Say what!? The United States has done everything humanly possible to bring a reasonable settlement to the Palestinians.
You've been misled by the American media. The US has done everything in humanly possible to bring a reasonable settlement to the Israelis. In most cases, it has consistently required that the State of Israel have a right to exist, but not a Palestinian state.
Why is every attack against the Israelis performed by Palestinian terrorists? Why doesn't the Palestinian army retaliate when Israeli troops attack part of Palestine? Because the Palestinians are not permitted to have any troops. Therefore, any attack carried out in their name is terrorism.
If both sides were allowed to exist as states, this problem could be resolved in a civilised manner by civilised nations.
Just about every project insists upon using the latest version of rpm to package Linux binaries, so one has to somehow install RedHat's latest package manager which, of course, the binaries are "conveniently" stored in the latest rpm format, so you can't install the thing until after you've installed it! It'd be easier to just install Red Hat's distro on your machine than try to get the newest version of their package manager on your system.
Go to the rpm.org website where, on the front page, there's a link to the ftp site. At the ftp site, you can find all of the current source and binaries in both rpm and.tar.gz formats.
But how does Oregon prevent voting fraud? Easy. We check signatures on the envelopes against the voter registration. Not sure what the sample rate is, but fraud has not been an issue. If you don't get the ballot and you were supposed to, you go down to the elections office, show your ID, they verify your registration and they void out the missing ballot (so even if someone turns it in, when they go to scan the barcode before checking sigs, they see it's void and throw it out). They issue you a ballot and hand it to you and you're on your way.
So, really, Oregon doesn't prevent voter fraud. That mechanism merely indicates the sender is who they say they are, with some reasonable reliability. But what it doesn't do is assure that they're really voting for who they want to win. A standard scenario from late 1800s, early 1900s, was for a group, such as a labor union or company, to have a voting party to make sure everyone votes the way they want you to. While this might be a little more obvious these days, what in your scheme stops this from happening?
Nothing. Voting mechanisms that allow you to vote from someplace other than the polling booth will always be flawed. I personally dislike absentee ballots, but with their use being fairly small in most states, it isn't really a big deal. I can now be fairly certain, however, that Oregon's vote is close to useless.
What does all this mean? Well, for starters, you get three or four weeks with your ballot instead of three or four minutes. Time is on your side in making an informed, well-thought decision without having to stress out that you're missing out on having a life to go down to the polls and vote.
So what? In every state I've ever been a registered voter in, the options that'll be on the ballot show up in the mail a month before the election. If I don't bother reading it before I get to the polls, that's my own damn fault.
"This is more invasive than someone having secret access to the library books you check out or the videos you rent,"
LMAO! So in other words, not very invasive at all.
Libraries and video rental records require a warrant to retrieve, which requires a judge accept that you're looking for certain information with good cause. That's a huge step up from a simple subpoena, which merely requires a court clerk to stamp.
Well, at least this was a requirement until the patriot act, which allows law enforcement to wade right into your library records if they decide you might be a terrorist.
Knowing what your interests are and what associations you have is constitutionally private, and it is considered legally extremely invasive to find out what you read.
I don't think so. All links in all spams wouldn't get hit.
* Mail that got swallowed or bounced undevlierable wouldn't follow the links.
* Mail that went to non-punishing email clients (like companies who are afraid of liability when DDOSing sites) wouldn't hit the URL.
I'm just brainstorming here, but what about an intelligent mailserver which loads to/dev/null all links in all e-mails that are to unrecognised users, and all links in e-mails that are to recognised users that agree to it in a TOS? If several large ISP's started doing this, then the bandwidth would get used up in no time as a spammer sends out a new bulk e-mail.
I'd just love for spammers to find out every recipient at geocities and yahoo read their message mere seconds after it was sent.
I'm taking bets, what do you think the odds are that quantum encryption will be allowed outside military hands? Or that a phone company will ever offer quantum encrypted communications between private citizens???
Take all the bets you want, its a fools errand. Quantum encryption works across a dedicated line, typically optical, and allows the recipient to detect a tap on the line. It encrypts the data, sure, but the important side effect is that you know when the secrecy of the transmission has been breached.
Obviously this is of no use in a wireless conversation.
It is still possible to have a valid election, even with a closed source voting system. The key is to have the voting machine spit out a piece of paper where the voter can see the votes written down and then confirm them. It doesn't even have to be a paper the voter handles, it could be behind glass so the voter merely can see that what they voted for is on the paper. Then, in the case of a contested election, the checks can be made against paper as well as the bits. In a case where the ballots don't match, paper overrules the bits.
Granted, I think an open source system is the only sensible way to go, and the people writing them should be protected by copyright and patents, not secrecy. After all, if they're all required to be open, its going to be awfully hard to hide the source code you stole.
LOL! Sure looks flat to me. I think you need to get out of your state more. I'd call that gently rolling countryside, and if that's the best example you can come up with, I don't think there's much left to be said.
Of course, I've lived in California, New Hampshire, and New York. All of these states have substantial mountain ranges.
Also, I think the analysis was incorrect. It looks like they included the nearly vertical sides of the pancake, which is not what people refer to in the phrase. The phrase "flat as a pancake" refers to one of the two planar surfaces of a pancake, not the sides. Thus, the data set should be chopped where the edge slope begins.
unfortunatly, no matter how we feel about this, they are doing it legally.
If they own the copyrights to SysV code then they can enforce them as they see fit.
If they can prove that Linux infringes upon those copyrights, then they will be able to charge for its use.
And please don't say copyright law is crap, we all know it, but it doesn't make it any less valid/enforcable.
No, if they encumber the linux codebase with their own license, then the GPL becomes void and no longer can be used to distribute Linux. At that point, the distribution of every piece of linux that they don't explicitly own becomes prohibited, completely, because Linux falls back to copyright law which indicates that the contributors of the other pieces still own them and have not licensed them to any distribution but GPL. Therefore, if they tell people they need to pay to run linux, linux becomes un-runnable.
In fact, if they actually make anyone pay to run linux, then they can be sued by the contributor of every other piece of code for copyright violation. After all, they distributed the rest of the code without a valid license to do so.
Isn't this a moot issue with the GPL, since there is always exactly one copyright holder, regardless of who else contributed? That is, if the distributor of GPL'd software elects to include someone else's contribution, they nevertheless distribute it under their own copyright?
It may be that some projects specifically require contributors to assign copyright to a primary point, this is not usually the case. Usually, every contributor holds copyright on the code he submitted.
As a side effect, by the way, this means that projects can't switch to a different license, such as a proprietary one, without contacting all of their contributing developers.
I'm almost positive my Driver's License doesn't have my SSN tied to it. In fact I would presume that to be illegal. The SSN is supposed to be used only for social security. Granted, private industry has abused this and tied to all sorts of things for conveinence, but when the -STATE- government starts demanding it for licensing purposes I'll get worried.
And your presumption would be incorrect.
The laws surrounding your SSN prohibit certain uses, but attaching it to your driver's license is an exemption to those provisions. Most states do it, and can require you to provide it in order to get a license.
You say that, but the conspiracy theorist in me wonders if Verizon really was fighting hard. Maybe they were in bed with the RIAA all along in order to get this precedent set in the courts? Then other ISPs would all fall in line.
Yes, Verizon was fighting it hard. Not so their customers would be protected, but due to costs. Once once it becomes fully established that requesting the identity behind an IP was cheap and easy, the RIAA will start sending them in bulk, and complying with all those requests will cost Verizon a small fortune. Thus, they're trying hard to protect their bottom line.
So no, its not a conspiracy, but for an entirely different reason than I'm sure we'd all like.
How does one duplicate THE creation of THE universe (emphasis added)?
One doesn't. If one were able to, it would almost certainly destroy what's here right now. What one does is duplicate "conditions a fraction of a second after the birth of the universe."
Which is an entirely different situation. It is merely duplicating in a small bit of matter the state of all matter that existed at the time, a soup of all the stuff that makes particles.
I'd say you were being too literal, except nowhere before your statement did I see any mention of someone duplicating the creation of the universe. Thus, I'd have to say you're reading a little much into the initial statement.
To claim that would be to claim that trademarks are capable of establishing a de facto copyright that might never expire with regards to derivative works based upon earlier, public domain works.
You're misinterpreting my statement, though I'll consent that in one area my statement overreached. It would be legal to display "Steamboat Willie" in any context, and to use the artwork in another form. It would not, however, be legal to create a new work with the character Mickey Mouse from the cartoon, since Mickey Mouse is a trademark continuously in use and thus protected.
When copyrights expire so does the exclusive right of the author to create works derivative of earlier works. If "Steamboat Willy" ever does hit the public domain, I CAN make my own Mickey Mouse cartoons. Or books. Or art. And print it on t-shirts.
Most likely the trademark would be partially genercized, that is, partially lost, once the copyright expired. Disney could still attach their name to distinguish their OWN cartoons. I couldn't claim that my own Mickey Mouse works were their works, just as if I made a Cinderella cartoon I couldn't stick the Disney name on it, though both our films would share the 'Cinderella' title, story, characters, etc.
No, you could create a derivative work of other characters on a steamboat like that one, since the steamboat isn't a trademark. But if you include Mickey in the work, you'd be in court in no time. You could make videos and sell the cartoon, you could print images from the cartoon on t-shirts or in books or put them in big frames and sell that. You could absolutely not create an entirely new work, claim you're deriving it from "Steamboat Willie", and use Mickey, a currently enforced trademark.
But trademarks on characters are comparatively new as these things go. The best case regarding this that I've seen so far has been, IIRC, New Line Cinemas v. Comedy III Productions, where copyright expiration trumped persisting trademarks.
Here enters a level of "reasonable" use. The three stooges film had indeed entered the public domain. The owners of the film tried to sue because the film violated their trademark on the three stooges. I quote from the case decision:
II.1... In order to prevail on a Lanham Act claim, a
plaintiff must prove the existence of a trademark and the sub-
sequent use of that mark by another in a manner likely to
create consumer confusion.
and
II.2 To prevail on its trademark claim -- and those claims
substantially dependent on a viable trademark claim 2 -- Com-
edy III must show that the clip at issue is actually a cogniza-
ble trademark. That is, Comedy III must demonstrate that "the
public recognizes [its] symbol as identifying[its] goods or
services and distinguishing them from those of others." Id.
Comedy III must make this argument by claiming either that
(a) its "symbol" is inherently distinctive, or (b) that even if
not inherently distinctive, the symbol has become distinctive
through the acquisition of "secondary meaning. " Id. It is upon
this claim that Comedy III failed before the district court and
fails before us.
That is to say, New Line Cinemas did not violate the trademark because they were using a short clip of film that was in the public domain. The case you cite has no bearing on whether they'd be entitled to create a new Three Stooges film based around public domain archives. In fact, were they to do so, I believe they'd be found guilty of infringing on Comedy III's trademark, even if they were re-enacting a scene from a public domain work.
Finally, the case decision includes in II.4.p2 a nice collection of citations that I assert agree with my analysis and disagree with yours. they were found largely irrelevant
I thought skins were like fan art, in that they fell under 'fair use', as long as no attempt was made to make profit from them. At least, those made completely by the fans themselves -- screencaps from movies or games, or scans from the comics might be different.
Very depressing to see that current 'copyright' law is only being used to prevent the fans from trying to live their fantasies.
Fan art is not fair use, and has been the subject of substantial lawsuits, both due to copyright and trademark infringement.
This is both a copyright issue and trademark issue. Copyright is where you create an image from another image, where the derivative work is recognisably related to the original. This applies mainly when you make a piece of art that looks like another piece of art. Trademark is the larger issue in this case, since trademark involves using something in a trademarked way. I.e., using the likeness of a Marvel character can only be done with the permission of Marvel.
Thus, creating unique fan art of Marvel's characters is a trademark violation and could result in a lawsuit of, $10,000 or more. Minor cases of fans drawing their favorites and posting them on their website isn't something a company like marvel will go after. When the infringement becomes large, however, they have to shut it down whether they want to or not, lest the infringer push the trademark into the public domain. In many cases they really don't want to do this, but the legal environment requires them to. Anecdotally, I recall a story where the J.K. Rowling, the author of the Harry Potter stories, was asked by a teacher if their class could put on a H.P. play. The request had somehow circumvented normal channels and thus her lawyers, and she said sure. When the lawyers heard about it, permission was immediately revoked, since it opened up a legal can of worms regarding copyright and trademark dilution.
Again, this isn't new, and is entirely reasonable. This is what prevents someone else from drawing a new Mickey Mouse cartoon where mickey kills Donald for sleeping with Minnie. Disney has continuously used Mickey, Donald, and Minnie in a trademarked environment for many years, so any attempt to use those trademarked characters will result in serious penalties.
I should note that confusion between copyright and trademark law is also what FUD from Disney & other media companies is designed to encourage. Disney & others want the copyright term extended not because they're afraid someone will make their own Mickey cartoon, but because they won't be able to release their 150th anniversary disk of Mickey's first cartoon someday since everyone who wants it will have bought a decent copy of it when the copyright ran out. New cartoons using their characters are already protected by trademark law, and will be so long as Disney continues to enforce the mark. That's a separate rant I give for other topics, though.
Also let me ask you a question, when you watch a movie do you lose train of thought in the middle of that movie or show? Do you forget you are watching a movie and drift off? If you cannot focus at all then maybe you do need pills.
I can't speak for the original poster, but I do find that in a TV environment I'll get up and wander off and do something else within a half hour of the movie starting, particularly if there's a lull or an ad. I'll frequently forget to come back and two hours later walk back into the room and the TV's still on. In a theater environment this is different, since the entire environment says "you're watching a movie". Even if I go to the bathroom, I'm not forgetting where I am.
Though, as cooking goes, I've destroyed a number of saucepans by forgetting I'd started dinner and came back 2 hours later to a pan that has an oxidised bottom and no water in it, and even some that bubbled on the bottom (cool, but garbage). Once, I forgot I was cooking and went outside to change my oil. Fortunately, in that case, I was just going to make spaghetti and only the water was heating at the time.
However most people who have ADD, its not nearly as severe.
That's where it is for me, not severe enough to prevent me from performing basic actions but a big enough problem that I'm working at less than 50% of my ability, possibly as low as 25%.
Another question, if the pills you use are so harmless and safe, yet effective, why arent these pills over the counter?
They are not safe and harmless. Adderall contains an amphetamine, a high quality "speed". The combination of drugs in Adderall allows an ADD affected brain to regulate its chemicals more effectively and concentrate better. Amphetamines can be addictive and can cause problems if taken with certain other drugs causing drug interactions.
Why cant students who need to study for a test buy AdderAll? Why can only certain people use it?
Other than the fact that they contain a controlled substance, they simply don't work well in people without the disease. I don't know the hard data on Adderall, but with Ritalin the results substantially differ between ADD and non-ADD patients. When given to a patient without ADD the patient experiences a very mild improvement in concentration, considered insignificant compared to the drug's risks. When a patient with ADD receives the drug, the change is substantial, far outweighing (for many) the risks.
Re:Hypocrisy or Censorship - take your pick...
on
SMS, SARS, And Censorship
·
· Score: 2, Informative
How many of the millions of car owners in the US knew that they had 'black boxes'.
Which "black boxes" exactly?
These black boxes. The ones that keep a diary of the car's last moments to testify at court (for or against you, it doesn't matter). Most people aren't aware they have them, or that their car can be made to testify against them. They exist in most if not all vehicles that have airbags, which is nearly all cars made in the past decade or so.
If you have a safe that only you know the combo to, and that safe contains information that can incriminate you, the state can compell you to open the safe without incurring the self-incrimination thing.
Yes, that's true. I personally don't like it, but I deal with it. That's the reason for my suggestion of a warning label. If I put those things in my safe, I know they're there. Unless the automaker tells me the car's keeping a diary, how am I to know?
IMO, people should be convicted not on what they were doing, but what the results of their actions were. E.G., in this case, it doesn't matter how fast the car was traveling, 60mph or 160mph, the fact is that the driver lost control of the vehicle at a speed obviously above the local speed limit, it shouldn't matter how fast he was going, the penalty should be the same (10kilobuck fine on the first offence, second offense, permanent license revokation, third offense, life or death penalty, depending on state. But thats just my opinion).
I tend to agree here, provided there's an exception for people who make every effort to remain safe in an inclement situation. That is to say, as long as a driver slows to an appropriate speed in a sudden downpour or black ice condition, there should be some degree of safe harbor.
try
Claim you weren't speeding, eh? Lets take a look at the data. Yup, 58, and you were in a 55. Look, we know our radar said 58, its recorded right here.
May I please see the calibration records for that device, and the most recent copy of your certification on that device.
My speedometer must've been a little out of whack, I could've sworn it said 55. Maybe I should have its calibration checked.
You're sure the weather wasn't interfering with the radar's reception?
All defenses which have been used, and occasionally work, depending on the circumstances. If its recorded as X then your speedometer almost certainly showed it as X.
Yes, I'll admit, I dislike speed laws. Anything more than a regulation against unsafe speeds is merely a tax on people who want to get there sooner. It is only in cases like these, where someone was travelling at an extroardinary rate of speed, that I think speeding is really a problem.
Besides which, I don't care if he was doing 60, 160, or even 260. He created a dangerous situation with his speed, and he should be responsible for the result. The only time I don't feel that's the case is where someone obviously takes care to drive at an appropriate speed, but road conditions consipire against them. That is to say, there are times, at least here up north, where you can suddenly hit black ice and lose all control over a vehicle. The vehicle could be moving at 6mph down a hill and even that isn't enough to retain control in an unexpected patch of black ice.
Strangelove:
Yes, but the whole point of the doomsday machine is lost if you keep it a secret! Why didn't you tell the world, eh?
Seriously, how many people other than us geeks are aware of these? Personally, I've seen references to them on slashdot over the past few years but that's it. These references have caused me to do research to find out more about them, but how many people who read this article had any idea EDR's or CDR's even existed?
Personally, I think every car with an EDR/CDR should have a warning label "This car records data that will be used to testify against you." Unless you're warned that such a device exists and can be used against you, I think it should be considered much the same as electronic eavesdropping without consent.
As much as I dislike people who break the law, and even kill others in the process, I find use of this data to be tantamount to self-incrimination, a concept which is completely unconstitutional. Of course, by presenting only this sort of worst-case scenario to the general public, law enforcement and the insurance companies will get the go-ahead from the general public. From there, it should get easy for the EDR's data to be subpoenaed for everything from major accidents down to traffic violations. "Claim you weren't speeding, eh? Lets take a look at the data. Yup, 58, and you were in a 55. Look, we know your speedometer said 58, its recorded right here."
I'm usually not prone to paranoia, but this is one of the few subjects that strikes a chord.
> I cannot believe for one second that the domain - even over the course of 6
> years - would've made even close to $65m! Maybe close to $1m, but even that's
> probably pushing it! This is rediculous.
Actually that is what he pointed out (proved?) in court.
sex.com would bring in $500,000 per MONTH.
Actually, that number is $500,000 per month in advertising ALONE. That number does not include any subscription sales or profit, purchases made, or other possible means of profit, such as selling third level domains. Thus, I think $65M might actually be the amount he could have made with the domain, uninflated.
Given that, a third party handing over the keys to the castle and thus facilitating this theft and then refusing to repair the damage should be considered an accomplice, and be held liable as well.
It doesn't conflict. All of the software is GPL. There are two packages in Red Hat that you need to be careful of, redhat-artwork and redhat-logos. If you replace those two packages with equivalent packages which contain artwork and logos not trademarked by Red Hat, you can distribute the software all you want.
You have an interesting point. Checking in the SRPMS directory for AS, I see only redhat-logos, and no redhat-artwork rpm. Looking into redhat-logos, I see that the information contained within it includes some distribution permissions that are in conflict with the ones it lists on its website. Namely:
Red Hat, Inc. grants you the right to use the Package during the
normal operation of other software programs that call upon the
Package. Red Hat, Inc. grants to you the right and license to copy
and redistribute the Package, but only in conjunction with copying or
redistributing additional software packages that call upon the Package
during the normal course of operation. Such rights are granted to you
without fee, provided that:
1. The above copyright notice and this license are included with each
copy you make, and they remain intact and are not altered, deleted, or
modified in any way;
2. You do not modify the Package, or the appearance of any or all of
the Logos in any manner; and
3. You do not use any or all of the Logos as, or as part of, a
trademark, trade name, or trade identifier; or in any other fashion
except as set forth in this license.
Which appears to say that I am free to use the package and redistribute it without modification. Also, I can clearly see that this package is not subject to the GPL, and thus GPL concerns should not apply.
Again, though, I see an inconsistency. Each inconsistency seems to be replaced by another one the further down I dig. Is there a resolution to this which is completely self-consistent that I'm just missing?
But you can't get the software without agreeing to their support terms. If you compile it from source, they claim distribution would violate their trademark rights. (Mandrake argued this before.)
Ok, I see two issues here. First, you can get all of the SRPMS (i.e., all of the source to build your own) from http://ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/linux/enterprise/ 2.1AS/en/os/i386/SRPMS/, which I located by going to the download directory for 9, going up a few directories, and selecting enterprise instead of 9. Not intuitive, but the source is technically available, as per the GPL.
On to your second point. The issue of trademarks being embedded into a GPL released program wasn't addressed in this article, and that may be an area worthy of an article of its very own. From the license agreement at http://www.redhat.com/licenses/rhel_us_2-1.html, I see (caps original):
THE "RED HAT" TRADEMARK AND RED HAT'S "SHADOWMAN" LOGO ARE REGISTERED TRADEMARKS OF RED HAT IN THE UNITED STATES AND OTHER COUNTRIES. WHILE THIS LICENSE AGREEMENT ALLOWS CUSTOMER TO COPY MODIFY AND DISTRIBUTE THE SOFTWARE, IT DOES NOT PERMIT CUSTOMER TO DISTRIBUTE THE SOFTWARE UTILIZING RED HAT'S TRADEMARKS. CUSTOMER SHOULD READ THE INFORMATION FOUND AT http://www.redhat.com/about/corporate/trademark/ BEFORE DISTRIBUTING A COPY OF THE SOFTWARE, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER IT HAS BEEN MODIFIED. IN ADDITION, IF CUSTOMER MAKES A COMMERCIAL REDISTRIBUTION OF THE SOFTWARE AND (A) IT DOES NOT FALL WITHIN AN EXCEPTION PROVIDED IN RED HAT'S TRADEMARK GUIDELINES, (B) IT HAS NOT ENTERED INTO A REDISTRIBUTION AGREEMENT WITH RED HAT, OR (C) IT DO NOT HAVE A TRADEMARK LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH RED HAT, THEN CUSTOMER MUST MODIFY THE FILES IDENTIFIED AS REDHAT-LOGOS AND ANACONDA-IMAGES SO AS TO REMOVE ALL USE OF IMAGES CONTAINING THE "RED HAT" TRADEMARK OR RED HAT'S SHADOW MAN LOGO. NOTE THAT MERE DELETION OF THOSE FILES MAY CORRUPT THE SOFTWARE.
6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.
7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
The conflict is with the statement Each time you redistribute the Program... , the recipient... receives a license from the original licensor to... distribute... the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. That is to say, imposing a requirement that trademarked content must be removed from a distributed GPL'd package before redistributing is to impo
But the problem is that update support is considered to be part of the service contract. To ge updates you need a service contract, and once you have a service contract you lose some of the core rights the GPL gives you (namly distribution.) If this is legal then the GPL simply has no teeth. Let me give you an example.
To get updates sanctioned within the service agreement, you have to be paying the service agreement fee. If you stop paying those, then you're not running a supported copy of Advanced Server. You still have full rights to update the software you're running, but you won't have the convenience of the automated and sanctioned updates they release. You also continue to have all other rights within the GPL. I.e., if an update breaks, the ball's in your court, not their's.
The right to have updates automatically download and install is not part of the GPL. The right to get the source code for GPL'd, distributed updates, is, and they continue to provide those whether you're signed up for a service contract or not.
Let's say I touch up openoffice and combine it with a replacement for MS Access. All of the software I've used is GPL, so I'll have to leave my product under the GPL license. Let's say I put up a click-though license on my download server that requires a $100 credit card payment and states that by downloading this software you are agreeing to a $100 support contract. The terms of that contract state that any additional installations must be covered by their own $100 support contract and that distributing the software to anyone who is not covered by a support contract is a violation of the terms of the contract. Violating the terms of the contract will carry a nice $1 million US penalty.
First off, you're violating the GPL by either charging more for distribution than the cost of distribution, or by forcing additional restrictions on the end user. You've thrown up a straw man which does not accurately reflect the situation. You've tied the software distribution to the support contract. Oh, and if a single entity is willing to risk a $1M lawsuit, the cat's out of the bag, because nobody else who receives it will be bound to the service contract. They'll be free to distribute it under the GPL. Plus, since the software distributed was GPL'd, your service contract penalty suit might be thrown out as well, since the service contract may be found invalid by conflicting with the GPL.
RedHat leaves the two as separate entities, which only collide where you wish RedHat to support your installation. If you want RedHat support, you have to purchase a license for every Advanced Server you run. If you stop paying them, you lose no rights to the software, just to their support.
Slashdot Mirror
You've been misled by the American media. The US has done everything in humanly possible to bring a reasonable settlement to the Israelis. In most cases, it has consistently required that the State of Israel have a right to exist, but not a Palestinian state.
Why is every attack against the Israelis performed by Palestinian terrorists? Why doesn't the Palestinian army retaliate when Israeli troops attack part of Palestine? Because the Palestinians are not permitted to have any troops. Therefore, any attack carried out in their name is terrorism.
If both sides were allowed to exist as states, this problem could be resolved in a civilised manner by civilised nations.
If you look at the lines, they trace OS X back to BSD4.2, which as I recall is in the clear as per an old court decision.
Of course, SCO does seem to want us to forget about that, too.
Go to the rpm.org website where, on the front page, there's a link to the ftp site. At the ftp site, you can find all of the current source and binaries in both rpm and .tar.gz formats.
This took me all of 2 minutes to locate.
So, really, Oregon doesn't prevent voter fraud. That mechanism merely indicates the sender is who they say they are, with some reasonable reliability. But what it doesn't do is assure that they're really voting for who they want to win. A standard scenario from late 1800s, early 1900s, was for a group, such as a labor union or company, to have a voting party to make sure everyone votes the way they want you to. While this might be a little more obvious these days, what in your scheme stops this from happening?
Nothing. Voting mechanisms that allow you to vote from someplace other than the polling booth will always be flawed. I personally dislike absentee ballots, but with their use being fairly small in most states, it isn't really a big deal. I can now be fairly certain, however, that Oregon's vote is close to useless.
So what? In every state I've ever been a registered voter in, the options that'll be on the ballot show up in the mail a month before the election. If I don't bother reading it before I get to the polls, that's my own damn fault.
Libraries and video rental records require a warrant to retrieve, which requires a judge accept that you're looking for certain information with good cause. That's a huge step up from a simple subpoena, which merely requires a court clerk to stamp.
Well, at least this was a requirement until the patriot act, which allows law enforcement to wade right into your library records if they decide you might be a terrorist.
Knowing what your interests are and what associations you have is constitutionally private, and it is considered legally extremely invasive to find out what you read.
I'd just love for spammers to find out every recipient at geocities and yahoo read their message mere seconds after it was sent.
Take all the bets you want, its a fools errand. Quantum encryption works across a dedicated line, typically optical, and allows the recipient to detect a tap on the line. It encrypts the data, sure, but the important side effect is that you know when the secrecy of the transmission has been breached.
Obviously this is of no use in a wireless conversation.
It is still possible to have a valid election, even with a closed source voting system. The key is to have the voting machine spit out a piece of paper where the voter can see the votes written down and then confirm them. It doesn't even have to be a paper the voter handles, it could be behind glass so the voter merely can see that what they voted for is on the paper. Then, in the case of a contested election, the checks can be made against paper as well as the bits. In a case where the ballots don't match, paper overrules the bits.
Granted, I think an open source system is the only sensible way to go, and the people writing them should be protected by copyright and patents, not secrecy. After all, if they're all required to be open, its going to be awfully hard to hide the source code you stole.
LOL! Sure looks flat to me. I think you need to get out of your state more. I'd call that gently rolling countryside, and if that's the best example you can come up with, I don't think there's much left to be said.
Of course, I've lived in California, New Hampshire, and New York. All of these states have substantial mountain ranges.
Also, I think the analysis was incorrect. It looks like they included the nearly vertical sides of the pancake, which is not what people refer to in the phrase. The phrase "flat as a pancake" refers to one of the two planar surfaces of a pancake, not the sides. Thus, the data set should be chopped where the edge slope begins.
No, if they encumber the linux codebase with their own license, then the GPL becomes void and no longer can be used to distribute Linux. At that point, the distribution of every piece of linux that they don't explicitly own becomes prohibited, completely, because Linux falls back to copyright law which indicates that the contributors of the other pieces still own them and have not licensed them to any distribution but GPL. Therefore, if they tell people they need to pay to run linux, linux becomes un-runnable.
In fact, if they actually make anyone pay to run linux, then they can be sued by the contributor of every other piece of code for copyright violation. After all, they distributed the rest of the code without a valid license to do so.
It may be that some projects specifically require contributors to assign copyright to a primary point, this is not usually the case. Usually, every contributor holds copyright on the code he submitted.
As a side effect, by the way, this means that projects can't switch to a different license, such as a proprietary one, without contacting all of their contributing developers.
And your presumption would be incorrect. The laws surrounding your SSN prohibit certain uses, but attaching it to your driver's license is an exemption to those provisions. Most states do it, and can require you to provide it in order to get a license.
Yes, Verizon was fighting it hard. Not so their customers would be protected, but due to costs. Once once it becomes fully established that requesting the identity behind an IP was cheap and easy, the RIAA will start sending them in bulk, and complying with all those requests will cost Verizon a small fortune. Thus, they're trying hard to protect their bottom line.
So no, its not a conspiracy, but for an entirely different reason than I'm sure we'd all like.
One doesn't. If one were able to, it would almost certainly destroy what's here right now. What one does is duplicate "conditions a fraction of a second after the birth of the universe."
Which is an entirely different situation. It is merely duplicating in a small bit of matter the state of all matter that existed at the time, a soup of all the stuff that makes particles.
I'd say you were being too literal, except nowhere before your statement did I see any mention of someone duplicating the creation of the universe. Thus, I'd have to say you're reading a little much into the initial statement.
You're misinterpreting my statement, though I'll consent that in one area my statement overreached. It would be legal to display "Steamboat Willie" in any context, and to use the artwork in another form. It would not, however, be legal to create a new work with the character Mickey Mouse from the cartoon, since Mickey Mouse is a trademark continuously in use and thus protected.
No, you could create a derivative work of other characters on a steamboat like that one, since the steamboat isn't a trademark. But if you include Mickey in the work, you'd be in court in no time. You could make videos and sell the cartoon, you could print images from the cartoon on t-shirts or in books or put them in big frames and sell that. You could absolutely not create an entirely new work, claim you're deriving it from "Steamboat Willie", and use Mickey, a currently enforced trademark.
Here enters a level of "reasonable" use. The three stooges film had indeed entered the public domain. The owners of the film tried to sue because the film violated their trademark on the three stooges. I quote from the case decision:
and
That is to say, New Line Cinemas did not violate the trademark because they were using a short clip of film that was in the public domain. The case you cite has no bearing on whether they'd be entitled to create a new Three Stooges film based around public domain archives. In fact, were they to do so, I believe they'd be found guilty of infringing on Comedy III's trademark, even if they were re-enacting a scene from a public domain work.
Finally, the case decision includes in II.4.p2 a nice collection of citations that I assert agree with my analysis and disagree with yours. they were found largely irrelevant
Fan art is not fair use, and has been the subject of substantial lawsuits, both due to copyright and trademark infringement.
This is both a copyright issue and trademark issue. Copyright is where you create an image from another image, where the derivative work is recognisably related to the original. This applies mainly when you make a piece of art that looks like another piece of art. Trademark is the larger issue in this case, since trademark involves using something in a trademarked way. I.e., using the likeness of a Marvel character can only be done with the permission of Marvel.
Thus, creating unique fan art of Marvel's characters is a trademark violation and could result in a lawsuit of, $10,000 or more. Minor cases of fans drawing their favorites and posting them on their website isn't something a company like marvel will go after. When the infringement becomes large, however, they have to shut it down whether they want to or not, lest the infringer push the trademark into the public domain. In many cases they really don't want to do this, but the legal environment requires them to. Anecdotally, I recall a story where the J.K. Rowling, the author of the Harry Potter stories, was asked by a teacher if their class could put on a H.P. play. The request had somehow circumvented normal channels and thus her lawyers, and she said sure. When the lawyers heard about it, permission was immediately revoked, since it opened up a legal can of worms regarding copyright and trademark dilution.
Again, this isn't new, and is entirely reasonable. This is what prevents someone else from drawing a new Mickey Mouse cartoon where mickey kills Donald for sleeping with Minnie. Disney has continuously used Mickey, Donald, and Minnie in a trademarked environment for many years, so any attempt to use those trademarked characters will result in serious penalties.
I should note that confusion between copyright and trademark law is also what FUD from Disney & other media companies is designed to encourage. Disney & others want the copyright term extended not because they're afraid someone will make their own Mickey cartoon, but because they won't be able to release their 150th anniversary disk of Mickey's first cartoon someday since everyone who wants it will have bought a decent copy of it when the copyright ran out. New cartoons using their characters are already protected by trademark law, and will be so long as Disney continues to enforce the mark. That's a separate rant I give for other topics, though.
A quick google search turned up this interesting primer on the subject.
I can't speak for the original poster, but I do find that in a TV environment I'll get up and wander off and do something else within a half hour of the movie starting, particularly if there's a lull or an ad. I'll frequently forget to come back and two hours later walk back into the room and the TV's still on. In a theater environment this is different, since the entire environment says "you're watching a movie". Even if I go to the bathroom, I'm not forgetting where I am.
Though, as cooking goes, I've destroyed a number of saucepans by forgetting I'd started dinner and came back 2 hours later to a pan that has an oxidised bottom and no water in it, and even some that bubbled on the bottom (cool, but garbage). Once, I forgot I was cooking and went outside to change my oil. Fortunately, in that case, I was just going to make spaghetti and only the water was heating at the time.
That's where it is for me, not severe enough to prevent me from performing basic actions but a big enough problem that I'm working at less than 50% of my ability, possibly as low as 25%.
They are not safe and harmless. Adderall contains an amphetamine, a high quality "speed". The combination of drugs in Adderall allows an ADD affected brain to regulate its chemicals more effectively and concentrate better. Amphetamines can be addictive and can cause problems if taken with certain other drugs causing drug interactions.
Other than the fact that they contain a controlled substance, they simply don't work well in people without the disease. I don't know the hard data on Adderall, but with Ritalin the results substantially differ between ADD and non-ADD patients. When given to a patient without ADD the patient experiences a very mild improvement in concentration, considered insignificant compared to the drug's risks. When a patient with ADD receives the drug, the change is substantial, far outweighing (for many) the risks.
These black boxes. The ones that keep a diary of the car's last moments to testify at court (for or against you, it doesn't matter). Most people aren't aware they have them, or that their car can be made to testify against them. They exist in most if not all vehicles that have airbags, which is nearly all cars made in the past decade or so.
Yes, that's true. I personally don't like it, but I deal with it. That's the reason for my suggestion of a warning label. If I put those things in my safe, I know they're there. Unless the automaker tells me the car's keeping a diary, how am I to know?
I tend to agree here, provided there's an exception for people who make every effort to remain safe in an inclement situation. That is to say, as long as a driver slows to an appropriate speed in a sudden downpour or black ice condition, there should be some degree of safe harbor.
All defenses which have been used, and occasionally work, depending on the circumstances. If its recorded as X then your speedometer almost certainly showed it as X.
Yes, I'll admit, I dislike speed laws. Anything more than a regulation against unsafe speeds is merely a tax on people who want to get there sooner. It is only in cases like these, where someone was travelling at an extroardinary rate of speed, that I think speeding is really a problem.
Besides which, I don't care if he was doing 60, 160, or even 260. He created a dangerous situation with his speed, and he should be responsible for the result. The only time I don't feel that's the case is where someone obviously takes care to drive at an appropriate speed, but road conditions consipire against them. That is to say, there are times, at least here up north, where you can suddenly hit black ice and lose all control over a vehicle. The vehicle could be moving at 6mph down a hill and even that isn't enough to retain control in an unexpected patch of black ice.
Actually, that number is $500,000 per month in advertising ALONE. That number does not include any subscription sales or profit, purchases made, or other possible means of profit, such as selling third level domains. Thus, I think $65M might actually be the amount he could have made with the domain, uninflated.
Given that, a third party handing over the keys to the castle and thus facilitating this theft and then refusing to repair the damage should be considered an accomplice, and be held liable as well.
You have an interesting point. Checking in the SRPMS directory for AS, I see only redhat-logos, and no redhat-artwork rpm. Looking into redhat-logos, I see that the information contained within it includes some distribution permissions that are in conflict with the ones it lists on its website. Namely:
Which appears to say that I am free to use the package and redistribute it without modification. Also, I can clearly see that this package is not subject to the GPL, and thus GPL concerns should not apply.
Again, though, I see an inconsistency. Each inconsistency seems to be replaced by another one the further down I dig. Is there a resolution to this which is completely self-consistent that I'm just missing?
Ok, I see two issues here. First, you can get all of the SRPMS (i.e., all of the source to build your own) from http://ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/linux/enterprise/ 2.1AS/en/os/i386/SRPMS/, which I located by going to the download directory for 9, going up a few directories, and selecting enterprise instead of 9. Not intuitive, but the source is technically available, as per the GPL.
On to your second point. The issue of trademarks being embedded into a GPL released program wasn't addressed in this article, and that may be an area worthy of an article of its very own. From the license agreement at http://www.redhat.com/licenses/rhel_us_2-1.html, I see (caps original):
I agree that this conflicts with the GPL s.6&7:
The conflict is with the statement Each time you redistribute the Program ... , the recipient ... receives a license from the original licensor to ... distribute ... the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. That is to say, imposing a requirement that trademarked content must be removed from a distributed GPL'd package before redistributing is to impo
To get updates sanctioned within the service agreement, you have to be paying the service agreement fee. If you stop paying those, then you're not running a supported copy of Advanced Server. You still have full rights to update the software you're running, but you won't have the convenience of the automated and sanctioned updates they release. You also continue to have all other rights within the GPL. I.e., if an update breaks, the ball's in your court, not their's.
The right to have updates automatically download and install is not part of the GPL. The right to get the source code for GPL'd, distributed updates, is, and they continue to provide those whether you're signed up for a service contract or not.
First off, you're violating the GPL by either charging more for distribution than the cost of distribution, or by forcing additional restrictions on the end user. You've thrown up a straw man which does not accurately reflect the situation. You've tied the software distribution to the support contract. Oh, and if a single entity is willing to risk a $1M lawsuit, the cat's out of the bag, because nobody else who receives it will be bound to the service contract. They'll be free to distribute it under the GPL. Plus, since the software distributed was GPL'd, your service contract penalty suit might be thrown out as well, since the service contract may be found invalid by conflicting with the GPL.
RedHat leaves the two as separate entities, which only collide where you wish RedHat to support your installation. If you want RedHat support, you have to purchase a license for every Advanced Server you run. If you stop paying them, you lose no rights to the software, just to their support.