As far as I'm concerned, he killed any credibility Microsoft may have had with that statement. I'd like to see the exact quote he used, just to make sure that he explicitly admitted it, then use it to attack Microsoft in the media.
US Patents are a matter of public record. USPTO even has a web search feature.
Sir, I have reason to believe that you have stolen a needle from my acre-large needle collection and hidden it in your haystack. Return it to me or face litigation.
Heh. And how long ago was it that Microsoft was claiming that they would only use their software patents defensively, in case another company sued them?
I hope every major vendor in the business nails them for every patent they violate.
Personally it's not that big of a deal for me since I usually smoke outside anyway, but what really pisses me off are the do-gooders (see some of the other posts in this thread) who don't believe that a bar owner should have the right to make a bar smoking or non. Seattle had quite a few non-smoking bars before the new law and yeah, they were pretty busy. But the inescapable truth of the whole matter is that even though a fairly small percentage of Seattlelites smoke, that amount increases drastically among people who drink. Most of the bars I go to are somewhere between 50-75% smokers. Why in the world can't they have an environment to do what they want to do?
As a non-smoker, I absolutely agree! The bartender/bar owner should be able to just post smoking/non smoking on the door, and tell anyone who wants to work there that there will be smoking if there will be. If people don't like it, they can go to a different bar.
I'd rather risk getting cancer than the socialist disease.
Firstly, really now, how many people here have advocated or even simply personally believe that copyright should be abolished? How many people that you know do?
Honestly? Quite a few. Not the huge number that some people seem to think, but they're definitely around. I wouldn't consider them a niche group online.
I'm surprised this argument is still around considering how many times it's been shot down in flames. It looks like the author has no idea how politics works.
A person who aims at an extreme will first support more moderate positions that have a greater chance of being accepted. Imagine that there is a nation that contains monarchists, republicans, and anarchists. If the monarchists are in power, the republicans and the anarchists will likely ally to bring them down. If a state of anarchy exists, the republicans and the monarchists will likely work together.
Right now, copyright law is incredibly strong, so people who want to completely abolish it are supporting the people who want to reform it. Of course, it's not black and white, there are different groups who want to reform it in different ways, but this is a rough description of what's happening.
When copyright abolitionists seem to be righteously indignant about GPL violations, what they're doing is trying to protect a valuable weapon from being damaged or rendered irrelevant. A similar principle exists for people who support strong copyright law. They don't (normally) genuinely think they hold the moral high ground against the other two; it's just another weapon that they want kept sharp so that they can protect their interests.
That article doesn't give much information about Sarkosky's opinions on free software, not that I can tell anyway... It only says that he is opposed to government interference in favor of interoperability, and is against certain patent/copyright reforms.
"It is not the purpose of the State, in my concept of freedom, to impose a model on anyone."
Does anyone have any statements by him that state his views on F/OSS specifically? The above quote seems to be more about mandating it.
The article doesn't offer "proof" of anything, unless you consider the words of the university's staff to be proof (having been through one, I sure as hell don't). It doesn't take solid proof to shoot down what someone is saying unless they themselves have proof, and the article doesn't offer "proof" on either side. In this case, probability certainly isn't on the OP's side.
The University itself is implying that the RIAA letters are the reason for this; the article was written by one of their employees and is hosted on their site. If someone strongly implies that their reason for doing something is one thing, then directly presents another, weaker reason, the implied reason is the real one.
Tomorrow's headline: TOR usage skyrockets at Ohio University.
I hope not, considering how slow it is already. Proxies shared across thousands of people really don't support peer-to-peer sharing of large files well.
What I DO suspect will happen is that students who live near, but not in, the University will start hosting FTP servers off-campus.
They stop file sharing because it's clogging the network and people can't use it for real work. Please stop bitching about your perceived birth-right of file sharing.
If that was the reason, they'd just throttle it to a reasonable level. Also, if you would RTFA, that's not the reason that they give for blocking it; they just give it a mention after talking about all of the RIAA threats.
...How long before the definition of "hate" is expanded to speech politicians don't like?
"Hate speech" is just a label placed on a subset of what some politicians don't like. Since politics differ from country to country, the meaning changes along with the politicians. In Canada, publicly disparaging Muslims or homosexuals without a list of references is "hate speech". In some European countries, claiming the number of Jews killed in the Holocaust is less than six million is "hate speech". The US has a somewhat vague cultural definition of it, but it doesn't hold much legal water, rendering it more of a character assassination weapon than a criminal charge.
As far as I'm concerned, if one person is threatening another with violence without provocation, they're already violating an existing law in most countries, and there doesn't need to be another one. If they aren't threatening another with violence, it's none of the government's business.
Considering how corrupt the federal government has become over the past few decades, I think it's about time individuals and states alike started taking back their rights.
I hope Montana doesn't fold when the feds start pressing them like everyone did over the drinking age.
Lawful evil (as I understand it) doesn't mean they obey the laws set forth by some governing body. It means that they obey the laws of evil. Being Lawful Evil as about as evil as you can get. Lawful Evil will never group with a Good class unless they mean to kill them somewhere along the way. Lawful Evil will usually never let a Good class "get away". Neutral Evil accepts some good in order to advance themselves, and Chaotic Evil you really have no clue what side they will be on next. At least, that's how I always work it out.;)
Lawful evil in every definition I've read or heard means that the character is evil, but follows some sort of code or authority. Chaotic evil characters do whatever they want without regard to others or whether or not it is practical, and tend to take pleasure in violence. Neutral evil characters do whatever they feel like as long as they think they can get away with it.
Tendencies and tolerance towards good move a character along the Good-Evil scale. Tendencies and tolerance of authority and order move a character along the Lawful-Chaotic scale.
It's very difficult to be backwards compatible with everything. Ignoring cost, it adds complexity and difficulty to the development process; and could potentially reduce reliability.
I don't expect them to be backwards compatible with everything. I do expect them to be backwards compatible with a standard that the majority of people are still using. We aren't talking about support for 5.25" floppy drives here, and we certainly aren't talking about trying to run Vista on a P100.
If someone started shooting back, there would have been more bullets flying around, and with more bullets flying around, there's a lot higher chance that people will get hit, especially if this is taking place in a mall with a lot of people.
...
If a dozen people opened up on him with submachine guns, maybe. This isn't a video game or an anime. A person firing back with a pistol might hit one or two bystanders, and probably wouldn't kill them. If they managed to take him down at number three, or even number fifteen, instead of number twenty, lives would be saved.
A rifle is a tool, but it's purpose is, basically, to kill. So, while a rifle may have no moral stature, it is a tool whose purpose it is to effect a morally wrong action. Because, even if evil men can be "corrected" by men with rifles, those men with rifles have done something that we as a society frown upon.
I don't mean to sound rude, but you personally don't speak for the whole of society. Many, if not the majority, of us really don't have any compunction against killing someone who's willing to kill us. I'd also be willing to kill someone guilty of rape or unprovoked torture, or someone who's trying to enslave me; that's not an uncommon view either.
However, removing weapons from the market makes it much harder, and that means that fewer people die; hence, why some people place their personal safety in front of their right to bear arms, and call for tighter gun control.
"Removing weapons from the market" means altering the laws of physics. Do you think you can convince every nation's government to stop using firearms?
As for that last bit... If you waive your own right, that's your choice. When you decide to start waiving other people's rights, there's a problem.
I'd like to emphasize that I'm not arguing against personal firearms. I'm merely questioning the real-world usefulness.
I understand.
So what you are saying is that you wouldn't have a gun with you if you were, say, at the mall and a psycho starts shooting up the place? How about walking down the street and a mugger comes up behind you? How useful is your secured gun then?
I was referring to where the gun is when I'm at home. Sorry, I should have been more specific. If I'm going to be walking around on the street, it's going to come with me.
In the case of a carjacking, you're not going to get the chance to lean over, open your glove compartment, load your gun, and point it at the carjacker.
I don't understand why someone would keep an unloaded gun in their glove compartment, unless they had just bought it. You're right that I'd probably be screwed if the carjacker got the jump on me, but hey, nothing's 100%.
I can't see a gun being useful in any situation except home intrusion. And even then you'd have to be given an opportunity to get your gun and load it before the intruder finds you.
It would be very unlikely for someone to get into my home without setting off the alarm, or at least breaking a window, which would give me more than enough time.
Do you still call people Mongoloids too? It's the 21st century gramps, try call an Asian that to his face and don't be surprised if he busts out the chop-suey and puts your old white ass in the hospital.
I think you care a lot more about it than they do. Most would probably be more disgusted at your last sentence than the term "Oriental".
Are there any cases that have really put this to the test? I mean, it sounds good... the idea that some armed citizen/vigilante would engage in a gunfight with a crazed shooter, but I wonder if it really happens. You'd almost have to be specially trained (military, for example) to engage people like that. Just having some target shooting under your belt just doesn't seem like enough.
I really don't understand why you think this... You don't have to be "specially trained" to pull a pistol and shoot a psycho, unless perhaps the psycho has had special training. Occasional target shooting is enough. Considering that the psycho in these cases doesn't really try to avoid death, you probably wouldn't even need that.
I wonder same thing with armed self defense in general. Sure, It is nice to know that you own a gun and you know how to use it if you had to. But do people really get the opportunity? Do personal firearms really get used in self defense? Seems to me that unless you are walk around with your gun in a holster at your side (and under your pillow) 24/7, chances are that your gun just isn't going to be in the right place at the right time. Don't most people keep their guns locked up for safety? What good is it there?
Firearms are used in personal self-defense all the time. National news doesn't usually report it, though; you're more likely to see stories about it in local papers.
I don't keep my gun locked up all the time with ammunition in a separate place; you're quite right that it wouldn't do me much good in that case. Just keep it, with ammo, in a place that's sensibly secure and allows you to get to it quickly, so you'll have it if you need it.
Yes, I understand the message Bennett is trying to get out there: Censorship is bad. But when you are using someone Else's internet connection, who the hell are you to demand that certain web pages work? If you are not paying for the connection (and the kids in the K-12, the people Bennett seems to be targeting), you have no right to make any demands. Period.
Well, for one, these academic institutions are supported by taxes. There's a reason they're called "public" schools, "public" libraries, et cetera.
One election year, the block list used by some schools and public libraries in my home county included the websites of political candidates. In at least one local election, the incumbent's campaign site was viewable and his primary opponent's was not. I don't know if it was intentional or not, but the fact is that the filter was "censoring" political content in what was supposed to be a neutral, public setting, right before an election. That shouldn't happen.
I may not have been directly mailing in the check that paid for those connections, but I felt quite entitled to complain, and did.
For a period of several weeks, my ISP was blocking Keenspot.com; at first I thought the site was just down, then I found out that I could reach it if I went through a proxy and used an alternative DNS server . When I called them to ask what was going on, the rep said that they had been DOS attacked from that IP and would not be unblocking it. A few hours after the phone call, though, the site was accessible again.
An attack from Keenspot, of all places, seems very, very unlikely, and I live in one of the most fundamentalist parts of the country, so I'm still a bit suspicious.
I just had to wonder, WHY would anyone develop another OS that is "identical" to Windows? Windows is bad enough...why do it all over again?
So you won't have to actually run Windows in order to run Windows programs such as Photoshop, AutoCAD, and most video games. WINE isn't good enough for everyone.
I could probably make an argument baed on the Fifth Amendment [usconstitution.net] that turning peoples TVs into very expensive paperweights by administrative fiat, so as to auction off the analog spectrum constitutes "private property taken for public use".
It sounds like "private property taken for private use" to me.
It isn't "a little XML that [shows] you denied the EULA". It's a large piece of XML with several encrypted fields, which you can see here. . A message saying "no" shouldn't need any of that.
Also, a public IP address can't be used to reliably identify a single machine or OS installation.
Slashdot Mirror
As far as I'm concerned, he killed any credibility Microsoft may have had with that statement. I'd like to see the exact quote he used, just to make sure that he explicitly admitted it, then use it to attack Microsoft in the media.
Sir, I have reason to believe that you have stolen a needle from my acre-large needle collection and hidden it in your haystack. Return it to me or face litigation.
Heh. And how long ago was it that Microsoft was claiming that they would only use their software patents defensively, in case another company sued them?
I hope every major vendor in the business nails them for every patent they violate.
As a non-smoker, I absolutely agree! The bartender/bar owner should be able to just post smoking/non smoking on the door, and tell anyone who wants to work there that there will be smoking if there will be. If people don't like it, they can go to a different bar.
I'd rather risk getting cancer than the socialist disease.
Isn't that from Alpha Centauri? 1998's not old, and I don't know of it from any other source.
Honestly? Quite a few. Not the huge number that some people seem to think, but they're definitely around. I wouldn't consider them a niche group online.
I'm surprised this argument is still around considering how many times it's been shot down in flames. It looks like the author has no idea how politics works.
A person who aims at an extreme will first support more moderate positions that have a greater chance of being accepted. Imagine that there is a nation that contains monarchists, republicans, and anarchists. If the monarchists are in power, the republicans and the anarchists will likely ally to bring them down. If a state of anarchy exists, the republicans and the monarchists will likely work together.
Right now, copyright law is incredibly strong, so people who want to completely abolish it are supporting the people who want to reform it. Of course, it's not black and white, there are different groups who want to reform it in different ways, but this is a rough description of what's happening.
When copyright abolitionists seem to be righteously indignant about GPL violations, what they're doing is trying to protect a valuable weapon from being damaged or rendered irrelevant. A similar principle exists for people who support strong copyright law. They don't (normally) genuinely think they hold the moral high ground against the other two; it's just another weapon that they want kept sharp so that they can protect their interests.
That article doesn't give much information about Sarkosky's opinions on free software, not that I can tell anyway... It only says that he is opposed to government interference in favor of interoperability, and is against certain patent/copyright reforms.
"It is not the purpose of the State, in my concept of freedom, to impose a model on anyone."
Does anyone have any statements by him that state his views on F/OSS specifically? The above quote seems to be more about mandating it.
The article doesn't offer "proof" of anything, unless you consider the words of the university's staff to be proof (having been through one, I sure as hell don't). It doesn't take solid proof to shoot down what someone is saying unless they themselves have proof, and the article doesn't offer "proof" on either side. In this case, probability certainly isn't on the OP's side.
The University itself is implying that the RIAA letters are the reason for this; the article was written by one of their employees and is hosted on their site. If someone strongly implies that their reason for doing something is one thing, then directly presents another, weaker reason, the implied reason is the real one.
I hope not, considering how slow it is already. Proxies shared across thousands of people really don't support peer-to-peer sharing of large files well.
What I DO suspect will happen is that students who live near, but not in, the University will start hosting FTP servers off-campus.
If that was the reason, they'd just throttle it to a reasonable level. Also, if you would RTFA, that's not the reason that they give for blocking it; they just give it a mention after talking about all of the RIAA threats.
"Hate speech" is just a label placed on a subset of what some politicians don't like. Since politics differ from country to country, the meaning changes along with the politicians. In Canada, publicly disparaging Muslims or homosexuals without a list of references is "hate speech". In some European countries, claiming the number of Jews killed in the Holocaust is less than six million is "hate speech". The US has a somewhat vague cultural definition of it, but it doesn't hold much legal water, rendering it more of a character assassination weapon than a criminal charge.
As far as I'm concerned, if one person is threatening another with violence without provocation, they're already violating an existing law in most countries, and there doesn't need to be another one. If they aren't threatening another with violence, it's none of the government's business.
At least the weekly ration was increased to twenty grammes this week.
Considering how corrupt the federal government has become over the past few decades, I think it's about time individuals and states alike started taking back their rights.
I hope Montana doesn't fold when the feds start pressing them like everyone did over the drinking age.
Lawful evil in every definition I've read or heard means that the character is evil, but follows some sort of code or authority. Chaotic evil characters do whatever they want without regard to others or whether or not it is practical, and tend to take pleasure in violence. Neutral evil characters do whatever they feel like as long as they think they can get away with it.
Tendencies and tolerance towards good move a character along the Good-Evil scale. Tendencies and tolerance of authority and order move a character along the Lawful-Chaotic scale.
http://www.answers.com/topic/alignment-dungeons-d
I don't expect them to be backwards compatible with everything. I do expect them to be backwards compatible with a standard that the majority of people are still using. We aren't talking about support for 5.25" floppy drives here, and we certainly aren't talking about trying to run Vista on a P100.
If a dozen people opened up on him with submachine guns, maybe. This isn't a video game or an anime. A person firing back with a pistol might hit one or two bystanders, and probably wouldn't kill them. If they managed to take him down at number three, or even number fifteen, instead of number twenty, lives would be saved.
I don't mean to sound rude, but you personally don't speak for the whole of society. Many, if not the majority, of us really don't have any compunction against killing someone who's willing to kill us. I'd also be willing to kill someone guilty of rape or unprovoked torture, or someone who's trying to enslave me; that's not an uncommon view either.
"Removing weapons from the market" means altering the laws of physics. Do you think you can convince every nation's government to stop using firearms?
As for that last bit... If you waive your own right, that's your choice. When you decide to start waiving other people's rights, there's a problem.
I think you care a lot more about it than they do. Most would probably be more disgusted at your last sentence than the term "Oriental".
I really don't understand why you think this... You don't have to be "specially trained" to pull a pistol and shoot a psycho, unless perhaps the psycho has had special training. Occasional target shooting is enough. Considering that the psycho in these cases doesn't really try to avoid death, you probably wouldn't even need that.
Firearms are used in personal self-defense all the time. National news doesn't usually report it, though; you're more likely to see stories about it in local papers.
I don't keep my gun locked up all the time with ammunition in a separate place; you're quite right that it wouldn't do me much good in that case. Just keep it, with ammo, in a place that's sensibly secure and allows you to get to it quickly, so you'll have it if you need it.
Well, for one, these academic institutions are supported by taxes. There's a reason they're called "public" schools, "public" libraries, et cetera.
One election year, the block list used by some schools and public libraries in my home county included the websites of political candidates. In at least one local election, the incumbent's campaign site was viewable and his primary opponent's was not. I don't know if it was intentional or not, but the fact is that the filter was "censoring" political content in what was supposed to be a neutral, public setting, right before an election. That shouldn't happen.
I may not have been directly mailing in the check that paid for those connections, but I felt quite entitled to complain, and did.
For a period of several weeks, my ISP was blocking Keenspot.com; at first I thought the site was just down, then I found out that I could reach it if I went through a proxy and used an alternative DNS server . When I called them to ask what was going on, the rep said that they had been DOS attacked from that IP and would not be unblocking it. A few hours after the phone call, though, the site was accessible again.
An attack from Keenspot, of all places, seems very, very unlikely, and I live in one of the most fundamentalist parts of the country, so I'm still a bit suspicious.
So you won't have to actually run Windows in order to run Windows programs such as Photoshop, AutoCAD, and most video games. WINE isn't good enough for everyone.
It sounds like "private property taken for private use" to me.
It isn't "a little XML that [shows] you denied the EULA". It's a large piece of XML with several encrypted fields, which you can see here. . A message saying "no" shouldn't need any of that.
Also, a public IP address can't be used to reliably identify a single machine or OS installation.