smash Bros Melee, where Samus, Peach, or Zelda can be beat up? I see they listed Mortal Kombat, so I can only guess that any fighting game with a woman means violence against women. Back to Metroid Prime, if you're careless you and wonder into slime or shoot yourself with the right type of beam off a different beam lock door. Of course, I make mention of Samus Aran precisely because the character isn't as oversexed (read, unrealistic boobs) as Laura Croft, yet there's still clearly some things (ending cut scenes) which could be interpreted as demeaning.
I guess I want to know if it is only bad when you show blood squirting out. To mean, there being blood is actually *better*, because it shows kids that there's consequences to killing someone. Ie, they're likely to be soaked in blood in the process, unless they're rather careful--I don't believe that's much of a deterrent, btw. I really don't have any problem with wanting ESRB to be more descriptive. I'd love for sex and violence to be treated more sanely--ie, I do sort of wish there was less violence and more sex in games. I like the idea of having non-violent games or non-sexual games. And I like the idea of there being information to choose such. Hell, maybe if people got over the shock value of sex and violence, media companies wouldn't be putting out trash games whose only real quality is the sex/violence.
Censorship won't work. Being informed is great. But only by removing the source of the edge that drives sales of games you don't like do you have any chance of truly reducing the consumption of such games. Treat the source, not the symptoms. And just so you know, I am slightly offended Samus Aran always ends up in shorts and such. The idea for the character is what is great. Expanding on that would be the true reward for gamers.
From a logical standpoint, code running in another process context is obviously not contained within the original code base. So, by some hypothetical example a company could if they were trying to be devious put all their properitary code into a binary and modify a GPLed program to call it, thereby abdicating them of GPLing their own code. When you get into issues like an OS that doesn't have the concept of separate memory spaces, there's clearly less room to separate between the two.
Of course, there's nothing to stop the holder of the copyright from the GPLed program to sue said company. And in most cases it'd be reasonable to tell if the binary-library the company made was effectively an extension of the GPL program, even though it is in a separate memory space. To a great extent, it's really just the question of fair use. Most responsible companies, being paranoid, want to absolve any worry that they will be sued and lose later on, so they'll assume it extends to the gzip example. Most sane companies, though, would realize that there's FreeBSD, NetBSD, etc which offers all sorts of tools for "free" to remove such worries. The rest of the sane companies will either ask the copyright holder of the GPLed program, open source their software to remove any doubt, or go with a proprietary program to move the blame to another company.
So, in all, I think the GPL is well worded in using "derivative work". As for the gzip example, even frontends would probably not be considered a derivative work as gzip is merely being used in its original function. Now, modifying gzip in some way to function more efficiently with your proprietary program is probably crossing the line. In other words, it seems much more likely you will be sued for modifying the GPL program to work with your program than the other way around. I base this on the current situation with proprietary software. But of course even in the properitary world, there's nothing to stop one company from suing another for being "dependent" on their product.
Yes, because if I want to know about the EULA for the software for a computer I'll just get on my..oh wait, I don't have a computer yet in such a circumstance. In all seriousness, so far all court cases that have sided with EULAs have done so because the user has clicked on the equivalent of an "I Agree" box to terms. There's nothing fundamentally to stop a user, at least at the moment, from altering the copy of the program they bought such that they can bypass the EULA, thereby installing the software without agreeing to the EULA. Shrink wrap licenses are probably not legal under the obvious fact that there's no reasonable way to read it first; if the license were printed outside the package such that it could be read first, its questionable if you could alter the EULA as written and then open the package. What most don't realize is that a license/contract is supposed to offer you something such that you have a compelling reason to *want* to agree to it. If you've already bought the good, then clearly agreeing to most EULAs gives you nothing but only restricts you. This is one of the reasons, btw, that most EULAs have less apparent legal standing than the GPL, which trades redistribution rights for a dissolvement of warranty and like responsibility from the person whom you gained the GPL software from. But not all courts seem to be united on if an EULA can block resale. As such, the safest answer is to stop buying software that has EULAs if you care at all about retaining your rights to do as what law innately allows.
And eating out all the time is very unhealthy, leading to stroke and death. Why? Because everywhere you eat out is more concerned with taste than nutritional quality. With that in mind, I'd say that eating out is a luxury, and it's something that should be done in moderation. Amazing how well your analogy holds out.:)
If you take the following literally, 'infringes a copyright by... offering for distribution to the public by electronic means, with reckless disregard of the risk of further infringement.', then it would be relatively obvious to claim that *any* distribution to the public by electronic means is a reckless disregard of the risk of further infringement. It doesn't even take electronic means of distribution to have this effect, which is evident in all the music sharing going on. Ironically, this would mean all electronic distributors are infringing their own copyright.
Would you say the same thing about a cartel? If more employees could act singularly in their own best interest, then wages would inherently rise. Similarly, consumers acting in their own best interest would boycott companies. It is for this reason I suggestion Consumer Unions/Associations. The purpose of such would be to inform members in reports on how best to vote their money on their best interest. An employment Union/Association would do the same thing. Collective bargaining is not necessary if people work to inform themselves, be it through their own direct efforts or through an association. The keys to the free market are an informed consumer and supplier. Perhaps that would be the best place to start.
I would say the main reason e-books haven't taken off has nothing to do with piracy. The fact is that media formats change so frequently and the battery life on an *expensive* piece of equipment is so poor still that the reliability is so poor you're better off just sitting at a computer to read stuff (and even then, you'll possibly complain about the contrast not being high enough).
In fact, book piracy does occur rather rampantly for the "popular" stuff. It's by no means a fast process, as you've well demonstrated, and even if it were possible to rip a book in a matter of minutes, only the collectors would likely amass many books. Why? Because reading books takes a rather enormous amount of time. In the space of d/ling one song you can d/l 5 novels which in total will take hours to days to read. This slow absorption rate is probably a large reason on why the average reading rate of people is so low.
I would say that the selling of mass music as an actual marketed good is the main cause for this. In the past, people had to actually go to concerts to listen to music or go to the theater to watch plays. Shakespeare wrote for the regular urban masses. Because people have to pay for music, they don't find it offensive when bars or clubs don't actually have a band. And the economics of the record industry (admittedly not the focus of this article..) show that it's not even the artist who is making the bulk of the money on all those recordings, so the economic dispersion of wealth conglomerates away from the actual performers, piddly as they might be.
In any case, e-books are still DOA for the same general reason the Apple Mac of 1984 only received a relatively small following. Until people begin to value books again and be willing to treat copied movies and music like the samples which they are, the existing piracy will be relatively minor.
It's commendable to be skeptical. It's not commendable to use theories you're skeptical of. That's lunacy. It's commendable to accept some theories as pretty reliable after seeing lots of data and possibly personal experience to back up the claims of the theory. It's not commendable or consistent to accept some theories on some level of proof while utterly reject another with the same level of proof. That's the part that's contradictory to me. Evolution is not a young theory. It's much older both in age and proof than many other theories which are accepted as fact. That inconsistency is unethical to me.
The Big Bang is a theory. That which was before the Big Bang is hypothesis. Creationism is at best a hypothesis and at worst purely conjecture. If you feel better believing in God to explaining things that are not and/or can not be explained with science, then I am glad that it comforts you. If you feel compelled to dismiss other beliefs or conjectures, I am glad that it comforts you. If you feel compelled to dismiss a theory over your conjecture, I will pity you. If you feel compelled to dismiss a theory over your hypothesis, yet you refuse to provide proof to make your hypothesis a theory, I pity you. If you manage to make your hypothesis a theory, I will consider your theory.
Sadly, you're not that far off from the truth. The Christian Right is predominantly right (versus left). Yet at the same time most of the Christian Right want vaccines, cars, and other technology. It's true that accepting some of science does not mean accepting all of it. It does seem somewhat contradictory and unethical, however, to accept only part of what science verifies when it suits your needs. If there is a God, he certainly hasn't shown just cause to worship him, IMHO.
What does the number of "pro-Bush" vs "pro-Kerry" submissions have to do with anything? Why is it that Democrats and Republicans are so anal at making sure each gets to speak their side like either side is telling much actual truth? Crossfire is theater, as Jon Stewart so eloquently put it. Why should Slashdot be theater too?
I'm against pro-Kerry and pro-Bush articles. Have an interview with them, sure. Lists their platform, sure. Do it with any candidate with a chance, actually. Trying to even out the submissions so there's equal number of pro-Shit against pro-Shit doesn't solve the problem that it's more talking Shit than anything news worthy, let alone informative.
Of course, if you think 100,000 dead civilians in Iraq is anti-Bush, you're probably right. I wouldn't say that's pro-Kerry. As some have stated, if there was the choice between Bush, Not Bush, and Kerry on the ballot, Not Bush would win in a landslide. I just wish people would see Badnarik as Not Bush.
The problem is that schools aren't covered in the Constitution. Hence, we're seeing all sorts of problems which Government has to resolve one way or another when it would be handled by private hands, the way it should be. Libraries would be private organizations, just like any other, and they could stock porn or not as they choose. The same with schools. The problem then is the interpretation of the Constitution to extend so well beyond the powers given to the Government. What states choose to do is another matter entirely.
To me, it's clearly a problem to have so much indoctrination by government, one way or another. It is the job of the people to teach their children what is right and wrong and what are their rights. The government shouldn't be in the position to even have schools, let alone worry about the issue of if they're teaching them to believe in a Hindu God or otherwise.
Fine, innocent until proven guilty. We'll just assume that riots don't involve people, or it's always a misunderstanding when they do occur. I think it's more the "who's watching the watchers", which a hint of concern that "absolute power corrupts absolutely". Ie, generally the police don't get attacked for having a camera to record an incident (those who would attack the camera are more likely to just out and murder the officer). But, there's been word of mouth stating the reverse is true. Hence, the best way to back these allegations is to wear a camera which isn't readily detectable, so that such abuse and further abuse can be monitored.
Of course, the other problem is that there's allegations the mainstream media refuses to air such material. So, the important thing is to get a lot of people to watch stuff on the internet. And yes, I know that a lot of stuff on the internet is true. But what makes you think the same isn't true of the mainstream media? Who will correct them if all mainstream newspapers and TV stations are owned by a small group of people who are in bed together? There wasn't any abuse involved, but Cobb and Badnarik got arrested during the second Presidential Debate trying to enter the area where it was held to debate. You recall any mentioned of *that* in the mainstream press? Even if combined they only represent 1% of the voters, I'd say it'd still be news worthy to some degree. It seems odd that I've yet to hear news of it outside the internet.
Three things. One, you need a buy a broadband adapter for the GC, which puts you over the $100 limit (the article says you need ethernet). Two, you need to buy PSO 1, 2, or 3, which puts over you the limit even more. Finally, you need another computer to actually load gclinux on the gamecube. There's no HD and no has has managed to make a GC disc with Linux on it. So, clearly the GC fails.
I'll laugh at you. The federal government is supposed to be ridiculously small. It's not supposed to be fighting wars on drugs, terror, or anything other than invasionary stuff. The problem is that 99% of federal laws are unconstitutional. If it doesn't involve dealing with imports, exports, funding the armed forces, or a nice short list of other things clearly spelled out in the Constitution, you can clearly vote no on the bill. Combine this with a drastically simpler rule set on procedure (since otherwise you're right that Congress would get virtually nothing done) on a relatively small set of bills, and you've effectively describe a nice small federal government.
Now, if state legislations or governorships wish to have multi-terms, that's up for each state to decide on.
The problem is, we don't really know. You say that most cops are good. Others say most cops are bad. But, until there are snitchcams or the like on cops and people most the time, we won't really know. It's all conjecture and anecdotal otherwise. I'd be happy to see some empirical data that most cops are good because then I could be at least a little less cynical about the world.
Because even though Firefox is 10 threads, having a 10 core system wouldn't make Firefox 10 times more responsive/less consuming per one CPU. With two cores, you might see a 20% or even 30% improvement in a variety of processes. You're unlikely to see a 100% improvement unless you're doing just the right type of task. So, the majority of people would be better off with a 20% to 30% improvement in the performance of one CPU for the cost involved. It's only really that as it stands a 20-30% improvement in one CPU is unobtainable (short of massive, massive cache plus some mHz increase plus some unconventional cooling). So, dual cores are what Intel and AMD are trying to push for people wanting that next boost in performance.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure you have the right to say whatever you want. Just not over the internet. Just like if you walk in my store I can stop you from talking about a competitor by *forcing* you to leave.
Wrong. The only reason you can block people from speaking your store is because it's your store. Ie, it's private property, and you have the right to control peoples access to it. The government or private citizens can compile a list of people who are spammers, and ISPs can *choose* to not allow them access to the internet. The government does not have a right to bar your speech (people have been known to write books from within jail). The government can at best put you behind bars for a time to limit your means of speaking to others. Once the government extends to directing private individuals to no longer relate with you, they're extending beyond their control. And the moment that there's specialized laws for certain people (ie, that which is necessary to punish parolers, which are now a separate class of people), the legal code is no longer a fair system set for all people.
Just who's side are you on?
I'm on the side of having a clear legal system with clear punishment that's doable without creating classes of people or controlling private citizens. Once you've been punished, the government should treat you as any other citizen. Private citizens can obviously do whatever they like, however. There's nothing about blocking internet access for an otherwise free person or punishing speech based on how solicited it was that I can see as fair.
I don't know if you're trying to be a troll or not, so I'll reply back hoping you're not. Using the net is a right because freedom of speech is a right. And spammers can spam all they want so long as they don't commandeer another computer. I hate spam, no doubt. And I hate having to pay for, process, and discard all the spam that's out there. But, the same spam that could be selling you viagra could just as well be a movement to overthrow a corrupt government. The method, like P2P, is not just grounds for punishment.
At the same time, people who commandeer computers should very much be punished with a few months or years in jail. While people who buy stuff from spam should be admonished because advertisement (which much of the spam is) only works so long as there are customers who spend money. That's not to say such people shouldn't be able to bring charges of fraud open the spammer, if applicable.
Your last line brings up my exact point, though. You're unwilling to take away all the rights from a person, yet you're willing to arbitrarily (you can spam with junk mail) remove rights from a person because you don't like their actions. Their actions don't actually harm you, though (any claims of paying "extra" for the bandwidth to use your account is something you some amortize before even getting an email account). When spam becomes fraud, theft, or any other already existing crime, we can lock up a person for several years and people don't have to feel "bad" about locking up a person for 10 years. But if we make up low-entry laws and arbitrarily remove rights, we allow for rationalizing the suffering we cause them by knowing we're not sending them to jail.
Or do you think we should, for example, ban j-walkers from walking on the street for a few years? Doesn't it seem a little ridiculous claiming there's all sorts of other means to get from place to place, so we're just easing everyone else's burden without the harsh punishment of jail time? A person out of jail is meant to be a free (wo)man. Mixing the free with the imprisoned is but a single step towards the tolerance of the ones who make the rules being the only ones free.
How about, if you take away someone's rights you have to keep them in jail/prison? Now, that's not to say that driving is a right (though it's basically a necessity in some places), but the use of the internet or to vote are fundamentally rights. Of course, this doesn't mean you don't have to pay to use the internet--freedom of speech doesn't mean anyone can freely put text in your newspaper. It does mean, however, that most states would have to make lifetime sentences for all felonies and hackers would spend a lot more time in jail.
Now, you might think I state this because I want hackers to spend more time in jail. It's actually to the contrary. I want juries to be more aware of just how much time a person will be sentenced to for a crime. Paroles and probations are clear signs that there's a problem with the current punishment system. They're half-assed ways to cut down on the cost of punishment while still having a "feel good" feeling that justice is being served. If a sentence against someone cannot stand justly for the time alloted, then the sentence should not be. Mincing the issue does nothing to punish people or provide real justice for those who are punished.
Is piping several small geothermal vents into one large to generate power "humans boiling the water"? It'd seem like that the situation is not so much humans splitting the atom as humans exploiting the splitting atoms. To a lot of people, the distinction is actually very relevant.
They said hot games. Remember the Dikatana.
Exactly. Why aren't more shareholders voting to outsource entire companies to other countries? It'd mean a higher profit margin, right? Oh, that's right. Majority share holders are normally the management, so they can ensure they're not outsourced or fired.
Used to be places of rehabilitation? At least in the US, prisons have never been explicitly designed as places of rehabilitation. It's only since the beginning of the drug war has there been any reason talk of rehabilitation. Why? Because short of brain washing it's nearly impossible to force someone to give up their deviant behavior (ever watch Clockwork Orange?). The same is true with drugs, but many people are convinced that drugs "ensnare" people. In fact, it's the opposite. People ensnare themselves with drugs, trying to escape responsibility/life.
If they want to do that, fine. Instead of putting such people in jail, their families should take care of them. Of course, their families are probably the chief reason they're doing drugs to such a visible extent. But are prisons as a rehabilitation clinic that never works the real solution? Or will stopping the drug flow into the US simply divert their behavior to another self-destructive activity? Drugs are the symptom. If our country is unwilling to work to fix the cause, then killing the symptom will just change the symptom. More alchies, anyone? Btw, the politicians are primarily doing this because parents and the like are unwilling to admit that they're the source of the drug problem, so they'd rather vote in a politician who espouses that drugs are the problem.
The only real question is that if in 4 years the company that makes Fruit Rollups will be able to sue Microsoft (and win) for defamation of character.
Okay, so is Metroid Prime good are bad? I mean, the only woman is the main character, but she goes around killing different enemies. There's no blood, but there's "graphic" animation when you shoot or kill a space pirate. How about Super Smash Bros Melee, where Samus, Peach, or Zelda can be beat up? I see they listed Mortal Kombat, so I can only guess that any fighting game with a woman means violence against women. Back to Metroid Prime, if you're careless you and wonder into slime or shoot yourself with the right type of beam off a different beam lock door. Of course, I make mention of Samus Aran precisely because the character isn't as oversexed (read, unrealistic boobs) as Laura Croft, yet there's still clearly some things (ending cut scenes) which could be interpreted as demeaning.
I guess I want to know if it is only bad when you show blood squirting out. To mean, there being blood is actually *better*, because it shows kids that there's consequences to killing someone. Ie, they're likely to be soaked in blood in the process, unless they're rather careful--I don't believe that's much of a deterrent, btw. I really don't have any problem with wanting ESRB to be more descriptive. I'd love for sex and violence to be treated more sanely--ie, I do sort of wish there was less violence and more sex in games. I like the idea of having non-violent games or non-sexual games. And I like the idea of there being information to choose such. Hell, maybe if people got over the shock value of sex and violence, media companies wouldn't be putting out trash games whose only real quality is the sex/violence.
Censorship won't work. Being informed is great. But only by removing the source of the edge that drives sales of games you don't like do you have any chance of truly reducing the consumption of such games. Treat the source, not the symptoms. And just so you know, I am slightly offended Samus Aran always ends up in shorts and such. The idea for the character is what is great. Expanding on that would be the true reward for gamers.
From a logical standpoint, code running in another process context is obviously not contained within the original code base. So, by some hypothetical example a company could if they were trying to be devious put all their properitary code into a binary and modify a GPLed program to call it, thereby abdicating them of GPLing their own code. When you get into issues like an OS that doesn't have the concept of separate memory spaces, there's clearly less room to separate between the two.
Of course, there's nothing to stop the holder of the copyright from the GPLed program to sue said company. And in most cases it'd be reasonable to tell if the binary-library the company made was effectively an extension of the GPL program, even though it is in a separate memory space. To a great extent, it's really just the question of fair use. Most responsible companies, being paranoid, want to absolve any worry that they will be sued and lose later on, so they'll assume it extends to the gzip example. Most sane companies, though, would realize that there's FreeBSD, NetBSD, etc which offers all sorts of tools for "free" to remove such worries. The rest of the sane companies will either ask the copyright holder of the GPLed program, open source their software to remove any doubt, or go with a proprietary program to move the blame to another company.
So, in all, I think the GPL is well worded in using "derivative work". As for the gzip example, even frontends would probably not be considered a derivative work as gzip is merely being used in its original function. Now, modifying gzip in some way to function more efficiently with your proprietary program is probably crossing the line. In other words, it seems much more likely you will be sued for modifying the GPL program to work with your program than the other way around. I base this on the current situation with proprietary software. But of course even in the properitary world, there's nothing to stop one company from suing another for being "dependent" on their product.
Yes, because if I want to know about the EULA for the software for a computer I'll just get on my..oh wait, I don't have a computer yet in such a circumstance. In all seriousness, so far all court cases that have sided with EULAs have done so because the user has clicked on the equivalent of an "I Agree" box to terms. There's nothing fundamentally to stop a user, at least at the moment, from altering the copy of the program they bought such that they can bypass the EULA, thereby installing the software without agreeing to the EULA. Shrink wrap licenses are probably not legal under the obvious fact that there's no reasonable way to read it first; if the license were printed outside the package such that it could be read first, its questionable if you could alter the EULA as written and then open the package. What most don't realize is that a license/contract is supposed to offer you something such that you have a compelling reason to *want* to agree to it. If you've already bought the good, then clearly agreeing to most EULAs gives you nothing but only restricts you. This is one of the reasons, btw, that most EULAs have less apparent legal standing than the GPL, which trades redistribution rights for a dissolvement of warranty and like responsibility from the person whom you gained the GPL software from. But not all courts seem to be united on if an EULA can block resale. As such, the safest answer is to stop buying software that has EULAs if you care at all about retaining your rights to do as what law innately allows.
And eating out all the time is very unhealthy, leading to stroke and death. Why? Because everywhere you eat out is more concerned with taste than nutritional quality. With that in mind, I'd say that eating out is a luxury, and it's something that should be done in moderation. Amazing how well your analogy holds out. :)
If you take the following literally, 'infringes a copyright by ... offering for distribution to the public by electronic means, with reckless disregard of the risk of further infringement.', then it would be relatively obvious to claim that *any* distribution to the public by electronic means is a reckless disregard of the risk of further infringement. It doesn't even take electronic means of distribution to have this effect, which is evident in all the music sharing going on. Ironically, this would mean all electronic distributors are infringing their own copyright.
Would you say the same thing about a cartel? If more employees could act singularly in their own best interest, then wages would inherently rise. Similarly, consumers acting in their own best interest would boycott companies. It is for this reason I suggestion Consumer Unions/Associations. The purpose of such would be to inform members in reports on how best to vote their money on their best interest. An employment Union/Association would do the same thing. Collective bargaining is not necessary if people work to inform themselves, be it through their own direct efforts or through an association. The keys to the free market are an informed consumer and supplier. Perhaps that would be the best place to start.
I would say the main reason e-books haven't taken off has nothing to do with piracy. The fact is that media formats change so frequently and the battery life on an *expensive* piece of equipment is so poor still that the reliability is so poor you're better off just sitting at a computer to read stuff (and even then, you'll possibly complain about the contrast not being high enough).
In fact, book piracy does occur rather rampantly for the "popular" stuff. It's by no means a fast process, as you've well demonstrated, and even if it were possible to rip a book in a matter of minutes, only the collectors would likely amass many books. Why? Because reading books takes a rather enormous amount of time. In the space of d/ling one song you can d/l 5 novels which in total will take hours to days to read. This slow absorption rate is probably a large reason on why the average reading rate of people is so low.
I would say that the selling of mass music as an actual marketed good is the main cause for this. In the past, people had to actually go to concerts to listen to music or go to the theater to watch plays. Shakespeare wrote for the regular urban masses. Because people have to pay for music, they don't find it offensive when bars or clubs don't actually have a band. And the economics of the record industry (admittedly not the focus of this article..) show that it's not even the artist who is making the bulk of the money on all those recordings, so the economic dispersion of wealth conglomerates away from the actual performers, piddly as they might be.
In any case, e-books are still DOA for the same general reason the Apple Mac of 1984 only received a relatively small following. Until people begin to value books again and be willing to treat copied movies and music like the samples which they are, the existing piracy will be relatively minor.
It's commendable to be skeptical. It's not commendable to use theories you're skeptical of. That's lunacy. It's commendable to accept some theories as pretty reliable after seeing lots of data and possibly personal experience to back up the claims of the theory. It's not commendable or consistent to accept some theories on some level of proof while utterly reject another with the same level of proof. That's the part that's contradictory to me. Evolution is not a young theory. It's much older both in age and proof than many other theories which are accepted as fact. That inconsistency is unethical to me.
The Big Bang is a theory. That which was before the Big Bang is hypothesis. Creationism is at best a hypothesis and at worst purely conjecture. If you feel better believing in God to explaining things that are not and/or can not be explained with science, then I am glad that it comforts you. If you feel compelled to dismiss other beliefs or conjectures, I am glad that it comforts you. If you feel compelled to dismiss a theory over your conjecture, I will pity you. If you feel compelled to dismiss a theory over your hypothesis, yet you refuse to provide proof to make your hypothesis a theory, I pity you. If you manage to make your hypothesis a theory, I will consider your theory.
Sadly, you're not that far off from the truth. The Christian Right is predominantly right (versus left). Yet at the same time most of the Christian Right want vaccines, cars, and other technology. It's true that accepting some of science does not mean accepting all of it. It does seem somewhat contradictory and unethical, however, to accept only part of what science verifies when it suits your needs. If there is a God, he certainly hasn't shown just cause to worship him, IMHO.
What does the number of "pro-Bush" vs "pro-Kerry" submissions have to do with anything? Why is it that Democrats and Republicans are so anal at making sure each gets to speak their side like either side is telling much actual truth? Crossfire is theater, as Jon Stewart so eloquently put it. Why should Slashdot be theater too?
I'm against pro-Kerry and pro-Bush articles. Have an interview with them, sure. Lists their platform, sure. Do it with any candidate with a chance, actually. Trying to even out the submissions so there's equal number of pro-Shit against pro-Shit doesn't solve the problem that it's more talking Shit than anything news worthy, let alone informative.
Of course, if you think 100,000 dead civilians in Iraq is anti-Bush, you're probably right. I wouldn't say that's pro-Kerry. As some have stated, if there was the choice between Bush, Not Bush, and Kerry on the ballot, Not Bush would win in a landslide. I just wish people would see Badnarik as Not Bush.
The problem is that schools aren't covered in the Constitution. Hence, we're seeing all sorts of problems which Government has to resolve one way or another when it would be handled by private hands, the way it should be. Libraries would be private organizations, just like any other, and they could stock porn or not as they choose. The same with schools. The problem then is the interpretation of the Constitution to extend so well beyond the powers given to the Government. What states choose to do is another matter entirely.
To me, it's clearly a problem to have so much indoctrination by government, one way or another. It is the job of the people to teach their children what is right and wrong and what are their rights. The government shouldn't be in the position to even have schools, let alone worry about the issue of if they're teaching them to believe in a Hindu God or otherwise.
Fine, innocent until proven guilty. We'll just assume that riots don't involve people, or it's always a misunderstanding when they do occur. I think it's more the "who's watching the watchers", which a hint of concern that "absolute power corrupts absolutely". Ie, generally the police don't get attacked for having a camera to record an incident (those who would attack the camera are more likely to just out and murder the officer). But, there's been word of mouth stating the reverse is true. Hence, the best way to back these allegations is to wear a camera which isn't readily detectable, so that such abuse and further abuse can be monitored.
Of course, the other problem is that there's allegations the mainstream media refuses to air such material. So, the important thing is to get a lot of people to watch stuff on the internet. And yes, I know that a lot of stuff on the internet is true. But what makes you think the same isn't true of the mainstream media? Who will correct them if all mainstream newspapers and TV stations are owned by a small group of people who are in bed together? There wasn't any abuse involved, but Cobb and Badnarik got arrested during the second Presidential Debate trying to enter the area where it was held to debate. You recall any mentioned of *that* in the mainstream press? Even if combined they only represent 1% of the voters, I'd say it'd still be news worthy to some degree. It seems odd that I've yet to hear news of it outside the internet.
Three things. One, you need a buy a broadband adapter for the GC, which puts you over the $100 limit (the article says you need ethernet). Two, you need to buy PSO 1, 2, or 3, which puts over you the limit even more. Finally, you need another computer to actually load gclinux on the gamecube. There's no HD and no has has managed to make a GC disc with Linux on it. So, clearly the GC fails.
I'll laugh at you. The federal government is supposed to be ridiculously small. It's not supposed to be fighting wars on drugs, terror, or anything other than invasionary stuff. The problem is that 99% of federal laws are unconstitutional. If it doesn't involve dealing with imports, exports, funding the armed forces, or a nice short list of other things clearly spelled out in the Constitution, you can clearly vote no on the bill. Combine this with a drastically simpler rule set on procedure (since otherwise you're right that Congress would get virtually nothing done) on a relatively small set of bills, and you've effectively describe a nice small federal government.
Now, if state legislations or governorships wish to have multi-terms, that's up for each state to decide on.
The problem is, we don't really know. You say that most cops are good. Others say most cops are bad. But, until there are snitchcams or the like on cops and people most the time, we won't really know. It's all conjecture and anecdotal otherwise. I'd be happy to see some empirical data that most cops are good because then I could be at least a little less cynical about the world.
Because even though Firefox is 10 threads, having a 10 core system wouldn't make Firefox 10 times more responsive/less consuming per one CPU. With two cores, you might see a 20% or even 30% improvement in a variety of processes. You're unlikely to see a 100% improvement unless you're doing just the right type of task. So, the majority of people would be better off with a 20% to 30% improvement in the performance of one CPU for the cost involved. It's only really that as it stands a 20-30% improvement in one CPU is unobtainable (short of massive, massive cache plus some mHz increase plus some unconventional cooling). So, dual cores are what Intel and AMD are trying to push for people wanting that next boost in performance.