I realize that/. seems to think that there should be no patent or copyright, but not even trade secrets?
I would expect the same people who oppose patents on the grounds of promoting openness and sharing of innovation would also oppose trade secrets for the same reason.
Funny how the same/. crowd that though it was OK to have bloggers register with the US Government now become First Amendment absolutists when the law negatively impacts the intellectual property of the patent holder on AAC.
I see you didn't read the law either. In order to have to register, you would need to be a blogger whom someone hired and paid at least $25,000 to promote a specific message. In other words, it's a shill registry, not a blogger registry, and you know how much/. loves shills.
Now, go ahead and mod down that with which you disagree...
The problem isn't really that the lawyers get so much -- it's that the supposed victims get so little. If it's an individual suing, the lawyers get paid well, and the plaintiff (thoeretically, at least) gets a significant benefit from having sued. WIth a class action suit, the lawyers still get paid well, but the people who were supposedly wronged get so little that many of them don't even bother collecting it.
It's the cable companies that are pushing their voip services that are going to be the real troublemakers for skype and vonage. If you have cable and you're not buying their voip, then they're not getting the money they believe they are entitled to.
Isn't preventing this exactly the point of allowing only "type of service" traffic shaping? Or did you mean that's what would happen without neutrality law?
I tell my ISP to go fuck themselves and switch to a provider that honours net neutrality.
Everyone else does this too because we really like Google Video.
Then you remember that since you don't live close enough to a DSLAM, the only other available provider is dial-up, and it not only takes forever to load the video but ties up your phone line too.
From what I've heard, neutrality has been mostly a non-issue at the backbone level -- it's only the last mile providers who were trying to be non-neutral. So no, VoIP is probably not dead, but yeah, I'd definitely expect there to be continued problems if you try to use VoIP with a DSL connection.
From the ISP side, unless I have a business connection or the rare "clueful end user", I do traffic shaping on all connections, basically tossing p2p to the bottom of the stack, VOIP and video services to the top, and everything else to the middle. Now the kicker of Net Neutrality is that *technically*, I become a bad guy if I do this.
No, not really, since you're not throttling based on who sent it, but on type of traffic. The only people I've heard say that network neutrality means no traffic shaping based on type of data are those who oppose it. It started as a strawman made by the major ISPs, and then seems to have turned into genuine misunderstanding by others.
It's entirely possible for me to decide that someone has paid me additional funds (say the local tv station) to prioritize their video feed above others to make sure it gets a nice clear picture, vs their competitors video feeds.
Now it's based on who's sending the data, so now you'd be a bad guy.
Since you don't seem to have read it either...
From Section 220:
`(19) GRASSROOTS LOBBYING FIRM- The term `grassroots lobbying firm' means a person or entity that--
`(A) is retained by 1 or more clients to engage in paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying on behalf of such clients; and
`(B) receives income of, or spends or agrees to spend, an aggregate of $25,000 or more for such efforts in any quarterly period.'.
Thus there is, in fact, something that a licensee can't do under the GPL that he could do without it: keep his code secret.
If I give you some code under "fair use," you can make your own derivative works for personal/internal use.
If I give you some code under "fair use," you cannot publish your own open-source derivative works.
If I give you some code under "fair use," you cannot publish your own closed-source derivative works.
If I give you some code under the GPL, you can make your own derivative works for personal/internal use.
If I give you some code under the GPL, you can publish your own open-source derivative works.
If I give you some code under the GPL, you cannot publish your own closed-source derivative works.
You seem to want this to be a comparison between GPL and public domain. It isn't.
You asked how the requirements regarding how GPL'd works can be redistributed weren't a demand. The GPL says you can redistribute the software with the source code. Saying you can't redistribute without the source code isn't a demand set by the license (though it is certainly clarified there), but by copyright law. You couldn't do that to begin with, so saying the GPL bars you from doing that is like saying the 2005 Anti-Phishing Act made phishing illegal -- it already was illegal.
AFAIK (IANAL) for something to involve contract law in any way, there has to be some form of contract. One requirement of a contract is that there must be consideration from both sides (in the case of copyright licensing, the consideration involves giving up legal rights). The licensors give up legal rights (otherwise they could sue people who reuse the open-source code in their own open source projects). The licensee does not give up any rights (there is nothing that the licensee can't do under the GPL that he could do without it).
No, I think we really just need to reign in patents and copyrights. The privileges granted with them have gotten to be too expansive and long-lasting to really support their original purpose.
I haven't really seen anything all that wrong with trade secret law, and I can't come up with any good reason to eliminate trademark law.
An acquaintance of mine from high school has Asperger's. I just watched some video of an interview Draper, and they act very similar, right down to having the same general posture and face expressions. Spooky.
It depends what groups of people you're considering. The "socialites" and the "suits" obviously won't think much of someone who dresses sloppily/unprofessionally and has an abrasive personality. Among geeks, those traits seem to draw admiration. That type of personality even gets some applause from "ordinary" people
One nunnery they studied, whose order believes than an idle mind is the devil's playground, the incidence of mental disease was a fraction of the total population, and the overall lifespans were tremendously greater (the two librarians were 97 and 99 years old)
Is that in comparison to the general population or in comparison to the average nunnery? I would expect most nunneries (and other places that encourage such a lifestyle) would have longer life expectancies and lower rates of both mental and physical illness.
That depends on what you do with the hardware. If all you ever do with the hardware is press the power button, you're fine. If you make any upgrades, WGA may decide to cut you off.
I know lots and lots of people who are quite satisfied with their lives.
So do I, but their satisfaction with life isn't going to maintain order. There will always be someone bitter/jealous enough to want to stir things up, ruin it for everyone else, etc., and it doesn't take many people to do just that.
Slashdot Mirror
I see you didn't read the law either. In order to have to register, you would need to be a blogger whom someone hired and paid at least $25,000 to promote a specific message. In other words, it's a shill registry, not a blogger registry, and you know how much
Almost took your advice here
The problem isn't really that the lawyers get so much -- it's that the supposed victims get so little. If it's an individual suing, the lawyers get paid well, and the plaintiff (thoeretically, at least) gets a significant benefit from having sued. WIth a class action suit, the lawyers still get paid well, but the people who were supposedly wronged get so little that many of them don't even bother collecting it.
Dial-up is fine for posting on
From what I've heard, neutrality has been mostly a non-issue at the backbone level -- it's only the last mile providers who were trying to be non-neutral. So no, VoIP is probably not dead, but yeah, I'd definitely expect there to be continued problems if you try to use VoIP with a DSL connection.
Now it's based on who's sending the data, so now you'd be a bad guy.
Not all prioritization is the same.
From Section 220: That enough for you?
If I give you some code under "fair use," you cannot publish your own open-source derivative works.
If I give you some code under "fair use," you cannot publish your own closed-source derivative works.
If I give you some code under the GPL, you can make your own derivative works for personal/internal use.
If I give you some code under the GPL, you can publish your own open-source derivative works.
If I give you some code under the GPL, you cannot publish your own closed-source derivative works.
You seem to want this to be a comparison between GPL and public domain. It isn't.
You asked how the requirements regarding how GPL'd works can be redistributed weren't a demand. The GPL says you can redistribute the software with the source code. Saying you can't redistribute without the source code isn't a demand set by the license (though it is certainly clarified there), but by copyright law. You couldn't do that to begin with, so saying the GPL bars you from doing that is like saying the 2005 Anti-Phishing Act made phishing illegal -- it already was illegal.
AFAIK (IANAL) for something to involve contract law in any way, there has to be some form of contract. One requirement of a contract is that there must be consideration from both sides (in the case of copyright licensing, the consideration involves giving up legal rights). The licensors give up legal rights (otherwise they could sue people who reuse the open-source code in their own open source projects). The licensee does not give up any rights (there is nothing that the licensee can't do under the GPL that he could do without it).
Taken from America's Finest News Source.
The basic idea seems to be that there is nothing normal copyright law would allow that the GPL prevents.
No, I think we really just need to reign in patents and copyrights. The privileges granted with them have gotten to be too expansive and long-lasting to really support their original purpose.
I haven't really seen anything all that wrong with trade secret law, and I can't come up with any good reason to eliminate trademark law.
An acquaintance of mine from high school has Asperger's. I just watched some video of an interview Draper, and they act very similar, right down to having the same general posture and face expressions. Spooky.
Oh come on, Funny mods don't get you karma!
It depends what groups of people you're considering. The "socialites" and the "suits" obviously won't think much of someone who dresses sloppily/unprofessionally and has an abrasive personality. Among geeks, those traits seem to draw admiration. That type of personality even gets some applause from "ordinary" people
It's getting pretty messy now.
http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Darwin/Co nceptual/KernelProgramming/Architecture/chapter_3_ section_3.html
The kernel is, in fact, based on Mach. The BSD code uses some of Mach's functions/abstractions.
If interest is charged to mediate risk, why is there also collateral?
That depends on what you do with the hardware. If all you ever do with the hardware is press the power button, you're fine. If you make any upgrades, WGA may decide to cut you off.
He needs to actually spend some time around guns.
Main language in Istanbul: Turkish
Main languages in Constantinople: Latin and Greek
That's a big difference there. They must be different cities.