Flonting the fact that you've "almost finished law school" does not at all impress me. I've communicated with law students before and I cannot say I was ever impressed by their knowledge of anything. By the way, what is your specialty? State law, state constitutional law, federal law, federal constitutional law or what? You could not possibly be well versed in all of those. If you are well versed in law, you'll know that there's quite a bit of interpretation that goes on.
Question: If the power to squelch speech is denied to the states, then they would not be able to empower local governments with the power to do it, would they? If local, state, or federal governments are disallowed from squelching expression, whose courts and laws are individuals going to use to do it themselves?
If individuals or local governments can squelch speech using the courts, then why is it that cities and towns have to resort to using zoning laws (a legal loophole meant to discourage but not suppress their "expression") to make it too hard for a strip bar/club to move in?
Local courts and governments are generally empowered or relegated power by the state governments in which they operate, are they not?
Because people assume that because its closed source, Microsoft leaves in gaping security holes rather than fix them. They forget that Microsoft does use its own products and would probably fix this stuff if aware of it if only for their own benefit.
I too must be studying the wrong version of economics. I was led to believe that people are less and less willing to provide a quality product as the price decreases. Ofc, this isn't what OSS is about. Many zealots will openly admit that OSS is not at all about quality and is just about freedom. I guess we have to leave quality happen by accident while developers are exercising their freedom.;p Unless maybe the zealots are full of it as usual and OSS is about more than being some kind of religion based around the GPL (the OSS bible?) and RMS (OSS's Jesus?).
Yet another person that has not patched their First Amendment with the latested 14th Amendment, court decision and legal precedent patches. Sorry, the good old trusty "Congress didn't do it." excuse for violating a person's civil liberties has been long dead. =)
J. Random Person can fire his employees for saying things he doesn't like while they are supposed to be working but that is not the same as suing them to force them to pay damages or to retract their statements that are not malicious non-truths which harm J. Random Person.
The 14th amendment is fine and dandy but is your copy of the constitution full patched with all the latest supreme court decisions and legal precedents?:) Slander, libel and defamation without truth to back them up are simply not protected because they are not reasonable and are harmful much like yelling FIRE! in a theater is not protected. Nothing to do with the first amendment not applying. It would apply if the opinions were fact based.
The first amendment as originally written only applied to the US Congress passing laws (but was also generally not enforced or was interpretted very narrowly). However, that portion is now generally ignored and the amendment is usually applied to anyone trying to silence a citizen for any speech not deemed to be "harmful" (FIRE! FIRE!) or "unreasonable" (slander, libel, defamation).
The written Constitution is like a hard copy that hasn't been updated for a while and what we currently go by is sorta in working memory or patched with old court decisions (sometimes multiple on top of each other for a single issue). Yes, it's that bad =)
You are a moron to believe that the courts care that the amendment specifies Congress or the federal government or states or anyone for that matter. They have shown complete disregard for such provisions in the past and now disregard those provisions regularly. In order for someone to use the court system to extract money from someone, there must be a law passed by some body that the first amendment likely applies to that says the kind of speech they sue over is not protected. In order for those laws or court decisions to stand, the criteria for "unreasonable speech" must not clash with the first amendment.
Never ever read the Constitution as it is written. If you want a complete picture of the Constitution, you'll have to read every court case involving Constitutional law ever. They are constantly changing interpretations of it and completely ignoring certain words or just reading more into it because the people that wrote it probably couldn't forsee the current situation.
The United States Constitution is open to interpretation. For all intents and purposes, when you see "Congress", "State", or "Government" you may as well change those to "Anyone" in many cases. There are a few examples of constitutional amendments mentioning Congress or states specifically but the Supreme Court applying them to all branches and levels of governments and even citizens. The first amendment is one of those. People cannot use the court to silence someone unless they can prove that the statements are truly false and damaging and NOT humour or parody not intended to be taken seriously and clearly marked as such.
The constitution and its amendments are too open to interpretation to just read it and say "Oh but is says...". Corporations are now afforded limited rights as "people". Corporations being given any rights at all as people is not anywhere in the constitution that I know of. It's questionable as to whether the 2nd amendment even gives individuals that are not part of a state militia the right to bare arms (but it was interpretted that way and it will be that way until the Supreme Court changes its mind).
It is your opinion that they are ligitous bastards. And defamation is not protected =) Do you have proof that SCO's executives, lawyers and other employees were born out of wedlock and are fatherless?:P
Future IBM:
1) Push out other Linux distributors
2) Refuse to distribute their binaries OR source code to anyone that doesn't sign an agreement not to look at or distribute the source (to receive support).
3) Sell their OS and support to companies for prices that would make Microsoft blush.
4)...
5) Profit!
I use the name Karma elsewhere and completely went braindead when typing it in for Slashdot and didn't even think about it:o I probably should've used another name =)
Much of that 10 or 15 years that MS may have taken to get their desktop stable and usable might be due to hardware capable of driving the current version of the desktop not existing when they were developing Windows 3.1 and Windows 95 (and 95 really was usable, the underlying OS might not have been).
At 6 years old, GNOME could learn from OSs already in existance and not be as constrained by hardware limitations as Apple and Microsoft's earlier attempts.
As far as number of developers goes, Microsoft may have fewer doing active work on the GUI (as opposed to creating themes for the theme engine built by the real coders) than any of us think. People tend to get in each other's way when their are lots of them. Past a certain point, more people give less boost to productivity with each additional person. Past a point further down, productivity begins to drop as people start to get in each other's way more.
GNOME may be lucky they don't have a gigantic number of people working on the official code base. I found GNOME to be rather polished when I used it, anyway.
Then it can cross reference the photo with the internet's store of porn and determine that the bride should have been wearing black instead and change the photo accordingly.
According to the article, the technology is present in Intel's Pentium (non-specific about which one first contained it) processor. The company goes further and calls the technology "fundamental" as if to say that it is now used in any decent processor.
The statement "Our main focus is the IP [intellectual property] business now" indicates that they may be going after more than just Intel's customers in the future. If it is "fundamental" then I'd expect they may go after AMD customers and possibly AMD itself before taking on Intel.
Ouch, so when a judge decides that a lawsuit against a major corporation is "unfounded" (even if it just looks that way to HIM), he bankrupts the poor souls that were suing?
Unfounded denial of a valid suit? Does this mean you cannot defend yourself for fear of the other party winning?
"Our main focus is the IP [intellectual property] business now," he said.
Is this the first company that has actually admitted that it is no longer going to focus on producing products?
The real code may be found in/law/litigate.c,/law/amndcomp.c,/SCOLawyer/chewbacc.c, and/law/frivlous.c...oh wait, that's the SCO Law Drone source code! I think I just violated my license! EEK!
Slashdot Mirror
Flonting the fact that you've "almost finished law school" does not at all impress me. I've communicated with law students before and I cannot say I was ever impressed by their knowledge of anything. By the way, what is your specialty? State law, state constitutional law, federal law, federal constitutional law or what? You could not possibly be well versed in all of those. If you are well versed in law, you'll know that there's quite a bit of interpretation that goes on.
Question: If the power to squelch speech is denied to the states, then they would not be able to empower local governments with the power to do it, would they? If local, state, or federal governments are disallowed from squelching expression, whose courts and laws are individuals going to use to do it themselves?
If individuals or local governments can squelch speech using the courts, then why is it that cities and towns have to resort to using zoning laws (a legal loophole meant to discourage but not suppress their "expression") to make it too hard for a strip bar/club to move in?
Local courts and governments are generally empowered or relegated power by the state governments in which they operate, are they not?
Because people assume that because its closed source, Microsoft leaves in gaping security holes rather than fix them. They forget that Microsoft does use its own products and would probably fix this stuff if aware of it if only for their own benefit.
I too must be studying the wrong version of economics. I was led to believe that people are less and less willing to provide a quality product as the price decreases. Ofc, this isn't what OSS is about. Many zealots will openly admit that OSS is not at all about quality and is just about freedom. I guess we have to leave quality happen by accident while developers are exercising their freedom. ;p Unless maybe the zealots are full of it as usual and OSS is about more than being some kind of religion based around the GPL (the OSS bible?) and RMS (OSS's Jesus?).
What is not generic about a hat that is red? Please enlighten me on that.
Yet another person that has not patched their First Amendment with the latested 14th Amendment, court decision and legal precedent patches. Sorry, the good old trusty "Congress didn't do it." excuse for violating a person's civil liberties has been long dead. =)
J. Random Person can fire his employees for saying things he doesn't like while they are supposed to be working but that is not the same as suing them to force them to pay damages or to retract their statements that are not malicious non-truths which harm J. Random Person.
The 14th amendment is fine and dandy but is your copy of the constitution full patched with all the latest supreme court decisions and legal precedents? :) Slander, libel and defamation without truth to back them up are simply not protected because they are not reasonable and are harmful much like yelling FIRE! in a theater is not protected. Nothing to do with the first amendment not applying. It would apply if the opinions were fact based.
The first amendment as originally written only applied to the US Congress passing laws (but was also generally not enforced or was interpretted very narrowly). However, that portion is now generally ignored and the amendment is usually applied to anyone trying to silence a citizen for any speech not deemed to be "harmful" (FIRE! FIRE!) or "unreasonable" (slander, libel, defamation).
The written Constitution is like a hard copy that hasn't been updated for a while and what we currently go by is sorta in working memory or patched with old court decisions (sometimes multiple on top of each other for a single issue). Yes, it's that bad =)
You are a moron to believe that the courts care that the amendment specifies Congress or the federal government or states or anyone for that matter. They have shown complete disregard for such provisions in the past and now disregard those provisions regularly. In order for someone to use the court system to extract money from someone, there must be a law passed by some body that the first amendment likely applies to that says the kind of speech they sue over is not protected. In order for those laws or court decisions to stand, the criteria for "unreasonable speech" must not clash with the first amendment.
Never ever read the Constitution as it is written. If you want a complete picture of the Constitution, you'll have to read every court case involving Constitutional law ever. They are constantly changing interpretations of it and completely ignoring certain words or just reading more into it because the people that wrote it probably couldn't forsee the current situation.
The United States Constitution is open to interpretation. For all intents and purposes, when you see "Congress", "State", or "Government" you may as well change those to "Anyone" in many cases. There are a few examples of constitutional amendments mentioning Congress or states specifically but the Supreme Court applying them to all branches and levels of governments and even citizens. The first amendment is one of those. People cannot use the court to silence someone unless they can prove that the statements are truly false and damaging and NOT humour or parody not intended to be taken seriously and clearly marked as such.
The constitution and its amendments are too open to interpretation to just read it and say "Oh but is says...". Corporations are now afforded limited rights as "people". Corporations being given any rights at all as people is not anywhere in the constitution that I know of. It's questionable as to whether the 2nd amendment even gives individuals that are not part of a state militia the right to bare arms (but it was interpretted that way and it will be that way until the Supreme Court changes its mind).
It is your opinion that they are ligitous bastards. And defamation is not protected =) Do you have proof that SCO's executives, lawyers and other employees were born out of wedlock and are fatherless? :P
I'm sorry but I fail to see how someone posing as another person should be more important to *mothers* than protection of children.
I see nothing insightful about stating that *shock* *horror* mothers give children priority over someone's bank account and credit.
Future IBM: 1) Push out other Linux distributors 2) Refuse to distribute their binaries OR source code to anyone that doesn't sign an agreement not to look at or distribute the source (to receive support). 3) Sell their OS and support to companies for prices that would make Microsoft blush. 4) ...
5) Profit!
And the constant "So many people see the code and fix it!" argument gives people the impression that it is what OSS is about.
An orgasm every time my cell phone rang would be well worth the money.
You mean the Mozilla suite...seeing as how Netscape is dead...
Or guys with abnormally large *errrhumms* that don't realize that there is such a thing as too big :|
I use the name Karma elsewhere and completely went braindead when typing it in for Slashdot and didn't even think about it :o I probably should've used another name =)
Shortcuts don't always act like a symbolic link. Often applications that try to open a file through a shortcut end up opening the shortcut file.
Much of that 10 or 15 years that MS may have taken to get their desktop stable and usable might be due to hardware capable of driving the current version of the desktop not existing when they were developing Windows 3.1 and Windows 95 (and 95 really was usable, the underlying OS might not have been).
At 6 years old, GNOME could learn from OSs already in existance and not be as constrained by hardware limitations as Apple and Microsoft's earlier attempts.
As far as number of developers goes, Microsoft may have fewer doing active work on the GUI (as opposed to creating themes for the theme engine built by the real coders) than any of us think. People tend to get in each other's way when their are lots of them. Past a certain point, more people give less boost to productivity with each additional person. Past a point further down, productivity begins to drop as people start to get in each other's way more.
GNOME may be lucky they don't have a gigantic number of people working on the official code base. I found GNOME to be rather polished when I used it, anyway.
As long as a button acts like a button, a menu acts like a menu and the scrollbar scrolls, and they are all identifiable, what is the problem?
Then it can cross reference the photo with the internet's store of porn and determine that the bride should have been wearing black instead and change the photo accordingly.
According to the article, the technology is present in Intel's Pentium (non-specific about which one first contained it) processor. The company goes further and calls the technology "fundamental" as if to say that it is now used in any decent processor.
The statement "Our main focus is the IP [intellectual property] business now" indicates that they may be going after more than just Intel's customers in the future. If it is "fundamental" then I'd expect they may go after AMD customers and possibly AMD itself before taking on Intel.
Ouch, so when a judge decides that a lawsuit against a major corporation is "unfounded" (even if it just looks that way to HIM), he bankrupts the poor souls that were suing?
Unfounded denial of a valid suit? Does this mean you cannot defend yourself for fear of the other party winning?
"Our main focus is the IP [intellectual property] business now," he said. Is this the first company that has actually admitted that it is no longer going to focus on producing products?
The real code may be found in /law/litigate.c, /law/amndcomp.c, /SCOLawyer/chewbacc.c, and /law/frivlous.c...oh wait, that's the SCO Law Drone source code! I think I just violated my license! EEK!