Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:The right to be presumed innocent? (Score 2) 90

by bws111 (#48628533) Attached to: Australia Moves Toward New Restrictions On Technology Export and Publication

I don't know about Australia, but in the US 'presumed innocent' does not mean, and has never meant, what you think.

Presumption of innocence simply means that the prosecution has the onus in a trial. They must prove you are guilty. The defense does not have to prove anything, they just poke holes in the prosecutions case.

Comment: Re:Hope they keep Stallman off the stand... (Score 1) 173

by bws111 (#48604645) Attached to: The GPLv2 Goes To Court

I didn't mean it is literally a contract, I said basically. The point is, multiple parties were involved in it's creation, and when that is the case it is not unusual to consider other sources to resolve ambiguity.

Yes, you can walk away from a license. That is not the point. The license is already drafted. You interpret it and decide it is good. There is no reason to walk away or negotiate. It would be highly unfair for the licensor to come back and say 'the words I said (and you agreed to by using the product) are not actually what I meant'.

Comment: Re:Hope they keep Stallman off the stand... (Score 1) 173

by bws111 (#48604333) Attached to: The GPLv2 Goes To Court

The Constitution is basically a contract between the States. It is not unusual in contract law to look outside the contract to resolve ambiguities. They are looking for the so-called 'meeting of the minds' between the parties to determine the real meaning.

A license is not a contract. It is completely one-sided. and the licensee has no input and there is no meeting of the minds. Therefore, the licensor has all the responsibility for making the license clear. He does not get to go back later and say 'that is not what I meant'.

Comment: Re:Programming Language (Score 2) 173

by bws111 (#48602617) Attached to: The GPLv2 Goes To Court

This is an idea that is often posted on here, and it never makes sense to me. What makes you think a programming language would do any better with these kinds of questions? There are basically an infinite number of variables - how do you write a program that handles all those variables, especially when some variables or values were not even known to exist (or were otherwise not considered) when the program (law) was written? The best you could do is throw an exception when the set of variables and values does not already match an existing definition.

Which is basically what the law does. If a case is largely the same as a prior case the principles of law are pretty well understood, and executing the 'program' just determines which party wins based on the established rules. But when a case is not just like a previous case, then more work is required. When that work has been done it becomes precedent, and future cases do not need to consider how those variables should be interpreted.

Comment: Re:Sounds like they should ban the cabbies (Score 3, Informative) 295

by jcr (#48596967) Attached to: French Cabbies Say They'll Block Paris Roads On Monday Over Uber

That's what they would do if they had a functioning police department or legal system in France, but they haven't had that for many years. You might remember that they had a plague of thugs setting cars on fire a year or so ago, and the cops didn't even try to arrest any of them.


Comment: That has always been the case. (Score 1) 465

by jcr (#48590173) Attached to: Peru Indignant After Greenpeace Damages Ancient Nazca Site

Greenpeace is not, and has NEVER been an environmental organization. From the very beginning, they have been a marketing organization abusing the public's sympathy to environmental concerns to suck up contributions that would otherwise have gone to people doing real work to improve the environment.

If you care about pollution, deforestation, preserving wildlife, etc, contribute to Ducks Unlimited, the Nature Conservancy, the Audubon Society, and your local environmental organizations.


Comment: Watch it with the broad brush there.. (Score 1) 465

by jcr (#48590149) Attached to: Peru Indignant After Greenpeace Damages Ancient Nazca Site

At the most, some dozen people or so were involved in this latest Greenpeace vandalism stunt, and you're using that to blame tens of millions of people. There have been obnoxious people in every generation since mankind evolved, and they have always been vastly outnumbered by decent people.


+ - Well, if it's a war they want...

Submitted by cpt kangarooski
cpt kangarooski (3773) writes "Information has come to light, thanks to the recent Sony hack, in which MPAA and major studios are colluding as to what legal actions are available to them to compel an entity referred to as 'Goliath,' most likely Google, into taking aggressive anti-piracy action on behalf of the entertainment industry. MPAA and member studios Universal, Sony, Fox, Paramount, Warner Bros., and Disney have had lengthy email discussions concerning how to block pirate sites at the ISP level, and how to take action at the state level to work around the failure of SOPA in 2012. Emails also indicate that they are working with Comcast (which owns Universal) on some form of inspection of traffic to find copyright infringements as they happen. More information at The Verge."

Wishing without work is like fishing without bait. -- Frank Tyger