I think you should be right. But there is a snatch of course.. the parents who care enough about their children to think about this and look at the labels, raise their kids in such a way that they won't likely act on violent games, movies, etc. If these labels weren't there, these parents would still be able to relate to their kids and make sure that their kids would see things in perspective.
It is the parents who don't or can't care about their kids, who know nothing about what their children do, and who are not able to relate to their children. Most of them are not going to be bothered with movie or video game labeling, if they even know what their kids watch or play. And these kids, who have little parental guidance, are much more likely to take the message of a movie or game out of any perspective and maybe even re-enact it.
Not that I know a solution for this problem, but if the measure isn't going to improve things in practice, then maybe it shouldn't be implemented..
There is of course a way more obvious reason. The stock was worth $0.60 before the lawsuit was filed, and is $10 now.
Just wait until the big shareholders have quietly unloaded their stock, and expect a retraction of the lawsuit (on second thought, we may not have a strong case against IBM at all...)
[Any ressemblence to actual persons or situations is purely coincedental]
Of course it is a violation of the GPL. It is distribution. It is making copies. Only copies for personal use are "fair use", in other cases, you are not allowed to make those copies unless you have the permission from the copyright holder. This hypothetical company has that permission because it is written in the GPL. But the company only has that permission as long as they stick to the GPL.
With your argument, any company would be allowed to make unlimited copies of MS Office as long as they don't "distribute it outside itself"
"We" Europeans are definitely not laid-back about such things. Generally, privacy-protection laws are way stronger in Europe than in the USA.
Although the government has been trying (and sometimes succeeded) in widening the use of the "social-fiscal number" in Holland, there are laws against using it for purposes other than those explicitly allowed.
I don't know about Denmark, but I have the feeling that the danish poster doesn't really now much about Europe.
You catch the new drift of the Slashdot editor quickly: first you compare Advanced Server with Microsoft's Eula, and then you assert that they aren't comparable. A bit of a straw-man argument, in both cases, wouldn't you say?;-)
How can something ever be a trade secret when they're disseminating it themselves?
SCO is truly creating whole new levels of reality distortion here. And it's possible that their - certainly not incompetent - lawyers are thinking that a judge would fall for this. That's pretty bad...
It is irrelevant. SCO kept distributing Linux under the GPL after knowing that (what is supposedly) their code was in it. That means that they knowingly and willingly released this code under the GPL license.
It's a very simple argument (put forward by many people). And SCO hasn't put anything against it yet.
Now if someone would want to have some fun (with help from a lawyer) and do something useful, they'd ask SCO for the source of their product. SCO is required to honour this request, per the GPL. Of course it is most fun if this person or company bought SCO linux _after_ they sued IBM.
If SCO doesn't honour it, they're in deep copyright problems: not only did they breach the contract with that someone (a license is a contract), but per the GPL, if you don't honour the GPL, then you don't have the right to distribute the GPL'ed code. And since they did, it'd be a criminal copyright violation.
> And what about VM sharing? Will it be in java 1.5, > or will we still have to wait 30 seconds for java > programs to start up?
Omygod I'm responding to a troll. a) Upgrade your P133 b) Upgrade from 64 megabytes to something reasonable c) Nobody cares that the application server which runs a business application takes 20 seconds to start
Not that VM sharing wouldn't be nice to have, but for the typical uses of java, like server applications or IDE's, 10-20 seconds to start is no problem at all.
Makes you think. What if they put a heavy object with wheels inside the sphere; whenever the object inside the sphere moves, the sphere moves. I'd like to see my computer fetch my newspaper:-)
Spheres may take little room themselves, but unless you have a spherical spare space on your desk, in your bookcase, 19" rack, etc., it's hard to use the space that it saves for a practical purpose:-)
| Average Family car in UK- £12,000 | Average Family car in Holland - £9,000
Wrong! When you buy a car, you have to pay taxes as well. Holland just happens to have especially high taxes on the sales of cars. The only reason that people from the UK can profit from the difference, is that through some loophole, you don't pay this tax when you buy the car in another country. But dutch people pay at least as much for cars as brits.
I think you mean the 'partitive' form, in Latin if I recall correctly expressed using a genetive form (genitivus partitivus).
I'm not a native english speaker, but I don't think "sheep" is a word like that; you can talk about "the sheep" or "a sheep", or the plural form "sheep". It's simply the same word, but it's not a partitive form like "coffee" or "money", of which you can't say "a coffee" (except as a short way of say "a cup of coffee"...) or "a money".
In dutch, or french, or german, the singular and plural of sheep are two distinguishable words.
On the subject of the word virus, I can only say that I thought that the quote at the bottom of the article makes most sense to me:
On the Presence of a Plural of the Latin Noun "Virus"
With interest I read the contribution `On the Absence of a Plural of the Latin Noun ``Virus''' in the June 1999 ASM News, p. 388, by Robert J. Smutny. However, according to my Latin grammar, one of the very few books of my gymnasium (high school) days that is still up to date, the plural of the noun virus in Latin is, like the plural nowadays used for virus in Romance languages (e.g., Italian and French), also virus. The Latin noun virus does not belong to the second declension group but, like the noun fructus, meaning fruit or piece of fruit, belongs to a group of Latin words that is declined according to the fourth declension. Hence, two pieces of fruit is in Latin duo fructus and two viruses would be duo virus. According to the fourth declension the plural genitive of virus in Latin is viruum and therefore an Index of Viruses is in Latin an Index Viruum. Virorum is the plural genitive of the Latin noun vir (second declension) meaning man or husband. Consequently an Index Virorum would indicate a list of husbands or men.
Moreover, because the noun virus belongs to the fourth declension group the study of viruses should have been called virulogy and people practicing that science virulogists. My former professor in virology at veterinary school consequently called himself a virulogist and he lectured virulogy. I am afraid that these words have become extinct since he died.
It is important to realize that Latin and Greek derived expressions in biomedical English have been coined by scientists for convenience and not by scholars based on classical grammar. The old Romans might have said to these scientists modulating their language: ``Ut desint vires, tamen est laudanda voluntas,'' which means freely translated: ``Despite your lack of knowledge, still appreciated.''
Ton E. van den Bogaard
University Maastricht, the Netherlands
Why do you say Woolston will never make a successful business from his patent? It seems that he is quite on track to become a multi-millionaire!
ICANN and Network Solutions break Patriot Act!
on
That Link Is Illegal
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Hey, if linking is illegal, then providing a domain name (farc-ep.org) is surely also illegal! If they didn't have a domain name, then everyone would have to type their IP address. That's a lot of hassle, so providing the domain name is supportive of that group.
ICANN oversees domain registration, and Network Solutions administers the root nameservers and the delegation of the.org domain to the registrar.
If this student collective is breaking the law, then ICANN and NS are. If ICANN and NS aren't, then the student collective should go free.
And I don't see the government suddenly making demands on ICANN and NS after so many years of letting them run rampant in all kinds of areas.
Legal stuff is very expensive in the USA. Take the "capitalist" route and look for the cheapest country for patent filing, that still allows you to invoke your right of priority in the USA.
After filing it in a cheaper country, try to commercialize your patent, look for people or companies to team up with.
When you have reason to believe that it'll earn you enough money, or when you get an advance, then file the patent in the USA, using your right of priority.
But don't let the period in which you have that right expire.. check a regular lawyer or other expert for details.
Perhaps your price really is too low. What if you make mistakes? Can you afford to correct them for the same $5000. And what about the 20 hours discussing all kinds of stuff that you don't find important but the customer does? And what if the customer got the requirements wrong somehow and they want you to change the software while you're building it? If you charge $15000, the client can guess that there are some margins for you and that you will not complain as quickly as when you charged a rock-bottom $5000. So a smart customer can figure that they can ask more when they paid more.
"What's the best language"-arguments aside, when you line up 10 programmers and ask them: "How many of you know Java and how many of you know Common Lisp", I think you'll have the answer to why there aren't more people doing this...
Lighten up. Many fonts are designed for a very specific purposes, like ads or flyers. There are monospaced fonts that have a techy or old-fashioned typewriter 'feel', and you see them plenty in print for those purposes.
And for printing source code in O'Reilly books, of course.
Next you'll be posting that Dingbats isn't good for printing novels.;)
It is _very_ clearly a bug. The X509 standard includes flags that indicate whether the signer of a certificate allows that the certificate to be used to sign again, and up to what level of steps.
It isn't a technical restriction. It's a matter of standards compliance. MSIE claims to implement SSL, and SSL requires X509 conformance. Since MSIE isn't conformant, it erroneously claims to implement SSL. And I'd say you can call that a bug.
Key generation for algorithms like RSA already use numbers that are prime with a high probability. There are quick algorithms for that. But key generation algorithms currently don't run for several months to ensure for 100% that the factors are prime.
So perhaps this algorithm makes RSA, DSA, etc. even stronger because it will be easier to guarantee that the factors are prime instead of assuming it with 99,999999999999% probability.
There's no need to. If you have proof that a computer is used to infringe copyrights, then under the laws of several European countries, you can ask the judge for the right to destroy or seize the computer.
If you don't have proof, you're not likely to get anything out of a judge except an invoice. I would hope that even under that silly US law, the record company would need to have proof before hacking into someone's computer.
If you buy a car for, say, $30000, you could reasably expect that the company selling it made sure that it's suitable for transport, and that those safety issues that society currently thinks are a burden on the seller, are for the risk of the seller; especially if the car was advertised as suitable for transport and safe. I'm not familiar with US consumer protection laws, but in Holland, in such a case the company can't put any waivers of responsability in the smallprint and expect them to stick in court.
However, the expectations that a buyer or user can have for something with a low price, or even free, are different. The burden of verifying a car sold to your by your uncle for $100 or found on your doorstep, fall (or should in my opinion fall) on you. It depends on what society currently thinks to be "reasonable expectations" that you could have. Especially if, instead of advertising reliability, the seller or giver disclaims any expectation of reliability.
In the case of open source software, it is actually possible to verify the reliability of the goods. Not everyone can do it, so you may want to buy the software from a company like RedHat where exports do know how to do it, in which case the burden falls on RedHat. But otherwise, I think it's very reasonable that more or all of the burden of verifying the software falls on the buyer/receiver when the price is low or the software is free.
I also believe the reverse; if the software is expensive, it is reasonable to expect that the seller has verifivied its reliability and is also responsable for it.
Where the price boundary lies is up to a judge, and probably different for each type of software...
You can't boot from a CD if you're going to run an operating-system-less utility to flash your DVD drive. You're really going to need a floppy for that.
When done by the proper authorities of a country, you can't probably sue the individual civil servant (police officer) who did it, if this was illegal according to US law. It also depends if you consider US civil or penal law. Perhaps the webhosting provider could sue the Italian police in civil court if they caused damage while removing the pictures. Otherwise, I suppose the USA would have to sue Italy in the International Court.
The ICANN rules state that you can always appeal against their decisions to a civil court. From their policy:
"If an Administrative Panel decides that your domain name registration should be canceled or transferred, we will wait ten (10) business days (as observed in the location of our principal office) after we are informed by the applicable Provider of the Administrative Panel's decision before implementing that decision. We will then implement the decision unless we have received from you during that ten (10) business day period official documentation (such as a copy of a complaint, file-stamped by the clerk of the court) that you have commenced a lawsuit against the complainant in a jurisdiction to which the complainant has submitted under Paragraph 3(b)(xiii) of the Rules of Procedure. (In general, that jurisdiction is either the location of our principal office or of your address as shown in our Whois database...)"
So there is no issue about a court having jurisdiction over ICANN, since ICANN explicitly agrees to having another court hear the dispute.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you should be right. But there is a snatch of course.. the parents who care enough about their children to think about this and look at the labels, raise their kids in such a way that they won't likely act on violent games, movies, etc. If these labels weren't there, these parents would still be able to relate to their kids and make sure that their kids would see things in perspective.
It is the parents who don't or can't care about their kids, who know nothing about what their children do, and who are not able to relate to their children. Most of them are not going to be bothered with movie or video game labeling, if they even know what their kids watch or play.
And these kids, who have little parental guidance, are much more likely to take the message of a movie or game out of any perspective and maybe even re-enact it.
Not that I know a solution for this problem, but if the measure isn't going to improve things in practice, then maybe it shouldn't be implemented..
There is of course a way more obvious reason. The stock was worth $0.60 before the lawsuit was filed, and is $10 now.
Just wait until the big shareholders have quietly unloaded their stock, and expect a retraction of the lawsuit (on second thought, we may not have a strong case against IBM at all...)
[Any ressemblence to actual persons or situations is purely coincedental]
Of course it is a violation of the GPL. It is distribution. It is making copies. Only copies for personal use are "fair use", in other cases, you are not allowed to make those copies unless you have the permission from the copyright holder. This hypothetical company has that permission because it is written in the GPL. But the company only has that permission as long as they stick to the GPL.
With your argument, any company would be allowed to make unlimited copies of MS Office as long as they don't "distribute it outside itself"
"We" Europeans are definitely not laid-back about such things. Generally, privacy-protection laws are way stronger in Europe than in the USA.
Although the government has been trying (and sometimes succeeded) in widening the use of the "social-fiscal number" in Holland, there are laws against using it for purposes other than those explicitly allowed.
I don't know about Denmark, but I have the feeling that the danish poster doesn't really now much about Europe.
You catch the new drift of the Slashdot editor quickly: first you compare Advanced Server with Microsoft's Eula, and then you assert that they aren't comparable. A bit of a straw-man argument, in both cases, wouldn't you say? ;-)
Geez. Are they for real?
.. Ceterum censeo SCO esse delendam ..
How can something ever be a trade secret when they're disseminating it themselves?
SCO is truly creating whole new levels of reality distortion here. And it's possible that their - certainly not incompetent - lawyers are thinking that a judge would fall for this. That's pretty bad...
--
It is irrelevant. SCO kept distributing Linux under the GPL after knowing that (what is supposedly) their code was in it.
That means that they knowingly and willingly released this code under the GPL license.
It's a very simple argument (put forward by many people). And SCO hasn't put anything against it yet.
Now if someone would want to have some fun (with help from a lawyer) and do something useful, they'd ask SCO for the source of their product. SCO is required to honour this request, per the GPL. Of course it is most fun if this person or company bought SCO linux _after_ they sued IBM.
If SCO doesn't honour it, they're in deep copyright problems: not only did they breach the contract with that someone (a license is a contract), but per the GPL, if you don't honour the GPL, then you don't have the right to distribute the GPL'ed code. And since they did, it'd be a criminal copyright violation.
> And what about VM sharing? Will it be in java 1.5,
> or will we still have to wait 30 seconds for java
> programs to start up?
Omygod I'm responding to a troll.
a) Upgrade your P133
b) Upgrade from 64 megabytes to something reasonable
c) Nobody cares that the application server which runs a business application takes 20 seconds to start
Not that VM sharing wouldn't be nice to have, but for the typical uses of java, like server applications or IDE's, 10-20 seconds to start is no problem at all.
Makes you think. What if they put a heavy object with wheels inside the sphere; whenever the object inside the sphere moves, the sphere moves. :-)
I'd like to see my computer fetch my newspaper
Spheres may take little room themselves, but unless you have a spherical spare space on your desk, in your bookcase, 19" rack, etc., it's hard to use the space that it saves for a practical purpose :-)
| Average Family car in UK- £12,000
| Average Family car in Holland - £9,000
Wrong! When you buy a car, you have to pay taxes as well. Holland just happens to have especially high taxes on the sales of cars. The only reason that people from the UK can profit from the difference, is that through some loophole, you don't pay this tax when you buy the car in another country. But dutch people pay at least as much for cars as brits.
I'm not a native english speaker, but I don't think "sheep" is a word like that; you can talk about "the sheep" or "a sheep", or the plural form "sheep". It's simply the same word, but it's not a partitive form like "coffee" or "money", of which you can't say "a coffee" (except as a short way of say "a cup of coffee" ...) or "a money".
In dutch, or french, or german, the singular and plural of sheep are two distinguishable words.
On the subject of the word virus, I can only say that I thought that the quote at the bottom of the article makes most sense to me:
Why do you say Woolston will never make a successful business from his patent? It seems that he is quite on track to become a multi-millionaire!
Hey, if linking is illegal, then providing a domain name (farc-ep.org) is surely also illegal! If they didn't have a domain name, then everyone would have to type their IP address. That's a lot of hassle, so providing the domain name is supportive of that group.
.org domain to the registrar.
ICANN oversees domain registration, and Network Solutions administers the root nameservers and the delegation of the
If this student collective is breaking the law, then ICANN and NS are. If ICANN and NS aren't, then the student collective should go free.
And I don't see the government suddenly making demands on ICANN and NS after so many years of letting them run rampant in all kinds of areas.
Legal stuff is very expensive in the USA. Take the "capitalist" route and look for the cheapest country for patent filing, that still allows you to invoke your right of priority in the USA.
After filing it in a cheaper country, try to commercialize your patent, look for people or companies to team up with.
When you have reason to believe that it'll earn you enough money, or when you get an advance, then file the patent in the USA, using your right of priority.
But don't let the period in which you have that right expire.. check a regular lawyer or other expert for details.
Erwin
Perhaps your price really is too low. What if you make mistakes? Can you afford to correct them for the same $5000.
And what about the 20 hours discussing all kinds of stuff that you don't find important but the customer does?
And what if the customer got the requirements wrong somehow and they want you to change the software while you're building it? If you charge $15000, the client can guess that there are some margins for you and that you will not complain as quickly as when you charged a rock-bottom $5000.
So a smart customer can figure that they can ask more when they paid more.
"What's the best language"-arguments aside, when you line up 10 programmers and ask them: "How many of you know Java and how many of you know Common Lisp", I think you'll have the answer to why there aren't more people doing this...
Lighten up. Many fonts are designed for a very specific purposes, like ads or flyers. There are monospaced fonts that have a techy or old-fashioned typewriter 'feel', and you see them plenty in print for those purposes.
;)
And for printing source code in O'Reilly books, of course.
Next you'll be posting that Dingbats isn't good for printing novels.
It is _very_ clearly a bug. The X509 standard includes flags that indicate whether the signer of a certificate allows that the certificate to be used to sign again, and up to what level of steps.
It isn't a technical restriction. It's a matter of standards compliance. MSIE claims to implement SSL, and SSL requires X509 conformance. Since MSIE isn't conformant, it erroneously claims to implement SSL. And I'd say you can call that a bug.
Key generation for algorithms like RSA already use numbers that are prime with a high probability. There are quick algorithms for that. But key generation algorithms currently don't run for several months to ensure for 100% that the factors are prime.
So perhaps this algorithm makes RSA, DSA, etc. even stronger because it will be easier to guarantee that the factors are prime instead of assuming it with 99,999999999999% probability.
There's no need to. If you have proof that a computer is used to infringe copyrights, then under the laws of several European countries, you can ask the judge for the right to destroy or seize the computer.
If you don't have proof, you're not likely to get anything out of a judge except an invoice. I would hope that even under that silly US law, the record company would need to have proof before hacking into someone's computer.
If you buy a car for, say, $30000, you could reasably expect that the company selling it made sure that it's suitable for transport, and that those safety issues that society currently thinks are a burden on the seller, are for the risk of the seller; especially if the car was advertised as suitable for transport and safe.
I'm not familiar with US consumer protection laws, but in Holland, in such a case the company can't put any waivers of responsability in the smallprint and expect them to stick in court.
However, the expectations that a buyer or user can have for something with a low price, or even free, are different. The burden of verifying a car sold to your by your uncle for $100 or found on your doorstep, fall (or should in my opinion fall) on you. It depends on what society currently thinks to be "reasonable expectations" that you could have. Especially if, instead of advertising reliability, the seller or giver disclaims any expectation of reliability.
In the case of open source software, it is actually possible to verify the reliability of the goods. Not everyone can do it, so you may want to buy the software from a company like RedHat where exports do know how to do it, in which case the burden falls on RedHat. But otherwise, I think it's very reasonable that more or all of the burden of verifying the software falls on the buyer/receiver when the price is low or the software is free.
I also believe the reverse; if the software is expensive, it is reasonable to expect that the seller has verifivied its reliability and is also responsable for it.
Where the price boundary lies is up to a judge, and probably different for each type of software...
You can't boot from a CD if you're going to run an operating-system-less utility to flash your DVD drive. You're really going to need a floppy for that.
When done by the proper authorities of a country, you can't probably sue the individual civil servant (police officer) who did it, if this was illegal according to US law. It also depends if you consider US civil or penal law. Perhaps the webhosting provider could sue the Italian police in civil court if they caused damage while removing the pictures. Otherwise, I suppose the USA would have to sue Italy in the International Court.
The ICANN rules state that you can always appeal against their decisions to a civil court. From their policy:
...)"
"If an Administrative Panel decides that your domain name registration should be canceled or transferred, we will wait ten (10) business days (as observed in the location of our principal office) after we are informed by the applicable Provider of the Administrative Panel's decision before implementing that decision. We will then implement the decision unless we have received from you during that ten (10) business day period official documentation (such as a copy of a complaint, file-stamped by the clerk of the court) that you have commenced a lawsuit against the complainant in a jurisdiction to which the complainant has submitted under Paragraph 3(b)(xiii) of the Rules of Procedure. (In general, that jurisdiction is either the location of our principal office or of your address as shown in our Whois database
So there is no issue about a court having jurisdiction over ICANN, since ICANN explicitly agrees to having another court hear the dispute.