While not phrased in terms of packets, Apple's prohibition of Google Voice and T-Mobile's ban of tethering apps are quite clearly designed to restrict traffic by application.
There is an apparent change here, evidenced by the fact that new tests of old drugs are giving poorer relative results while giving similar absolute results.
It may be due to better testing methods. It may be that there was fraud in the earlier tests which has been gradually weeded out. It may be that people in studies are culturally more eager to please and so are (consciously or unconsciously) making larger lifestyle changes when they enter the study. It may be (as stipulated in TFA) an increased confidence in pharmacology leading to a larger impact of those "other less clear and tangible effects" that PalMD nods to. It is not simply representative of the failure of pharma to find worthwhile new drugs - the fact that old drugs wouldn't pass muster puts the lie to that. What is interesting is that standards have implicitly risen, and no one understands why. This is news, this is interesting, and this should be investigated.
IMHO, a better strategy is a short, definite length (say, 14 years - the original maximum term?).
My reasoning is that we can therefore look at something that says "(C) 1994" and know that it's out of copyright, and something that says "(C) 1996" and know it's not (unless the author's placed it in the public domain earlier).
They aren't bound by law to take the job in the first place. If they feel their duty to the shareholders in their position is requiring them to act unethically, they should quit. Their duty to the shareholders cannot require them to act illegally (although they may be replaced if they don't, in a lax regulatory climate).
But if you know of a vaguely related patent, and in your expert opinion deem it to be unrelated, you're placing yourself at the mercy of the court - if they decide differently, you're liable for treble damages.
My understanding is that the "correct" thing to do is to hire a lawyer, before you set about inventing anything. Have them do a thorough search, and never look at any patents yourself until they expire.
Of course, this means that inventing anything costs at least the price of a patent lawyer, shutting out the small players - which is why patents should only apply to industries where the cost of research is so high that it dwarfs the price of the patent lawyer (so, y'know, NOT SOFTWARE) and probably not a few other areas as well.
It does not "obviously" amount to theft. It *is* illicit, and it may be immoral (see Free Rider Problem), but it is not theft. If I steal 10 M&Ms from you, you have 10 fewer M&Ms - not the case if I download your song, in which case you have less than you otherwise would have *if and only if* I would otherwise have paid for it. This clearly is not the case for, say, college students with tens of thousands of dollars "worth" of media on their hard drive.
As for legal uses of "file-sharing" technologies, well - how about the entire world-wide web? We're sharing files...
Specifically P2P file-sharing technologies? Linux ISOs and WoW updates, to name two common legal uses.
Finally, I for one have an emotional reaction to assertions that technology should be restricted unless I can make you understand what it is for - and I don't even personally use any P2P software at the moment.
That strip shows polling behavior, not interrupt driven. Interrupts are my preferred method of dealing with the world. How much time have you wasted checking email or Slashdot when there was nothing new? I know the figure is pretty high for me... That said, context switches are indeed expensive.
What I find works best for me is an unobtrusive notification, that I can address when I've wrapped up my current train of thought - the CS analogue would be a top-half/bottom-half split in my interrupt handler. The top half notices that my phone has beeped, and I schedule it for later.
To some degree you attack a straw-man here. The bewilderment expressed in these comments is at the apparent waste of resources - setting up a means of informing security when the burner is used is significantly harder than simply removing/disabling the burner, and no easier than selectively enabling it. I question the notion that burning CDs may have been a regular part of business - they surely don't quarantine a section of the office in response to routine behavior. It is precisely the fact that they went to such lengths and seem to care so much and yet aren't taking what seem to be more reasonable precautions that leaves us confused.
I don't think it would. Consider the last sentence of the passage you quoted.
In this case, too, no GPL-covered code is being distributed under an NDA, or under any additional restrictions.
This is manifestly not the case when I am given a modified version of GPLed code and told I cannot distribute it.
Note specifically that in the examples above, it's a question of what someone agrees to do with code he has written. In our example, it's a question of restricting what someone agrees to do with GPLed code they were provided. If - a big if - the employees are taken to be recipients of the software, the employees are either implicitly licensed the software under the GPL or the company is in violation of copyright.
6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
The question is whether an employee asked to use the software can be considered a "recipient" of the software. For this, I can see arguments both ways - and I do not believe it's been tested in court.
I've been saying for a while now that precedent should be taken as bug reports - if there is room for interpretation, the original law was unclear, and should be amended.
Liability should fall with whoever deploys the software - they are the only ones in a position to know of the potential downsides. Contract can shift liability after that point, and insurance can get involved at any point, but that's where it should start.
For FOSS, this means that you're using it at your own risk, unless you're paying someone to take that risk on for you (a business opportunity in its own right). This seems appropriate.
Trademark exists to prevent fraud and protect reputation. Unlike data (protected by copyright, patent, and trade secret), reputation cannot be trivially reproduced - the value of a mark derives from its ability to inform, which evaporates if there are no restrictions on what the mark can apply to. While flaws in the current system are sometimes abused, and there is unquestionably room for improvement, the existence of trademark does not geometrically decrease the value in the system (as the other forms of "IP" do). I suspect this is why there is less railing against trademark than against copyright or patent - it's simply *less* broken.
Amusing, as I'm sure was the intent, but misleading. 419s, spam, and phishing are not people *pretending to send email* - they are actual email with fraudulent content (headers included).
*My* right to vote in one election? I'd trade that for enough money to sway someone else's vote. Changing someone else's mind is worth twice as much as actually placing a vote, and the price of tuition these days is likely enough to swing several backing the right message.
The right of people generally to vote in the next election? No bloody way.
If he stops that bill, I, for one, will be giving him some serious consideration.... haven't done so yet, so I can't say I actually endorse him in general, but I certainly endorse his action here!
With 51/49, it's hard (in the Senate) to make stuff you want happen if the other side doesn't want it. It should be balls easy to make stuff you *don't* want *fail* to happen, however, and this kind of thing should be high on that list.
As a side note, in case it wasn't clear, I'm firmly of the opinion that we shouldn't have more Republicans, either. The mainstream of both parties are unacceptable in the extreme. Some fringe candidates offer alternatives of varying degrees of quality, but they've got the party machinery against them as much as any third party candidate. It's time for something out of left field - hopefully it doesn't take something violent.
If they can't stop this kind of thing after we give them a majority in both houses, what bloody good are they? Throw the bums out! They're not getting a vote or dime of mine until they show some sort of interest in protecting our freedom.
My point was that your point was the same point made in the post you so vociferously admonished. Did you even read the parent to it? It was insisting that it is all the fault of the Republicans - certainly, a good portion of it is, but as the post you ripped into points out they hold nothing like a monopoly on this.... and if you're sick of us being at each other's throats, you might want to take a deep breath or two yourself...
It *is* relevant to the post replied to, however, which lays all blame at the feet of the Republicans. The fact that it happened under Clinton's watch puts lie to that, and drives home the point that *neither* party actually *acts* as though they care about our rights.
Slashdot Mirror
Will this apply to application restrictions?
While not phrased in terms of packets, Apple's prohibition of Google Voice and T-Mobile's ban of tethering apps are quite clearly designed to restrict traffic by application.
That guy misses the point.
There is an apparent change here, evidenced by the fact that new tests of old drugs are giving poorer relative results while giving similar absolute results.
It may be due to better testing methods. It may be that there was fraud in the earlier tests which has been gradually weeded out. It may be that people in studies are culturally more eager to please and so are (consciously or unconsciously) making larger lifestyle changes when they enter the study. It may be (as stipulated in TFA) an increased confidence in pharmacology leading to a larger impact of those "other less clear and tangible effects" that PalMD nods to. It is not simply representative of the failure of pharma to find worthwhile new drugs - the fact that old drugs wouldn't pass muster puts the lie to that. What is interesting is that standards have implicitly risen, and no one understands why. This is news, this is interesting, and this should be investigated.
IMHO, a better strategy is a short, definite length (say, 14 years - the original maximum term?).
My reasoning is that we can therefore look at something that says "(C) 1994" and know that it's out of copyright, and something that says "(C) 1996" and know it's not (unless the author's placed it in the public domain earlier).
They aren't bound by law to take the job in the first place. If they feel their duty to the shareholders in their position is requiring them to act unethically, they should quit. Their duty to the shareholders cannot require them to act illegally (although they may be replaced if they don't, in a lax regulatory climate).
But if you know of a vaguely related patent, and in your expert opinion deem it to be unrelated, you're placing yourself at the mercy of the court - if they decide differently, you're liable for treble damages.
My understanding is that the "correct" thing to do is to hire a lawyer, before you set about inventing anything. Have them do a thorough search, and never look at any patents yourself until they expire.
Of course, this means that inventing anything costs at least the price of a patent lawyer, shutting out the small players - which is why patents should only apply to industries where the cost of research is so high that it dwarfs the price of the patent lawyer (so, y'know, NOT SOFTWARE) and probably not a few other areas as well.
What would it be if he simply walked onto their property himself and hauled the stuff to the dump? It's conspiracy to do that.
It does not "obviously" amount to theft. It *is* illicit, and it may be immoral (see Free Rider Problem), but it is not theft. If I steal 10 M&Ms from you, you have 10 fewer M&Ms - not the case if I download your song, in which case you have less than you otherwise would have *if and only if* I would otherwise have paid for it. This clearly is not the case for, say, college students with tens of thousands of dollars "worth" of media on their hard drive.
As for legal uses of "file-sharing" technologies, well - how about the entire world-wide web? We're sharing files...
Specifically P2P file-sharing technologies? Linux ISOs and WoW updates, to name two common legal uses.
Finally, I for one have an emotional reaction to assertions that technology should be restricted unless I can make you understand what it is for - and I don't even personally use any P2P software at the moment.
That strip shows polling behavior, not interrupt driven. Interrupts are my preferred method of dealing with the world. How much time have you wasted checking email or Slashdot when there was nothing new? I know the figure is pretty high for me... That said, context switches are indeed expensive.
What I find works best for me is an unobtrusive notification, that I can address when I've wrapped up my current train of thought - the CS analogue would be a top-half/bottom-half split in my interrupt handler. The top half notices that my phone has beeped, and I schedule it for later.
A good example of why windows shouldn't steal focus, but rather irrelevant to the subject at hand...
Actually, it's a little known fact that 1996 was only 6 days long.
To some degree you attack a straw-man here. The bewilderment expressed in these comments is at the apparent waste of resources - setting up a means of informing security when the burner is used is significantly harder than simply removing/disabling the burner, and no easier than selectively enabling it. I question the notion that burning CDs may have been a regular part of business - they surely don't quarantine a section of the office in response to routine behavior. It is precisely the fact that they went to such lengths and seem to care so much and yet aren't taking what seem to be more reasonable precautions that leaves us confused.
I don't think it would. Consider the last sentence of the passage you quoted.
In this case, too, no GPL-covered code is being distributed under an NDA, or under any additional restrictions.
This is manifestly not the case when I am given a modified version of GPLed code and told I cannot distribute it.
Note specifically that in the examples above, it's a question of what someone agrees to do with code he has written. In our example, it's a question of restricting what someone agrees to do with GPLed code they were provided. If - a big if - the employees are taken to be recipients of the software, the employees are either implicitly licensed the software under the GPL or the company is in violation of copyright.
Actually, I think it's only partially incorrect.
Point 6 of the GPL:
6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
The question is whether an employee asked to use the software can be considered a "recipient" of the software. For this, I can see arguments both ways - and I do not believe it's been tested in court.
I've been saying for a while now that precedent should be taken as bug reports - if there is room for interpretation, the original law was unclear, and should be amended.
Liability should fall with whoever deploys the software - they are the only ones in a position to know of the potential downsides. Contract can shift liability after that point, and insurance can get involved at any point, but that's where it should start.
For FOSS, this means that you're using it at your own risk, unless you're paying someone to take that risk on for you (a business opportunity in its own right). This seems appropriate.
Trademark exists to prevent fraud and protect reputation. Unlike data (protected by copyright, patent, and trade secret), reputation cannot be trivially reproduced - the value of a mark derives from its ability to inform, which evaporates if there are no restrictions on what the mark can apply to. While flaws in the current system are sometimes abused, and there is unquestionably room for improvement, the existence of trademark does not geometrically decrease the value in the system (as the other forms of "IP" do). I suspect this is why there is less railing against trademark than against copyright or patent - it's simply *less* broken.
Amusing, as I'm sure was the intent, but misleading. 419s, spam, and phishing are not people *pretending to send email* - they are actual email with fraudulent content (headers included).
*My* right to vote in one election? I'd trade that for enough money to sway someone else's vote. Changing someone else's mind is worth twice as much as actually placing a vote, and the price of tuition these days is likely enough to swing several backing the right message.
The right of people generally to vote in the next election? No bloody way.
http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/10/exclusive_senator_chris_dodd_will_put_a_hold_on_telecom_immunity_bill.php
... haven't done so yet, so I can't say I actually endorse him in general, but I certainly endorse his action here!
If he stops that bill, I, for one, will be giving him some serious consideration.
With 51/49, it's hard (in the Senate) to make stuff you want happen if the other side doesn't want it. It should be balls easy to make stuff you *don't* want *fail* to happen, however, and this kind of thing should be high on that list.
As a side note, in case it wasn't clear, I'm firmly of the opinion that we shouldn't have more Republicans, either. The mainstream of both parties are unacceptable in the extreme. Some fringe candidates offer alternatives of varying degrees of quality, but they've got the party machinery against them as much as any third party candidate. It's time for something out of left field - hopefully it doesn't take something violent.
If they can't stop this kind of thing after we give them a majority in both houses, what bloody good are they? Throw the bums out! They're not getting a vote or dime of mine until they show some sort of interest in protecting our freedom.
My point was that your point was the same point made in the post you so vociferously admonished. Did you even read the parent to it? It was insisting that it is all the fault of the Republicans - certainly, a good portion of it is, but as the post you ripped into points out they hold nothing like a monopoly on this. ... and if you're sick of us being at each other's throats, you might want to take a deep breath or two yourself...
It *is* relevant to the post replied to, however, which lays all blame at the feet of the Republicans. The fact that it happened under Clinton's watch puts lie to that, and drives home the point that *neither* party actually *acts* as though they care about our rights.
Me too, amusingly enough.
... until we start growing it all over, and something decides to take advantage of this food source.