I am going to see if I can single-handedly cause an increase in crimes involving the use of hammers and soccer balls. Just because I want to see the headline when those items are banned from youtube.
It will be in Obama's best interest since he is against the policies that the EFF is fighting. And it will help to paint a black mark on the Republican administration. It will help him appear to be an agent of change. Politically, it would be an excellent move. Plus, Obama was a constitutional law professor so he should understand and sympathize with constitutional challenges to government authority.
On the flip side, McCain follows Bush's lead and his administration is fighting this. McCain follows the mindset that we need to violate the constitution in order to protect Americans from terrorists. He believes in the unlimited power of the president.
Apparently you missed the part where Obama voted to strike the telecom immunity clause from the FISA bill.
With that said, I'm as pissed off as anyone about the fact that he did that then voted for the bill, and claimed it was a compromise. That is a lie, and that makes him a liar. But with that said, the Libertarian candidate this time around isn't even getting the support from his own party. And Obama's vote doesn't change the fact that the EFF case has a whole lot more likelihood of success if Obama and the Democrats are in charge of the NSA when this case moves forward. They may lose the case just as a way to censure the Bush administration. Or maybe Obama really does actually want to change things (I dunno - who does). But either way, the odds are a whole lot better than with Bush^H^H^H^HMcCain running the show.
What is going on with the other EFF case? The ACLU and the EFF both sued, and I forget - one sued the government and the other sued the telecoms. The AT&T case was thrown out because of the state secrets thing, and the other... I haven't heard anything on. What is the status of that case?
So does that mean the old report on "greenness" of various tech companies is wrong? I remember when this came out, and greenpeace merely looked at the companies policies, not what they actually did. Now it looks like the companies were lying. Biiig surprise. Glad I didn't follow that advice.
Most of the items in his list would not increase government. You sound like you just blindly used a a Republican talking point to discount someone.
(I am a registered Republican, and it annoys me to hear people use this line meaninglessly)
Specifically, one of the items in that list would reduce the government more than any of the others would add, if combined. Hint, it involves another country...
They can replace it with whatever copyright notice they want. I think the issue is "accept" and "deny" buttons which don't mean anything. Nobody has to accept a copyright.
Accepting the GPL is not required. The GPL is a copyright. Copyrights cannot be accepted nor declined. A copyright is automatically in effect the moment that the author visibly places the copyright on the work.
You have the right to use anything in your possession, unless it is otherwise illegal to do so. Nobody has to give you permission to use your stuff.
Really, what is silly is that laptops don't have upgradable graphics.
--
I agree that it is silly. But for some people it is necessary.
I am a programmer who does a lot of gaming, and writes games on the side. I got hired to do development at a job that requires me to travel, so I had to get a laptop. Since I use the same tools at work and at home, I either ditch the desktop and use the laptop for everything (including games), or I try to install everything on both computers and keep everything in sync. That's a real big pain. So I opted to get a laptop with a GeForce 8600 GT Mobile, and use my laptop as my gaming PC.
It is a hassle. But for me, it is better than the alternative.
Then I apologize. I saw your comment about EULAs and SLAs as being analagous to copyright as well. Since the discussion here is whether or not Mozilla should display a EULA, I thought you were tying back to that.
If you only meant to compare EULAs and SLAs then you are right and I agree.
They all take the same form and become binding the same way. Yes, even the GPL. I...They differ only in content and the nature of the restrictions.
That is completely wrong.
Copyrights do not become binding when the user agrees to it. Copyrights are binding the moment the author puts the copyright on the work. Nobody has to agree, it is always in effect against everyone in the world who lives in a country that supports international copyright law. This is a vital difference, not a semantic one. It is why copyrights should not be displayed in such a way that the user is given the choice to agree or disagree. The user cannot agree, and cannot disagree. The license doesn't even affect them until they try to copy the work.
If it was possible to display a copyright notice when someone copied something: burned it to a CD, copied it across a network -- then it would make sense to display the message.
Many companies take people along a development track of Worker Bee Level 1 Worker Bee Level 2 Worker Bee Technical Lead Worker Bee Manager Hive Manager
This is usually wrong. Managers require a different set of experience from workers, and they are skills that are not taught or learned by being a worker. And the jump from Worker Bee Manager to Hive Manager is even worse. Hive Managers need to understand the interactions between workers, drones, queens, etc. And people who start as workers are probably not interested in those other jobs.
It scares me that this is considered an "unprecedented" victory. This looks like a clear-cut example of what the 4th amendment is meant to do. If the government wants access to private data they must have a warrant. Why is that so difficult to understand? It's one of the cornerstones of justice.
Today, it seems like the thinking is that the government can get access to anything they want, unless it is specially protected in some way. That is backwards.
If nVidia is spending $200 million to cover these faulty items under the warranty, then why file a law suit? If your card is out of warranty, then nVidia has no legal obligation to fix it. That's what a warranty means. It might be frusrating, but if they warrant the item for 1 year and it fails in 3 years then I don't see why they are liable.
Of course, I have one of these bad chips in my MacBook Pro, so hopefully it will fail within the 2 and a half years I have left and they will fix it. If not, I'll be crying too - but probably not suing.
any attempts to build a sanctioned digital music site today is doomed from the outset.
Should be:
any attempts to build a sanctioned digital music site today that sells someone else's music is doomed from the outset.
Bands that want to sell their music online can do so just fine. The problem is that we have cartels that confuse people into thinking that music can only be sold through them, and that they must somehow sanction it. The very concept that I have to get permission from some organization that doesn't actually produce the product, in order to sell that product, is absurd.
"Congress shall make no law" The judges are setting the gag orders.
I've never understood the power from which a judge can just do seemingly arbitrary things, like suspend someone from using a computer for their whole life, or limit free speech. But that is probably because IANAL.
From the illustration, it looks like a simple challenge response mechanism. All I have to say is: duh!
So they finally added some form of authentication. This is what smart cards were supposed to be when I first heard about them 10 years ago. Simple RFID was never intended to be used for something secure: it was meant to replace bar codes or magnetic strips.
I see what you are saying, you can't undo a tax, but it sounds like she put this tax in place in the first place.
She also helped pass a tax increase on oil company profits.
That makes me think 3 things: 1) Increasing a tax on a company just because they are making higher profits is anti-libertarian. 2) I sure hope she didn't think that an oil tax would really come from oil company profits. All it means is the pump price increases proportionally. 3) I sure hope she didn't pass this tax with the intent of giving the money back afterward, to look like a hero.
I guess I really don't know her thinking, and I didn't hear the debate. But from the outside it sounds like she imposed a tax and then used the resulting surplus to give a refund, for political gain.
Slashdot Mirror
personally know several people who have been robbed using Arnold Schwarzenegger as a deadly weapon. They call the victim's "California Taxpayers" :)
(jk - I think he has been lowering taxes)
I am going to see if I can single-handedly cause an increase in crimes involving the use of hammers and soccer balls. Just because I want to see the headline when those items are banned from youtube.
(Just playing devil's advocate here)
It will be in Obama's best interest since he is against the policies that the EFF is fighting. And it will help to paint a black mark on the Republican administration. It will help him appear to be an agent of change. Politically, it would be an excellent move. Plus, Obama was a constitutional law professor so he should understand and sympathize with constitutional challenges to government authority.
On the flip side, McCain follows Bush's lead and his administration is fighting this. McCain follows the mindset that we need to violate the constitution in order to protect Americans from terrorists. He believes in the unlimited power of the president.
Apparently you missed the part where Obama voted to strike the telecom immunity clause from the FISA bill.
With that said, I'm as pissed off as anyone about the fact that he did that then voted for the bill, and claimed it was a compromise. That is a lie, and that makes him a liar. But with that said, the Libertarian candidate this time around isn't even getting the support from his own party. And Obama's vote doesn't change the fact that the EFF case has a whole lot more likelihood of success if Obama and the Democrats are in charge of the NSA when this case moves forward. They may lose the case just as a way to censure the Bush administration. Or maybe Obama really does actually want to change things (I dunno - who does). But either way, the odds are a whole lot better than with Bush^H^H^H^HMcCain running the show.
It depends on who wins the election and how long this case goes on. If Obama wins, then things might be looking up for the EFF and the ACLU.
What is going on with the other EFF case? The ACLU and the EFF both sued, and I forget - one sued the government and the other sued the telecoms. The AT&T case was thrown out because of the state secrets thing, and the other... I haven't heard anything on. What is the status of that case?
So does that mean the old report on "greenness" of various tech companies is wrong? I remember when this came out, and greenpeace merely looked at the companies policies, not what they actually did. Now it looks like the companies were lying. Biiig surprise. Glad I didn't follow that advice.
Most of the items in his list would not increase government. You sound like you just blindly used a a Republican talking point to discount someone.
(I am a registered Republican, and it annoys me to hear people use this line meaninglessly)
Specifically, one of the items in that list would reduce the government more than any of the others would add, if combined. Hint, it involves another country...
That a drivers license number cannot be read off the card in your wallet from a few feet away.
It's like those dumb agreements that say "You will not use this software in violation of any law" as though that did anything.
They can replace it with whatever copyright notice they want. I think the issue is "accept" and "deny" buttons which don't mean anything. Nobody has to accept a copyright.
Accepting the GPL is not required. The GPL is a copyright. Copyrights cannot be accepted nor declined. A copyright is automatically in effect the moment that the author visibly places the copyright on the work.
You have the right to use anything in your possession, unless it is otherwise illegal to do so. Nobody has to give you permission to use your stuff.
Really, what is silly is that laptops don't have upgradable graphics.
--
I agree that it is silly. But for some people it is necessary.
I am a programmer who does a lot of gaming, and writes games on the side. I got hired to do development at a job that requires me to travel, so I had to get a laptop. Since I use the same tools at work and at home, I either ditch the desktop and use the laptop for everything (including games), or I try to install everything on both computers and keep everything in sync. That's a real big pain. So I opted to get a laptop with a GeForce 8600 GT Mobile, and use my laptop as my gaming PC.
It is a hassle. But for me, it is better than the alternative.
Then I apologize. I saw your comment about EULAs and SLAs as being analagous to copyright as well. Since the discussion here is whether or not Mozilla should display a EULA, I thought you were tying back to that.
If you only meant to compare EULAs and SLAs then you are right and I agree.
Since Tim-Burners Lee supports network neutrality I wonder if this foundation will assist in that cause.
They all take the same form and become binding the same way. Yes, even the GPL. I...They differ only in content and the nature of the restrictions.
That is completely wrong.
Copyrights do not become binding when the user agrees to it. Copyrights are binding the moment the author puts the copyright on the work. Nobody has to agree, it is always in effect against everyone in the world who lives in a country that supports international copyright law. This is a vital difference, not a semantic one. It is why copyrights should not be displayed in such a way that the user is given the choice to agree or disagree. The user cannot agree, and cannot disagree. The license doesn't even affect them until they try to copy the work.
If it was possible to display a copyright notice when someone copied something: burned it to a CD, copied it across a network -- then it would make sense to display the message.
Many companies take people along a development track of
Worker Bee Level 1
Worker Bee Level 2
Worker Bee Technical Lead
Worker Bee Manager
Hive Manager
This is usually wrong. Managers require a different set of experience from workers, and they are skills that are not taught or learned by being a worker. And the jump from Worker Bee Manager to Hive Manager is even worse. Hive Managers need to understand the interactions between workers, drones, queens, etc. And people who start as workers are probably not interested in those other jobs.
It scares me that this is considered an "unprecedented" victory. This looks like a clear-cut example of what the 4th amendment is meant to do. If the government wants access to private data they must have a warrant. Why is that so difficult to understand? It's one of the cornerstones of justice.
Today, it seems like the thinking is that the government can get access to anything they want, unless it is specially protected in some way. That is backwards.
ahhh, okay. I get it. Thank you.
If nVidia is spending $200 million to cover these faulty items under the warranty, then why file a law suit? If your card is out of warranty, then nVidia has no legal obligation to fix it. That's what a warranty means. It might be frusrating, but if they warrant the item for 1 year and it fails in 3 years then I don't see why they are liable.
Of course, I have one of these bad chips in my MacBook Pro, so hopefully it will fail within the 2 and a half years I have left and they will fix it. If not, I'll be crying too - but probably not suing.
It's not a story. It's stupid fearmongering perpetuated by blazing fuckwits who like to hop on the hate bandwagon.
Glad to see that you stopped that hateful trend.
any attempts to build a sanctioned digital music site today is doomed from the outset.
Should be:
any attempts to build a sanctioned digital music site today that sells someone else's music is doomed from the outset.
Bands that want to sell their music online can do so just fine. The problem is that we have cartels that confuse people into thinking that music can only be sold through them, and that they must somehow sanction it. The very concept that I have to get permission from some organization that doesn't actually produce the product, in order to sell that product, is absurd.
" Congress shall make no law"
The judges are setting the gag orders.
I've never understood the power from which a judge can just do seemingly arbitrary things, like suspend someone from using a computer for their whole life, or limit free speech. But that is probably because IANAL.
From the illustration, it looks like a simple challenge response mechanism. All I have to say is: duh!
So they finally added some form of authentication. This is what smart cards were supposed to be when I first heard about them 10 years ago. Simple RFID was never intended to be used for something secure: it was meant to replace bar codes or magnetic strips.
I see what you are saying, you can't undo a tax, but it sounds like she put this tax in place in the first place.
She also helped pass a tax increase on oil company profits.
That makes me think 3 things:
1) Increasing a tax on a company just because they are making higher profits is anti-libertarian.
2) I sure hope she didn't think that an oil tax would really come from oil company profits. All it means is the pump price increases proportionally.
3) I sure hope she didn't pass this tax with the intent of giving the money back afterward, to look like a hero.
I guess I really don't know her thinking, and I didn't hear the debate. But from the outside it sounds like she imposed a tax and then used the resulting surplus to give a refund, for political gain.