I'll get right on that Mr. King George, sir. Just as soon as I'm done working in His Majeties' coal mine which barely pays enough wage to keep a roof over my head while paying His Majesties' enormous tax rate to fund His Majesties' opulent Washington DC lifestyle so that His Majesty can dream of all the laws by which to hamstring the coal miners and prevent them from legally deposing His Majesty. Mind if we start with your head, a la French revolution, first?
Before there were governments, people taught their children how to live and grow up to be adults.
roads
Before there were governments people built roads to go where they needed.
police protection
Before there were governments people policed their own societies.
Government has indeed helped to coordinate efforts of individual communities so that we don't (theoretically) have the railway problem of two lines with differing axle lengths.
Beyond that, though, come back to reality: government involvement and oversight sucks.
In the case of WiFi, I feel that, if the governments want to get involved, they should do so only in the function of lighting a fire under the backsides of the available corporate providers to get them into a competitive bidding war and get the service installed as soon as possible.
The whole part about redistributing modifications, providing source code, and not charging come off as guidelines on playing fair and being nice.
I fully support legal action against people who infringe the GPL but, if the system were absent of a legal recognition of copyright, GPL infringers would be at worse risk of being permanently taken offline by the Tai Chi and Kung Fu GNU monks who police the networked planet.
What? Once a law has been passed, it can't be repealed?Interesting note. Theoretically it's possible for laws to be repealed and pigs to fly. In practice, however, Congress passes (iirc) close to 1000 new laws every year and repeals (iirc) close to none.
GPL say,"We do not have money to support lawyers. Take this but be fair about it. If you are not fair about it we will have an easy case finding a lawyer to beat you down."
2800-2400: Apples falls off more quickly, while oranges has more slope. Since this is the far end of the C-H stretch region and towards the middle of an IR spectrum (which, save for C-D stretches and extreme -NCO, is fairly blank).
Do oranges have an enzyme whose kinetics favors deuterium? Or are the compounds of oranges simply more prevalent in high strength (double, triple, and heteroaromatic) bonds?
The lump at 2000 and the dip to 1800 suggests several things. Again, oranges may be sequestering deuterium, or apples simply have a larger spread of compounds with absorbances to fill out this region.
"Who is accountable for the security of the Linux kernel?"
Tell me. Of the 60,000 some (give or take whatever) viruses, worms, and trojans available for Windows, how many of them even needed kernel level access? I suppose he can simply blame that on others.
There are bits of the Linux software stack that are missing
Care to elaborate? Just what part of the software stack is missing?
The Constitution says nothing of copyright holders. Only authors and creators. Congress, then, is not empowered to legislate on "copyright holders" at all.
Congress constitutionally has broad leeway to implement copyright as it sees fit in order to exercise the power it has in this field, it can constitutionally permit for copyright transfer.
Unconstitutional. There is no "as it sees fit" unless you want to validate "As King George sees fit".
Yes, I know what the ninth amendment is. I'm saying I don't see how it is applicable.
"Copyright holder" is an enumeration of "authors and creators" and, per the 9th amendment, is disallowed.
I have a UID of 3773
I'm impressed? Oh wait... yet you still don't know about "25 posts per day (more or less)".
I have no posts left to violate your anus. See you tomorrow around 3:30 PM if you care to continue.
Well, previously you said that the other operations of law by which a copyright can move from one person to another were unconstitutional. Foreclosure is one such operation of law. I'll leave you to reconcile your contradictions.
Since the Constitution says nothing about foreclosures, I guess that right is reserved to the states or the people.
You haven't even read the 9th and 10th.
The fact that Congress has 'twisted' this provision
There's a very clear delineation between the author or inventor in his cottage and the King George who seeks to buy him out and become the "copyright holder". If you can't see that then, at the risk of trolling, you're a fucking idiot.
in a tradition reaching back 295 years to the first copyright law
Longevity does not make it Constitutional.
Paintings have no utility as a rule
Arguable.
Nor are paintings a form of art -- since in 1789 when the Constitution was drafted, art referred to 'technical arts'
Pure conjecture.
Where in the Constitution does it say that "arts refers only to technical arts"?
On my side. No where in the Constitution are "authors and inventors" equated with "copyright holders". No where in the Constitution is "copyright" even mentioned.
It's out of federal jurisdiction.
You haven't even touched the 9th and 10th Amendments yet. I suppose you're watching my posts. I've got two more today until I have to wait 'til tomorrow to push my schlong down your throat.
I'm sorry, you're saying that foreclosures, for example, are unconstitutional? Exactly how far in left field are you, man?
States and localities, as per the 9th and 10th, are free to legislate on foreclosures. That's not under federal jurisdiction. This isn't about "the left". It's about "the right".
You're concerned with what the language literally is instead of what it actually means or even the purposes and ideals behind it.
The language was meant to prevent another King George who could twist the law any way he wanted it, as you have done.
would you claim that it does not permit for federal copyrights as to paintings of artists, or music of composers?
Authors and inventors. Artists are inventors of their art.
There has long been a distinction made between authors, who are the persons in which a copyright initially vests, and copyright holders (also known as proprietors) to whom the copyright later passes by assignment or operation of law.
Spin it however you like. That "operation of law" is unconstitutional. It's outside the jurisdiction of the federal gov't as defined by the 9th and 10th Amendments.
The acts of the First Congress are often afforded special treatment
Unconstitutional. Not my fault.
the Statute of Anne -- the first copyright law -- provides for assignment
Unconstitutional. Not my fault.
So it's nice of you to weigh in
In a court you'll win because you have the money interests on your side. However, according to the letter of the Constitution, you're still wrong.
in light of Eldred
That's Elrond. And you're still unconstitutional.
Want to try a better argument?
Sure. How about the one that asks you to read and adhere to the 9th and 10th Amendments?
Slashdot Mirror
Either work to change it, or leave
I'll get right on that Mr. King George, sir. Just as soon as I'm done working in His Majeties' coal mine which barely pays enough wage to keep a roof over my head while paying His Majesties' enormous tax rate to fund His Majesties' opulent Washington DC lifestyle so that His Majesty can dream of all the laws by which to hamstring the coal miners and prevent them from legally deposing His Majesty. Mind if we start with your head, a la French revolution, first?
Government has indeed helped to coordinate efforts of individual communities so that we don't (theoretically) have the railway problem of two lines with differing axle lengths.
Beyond that, though, come back to reality: government involvement and oversight sucks.
In the case of WiFi, I feel that, if the governments want to get involved, they should do so only in the function of lighting a fire under the backsides of the available corporate providers to get them into a competitive bidding war and get the service installed as soon as possible.
Government is a mouthpiece. It is not a tool.
Linux was copyrighted according to the GPL
I think the spirit of GPL is "anti-copyright".
The whole part about redistributing modifications, providing source code, and not charging come off as guidelines on playing fair and being nice.
I fully support legal action against people who infringe the GPL but, if the system were absent of a legal recognition of copyright, GPL infringers would be at worse risk of being permanently taken offline by the Tai Chi and Kung Fu GNU monks who police the networked planet.
Want to preserve your copyright? Don't write it down in a form which is easily copied.
Cope.
What? Once a law has been passed, it can't be repealed?Interesting note. Theoretically it's possible for laws to be repealed and pigs to fly. In practice, however, Congress passes (iirc) close to 1000 new laws every year and repeals (iirc) close to none.
The balance is clearly weighted in one direction.
What part of Stalinist Russia do you want to live in?
No I didn't.
No I haven't.
All respect to the court system. I do not recognize them as valid licenses.
That seems to be the way of it since the mid-1800s.
So do I. Since you can't it becomes funny.
GPL say,"We do not have money to support lawyers. Take this but be fair about it. If you are not fair about it we will have an easy case finding a lawyer to beat you down."
you've been trolled
I'm bored enough to eat trolls.
Enjoy looking like an idiot already?
What's that? Is that a little girl I hear? You hear that whining Ace? What happened to mister big mouth?
Wait. You mean that's _not_ how it works?
I'm screwed...
Thank you very much for that spectrum.
Interesting things to note:
2800-2400: Apples falls off more quickly, while oranges has more slope. Since this is the far end of the C-H stretch region and towards the middle of an IR spectrum (which, save for C-D stretches and extreme -NCO, is fairly blank).
Do oranges have an enzyme whose kinetics favors deuterium? Or are the compounds of oranges simply more prevalent in high strength (double, triple, and heteroaromatic) bonds?
The lump at 2000 and the dip to 1800 suggests several things. Again, oranges may be sequestering deuterium, or apples simply have a larger spread of compounds with absorbances to fill out this region.
I left my Silverman book at work...
we were unable to defrag its ext2 file system
... rewrite the code, from scratch, for Windows 2000
That's the beauty of the ext2 filesystems. Except in red herring cases, the filesystem keeps itself from becoming unworkably fragmented.
FreedBSD is copyrighted under something called the GPL
Oh yeah? The FreeBSD guys might have something to say about that.
We could either give away our hard work, or
Ummmmmmmmmm.
I think the biggest thing keeping FreedBSD from being truly competitive with Microsoft is this GPL
Key the light that says "laughter".
such as Microsoft's "Shared Source"
Key the light that says "laughter".
Sounds like a software opportunity. When is MS going to start their GPL compliant department?
Just checking...
We went from this: pawn shops have to take a lot of precautions to make sure they only buy from the actual owner
to this: Just because they're required to, doesn't mean they actually do
Care to elaborate? Just what part of the software stack is missing?
That's why pawn shops have to take a lot of precautions
Who are you kidding? I'm having trouble suppressing my good-natured laughter at this distortion of reality.
If you're selling something they check your ID (maybe) and have you sign a form which asks,"This stuff isn't stolen, is it?"
I have never spoken to you before this so we obviously do not have a "contract".
It was a shrink-wrap EULA assessed at POS for your driver's license. Contact your local BMV for further details.
This includes copyright transfers.
The bounds are limited by the 9th. Typical of a lawyer, you're expanding to fit your personal desire.
No wonder your kind are labelled as the scum of society.
Unconstitutional. There is no "as it sees fit" unless you want to validate "As King George sees fit".
"Copyright holder" is an enumeration of "authors and creators" and, per the 9th amendment, is disallowed.
I'm impressed? Oh wait... yet you still don't know about "25 posts per day (more or less)".
I have no posts left to violate your anus. See you tomorrow around 3:30 PM if you care to continue.
A copyright holder is not necessarily an "author and inventor". Sorry for you. The Constitution only protects "authors and inventors".
Only serves to illustrate that courts can be bought.
Care to quote that from the Constitution?
I'd support you at the State or Local level. But at the Federal level, there are very specific rules laid down.
You cannot expand "authors and inventors" to include copyright holders.
Oh God. This explain everything. I'm arguing with a newb.
It takes you almost 30 minutes to respond. Are you retarded?
I have one post left today to violate your anus.
Well, previously you said that the other operations of law by which a copyright can move from one person to another were unconstitutional. Foreclosure is one such operation of law. I'll leave you to reconcile your contradictions.
Since the Constitution says nothing about foreclosures, I guess that right is reserved to the states or the people.
You haven't even read the 9th and 10th.
The fact that Congress has 'twisted' this provision
There's a very clear delineation between the author or inventor in his cottage and the King George who seeks to buy him out and become the "copyright holder". If you can't see that then, at the risk of trolling, you're a fucking idiot.
in a tradition reaching back 295 years to the first copyright law
Longevity does not make it Constitutional.
Paintings have no utility as a rule
Arguable.
Nor are paintings a form of art -- since in 1789 when the Constitution was drafted, art referred to 'technical arts'
Pure conjecture.
Where in the Constitution does it say that "arts refers only to technical arts"?
On my side. No where in the Constitution are "authors and inventors" equated with "copyright holders". No where in the Constitution is "copyright" even mentioned.
It's out of federal jurisdiction.
You haven't even touched the 9th and 10th Amendments yet. I suppose you're watching my posts. I've got two more today until I have to wait 'til tomorrow to push my schlong down your throat.
actually you provided the pee without a contract
I have a contract for my pee. It's your problem if you didn't read it before opening your tap and drinking.
I'm sorry, you're saying that foreclosures, for example, are unconstitutional? Exactly how far in left field are you, man?
States and localities, as per the 9th and 10th, are free to legislate on foreclosures. That's not under federal jurisdiction. This isn't about "the left". It's about "the right".
You're concerned with what the language literally is instead of what it actually means or even the purposes and ideals behind it.
The language was meant to prevent another King George who could twist the law any way he wanted it, as you have done.
would you claim that it does not permit for federal copyrights as to paintings of artists, or music of composers?
Authors and inventors. Artists are inventors of their art.
There has long been a distinction made between authors, who are the persons in which a copyright initially vests, and copyright holders (also known as proprietors) to whom the copyright later passes by assignment or operation of law.
Spin it however you like. That "operation of law" is unconstitutional. It's outside the jurisdiction of the federal gov't as defined by the 9th and 10th Amendments.
The acts of the First Congress are often afforded special treatment
Unconstitutional. Not my fault.
the Statute of Anne -- the first copyright law -- provides for assignment
Unconstitutional. Not my fault.
So it's nice of you to weigh in
In a court you'll win because you have the money interests on your side. However, according to the letter of the Constitution, you're still wrong.
in light of Eldred
That's Elrond. And you're still unconstitutional.
Want to try a better argument?
Sure. How about the one that asks you to read and adhere to the 9th and 10th Amendments?