That law said lying is illegal and can be punishable by 5 years in jail. What a load of hooey. I don't know how that got on the books, but an unenforcable and unenforced law isn't a law. It said nothing about being limited to an authority giving legal advice whatsoever. "whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully...makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement" - covers all works of fiction, as well as all lies. "How are you today?" "Fine" - could be deemed illegal. IANAL, but TINAL (this is not a law).
18 US 1001 (a) (3) CLEARLY states that Olinator must be put in a maximum security prison to be anally raped every night. This is actual legal advice. I am a lawyer. I really mean it. Oh, it also says you have to give me all your money:)
Someone with common sense. Yes, this is what they mean, to anyone who doesn't have their head in their ass. Their legalese is flawed, yes, but IANAL and that's a good thing.
if the constitution is a bad one, isn't the correct response to say "the constitution failed to protect the freespeech, there are too many limitation of art. 5, therefore the constitution is a bad one - so we should get a bunch of guns, overthrow the government, and institute a better one?"
now actually doing that i can see being illegal. but saying that you should do it? seems that if you can't say that, then you're being censored clear as day in direct contradiction to the 'no censorship' clause.
Increasingly is for profs to scan documents looking for large chunks of text that match things they know have been going around. When it's just an idea, it's plagiarism. But if it's a large chunk of text (say 98% of a research paper) I think it might qualify as copyright violation.
The DOCUMENTS are copyrighted. The FACTS are free. You cannot copyright the information in a phone book because all it contains is a list of facts. Many standards bodies charge for access to the docs, specifically building codes are often handled this way. And the copyright owner can sue someone who posts the building codes on a website. (Off the subject this is completely fucked up since it requires you to pay hundreds of dollars to find out the LAWS that you are required to comply with.) But they CANNOT sue someone who read a fact there and later used it. "How did you know you needed to space your joists 16 inches apart? You must have pirated that information, you're under arrest." There is no provision for this in our legal system. This second person did nothing illegal - they didn't violate copyright.
I never said a document that specifies a standard can't be copyrighted. In fact I specifically said the Microsoft's document IS copyrighted. But only the document, as it exists fixed in a tangible form, is copyrighted. They can limit access to it, they can charge for it, they can require someone to sign a contract to be able to see it. But they have no ability to limit the facts within the doc as long as the person making use of them didn't violate copyright to get them. They could reverse engineer the protocol and make something interoperable. MS's patents would still require licensing (which is messed up). But nothing in copyright or patent law limits access to the facts. Copyright only limits my ability to copy a document. The fact the protocol X makes use of some process Y is NOT copyrightable information. Process Y may be a patentable process, and MS can seek to control it that way, but they can't effectively hide the fact. You could do the same thing with the building code laws, build buildings with joists 15, 16, and 17 inches apart, etc. until the building inspector stopped telling you you failed, but it's a lot cheaper and thus more practical to do this with software.
If you can express your opinion freely, but not say things that are against the constitution, does that mean that you can't have an opinion that the constitution is bad? Such an opinion is theoretically impossible or something?
This is NOT code. This is NOT software. This is documentation of how a standard works. Like a description of HTTP traffic. What makes standards standards is that they are open. I can go look up the rfc for email addresses, or look up the w3c's document object model specification whenever I want. I can't copy those documents and publish them under my name, that would be copyright violation, but that is all the protection copyright grants. Facts are facts, and are NOT copyrightable. As long as I don't sign the stupid agreement I'm free to use these facts any way I want. What MS is counting on is that people will be afraid to use these facts because they'll be hit with an MS lawsuit alleging that they MUST have read the document and signed the agreement to get access to the facts. Which isn't true, you could reverse engineer the standard or get the facts some other way. But I'm sure they'll pile on the bogus lawsuits as an intimidation tactic anyway, and it will work. I do not condone the abuse of America's court system, which is funded by my tax dollars, for such frivolous and baseless lawsuits.
They cannot restrict what you do with facts, only with copyrighted material. You can't reprint their standard, but you can certainly make use of the facts contained within it however you like.
The original author when releasing it to the public domain specifically granted a license to everyone to use the material however they want. The author could ALSO license the material under a restrictive license to people he or she could foist such a license on (think suits). HOWEVER someone who got it from the public domain cannot be held accountable to that restrictive license.
If anyone has a reason to think this is incorrect, please post.
Should count as a copyright violation shouldn't it? The original intent of copyright was to prevent unscrupulous publishing houses from buying a copy of a book and then churning out their own copies. Sounds like plagiarism to me.
Your brain doesn't have those tags YET. But just wait until you see what the next generation of MS's digital rights management software/hardware package will do. You attach a simple electrical machine to your neck before reading the documentation, and then ever after when you start to think about anything in there 220 volts is delivered to your cerebellum. And of course MS provides no warranty of any particular fitness for this device, and cannot be held liable when it kills you.
Seriously, what would stop them from writing this into the agreement? You would STILL have yokels saying "If you don't like the terms then just don't attach the MS death machine to your body, but boy will you be missing out on Clippy XP."
3.6 Reciprocal Patent License. To the extent Company owns, controls or can sublicense without payment of a fee to an unaffiliated third party, any patents that are required for Microsoft or its licensees to implement CIFS as set forth in the Technical Reference and distribute such implementations, Microsoft and its licensees are hereby granted a license to such patents solely for the purpose of implementing CIFS as set forth in the Technical Reference and distributing such implementations.
Does this mean they're setting out a standard they know infringe on other's patents and are trying to bully them into free licenses? I love that 'freedom' to give up my patent rights.
too flowery for darketernal?
on
XP, Phone Home
·
· Score: 1
Where, oh where is the goth os? That when given a command will moan about the evils of the world instead of executing the command? That will give priority access to the marily manson website? Azrael, I call on thee, deliver unto me the goth OS!
why is this on seibertron?
on
XP, Phone Home
·
· Score: 1
The rest of the site is about transformers. TRANS-formers. Are you sure that's your sister? And not your confused brother?
Filing suits is apparently his hobby. And if pets warehouse actually is incorporated, it is illegal for him as a non-lawyer to represent them in filing these suits. But hey, what are you gonna do, sue him?
When comcast started briefly monitoring their customers' web site viewing habits i was unconcerned. Why? Because I don't look at many web sites. I just download gigs of files from Kazaa/Morpheus and Audiogalaxy. Cracking down on the more visible sites will just force kiddie porn viewers to use secure non-centralized distribution networks like Gnutella. Where it will be much much harder to find the identities of the users.
This isn't just ineffective. It will be counter productive: forcing the underground further underground and making secure peer to peer file sharing the standard way of sharing/trading/distributing this material.
It's worked in Germany. Don't impose the fee on the consumer. Impose the fee on the manufacturer. In Germany they started charging toy manufacturers for packaging on toys. Instantly the toy manufacturers just started putting the Barbies on the shelf, without the giant unnecessary box. Here California could charge the monitor manufacturers money for every one of their products that ends up in the municipal waste stream, and use that money to recycle the product. Charge a fee that's much higher than the cost of just recycling it themselves, and they create a financial incentive for the company to set up its own recycling program. The company may even give the consumers back a small 'deposit' fee to create an incentive for the customers to return the monitors, computers, whatever.
Our industrial economy needs to become a closed cycle and this is the first step. Now that we know how to build monitors and computers, we need to figure out how to build them so that they're easy to take apart and modular enough that old components can just be re-used. Re-using the gallium and mercury and other raw materials is a first step, but really a lot of components can just be re-used. Do you really need a new component that's ten percent smaller? Or can you just use the old one? Now if you're talking 90% smaller then yes you may need the new component. But for many needs old parts can be recycled.
You can do the same thing with C or C++. Or ANY language that you can compile. If Java compiled separately for each different platform is 'cross-platform' then so is C++. This DOES eliminate cross-platform as a benefit. And confirms the point that if you have a large, slow Java application where the speed is a serious problem, you should have written it in C++ in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
That law said lying is illegal and can be punishable by 5 years in jail. What a load of hooey. I don't know how that got on the books, but an unenforcable and unenforced law isn't a law. It said nothing about being limited to an authority giving legal advice whatsoever. "whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully...makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement" - covers all works of fiction, as well as all lies. "How are you today?" "Fine" - could be deemed illegal. IANAL, but TINAL (this is not a law).
18 US 1001 (a) (3) CLEARLY states that Olinator must be put in a maximum security prison to be anally raped every night. This is actual legal advice. I am a lawyer. I really mean it. Oh, it also says you have to give me all your money :)
Oh, I'm SO going to jail for that lie.....
Someone with common sense. Yes, this is what they mean, to anyone who doesn't have their head in their ass. Their legalese is flawed, yes, but IANAL and that's a good thing.
if the constitution is a bad one, isn't the correct response to say "the constitution failed to protect the freespeech, there are too many limitation of art. 5, therefore the constitution is a bad one - so we should get a bunch of guns, overthrow the government, and institute a better one?"
now actually doing that i can see being illegal. but saying that you should do it? seems that if you can't say that, then you're being censored clear as day in direct contradiction to the 'no censorship' clause.
It was 95 degrees yesterday. On April the 16th.
Whoa. This isn't something to think about and ponder for 20 years, it's effecting us now.
Increasingly is for profs to scan documents looking for large chunks of text that match things they know have been going around. When it's just an idea, it's plagiarism. But if it's a large chunk of text (say 98% of a research paper) I think it might qualify as copyright violation.
The DOCUMENTS are copyrighted. The FACTS are free. You cannot copyright the information in a phone book because all it contains is a list of facts. Many standards bodies charge for access to the docs, specifically building codes are often handled this way. And the copyright owner can sue someone who posts the building codes on a website. (Off the subject this is completely fucked up since it requires you to pay hundreds of dollars to find out the LAWS that you are required to comply with.) But they CANNOT sue someone who read a fact there and later used it. "How did you know you needed to space your joists 16 inches apart? You must have pirated that information, you're under arrest." There is no provision for this in our legal system. This second person did nothing illegal - they didn't violate copyright.
I never said a document that specifies a standard can't be copyrighted. In fact I specifically said the Microsoft's document IS copyrighted. But only the document, as it exists fixed in a tangible form, is copyrighted. They can limit access to it, they can charge for it, they can require someone to sign a contract to be able to see it. But they have no ability to limit the facts within the doc as long as the person making use of them didn't violate copyright to get them. They could reverse engineer the protocol and make something interoperable. MS's patents would still require licensing (which is messed up). But nothing in copyright or patent law limits access to the facts. Copyright only limits my ability to copy a document. The fact the protocol X makes use of some process Y is NOT copyrightable information. Process Y may be a patentable process, and MS can seek to control it that way, but they can't effectively hide the fact. You could do the same thing with the building code laws, build buildings with joists 15, 16, and 17 inches apart, etc. until the building inspector stopped telling you you failed, but it's a lot cheaper and thus more practical to do this with software.
If you can express your opinion freely, but not say things that are against the constitution, does that mean that you can't have an opinion that the constitution is bad? Such an opinion is theoretically impossible or something?
That there is no spoon.
- Matrix
Whether you're infringing or not Microsoft will still sue you.
This is NOT code. This is NOT software. This is documentation of how a standard works. Like a description of HTTP traffic. What makes standards standards is that they are open. I can go look up the rfc for email addresses, or look up the w3c's document object model specification whenever I want. I can't copy those documents and publish them under my name, that would be copyright violation, but that is all the protection copyright grants. Facts are facts, and are NOT copyrightable. As long as I don't sign the stupid agreement I'm free to use these facts any way I want. What MS is counting on is that people will be afraid to use these facts because they'll be hit with an MS lawsuit alleging that they MUST have read the document and signed the agreement to get access to the facts. Which isn't true, you could reverse engineer the standard or get the facts some other way. But I'm sure they'll pile on the bogus lawsuits as an intimidation tactic anyway, and it will work. I do not condone the abuse of America's court system, which is funded by my tax dollars, for such frivolous and baseless lawsuits.
They cannot restrict what you do with facts, only with copyrighted material. You can't reprint their standard, but you can certainly make use of the facts contained within it however you like.
The original author when releasing it to the public domain specifically granted a license to everyone to use the material however they want. The author could ALSO license the material under a restrictive license to people he or she could foist such a license on (think suits). HOWEVER someone who got it from the public domain cannot be held accountable to that restrictive license.
If anyone has a reason to think this is incorrect, please post.
Should count as a copyright violation shouldn't it? The original intent of copyright was to prevent unscrupulous publishing houses from buying a copy of a book and then churning out their own copies. Sounds like plagiarism to me.
Your brain doesn't have those tags YET. But just wait until you see what the next generation of MS's digital rights management software/hardware package will do. You attach a simple electrical machine to your neck before reading the documentation, and then ever after when you start to think about anything in there 220 volts is delivered to your cerebellum. And of course MS provides no warranty of any particular fitness for this device, and cannot be held liable when it kills you.
Seriously, what would stop them from writing this into the agreement? You would STILL have yokels saying "If you don't like the terms then just don't attach the MS death machine to your body, but boy will you be missing out on Clippy XP."
Does this mean they're setting out a standard they know infringe on other's patents and are trying to bully them into free licenses? I love that 'freedom' to give up my patent rights.
Where, oh where is the goth os? That when given a command will moan about the evils of the world instead of executing the command? That will give priority access to the marily manson website? Azrael, I call on thee, deliver unto me the goth OS!
The rest of the site is about transformers. TRANS-formers. Are you sure that's your sister? And not your confused brother?
Suing the Better Business Bureau for doing their job? I hope so, he'll finally get someone with the resources to countersue his ass to the stone age.
Filing suits is apparently his hobby. And if pets warehouse actually is incorporated, it is illegal for him as a non-lawyer to represent them in filing these suits. But hey, what are you gonna do, sue him?
I hope that was a troll. Tell me please how running linux on the desktop will stop ISP's from blocking access to certain sites for their customers?
When comcast started briefly monitoring their customers' web site viewing habits i was unconcerned. Why? Because I don't look at many web sites. I just download gigs of files from Kazaa/Morpheus and Audiogalaxy. Cracking down on the more visible sites will just force kiddie porn viewers to use secure non-centralized distribution networks like Gnutella. Where it will be much much harder to find the identities of the users.
This isn't just ineffective. It will be counter productive: forcing the underground further underground and making secure peer to peer file sharing the standard way of sharing/trading/distributing this material.
It's worked in Germany. Don't impose the fee on the consumer. Impose the fee on the manufacturer. In Germany they started charging toy manufacturers for packaging on toys. Instantly the toy manufacturers just started putting the Barbies on the shelf, without the giant unnecessary box. Here California could charge the monitor manufacturers money for every one of their products that ends up in the municipal waste stream, and use that money to recycle the product. Charge a fee that's much higher than the cost of just recycling it themselves, and they create a financial incentive for the company to set up its own recycling program. The company may even give the consumers back a small 'deposit' fee to create an incentive for the customers to return the monitors, computers, whatever.
Our industrial economy needs to become a closed cycle and this is the first step. Now that we know how to build monitors and computers, we need to figure out how to build them so that they're easy to take apart and modular enough that old components can just be re-used. Re-using the gallium and mercury and other raw materials is a first step, but really a lot of components can just be re-used. Do you really need a new component that's ten percent smaller? Or can you just use the old one? Now if you're talking 90% smaller then yes you may need the new component. But for many needs old parts can be recycled.
How is this flamebait? It's a reasonable suggestion.
You can do the same thing with C or C++. Or ANY language that you can compile. If Java compiled separately for each different platform is 'cross-platform' then so is C++. This DOES eliminate cross-platform as a benefit. And confirms the point that if you have a large, slow Java application where the speed is a serious problem, you should have written it in C++ in the first place.