This post isn't directed at the parent but rather most of the tin foils that fly off without RTFA.
From papersplease.org: Dudley was standing around minding his own business...
No, actually, he wasn't. According to this AP article, he was having an argument with his daughter. The cop didn't randomly approch him demanding ID, he was investigating a disturbance.
Did anyone even read the first line of the case:
Petitioner Hiibel was arrested and convicted in a Nevada court for refusing to identify himself to a police officer during an investigative stop involving a reported assault.
Further in the report:
The sheriff's department in Humboldt County, Nevada, received an afternoon telephone call reporting an assault. The caller reported seeing a man assault a woman in a red and silver GMC truck on Grass Valley Road. Deputy Sheriff Lee Dove was dispatched to investigate. When the officer arrived at the scene, he found the truck parked on the side of the road. A man was standing by the truck, and a young woman was sitting inside it. The officer observed skid marks in the gravel behind the vehicle, leading him to believe it had come to a sudden stop. The officer approached the man and explained that he was investigating a report of a fight. The man appeared to be intoxicated. The officer asked him if he had "any identification on [him]," which we understand as a request to produce a driver's license or some other form of written identification. The man refused and asked why the officer wanted to see identification. The officer responded that he was conducting an investigation and needed to see some identification.
The officer was investigating a reported disturbance, not approaching random people demanding "papers". Actually, I'm surprised this even made it to supreme court. You are obligated to identify yourself when you are under suspicion of commiting a crime. Ever been pulled over for speeding? Hell, in this case the officer even stated the fact that he was conducting an investigation. The only weak point I see here is that it (the case document) doesn't quote the officer stating the exact nature of the investigation or informing Hiibel that he was under suspicion. All it says is that he "was conducting an investigation".
I agree the outcome of this case is a blow to civil rights, however, I think the events that lead up to this case have been blown way out of proportion. In the 33 years I've been around, I have yet to see police officers approaching random people demanding "papers".
Yeah, I'm posting this a day late so no one will probably see this post anyway...
Who is actually recording television anymore? With whattheyconsiderqualitytelevision, I'm surprized more people aren't doing more interesting things like taking a Craftsman cordless drill to the soles of their feet or jamming needles in their armpits.
since it's great we finally get to stick it to those thieving bastards.
$67M is chump change to those thieving bastards. They could wipe their ass with it an not miss it. They can keep it and I'll remain a thieving bastard myself on Kazaa.
Although, I think Geeks may be somewhat related. There may have been a fork in the evolutionary chain somewhere around the time Barbarella bridged the gap between free-love and sci-fi...
Is this just a minor side effect of a basically beneficial system that will simply work itself out as the patents are challenged? Or does this have to be fought?
This is a new business model. (I probably should patent it but there's too much prior art... Wait, the USPTO will never notice... brb!)
Basically, some company or person is granted a rediculous patent and then sues the bejesus out of everyone. Most people will settle paying up the licensing fees since it's cheaper than laywers and court costs.
It's not going to work itself out since too many people are making money at it and it costs more to fight it than it does to just accept it. Yeah, we are in desparate need of reform...
IBM didn't patent "Paying Open Source Developers." You can still pay people to develop open source software.
They patented a method of attracting and paying volunteers for their effort while providing incentive for others to volunteer and contribute to an open source project.
That Microsoft's lawyers sent this notice by email is also odd.
This is Microsoft's new, more efficient, form of communication and distribution. Just the other day I got a critical Service Pack update from them. I find this so much better than trying to remember to check Windows Update periodically...
So is hijacking "Playboy" and "Playmate" to benefit Playboy's competitors.
I don't really believe that is the case. A search for "Playboy" yeilds ads for similar types of products. How is this any different than searching Amazon for something and getting that cute little helper advertizement: "Shoppers who bought title X also bought titles Y and Z..."
I don't believe anyone is deliberately trying to capitalize on "Playboy". Playboy Magazine and related products all relate to a specific category, namely adult content. It's not surprizing to me that a search for "Playboy" would result in ads for other adult content.
. If I do a search for "playmate," and a banner ad pops up for a non-Playboy adult-oriented site, how is that not trademark infringement?
The ads are based on the type of search performed and the most frequently followed results. A search for "playmate" is most likely used for looking up adult material.
The topic associated most with terms like "playmate" or "playboy" is most often adult material. Any search terms related to adult material should result in ads for adult material regardless if they are trademarked terms. If I were to search for "Spam" I would most likely not be faced with ads for the "canned meat product" but for spam filtering software. The topic now mostly associated with that term. Hormel already fought that battle for Spam.
Just because the term "playmate" is synonymous to "college girls" as far as a search engine is concerned does not make it trademark infringement. Those terms are part of everyday language now as much as "Spam" is.
The movies are 16 years apart and they were hardly lead roles. I doubt anyone ever noticed or even cared.
On another note, Ben Affleck plays two different characters in the same movie. I think Kevin Smith should be embarassed for having Affleck in yet another movie... let alone twice!
No, it works. Most people don't want their shopping habbits tracked and take steps to avoid it.
If you want to see how this works, go to your local supermarket and apply for their "SuperSaver" discount card. Once you have it shop for nothing but adult mags and hand lotion and see what kind of advertisements show up in your mailbox after a few weeks.:-)
I'm kidding, seriously, shop with it for a while and you will start seeing advertisments show up geared toward your shopping habbits.
I rarely even notice things like billboards, they just blur into the background...
Interesting note on this statement. Last spring about 6 of my friends and I took a road trip to New Orleans for Jazz Fest. On the way through Alabama, once we got away from the bigger cities like Bermingham, etc... we noticed something very scary...
There were NO billboards at all... nothing... for miles... There was so much nothing there, there was nothing to even advertise.
I guess we don't notice them as much when they are there but they really stand out when they are missing!
1. IBM, we sue you for leaking a few lines of our code into Linux. 2. IBM, we sue you because you leaked thousands of lines of our code into Linux. 3. IBM, we sue you because we own Unix and you developed software for Linux. 4. Linux was based on Unix and Unix has 2,000,000+ lines of code. Linux contains all our code! 4. IBM, we sue you... not quite sure why now... We own Linux. Everyone give use $699 or else. 5. All software written under the GPL in the last 3 years is free because the GPL is stupid and it just should be ours anyway. 6. All software ever written is ours. 7. ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US!
SCO will say that GPLed code cannot be restricted by export controls, thus violates national security laws.
According to SCO, GPL purports to grant *too much freedom* and therefore, according to this argument, the lesser freedom of the public domain is and should be the appropriate terms by which previously GPLed code should be distributable.
You make a good point and I can see SCO trying to make these claims. The problem with the argument is that the GPL doesn't grant any freedoms beyond what is granted by law.
All code, proprietary or GPL licensed will always be restricted by export controls. Nothing in the GPL even attemts to make a claim to the contrary. All code, proprietary or GPLed, is protected by copyright law. The code is owned and controled by the original author and will always be* until that ownership is transfered to someone else. The GPL does not provide for the software to even come close to being property of the public domain. The GPL only provides the express written permission given by the original author and owner of the code, outlining the terms and conditions in which others may use his/her copyrighted works. Nothing more.
It does not say "This code is immune to export control" It does not say "This code is freer than free"
It says, "This is my copyrighted works, and this is how you may copy, modify and redistribute it. If you don't like my terms for copying, modifying and redistributing my works, you are bound to the limitations of use provided for by copyright law."
* Provided for by the perpetual nature of copyright and our friends at Disney.
Slashdot Mirror
This post isn't directed at the parent but rather most of the tin foils that fly off without RTFA.
From papersplease.org:
Dudley was standing around minding his own business...
No, actually, he wasn't. According to this AP article, he was having an argument with his daughter. The cop didn't randomly approch him demanding ID, he was investigating a disturbance.
Did anyone even read the first line of the case:
Petitioner Hiibel was arrested and convicted in a Nevada court for refusing to identify himself to a police officer during an investigative stop involving a reported assault.
Further in the report:
The sheriff's department in Humboldt County, Nevada, received an afternoon telephone call reporting an assault. The caller reported seeing a man assault a woman in a red and silver GMC truck on Grass Valley Road. Deputy Sheriff Lee Dove was dispatched to investigate. When the officer arrived at the scene, he found the truck parked on the side of the road. A man was standing by the truck, and a young woman was sitting inside it. The officer observed skid marks in the gravel behind the vehicle, leading him to believe it had come to a sudden stop. The officer approached the man and explained that he was investigating a report of a fight. The man appeared to be intoxicated. The officer asked him if he had "any identification on [him]," which we understand as a request to produce a driver's license or some other form of written identification. The man refused and asked why the officer wanted to see identification. The officer responded that he was conducting an investigation and needed to see some identification.
The officer was investigating a reported disturbance, not approaching random people demanding "papers". Actually, I'm surprised this even made it to supreme court. You are obligated to identify yourself when you are under suspicion of commiting a crime. Ever been pulled over for speeding? Hell, in this case the officer even stated the fact that he was conducting an investigation. The only weak point I see here is that it (the case document) doesn't quote the officer stating the exact nature of the investigation or informing Hiibel that he was under suspicion. All it says is that he "was conducting an investigation".
I agree the outcome of this case is a blow to civil rights, however, I think the events that lead up to this case have been blown way out of proportion. In the 33 years I've been around, I have yet to see police officers approaching random people demanding "papers".
Yeah, I'm posting this a day late so no one will probably see this post anyway...
Perhaps they can get Matthew Lillard to star since he has had prior experience!
Matt Groening will be guest starring as himself this Sunday on the Simpsons in his first speaking role!
The only news on /. I'll believe on April 1 are stories about SCO being scum or Microsoft being evil monopolists.
OK, Here you go!
Who is actually recording television anymore? With what they consider quality television, I'm surprized more people aren't doing more interesting things like taking a Craftsman cordless drill to the soles of their feet or jamming needles in their armpits.
since it's great we finally get to stick it to those thieving bastards.
$67M is chump change to those thieving bastards. They could wipe their ass with it an not miss it. They can keep it and I'll remain a thieving bastard myself on Kazaa.
I thought it was because they don't use soap?
No, that would be Hippies...
Although, I think Geeks may be somewhat related. There may have been a fork in the evolutionary chain somewhere around the time Barbarella bridged the gap between free-love and sci-fi...
Is this just a minor side effect of a basically beneficial system that will simply work itself out as the patents are challenged? Or does this have to be fought?
This is a new business model. (I probably should patent it but there's too much prior art... Wait, the USPTO will never notice... brb!)
Basically, some company or person is granted a rediculous patent and then sues the bejesus out of everyone. Most people will settle paying up the licensing fees since it's cheaper than laywers and court costs.
It's not going to work itself out since too many people are making money at it and it costs more to fight it than it does to just accept it. Yeah, we are in desparate need of reform...
The "Evil Twin" is the one with the goatee.
IBM didn't patent "Paying Open Source Developers." You can still pay people to develop open source software.
They patented a method of attracting and paying volunteers for their effort while providing incentive for others to volunteer and contribute to an open source project.
Buyukkokten!
Looks like something one might hear while playing Street Fighter.
SCO remained a member (volunarily) after the lawsuits began.
*Geek Speak*
The thing on Star Trek that makes noise when Kirk yells "Red Alert!"
That Microsoft's lawyers sent this notice by email is also odd.
This is Microsoft's new, more efficient, form of communication and distribution. Just the other day I got a critical Service Pack update from them. I find this so much better than trying to remember to check Windows Update periodically...
So is hijacking "Playboy" and "Playmate" to benefit Playboy's competitors.
I don't really believe that is the case. A search for "Playboy" yeilds ads for similar types of products. How is this any different than searching Amazon for something and getting that cute little helper advertizement: "Shoppers who bought title X also bought titles Y and Z..."
I don't believe anyone is deliberately trying to capitalize on "Playboy". Playboy Magazine and related products all relate to a specific category, namely adult content. It's not surprizing to me that a search for "Playboy" would result in ads for other adult content.
. If I do a search for "playmate," and a banner ad pops up for a non-Playboy adult-oriented site, how is that not trademark infringement?
The ads are based on the type of search performed and the most frequently followed results. A search for "playmate" is most likely used for looking up adult material.
The topic associated most with terms like "playmate" or "playboy" is most often adult material. Any search terms related to adult material should result in ads for adult material regardless if they are trademarked terms. If I were to search for "Spam" I would most likely not be faced with ads for the "canned meat product" but for spam filtering software. The topic now mostly associated with that term. Hormel already fought that battle for Spam.
Just because the term "playmate" is synonymous to "college girls" as far as a search engine is concerned does not make it trademark infringement. Those terms are part of everyday language now as much as "Spam" is.
Coppola must be so embarrassed now.
The movies are 16 years apart and they were hardly lead roles. I doubt anyone ever noticed or even cared.
On another note, Ben Affleck plays two different characters in the same movie. I think Kevin Smith should be embarassed for having Affleck in yet another movie... let alone twice!
Speaking of "zombie processes", check out this port of DooM: http://www.cs.unm.edu/~dlchao/flake/doom/.
Don't call it a "mirror", instead call it a "cache". That seams to be the most affective way around copyright these days.
OT (tongue in cheek) - Infact, I'm hosting a cache of mp3s on my machine as we speak!
How many would-be Tolkiens/Einsteins did we lose to war without knowing?
I see you've read Michio Kaku.
And why did it have to be a virus. Why not a cute little kitten or something?
Do we have another candidate for the Darwin Awards perhaps?
No, it works. Most people don't want their shopping habbits tracked and take steps to avoid it.
:-)
If you want to see how this works, go to your local supermarket and apply for their "SuperSaver" discount card. Once you have it shop for nothing but adult mags and hand lotion and see what kind of advertisements show up in your mailbox after a few weeks.
I'm kidding, seriously, shop with it for a while and you will start seeing advertisments show up geared toward your shopping habbits.
I rarely even notice things like billboards, they just blur into the background...
Interesting note on this statement. Last spring about 6 of my friends and I took a road trip to New Orleans for Jazz Fest. On the way through Alabama, once we got away from the bigger cities like Bermingham, etc... we noticed something very scary...
There were NO billboards at all... nothing... for miles... There was so much nothing there, there was nothing to even advertise.
I guess we don't notice them as much when they are there but they really stand out when they are missing!
1. IBM, we sue you for leaking a few lines of our code into Linux.
2. IBM, we sue you because you leaked thousands of lines of our code into Linux.
3. IBM, we sue you because we own Unix and you developed software for Linux.
4. Linux was based on Unix and Unix has 2,000,000+ lines of code. Linux contains all our code!
4. IBM, we sue you... not quite sure why now... We own Linux. Everyone give use $699 or else.
5. All software written under the GPL in the last 3 years is free because the GPL is stupid and it just should be ours anyway.
6. All software ever written is ours.
7. ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US!
SCO will say that GPLed code cannot be restricted by export controls, thus violates national security laws.
According to SCO, GPL purports to grant *too much freedom* and therefore, according to this argument, the lesser freedom of the public domain is and should be the appropriate terms by which previously GPLed code should be distributable.
You make a good point and I can see SCO trying to make these claims. The problem with the argument is that the GPL doesn't grant any freedoms beyond what is granted by law.
All code, proprietary or GPL licensed will always be restricted by export controls. Nothing in the GPL even attemts to make a claim to the contrary. All code, proprietary or GPLed, is protected by copyright law. The code is owned and controled by the original author and will always be* until that ownership is transfered to someone else. The GPL does not provide for the software to even come close to being property of the public domain. The GPL only provides the express written permission given by the original author and owner of the code, outlining the terms and conditions in which others may use his/her copyrighted works. Nothing more.
It does not say "This code is immune to export control"
It does not say "This code is freer than free"
It says, "This is my copyrighted works, and this is how you may copy, modify and redistribute it. If you don't like my terms for copying, modifying and redistributing my works, you are bound to the limitations of use provided for by copyright law."
* Provided for by the perpetual nature of copyright and our friends at Disney.