"Fortunately terrorism isn't a threat in the US. The chances of dying of terrorism here are less than the chances of being killed by lightening or many other things. We shouldn't worry about it."
To further emphasize this point. 3K people died on 9/11. 3K people die from smoking EVERY WEEK.
My father had numerous heart attacks. One worse then the other. The doctors warned him to lose weight and exercize but he didn't. He should have died years ago but throught the miracle of modern science he lived long enough to suffer from a massive stroke.
All in all he would be better off dead. I didn't think so at the time but I do now. However painful it might have been to lose him I don't think it's as painful as seeing him in his current condition. Thanks to the miracle of modern medicine he will probably live another 10 to 20 years in his current vastly diminished state. I bet he feels the same way (i'll never know for sure because he can't comminicate).
" I am okay with that, because I cant remember the last time a Scandinavian, Frenchman, or German hijacked a plane."
Richard Reid (the inept shoe bomber) was a jamaican. Jose Padilla (the supposed dirty bomber) is hispanic. John Walker Lindh was as lily white as they come.
There was an article just yesterday about how Al Quada was recruiting in south america and the philipines. It has been known for quite a while that Al Quada is also recruiting in the prison system where there are millions of angry black people.
So it looks like we better start profiling everybody. Al Quada knows that we are looking at every arab with a skewed eye.
"99.9% of America does not live in fear of any sort, compared to many other places one could live."
I live in America and I call bullshit. People are afraid. They are uneasy and they are angry. Look at how divided this country is and look at the intensity of the hatred towards each other that we have. The fear is manisfesting in some unexpected ways but it's there. I bet 50% of the people who vote for bush are voting because they are afraid and think Bush will protect them.
It's an interesting concept. I wonder what would happen if some coder turned over the copyright just to have mysql apply to a closed source version but not to the GPL. I presume once the copyright belongs to them they can do whatever they want with it.
This implies that mysql AB owns all the copyright to the GPLed codebase. Isn't that right? Can they really relicence the codebas if there are conributions by other people in there?
The funny thing is that the GPL only comes into play if you are modifying the source code AND redistributing it to third parties. What percent of corporate america does that? Maybe 1%?. For the 99 percent of corporations the GPL does not even apply. You don't have to agree with the GPL in order to USE software.
"The patent specifically says that the request comes from a non-root user and goes to a root process; that the data sent across particularly describes an OS call and its arguments; and that the root process makes that precise call on behalf of the user."
Isn't this exactly what most unix daemons do? Don't they get launched as root and then shed privledges and run as an unprivledged user?
I think you nailed it. They will probably sue a company or two just to drive home the point too. They'll probably pick on a relatively small company that they know can't fight back and crush them like a bug so they can use it as an example.
What if you were on vacation far away and you were put on some terrorist list. Then on your way back you were held for a while, shipped over to lebanon where people beat you on your way to a syrian prison (presumably because the US and the syrian governements have signed a "please torture our prisoners because it's illegal in our country" treaty) . Once at the syrian prison what if you were tortured daily for 10 months. And then mysteriously let go.
" Oh, I agree. How his name got there, and why it took so long for a prominent figure to get off is pretty damn bad. "
Mmmm. Maybe because he is a prominent democrat and the homeland security director is a prominent republican? After all how many terrorists are named Kennedy?
By who? Certainly they are seen as liberal by all the republicans. Since the supreme court is pretty solidly republican these days they would certainly view the 9th circuit as liberals to be smacked down.
"Would you please explain to me why "the most activist" appellate court just issued a highly restrained opinion refusing to expand the scope of contributory and vicarious infringement?"
I'll put it bluntly. In this case judicial conservatism is more aligned with the democratic party. This means the normally "activist" 9th circuit ruled in a "conservative" way. When this case gets to the supreme court it will be overturned by a court that is normally "conservative". The supreme court will hand down an "activist" verdict in order to further the republican party platform.
It has nothing to the with activism and everything to do with party politics.
I think it could be called a vendetta. It certainly makes sense that a conservative supreme court would want to wage war on a court they see as being liberal.
I think you misunderstand the meaning of activist. It means judges who do not toe the republican party platform. If you want to know if a judge is activist or not just read the republican party platform and compare it to the decisions the judge makes. If the judge rules even once in a way that contradicts the platform then they are activists.
"Would you care to post a list of other people that have been taken out for thinking too much?
For as much as some tend to complain about oppression in America, I'm not aware of such things actually happening."
Well if you are not aware of it then it probably never happened.
Here let me go the TheListOfPeopleWeKilledBecauseTheyDaredToQuestionU s.gov and get the list. Oh wait a minute the US does not have a web site where they keep a list of people they assassinated. I guess that means the US govt has never assassinated anybody then.
By and large that's my point. If the GPL is invalid then copyright has no meaning. In other words in order for the court to find GPL invalid they have to somehow undermine copyright in a profound way.
Slashdot Mirror
"Fortunately terrorism isn't a threat in the US. The chances of dying of terrorism here are less than the chances of being killed by lightening or many other things. We shouldn't worry about it."
To further emphasize this point. 3K people died on 9/11. 3K people die from smoking EVERY WEEK.
My father had numerous heart attacks. One worse then the other. The doctors warned him to lose weight and exercize but he didn't. He should have died years ago but throught the miracle of modern science he lived long enough to suffer from a massive stroke.
All in all he would be better off dead. I didn't think so at the time but I do now. However painful it might have been to lose him I don't think it's as painful as seeing him in his current condition. Thanks to the miracle of modern medicine he will probably live another 10 to 20 years in his current vastly diminished state. I bet he feels the same way (i'll never know for sure because he can't comminicate).
" I am okay with that, because I cant remember the last time a Scandinavian, Frenchman, or German hijacked a plane."
Richard Reid (the inept shoe bomber) was a jamaican. Jose Padilla (the supposed dirty bomber) is hispanic. John Walker Lindh was as lily white as they come.
There was an article just yesterday about how Al Quada was recruiting in south america and the philipines. It has been known for quite a while that Al Quada is also recruiting in the prison system where there are millions of angry black people.
So it looks like we better start profiling everybody. Al Quada knows that we are looking at every arab with a skewed eye.
"99.9% of America does not live in fear of any sort, compared to many other places one could live."
I live in America and I call bullshit. People are afraid. They are uneasy and they are angry. Look at how divided this country is and look at the intensity of the hatred towards each other that we have. The fear is manisfesting in some unexpected ways but it's there. I bet 50% of the people who vote for bush are voting because they are afraid and think Bush will protect them.
It's an interesting concept. I wonder what would happen if some coder turned over the copyright just to have mysql apply to a closed source version but not to the GPL. I presume once the copyright belongs to them they can do whatever they want with it.
This implies that mysql AB owns all the copyright to the GPLed codebase. Isn't that right? Can they really relicence the codebas if there are conributions by other people in there?
The funny thing is that the GPL only comes into play if you are modifying the source code AND redistributing it to third parties. What percent of corporate america does that? Maybe 1%?. For the 99 percent of corporations the GPL does not even apply. You don't have to agree with the GPL in order to USE software.
Let me explain to you why Linux FUD is Different from MS FUD.
People who spread Linux FUD belive in a cause. People who spread MS FUD believe in a corporation.
One set of people thinks that open source will help mankind the other set of people are trying to increase profits of a corporation.
DO you see the difference?
"They are all committing illegal activities, and they know it."
No. If what they are doing was illegal they would face criminal prosecution.
Copyright infringement is not a crime. These are civil lawsuits.
Initial tests seem to indicate that parrot will execute both perl and python faster then the current implementations.
I for one am looking forward to our parrot overlords.
"The patent specifically says that the request comes from a non-root user and goes to a root process; that the data sent across particularly describes an OS call and its arguments; and that the root process makes that precise call on behalf of the user."
Isn't this exactly what most unix daemons do? Don't they get launched as root and then shed privledges and run as an unprivledged user?
I think you nailed it. They will probably sue a company or two just to drive home the point too. They'll probably pick on a relatively small company that they know can't fight back and crush them like a bug so they can use it as an example.
" So, no need to read the article, then?"
There is no need to article. Not because of slashdot but because it's just a few anecdotes put together as if they mean anything.
It's a stupid fluff piece. Wake me when somebody does a decent study.
An even worse scenario.
What if you were on vacation far away and you were put on some terrorist list. Then on your way back you were held for a while, shipped over to lebanon where people beat you on your way to a syrian prison (presumably because the US and the syrian governements have signed a "please torture our prisoners because it's illegal in our country" treaty) . Once at the syrian prison what if you were tortured daily for 10 months. And then mysteriously let go.
It could happen
" Oh, I agree. How his name got there, and why it took so long for a prominent figure to get off is pretty damn bad. "
Mmmm. Maybe because he is a prominent democrat and the homeland security director is a prominent republican? After all how many terrorists are named Kennedy?
" Except that they're not seen as being liberal"
By who? Certainly they are seen as liberal by all the republicans. Since the supreme court is pretty solidly republican these days they would certainly view the 9th circuit as liberals to be smacked down.
Technically yes but in reality when Sharon says "jump" Bush says "how high".
A contract is an agreement but an agreement is not a contract.
"Would you please explain to me why "the most activist" appellate court just issued a highly restrained opinion refusing to expand the scope of contributory and vicarious infringement?"
I'll put it bluntly. In this case judicial conservatism is more aligned with the democratic party. This means the normally "activist" 9th circuit ruled in a "conservative" way. When this case gets to the supreme court it will be overturned by a court that is normally "conservative". The supreme court will hand down an "activist" verdict in order to further the republican party platform.
It has nothing to the with activism and everything to do with party politics.
I think it could be called a vendetta. It certainly makes sense that a conservative supreme court would want to wage war on a court they see as being liberal.
I think you misunderstand the meaning of activist. It means judges who do not toe the republican party platform. If you want to know if a judge is activist or not just read the republican party platform and compare it to the decisions the judge makes. If the judge rules even once in a way that contradicts the platform then they are activists.
EULAs are not contracts. The L in the EULA stands for license.
"Would you care to post a list of other people that have been taken out for thinking too much?
U s.gov and get the list. Oh wait a minute the US does not have a web site where they keep a list of people they assassinated. I guess that means the US govt has never assassinated anybody then.
For as much as some tend to complain about oppression in America, I'm not aware of such things actually happening."
Well if you are not aware of it then it probably never happened.
Here let me go the TheListOfPeopleWeKilledBecauseTheyDaredToQuestion
"Terrorism is now defined as force applied for political reasons by people other than the US Government."
THis should read.
"Terrorism is now defined as force applied for political reasons by people other than the US or the Israeli Government."
Thank you.
"The GPL takes away the right/i? to redistribute the source if you do not agree to the GPL."
YOu never had that right in the first place. How can the GPL take away something you never had?
By and large that's my point. If the GPL is invalid then copyright has no meaning. In other words in order for the court to find GPL invalid they have to somehow undermine copyright in a profound way.