Having read the order, I get the sense that the Judge really really understands what is going on and is not going to let them weasel out of their own lies.
The Judge is going to take their claims perfectly literally with no prejudice. They say that they want public knowledge of the suits, thus, she finds it "curious" that they don't want it televised. So, she takes them at their word (wanting public knowledge of the law suits) and "helps" them do what they say they claim to want to do.
Unlike judges before her, she knows they are lying. They know they are lying. Nesson knows they are lying. The case is a blackmail scam and everyone involved knows it, this time, even the judge.
They are stuck because these are counter claims, and while I'm not a lawyer, even if BMG/Sony drop the suit, I believe the counter claims live on. So, they can't drop it. They have to fight a Harvard Law Professor and his students, and it will all be public for display.
Windows has *real* security problems. We are not talking about mere differences in opinion, but real-live security problems from the ground-up. We are talking about a systemic philosophy within Microsoft that allows things like the TIFF code to execute binary programs, privilege escalation, and so on.
The Windows apologists like to claim that there are so many exploits only because Windows is so "popular." It isn't true. Windows is insecure by design. Microsoft intentionally installs APIs through which the system can be modified regardless of the user. On top of that, the kernel device driver model is less regulated than unix.
Windows is a security disaster, and while it is dangerous enough in a consumer setting. It is a stunningly bad idea to put it in a secure situation.
Copyright restricts rights and doesn't allow me to do anything that an absence of copyright would prevent me from doing. Copyright simply prevents you from making and distributing copies.
No, copyright law defines the legal rights, privileges, and restrictions people have with regard to published works.
Copyright simply prevents you from making and distributing copies.
It does more than that, it also attempts to define "fair use" of copyrighted material.
copyright law is currently very complex, and *IAA lawyers are whittling away at "fair use" with precedent. Ask any intellectual property attorney and they'll tell you, you can't absolutely be sure what the current boundaries are of "fair use."
You've fallen for the argument that proprietary software vendors use to try and convince you yo don't own the software you've bought.
You don't own the software, you own the physical medium on which it is stored. "Fair Use" allows you to use your legally obtained copy of the published works.
Far from agreeing with proprietary software companies, IMHO "fair use" prevents them from certain restrictions. For instance, Microsoft says I can't run Windows in a virtualized environment. I have a legally obtained copy. I have rights to use this copyrighted work under copyright law. Screw Microsoft's claims. They may own the software itself, but by publishing it, they lose ultimate control over to copyright law.
The right to sell copies is part of the definition of free software.
You are selling a copy (the medium and process of copying) of the software, not the software itself. It is a very pedantic detail, but vital for understanding the legalities.
I always get modded flamebait for what I am about to say, but I'll say it again.....
You can't "sell" GPL software, because it it not yours to sell. You *can* *only* sell the service of providing it. For instance:
I own a store, in the back room, I burn copies of open office on to a disk, I print a small "quick start" doc, and put it in a CD case and sell it for what ever I choose, and I choose $99 bucks.
In the above scenario, the physical CD. CD case, and "quick start" doc are physical merchandise which would be a criminal act to steal from my store. We all agree on that.
If you "buy" my open office product:
The physical copy of the "quick start" doc belongs to you and you may do with it as you will, but the "content" printed on the paper belongs to me and may not be copied without my permission without violating my copyright.
The physical CD that contains open office belongs to you. Since I did not create open office, it does not belong to me and I am only allowed to put it on the CD because of the GPL. Also, because of the GPL you are allowed to make copies of the contents of the CD.
In that transaction, I did not actually sell you "openoffice" I charged you for the service of providing you open office. I know it is splitting hairs, but it is a very important set of distinctions.
The electrical power grid could benefit from a number of these sorts of things.
Many high current devices are periodic in nature. Water heaters, electric baseboard heaters, refrigerators, toasters, etc.
There should be a protocol, like X10 or something, that defines a maximum power profile, and all the appliances negotiate "bandwidth" ala USB.
Beyond even that, we have a ridiculous number of redundant appliances, how many get hot? Why should the oven, water heater, furnace, all produce a lot of heat and not share any bit of it. How many devices are heat exchangers? Air conditioning, refrigerators, water coolers, etc.
We need to start thinking about these things in a complementary and systematic sense. In most houses, the refrigerators extract heat from the box and release it in the house. In the winter, this is a good idea. In the summer, it wastes energy in the air conditioning. again, in the winter, in the north east, it could get cold air from the outside.
There is lots of "free" complimentary energy to be had and there is great savings in reducing overall current load, E=I*R and all that.
I voted for Obama in the primary, and I voted for him in the general election. That being said I don't believe for a moment that we have attained utopia.
We need the ACLU to fight the hard fights against misguided laws and precedent just like this.
Sometimes it is a complete mystery as to what is moderated as what.
Yes, you can implement mul/div in software using shifts, adds, and conditional looping. It's SLOW. I'm not talking snail slow, I'm talking snail-on-valium-at-absolute-zero slow if you have to do any substantial number of them.
Hardware mul/div are invaluable for speed, particularly if you're talking 32-bit math on an 8-bit CPU. I have no idea what this original spreadsheet could handle, but 16-bit math seems a bit constricting, even for those days.
Ah, umm, you do know that hardware multiplication and division was not available on those processors.
As for multiplication, it is not all that slow, division is much slower.
Feel free to believe what you want, clearly I'm not going to open your eyes.
The whole passive aggressive "I'm right, but you won't listen" argument is that of a coward.
You don't actually define what poverty is. Are there people WORSE off than the very poor in this country? Of course there are. Are there poor poorer than our poor? In most cases, I'd agree with that statement.
It is a futile argument to say that because there are people worse off there is no problem. "We have no poor because, geez, THOSE people are REALLY poor." Is not a reasonable argument as it is not a comparative problem. Also, don't confuse the living conditions of war zones with poverty. That is a different issue altogether.
If you've never been to some of the poorest places in this country, then you'll never really know the problem. Just saying that some other country's poor are worse off than our poor does not address the issue nor provides any factual basis for argument.
If you think there is a single person in the US, in an inner city, in rural Kentucky, in the middle of nowhere Alaska... an single one who is living in any sort of poverty, you need to visit the rest of the world.
If you think this, you NEED to go to rural Kentucky, Alabama, or an indian reservation.
alking about wage fairness out of one side of your mouth while talking about wages staying up on the other is being unrealistic. You'll get fair wages globally when people in the US and the rest of the "1st world" are living on 10% of what they do now. Then everyone can share equally.
There are a couple misconceptions:
(1) That wealth is a static number that neither increases not decreases. It is not true, wealth can be created and destroyed.
(2) The the working class in the U.S.A. is rich. The working class in the U.S.A. is one of the more impoverished in the western world. It has a higher level of disease, death, and illiteracy. The bottom 80% of the country hold about 8% of the wealth. The top 1% holds about 40% of the wealth. the remaining 19% holds about 52% The working class in this country holds less than 10% of the wealth, yet make up 80% of the population.
A healthy economy comes from commerce. Commerce comes from trade. To have trade you need (1) produces and (2) buyers. As wealth is consolidated, you have fewer and fewer buyers, thus you will have fewer and fewer produces.
The consolidation of wealth hurts virtually everyone on the planet.
Well, there is that recession thingy. We've had people whining about all the jobs going overseas for at least 30 years, yet the unemployment rate has been largely steady.
That is a myth. People who are no longer eligible for unemployment or who's benefits have expired are not counted.
Secondly, a person who is layed off from a $75,000 and regains employment at $50,000 is also not counted as "unemployed," BUT, he's making 1/3 less.
Automation eliminates more jobs than offshoring, should we get rid of computers and robots? Think of all the accounting and assembly line jobs that would be created...
It is a fact that automation creates jobs. It may create a loss in jobs in one sector, but it creates jobs in other sectors.
Off shoring does more than move jobs from one economy to another, it decreases their value in the process.
A number of years ago I read an essay about countries and states offering concessions to multi-national corporations in order to get manufacturing jobs.
The executive is this:
Companies will take what they can, exploit all the benefits, and when it makes financial sense to move they will. This "cut throat" capitalism will lead to utter destruction because all it does is drive down wages world wide.
Over time, some people in 3rd world nations seem to get less poor because they have "jobs." The previously better off economies, however, deteriorate because the working class income deteriorates. As the economic powerhouses like U.S.A, Europe, and Japan start to falter, the world wide market starts to falter, and companies start to close factories. As the factories close, the working class has even less money causing more factories to fail. Eventually, even the 3rd world factories don't make sense and the previously "less poor" return to their original poverty level, except that the world wide economy has been destroyed. All the capital ends up in the hands of a very very small number of people.
I'm kinda worried that it wasn't just an over imaginative worst case scenario.
the guilty deserve a good defense, even if they are guilty.
The actual issue is the assumption of guilt. No one who goes to trial is guilty. They are innocent until proven guilty.
So the Lawyer's job, in this case, is to defend an innocent person of the accusations, regardless of whether or not the lawyer thinks their client is guilty.
The telco immunity issue is one I have mixed feelings about.
On one hand, the law is the law and they did commit a crime and should be punished.
On the other hand, the U.S. government is pretty powerful and it is more than likely that there were threats involved, coercion, etc. If the government is threatening you and insisting that you break the law or you'll be breaking the "new" "law," what do you do?
I think the telcos were caught in the middle and are mostly spineless. The real culprits are the DOJ, NSA, FBI, and the administration.
Seriously, why does someone issue a letter that says, "no, really I am healthy." He is a very wealthy man, surely he can avoid the sorts of doctors that would be able to be able to figure out his problem.
Yea, sure many things "can" be done, but the point is that running a foreign binary takes at least one extra step. This may not seem like much, but that extra step is either something the average user would not know enough to do, or caution an experienced user.
Now, is it perfect? No, nothing is, but if you pay attention, it raises the bar high enough to prevent most all viruses.
Slashdot Mirror
Having read the order, I get the sense that the Judge really really understands what is going on and is not going to let them weasel out of their own lies.
The Judge is going to take their claims perfectly literally with no prejudice. They say that they want public knowledge of the suits, thus, she finds it "curious" that they don't want it televised. So, she takes them at their word (wanting public knowledge of the law suits) and "helps" them do what they say they claim to want to do.
Unlike judges before her, she knows they are lying. They know they are lying. Nesson knows they are lying. The case is a blackmail scam and everyone involved knows it, this time, even the judge.
They are stuck because these are counter claims, and while I'm not a lawyer, even if BMG/Sony drop the suit, I believe the counter claims live on. So, they can't drop it. They have to fight a Harvard Law Professor and his students, and it will all be public for display.
I'm going to buy some popcorn and watch.
Windows has *real* security problems. We are not talking about mere differences in opinion, but real-live security problems from the ground-up. We are talking about a systemic philosophy within Microsoft that allows things like the TIFF code to execute binary programs, privilege escalation, and so on.
The Windows apologists like to claim that there are so many exploits only because Windows is so "popular." It isn't true. Windows is insecure by design. Microsoft intentionally installs APIs through which the system can be modified regardless of the user. On top of that, the kernel device driver model is less regulated than unix.
Windows is a security disaster, and while it is dangerous enough in a consumer setting. It is a stunningly bad idea to put it in a secure situation.
Copyright restricts rights and doesn't allow me to do anything that an absence of copyright would prevent me from doing. Copyright simply prevents you from making and distributing copies.
No, copyright law defines the legal rights, privileges, and restrictions people have with regard to published works.
Copyright simply prevents you from making and distributing copies.
It does more than that, it also attempts to define "fair use" of copyrighted material.
copyright law is currently very complex, and *IAA lawyers are whittling away at "fair use" with precedent. Ask any intellectual property attorney and they'll tell you, you can't absolutely be sure what the current boundaries are of "fair use."
You've fallen for the argument that proprietary software vendors use to try and convince you yo don't own the software you've bought.
You don't own the software, you own the physical medium on which it is stored. "Fair Use" allows you to use your legally obtained copy of the published works.
Far from agreeing with proprietary software companies, IMHO "fair use" prevents them from certain restrictions. For instance, Microsoft says I can't run Windows in a virtualized environment. I have a legally obtained copy. I have rights to use this copyrighted work under copyright law. Screw Microsoft's claims. They may own the software itself, but by publishing it, they lose ultimate control over to copyright law.
The right to sell copies is part of the definition of free software.
You are selling a copy (the medium and process of copying) of the software, not the software itself. It is a very pedantic detail, but vital for understanding the legalities.
You also own a copy of the software.
No you don't. The author owns the software, copyright and the license allow you to use a copy of it.
I always get modded flamebait for what I am about to say, but I'll say it again.....
You can't "sell" GPL software, because it it not yours to sell. You *can* *only* sell the service of providing it. For instance:
I own a store, in the back room, I burn copies of open office on to a disk, I print a small "quick start" doc, and put it in a CD case and sell it for what ever I choose, and I choose $99 bucks.
In the above scenario, the physical CD. CD case, and "quick start" doc are physical merchandise which would be a criminal act to steal from my store. We all agree on that.
If you "buy" my open office product:
The physical copy of the "quick start" doc belongs to you and you may do with it as you will, but the "content" printed on the paper belongs to me and may not be copied without my permission without violating my copyright.
The physical CD that contains open office belongs to you. Since I did not create open office, it does not belong to me and I am only allowed to put it on the CD because of the GPL. Also, because of the GPL you are allowed to make copies of the contents of the CD.
In that transaction, I did not actually sell you "openoffice" I charged you for the service of providing you open office. I know it is splitting hairs, but it is a very important set of distinctions.
The electrical power grid could benefit from a number of these sorts of things.
Many high current devices are periodic in nature. Water heaters, electric baseboard heaters, refrigerators, toasters, etc.
There should be a protocol, like X10 or something, that defines a maximum power profile, and all the appliances negotiate "bandwidth" ala USB.
Beyond even that, we have a ridiculous number of redundant appliances, how many get hot? Why should the oven, water heater, furnace, all produce a lot of heat and not share any bit of it. How many devices are heat exchangers? Air conditioning, refrigerators, water coolers, etc.
We need to start thinking about these things in a complementary and systematic sense. In most houses, the refrigerators extract heat from the box and release it in the house. In the winter, this is a good idea. In the summer, it wastes energy in the air conditioning. again, in the winter, in the north east, it could get cold air from the outside.
There is lots of "free" complimentary energy to be had and there is great savings in reducing overall current load, E=I*R and all that.
I voted for Obama in the primary, and I voted for him in the general election. That being said I don't believe for a moment that we have attained utopia.
We need the ACLU to fight the hard fights against misguided laws and precedent just like this.
Z-80 assembly manuals were standard stock at all Radio Shack stores that carried TRS-80 computers.
I don't remember that at all.
Every store that had Apple II's had 6502 assembly manuals,
The *only* store I remember Apple ][ in was lechmere, and while long gone, I don't remember any programming books.
Who the hell modded this insightful?
Sometimes it is a complete mystery as to what is moderated as what.
Yes, you can implement mul/div in software using shifts, adds, and conditional looping. It's SLOW. I'm not talking snail slow, I'm talking snail-on-valium-at-absolute-zero slow if you have to do any substantial number of them.
Hardware mul/div are invaluable for speed, particularly if you're talking 32-bit math on an 8-bit CPU. I have no idea what this original spreadsheet could handle, but 16-bit math seems a bit constricting, even for those days.
Ah, umm, you do know that hardware multiplication and division was not available on those processors.
As for multiplication, it is not all that slow, division is much slower.
ack in the day" almost any book on machine language had these routines in them.
"back in the day" your average book store didn't even have a computer section. In 1981, you would be hard pressed to even FIND books about that stuff.
Why use MUL/DIV --When you have shifts?
Well, shifts and adds. For multiply.
Shift, subtract, jle for divide. :-)
Also, remember that when multiplying 8 bit numbers with 8 bit registers results in a 16 bit result. Its not as easy.
I wrote a whole 32 bit math package for the Z80 "back in the day."
Feel free to believe what you want, clearly I'm not going to open your eyes.
The whole passive aggressive "I'm right, but you won't listen" argument is that of a coward.
You don't actually define what poverty is. Are there people WORSE off than the very poor in this country? Of course there are. Are there poor poorer than our poor? In most cases, I'd agree with that statement.
It is a futile argument to say that because there are people worse off there is no problem. "We have no poor because, geez, THOSE people are REALLY poor." Is not a reasonable argument as it is not a comparative problem. Also, don't confuse the living conditions of war zones with poverty. That is a different issue altogether.
If you've never been to some of the poorest places in this country, then you'll never really know the problem. Just saying that some other country's poor are worse off than our poor does not address the issue nor provides any factual basis for argument.
If you think there is a single person in the US, in an inner city, in rural Kentucky, in the middle of nowhere Alaska... an single one who is living in any sort of poverty, you need to visit the rest of the world.
If you think this, you NEED to go to rural Kentucky, Alabama, or an indian reservation.
alking about wage fairness out of one side of your mouth while talking about wages staying up on the other is being unrealistic. You'll get fair wages globally when people in the US and the rest of the "1st world" are living on 10% of what they do now. Then everyone can share equally.
There are a couple misconceptions:
(1) That wealth is a static number that neither increases not decreases. It is not true, wealth can be created and destroyed.
(2) The the working class in the U.S.A. is rich. The working class in the U.S.A. is one of the more impoverished in the western world. It has a higher level of disease, death, and illiteracy. The bottom 80% of the country hold about 8% of the wealth. The top 1% holds about 40% of the wealth. the remaining 19% holds about 52% The working class in this country holds less than 10% of the wealth, yet make up 80% of the population.
A healthy economy comes from commerce. Commerce comes from trade. To have trade you need (1) produces and (2) buyers. As wealth is consolidated, you have fewer and fewer buyers, thus you will have fewer and fewer produces.
The consolidation of wealth hurts virtually everyone on the planet.
Well, there is that recession thingy. We've had people whining about all the jobs going overseas for at least 30 years, yet the unemployment rate has been largely steady.
That is a myth. People who are no longer eligible for unemployment or who's benefits have expired are not counted.
Secondly, a person who is layed off from a $75,000 and regains employment at $50,000 is also not counted as "unemployed," BUT, he's making 1/3 less.
Automation eliminates more jobs than offshoring, should we get rid of computers and robots? Think of all the accounting and assembly line jobs that would be created...
It is a fact that automation creates jobs. It may create a loss in jobs in one sector, but it creates jobs in other sectors.
Off shoring does more than move jobs from one economy to another, it decreases their value in the process.
If the world wide economy has been destroyed, that capital will be worth exacly nothing.
You need to read some history of the world BEFORE the Magna Carta
People in the West won't find new jobs to replace the ones that left
You assume an infinite number of jobs. Look at the current and climbing unemployment rates in the U.S.
People in developing countries somehow are only capable of making things for export
Yes, because if they had the capital in the economy to producing products for themselves, they already would be doing that.
A number of years ago I read an essay about countries and states offering concessions to multi-national corporations in order to get manufacturing jobs.
The executive is this:
Companies will take what they can, exploit all the benefits, and when it makes financial sense to move they will. This "cut throat" capitalism will lead to utter destruction because all it does is drive down wages world wide.
Over time, some people in 3rd world nations seem to get less poor because they have "jobs." The previously better off economies, however, deteriorate because the working class income deteriorates. As the economic powerhouses like U.S.A, Europe, and Japan start to falter, the world wide market starts to falter, and companies start to close factories. As the factories close, the working class has even less money causing more factories to fail. Eventually, even the 3rd world factories don't make sense and the previously "less poor" return to their original poverty level, except that the world wide economy has been destroyed. All the capital ends up in the hands of a very very small number of people.
I'm kinda worried that it wasn't just an over imaginative worst case scenario.
Being accused amounts to a punishment as it requires a HUGE expenditure to defend yourself.
the guilty deserve a good defense, even if they are guilty.
The actual issue is the assumption of guilt. No one who goes to trial is guilty. They are innocent until proven guilty.
So the Lawyer's job, in this case, is to defend an innocent person of the accusations, regardless of whether or not the lawyer thinks their client is guilty.
The telco immunity issue is one I have mixed feelings about.
On one hand, the law is the law and they did commit a crime and should be punished.
On the other hand, the U.S. government is pretty powerful and it is more than likely that there were threats involved, coercion, etc. If the government is threatening you and insisting that you break the law or you'll be breaking the "new" "law," what do you do?
I think the telcos were caught in the middle and are mostly spineless. The real culprits are the DOJ, NSA, FBI, and the administration.
Seriously, why does someone issue a letter that says, "no, really I am healthy." He is a very wealthy man, surely he can avoid the sorts of doctors that would be able to be able to figure out his problem.
$ /lib/ld-2.3.6.so ./hello
Yea, sure many things "can" be done, but the point is that running a foreign binary takes at least one extra step. This may not seem like much, but that extra step is either something the average user would not know enough to do, or caution an experienced user.
Now, is it perfect? No, nothing is, but if you pay attention, it raises the bar high enough to prevent most all viruses.
Huh? When you tarball it it keeps the permissions to run. That's how I distribute Linux binaries anyways.
Well, then you need to initiate an action to extract the binary from the tar file.