.I thought the same thing at first, but then I read the rest of the summary:
some of the documents talked about how to recruit airport screeners and several of them even covered data security practices
Typically we're interested in contracts during the bidding process (to make sure the public is not being ripped off), and later on, to see that the contractor actually delivers the goods. But "transparency" doesn't mean everyone needs to know the details of how Northrop Grumman builds its missiles or whatever.
Well, one of the moderations was "redundant", which is fair since someone mentioned the same thing again. But yeah, I think there's some general ignorance surrounding those terms - people think "Negroid" is a slur (just like that politician a few years ago who got lambasted for saying "niggardly"). From wikipedia:
In physical anthropology the term is one of the three general racial classifications of humans â" Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Negroid. Under this classification scheme, humans are divisible into broad sub-groups based on phenotypic characteristics such as cranial and skeletal morphology. Such classifications remain in use today in the fields of anthropology and forensics to help identify the ethnicity, lineage and origin of human remains.
What I disagree with here is the assumption that those who choose one necessarily choose the other.
Oops, you're right, I misworded that - I just meant to say that a principled person could both complain about GPL violations as well as violate copyright without being hypocritical; not to imply that it's necessary to do both. Thanks.
This type of comment comes up every time a GPL violation is mentioned: something along the lines of, "It's hypocritical to support enforcing the GPL while at the same time complaining about Microsoft and the RIAA's copyrights." This argument betrays a fundamental confusion between 1) the purpose of the GPL and 2) its mechanism (how it works). Let me explain.
The purpose of the GPL is to ensure that people who use software have the "four freedoms": the freedom to
1. run the program, for any purpose
2. to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs
3. to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor
4. to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits
You might disagree with the necessity or value of any or all of these, but these are the things that the GPL was designed to ensure.
At this point, it's important to note that prima facie, numbers 3 and 4 are in direct conflict with the typical use of copyright law. The rights to distribute and create derivative works fall exclusively to the copyright holder. However, the GPL turns copyright on its head - it uses the legal framework of copyright to not only permit redistribution and improvements, but to actually require that others do the same. This is why it's sometimes called "copyleft." Thus, the GPL uses the mechanism of copyright law to accomplish its goal. However, this does not mean that the goals of the GPL and copyright law coincide.
Now someone typically comments with "Yeah, but without copyright the GPL couldn't work." First, that is not necessarily true. It's possible that there could be some other legal mechanism by which the GPL could continue to function, e.g., contracts or what have you. Second, without copyright, the GPL might not be as necessary, since presumably copyright law wouldn't prohibit the freedoms the GPL aims to achieve. (There might be other difficulties, such as people obfuscating or otherwise hiding code, but that is another issue).
So if someone is committed to the "four freedoms", they will likely complain about GPL violations, but also violate the copyrights of others: e.g., perhaps someone wants to run OS X on their non-Apple hardware (definitely invoking freedoms 1, 2, and possibly 3 and 4). That's not hypocritical, but in fact principled.
Seriously - if you are a student who writes anything of any length, check out Zotero. It's not just web citations, it can pull information from your library database, online databases like EBSCO, HeinOnline, etc. Use the word processor integration as well, it will save you hours of work.
Actually, yes. The word "profit" makes a huge difference in terms of law. In fact, before the NET Act, copyright infringement without profit couldn't be prosecuted as criminal infringement. "Profit" vs. other motives matters in many other areas of copyright law, too.
Damn it,/. ate my comment. I'll try to recreate it.
You're confusing the purpose of the GPL with it's mechanism. The GPL uses copyright law to try and advance the goals of free software and access to source code. Just because it uses copyright law doesn't mean that everyone who supports the GPL agrees with the goals of copyright law (the two are very different).
It'd be perfectly reasonable for someone to complain about GPL violations but also be violating Apple's copyright, e.g., by working on a Hackintosh project. That's hardly hypocritical.
Strictly speaking this isn't about my "home directories", but I use a combination of things to sync the information I need between my desktop and laptop:
1. Windows Live Sync (formerly known as Foldershare). Yeah, I know, it's from Microsoft, and only available for Windows and OS X, but it works pretty seamlessly and without much intervention on my part. I sync specific directories of projects I am working on using this; it's a set it and forget it tool.
2. Foxmarks for bookmarks.
3. Zotero, version 1.5 of which has the ability to sync resources between multiple computers. This is a godsend.
No, the OP took the "why interfere in foreign matters instead of improving our own country" stance.
How exactly is that different than what I said OP said: "we should do this for our people first"?
My point was that the OP made it sound like this was a simple case of foreign aid vs. domestic utility, as if there were absolutely nothing that sets Iran apart from any other case of foreign aid.
That's a little unfair. I think the OP's argument was made despite current events.
It didn't sound that way to me. OP in no way made any reference to Iran in particular, or current events, and the use of "our own have-nots" (as opposed to Iranian have-nots) just sounds like a simple "we should aid our own people rather than foreigners."
Also, if this were possible, but were expensive and difficult maintain, that could be a reason to deploy it in special situations, rather than as general broadband service.
It's legitimate to wonder whether it would be a wise thing to do, but the OP's argument was "we should do this for our people first" (similar to an AC post down below), and appears to be totally ignorant of current events.
Are you really telling me you don't see a good reason to provide an unfiltered communication capability to Iran given its current situation? It wouldn't have to a permanent setup.
On the other hand, then they could legitimately blame us for interference...
The network will be paid with municipal bonds ($25M), these bonds will be paid by the tax money of future residents. This lowers the value of the real estate in the municipality.
How, exactly? In my state, general obligations bonds are funded by the property tax, and it seems like property taxes go up regardless...
A quarter of the voters rejected the plan, they are being looted.
Is the idea that anyone who votes against participating in something shouldn't have to participate it when they are outvoted? Because that's not how government generally works...
A municipality has no right to exist, much less to pile on debt that it will repay by stealing future residents.
Why does it have no right to exist? Also, I assume you meant stealing future residents' taxes...
This is wrong by practically any standard of morality, expect the one where you grant magical super moral powers to governments.
It might be unwise, and you might disagree with the course of action, but why is it morally wrong, by practically any standard of morality? Considering the projects that many grants that are funded by bonds go to, I'd rather see GO bonds go to something that has broad appeal and use.
Also, if this is anything like "24" there will be about 3 moles inside this 10 person organization. Apparently one prerequisite for working at CTU is that you don't go through any sort of background check.
That's not what is being said. Rather, I think the point is that if registration of copyright occurs after the infringement occurs, this has an effect on the calculation of damages.
Your fantasy-land in which intellectual property has no value, and clearly guilty people have the cases against them dismissed... that's the imaginary one.
Did you even bother to read Ray's post? I'm guessing not.
Ray points out some extremely simple things that were overlooked. Here's one example:
The jury should have been required to make findings as to (a) the date defendant commenced using an âoeonline media distribution systemâ (Kazaa) and (b) the copyright registration effective date of each work they find was infringed.
The jury could have been instructed that no statutory damages could be awarded as to any work whose copyright registration effective date was subsequent to the date of defendant's commencement of use of Kazaa [or the Court could itself have made that determination based on the answers to the verdict form].
I don't recall the exact details off the top of my head, but basically if you want to bring a lawsuit over copyright in the U.S., you need to have registered that copyright. Under Berne, copyright attaches at the moment of creation (fixation), but the U.S. requires registration of works if there's going to be a case about it (at least for domestic works). This is a simple technical detail, but if the works were registered after any copying or distribution happened, it is an important fact.
Also, Ray is not saying IP has no value.... sounds like you have an axe to grind and are just looking for a place to do it.
Really, my summary is hyped up a bit. I doubt that Kappos will usher in a new era on his own; so much of
patent law depends on Congress and the courts anyway. However, given the views of his predecessor (Dudas is
on record as saying that "we must
also actively educate the world that it [our patent system] is fundamentally the best system"), Kappos is on
record as saying that in the U.S., "Trivial patents are being granted. By contrast, the system is better
in Europe."
I think Kappos' background is also notable. He's really the first director of the computer generation: got
an engineering degree, began working at IBM as an engineer, and then went over to law as a patent lawyer. By
contrast, previous directors have either not had technical backgrounds, or have jumped around in the IP
fields (Q. Todd Dickinson began work at Baxter, a
healthcare company). I think Kappos having been brought up in IBM will make him more open to (or at least
less skeptical of) open source-type ideas than any of the other former directors, and his
computer/engineering background will also make him more critical of our patent system, and not as focused on
ratcheting protections up as far as they can go. Imagine, on the other hand, if the appointee had been
someone from PhRMA.
It is not unusual that a patent lawyer would hold an engineering degree; in fact, to sit for the patent
bar, one needs typically needs an engineering or science degree, and some patent lawyers have advanced
degrees in their areas of specialty. However, I thought it worth mentioning given that the former director of
the USPTO, Jon Dudas, did not have any engineering or science background, but rather a degree in
finance.
Hm, ok, it must vary by state. I think in Maryland, you are required to have a BA/BS and a certification to start, and then you must get a Master's degree within 10 years if you want to continue, or something like that.
Slashdot Mirror
.I thought the same thing at first, but then I read the rest of the summary:
some of the documents talked about how to recruit airport screeners and several of them even covered data security practices
Typically we're interested in contracts during the bidding process (to make sure the public is not being ripped off), and later on, to see that the contractor actually delivers the goods. But "transparency" doesn't mean everyone needs to know the details of how Northrop Grumman builds its missiles or whatever.
In physical anthropology the term is one of the three general racial classifications of humans â" Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Negroid. Under this classification scheme, humans are divisible into broad sub-groups based on phenotypic characteristics such as cranial and skeletal morphology. Such classifications remain in use today in the fields of anthropology and forensics to help identify the ethnicity, lineage and origin of human remains.
What I disagree with here is the assumption that those who choose one necessarily choose the other.
Oops, you're right, I misworded that - I just meant to say that a principled person could both complain about GPL violations as well as violate copyright without being hypocritical; not to imply that it's necessary to do both. Thanks.
No, like how a Panasonic DVD burner would stifle your ability to burn non-Panasonic discs, if one did that.
This type of comment comes up every time a GPL violation is mentioned: something along the lines of, "It's hypocritical to support enforcing the GPL while at the same time complaining about Microsoft and the RIAA's copyrights." This argument betrays a fundamental confusion between 1) the purpose of the GPL and 2) its mechanism (how it works). Let me explain.
The purpose of the GPL is to ensure that people who use software have the "four freedoms": the freedom to
1. run the program, for any purpose
2. to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs
3. to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor
4. to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits
You might disagree with the necessity or value of any or all of these, but these are the things that the GPL was designed to ensure.
At this point, it's important to note that prima facie, numbers 3 and 4 are in direct conflict with the typical use of copyright law. The rights to distribute and create derivative works fall exclusively to the copyright holder. However, the GPL turns copyright on its head - it uses the legal framework of copyright to not only permit redistribution and improvements, but to actually require that others do the same. This is why it's sometimes called "copyleft." Thus, the GPL uses the mechanism of copyright law to accomplish its goal. However, this does not mean that the goals of the GPL and copyright law coincide.
Now someone typically comments with "Yeah, but without copyright the GPL couldn't work." First, that is not necessarily true. It's possible that there could be some other legal mechanism by which the GPL could continue to function, e.g., contracts or what have you. Second, without copyright, the GPL might not be as necessary, since presumably copyright law wouldn't prohibit the freedoms the GPL aims to achieve. (There might be other difficulties, such as people obfuscating or otherwise hiding code, but that is another issue).
So if someone is committed to the "four freedoms", they will likely complain about GPL violations, but also violate the copyrights of others: e.g., perhaps someone wants to run OS X on their non-Apple hardware (definitely invoking freedoms 1, 2, and possibly 3 and 4). That's not hypocritical, but in fact principled.
Seriously - if you are a student who writes anything of any length, check out Zotero. It's not just web citations, it can pull information from your library database, online databases like EBSCO, HeinOnline, etc. Use the word processor integration as well, it will save you hours of work.
but I think we can safely call a spade a spare.
I like bowling too.
Is it simply the word "profit"?
Actually, yes. The word "profit" makes a huge difference in terms of law. In fact, before the NET Act, copyright infringement without profit couldn't be prosecuted as criminal infringement. "Profit" vs. other motives matters in many other areas of copyright law, too.
Damn it, /. ate my comment. I'll try to recreate it.
You're confusing the purpose of the GPL with it's mechanism. The GPL uses copyright law to try and advance the goals of free software and access to source code. Just because it uses copyright law doesn't mean that everyone who supports the GPL agrees with the goals of copyright law (the two are very different).
It'd be perfectly reasonable for someone to complain about GPL violations but also be violating Apple's copyright, e.g., by working on a Hackintosh project. That's hardly hypocritical.
Strictly speaking this isn't about my "home directories", but I use a combination of things to sync the information I need between my desktop and laptop:
1. Windows Live Sync (formerly known as Foldershare). Yeah, I know, it's from Microsoft, and only available for Windows and OS X, but it works pretty seamlessly and without much intervention on my part. I sync specific directories of projects I am working on using this; it's a set it and forget it tool.
2. Foxmarks for bookmarks.
3. Zotero, version 1.5 of which has the ability to sync resources between multiple computers. This is a godsend.
If you're going to be patronizing, you could at least read my entire comment. Do you see the part where I say
and the use of "our own have-nots" (as opposed to Iranian have-nots) just sounds like a simple "we should aid our own people rather than foreigners."
? Also, give the number of clueless people on /., it's never safe to assume an offhand comment like OP's is made from someone who is informed.
No, the OP took the "why interfere in foreign matters instead of improving our own country" stance.
How exactly is that different than what I said OP said: "we should do this for our people first"?
My point was that the OP made it sound like this was a simple case of foreign aid vs. domestic utility, as if there were absolutely nothing that sets Iran apart from any other case of foreign aid.
That's a little unfair. I think the OP's argument was made despite current events.
It didn't sound that way to me. OP in no way made any reference to Iran in particular, or current events, and the use of "our own have-nots" (as opposed to Iranian have-nots) just sounds like a simple "we should aid our own people rather than foreigners."
Also, if this were possible, but were expensive and difficult maintain, that could be a reason to deploy it in special situations, rather than as general broadband service.
From what I understand, satellite dishes are pretty popular in Iran....
It's legitimate to wonder whether it would be a wise thing to do, but the OP's argument was "we should do this for our people first" (similar to an AC post down below), and appears to be totally ignorant of current events.
Are you really telling me you don't see a good reason to provide an unfiltered communication capability to Iran given its current situation? It wouldn't have to a permanent setup.
On the other hand, then they could legitimately blame us for interference...
The network will be paid with municipal bonds ($25M), these bonds will be paid by the tax money of future residents. This lowers the value of the real estate in the municipality.
How, exactly? In my state, general obligations bonds are funded by the property tax, and it seems like property taxes go up regardless...
A quarter of the voters rejected the plan, they are being looted.
Is the idea that anyone who votes against participating in something shouldn't have to participate it when they are outvoted? Because that's not how government generally works...
A municipality has no right to exist, much less to pile on debt that it will repay by stealing future residents.
Why does it have no right to exist? Also, I assume you meant stealing future residents' taxes...
This is wrong by practically any standard of morality, expect the one where you grant magical super moral powers to governments.
It might be unwise, and you might disagree with the course of action, but why is it morally wrong, by practically any standard of morality? Considering the projects that many grants that are funded by bonds go to, I'd rather see GO bonds go to something that has broad appeal and use.
Also, if this is anything like "24" there will be about 3 moles inside this 10 person organization. Apparently one prerequisite for working at CTU is that you don't go through any sort of background check.
Hm, sounds a lot like Perverted Justice, in the sense of a group of non-law enforcement people who band together. Sort of a form of group vigilantism.
Crowd-sourcing would be putting up live feeds to the web and letting anyone watch who wants to.
That's not what is being said. Rather, I think the point is that if registration of copyright occurs after the infringement occurs, this has an effect on the calculation of damages.
Your fantasy-land in which intellectual property has no value, and clearly guilty people have the cases against them dismissed... that's the imaginary one.
Did you even bother to read Ray's post? I'm guessing not.
Ray points out some extremely simple things that were overlooked. Here's one example:
The jury should have been required to make findings as to (a) the date defendant commenced using an âoeonline media distribution systemâ (Kazaa) and (b) the copyright registration effective date of each work they find was infringed. The jury could have been instructed that no statutory damages could be awarded as to any work whose copyright registration effective date was subsequent to the date of defendant's commencement of use of Kazaa [or the Court could itself have made that determination based on the answers to the verdict form].
I don't recall the exact details off the top of my head, but basically if you want to bring a lawsuit over copyright in the U.S., you need to have registered that copyright. Under Berne, copyright attaches at the moment of creation (fixation), but the U.S. requires registration of works if there's going to be a case about it (at least for domestic works). This is a simple technical detail, but if the works were registered after any copying or distribution happened, it is an important fact.
Also, Ray is not saying IP has no value.... sounds like you have an axe to grind and are just looking for a place to do it.
He's also not a "doctor" of anything.
I mean, usually you can't upgrade the components in Apple stuff very easily.
Ah, but you see, Jobs is an older model and comes with the superbly designed and easily upgradeable outrigger body.
Really, my summary is hyped up a bit. I doubt that Kappos will usher in a new era on his own; so much of patent law depends on Congress and the courts anyway. However, given the views of his predecessor (Dudas is on record as saying that "we must also actively educate the world that it [our patent system] is fundamentally the best system"), Kappos is on record as saying that in the U.S., "Trivial patents are being granted. By contrast, the system is better in Europe."
I think Kappos' background is also notable. He's really the first director of the computer generation: got an engineering degree, began working at IBM as an engineer, and then went over to law as a patent lawyer. By contrast, previous directors have either not had technical backgrounds, or have jumped around in the IP fields (Q. Todd Dickinson began work at Baxter, a healthcare company). I think Kappos having been brought up in IBM will make him more open to (or at least less skeptical of) open source-type ideas than any of the other former directors, and his computer/engineering background will also make him more critical of our patent system, and not as focused on ratcheting protections up as far as they can go. Imagine, on the other hand, if the appointee had been someone from PhRMA.
It is not unusual that a patent lawyer would hold an engineering degree; in fact, to sit for the patent bar, one needs typically needs an engineering or science degree, and some patent lawyers have advanced degrees in their areas of specialty. However, I thought it worth mentioning given that the former director of the USPTO, Jon Dudas, did not have any engineering or science background, but rather a degree in finance.
Hm, ok, it must vary by state. I think in Maryland, you are required to have a BA/BS and a certification to start, and then you must get a Master's degree within 10 years if you want to continue, or something like that.