I could quibble a bit but yes I think we have the same idea. If you have published code and you can demonstrate that exact binary produced from that source code then there should be some control. But if the binary doesnt match the code you published? Or you havent published any code to test? Then it shouldnt apply at all.

Copyright and trade secret protections were meant to be either or. You have to choose one. Claiming a copyright on unpublished source code and then applying it to opaque binaries no one has any way to verify just shouldnt be allowed.

Under the law at the time, these âoemusical compositionsâ â" the music and lyrics â" were subject to copyright, but the particular âoesound recordingsâ embodying the musical compositions were not; federal copyright did not cover sound recordings until 1972. So, for example, the musical composition âoeQue Sera, Seraâ written by Jay Livingston and Ray Evans was copyrighted, but not Doris Dayâ(TM)s particular sound recording of that composition.

This old rule made more sense if you ask me. And notice that, despite copyright covering only 'the work' itself rather than particular instantiations of it, the music industry was still able to grow huge and make tons of money under the old law.

The software equivalent would be to hold source code copyrightable, but not binaries. And this would make even more sense.

They basically arrived stillborn anyway. I have one, they are wonderful machines, but you really have to handroll your own OS to get them working properly. A properly functioning netbook is a beautiful thing - they are tough and robust and just work. But the OS that shipped was just absurdly bad. It was a pain for me to get this thing working right - and for most of the market that meant they were just worthless.

I defy you to produce a single direct quote from smitty supporting even one of your strawmen.

It 'also might be interpreted' as such but only by someone who simply refuses to check sources. The fact of the matter is the words had that meaning at the time and some of the debates around the wording are even preserved so you can see for yourself exactly how it was understood. Regulated didnt acquire the secondary meaning of 'under strict but indirect government control' until later. The original meaning of 'in good order, well prepared' is still found as well, in phrases like a well-regulated machine or in the practice of regulating shotgun bores, but it has been eclipsed in usage. So the only way that argument can be made is out of ignorance or willful deception.

Under the militia acts from that date, the militia was understood to be 'all military aged males' in a given area. Trained and organised groups raised from the militia were specifically distinguished as 'select militia.'

I disagree with the talk of professional guards. That's exactly what we dont need.

I am all in favour of getting rid of the obstacles to school staff carrying concealed on school grounds. I believe this would be much more effective, and more consistent with the idea that this is a free country and our schools should not be prison camps. But it's still only a way to limit the damage, it doesnt address the underlying cause of the damage.

I agree with those that are saying that the occasion should prompt a hard rethink of our policies and more importantly our attitudes. The US isnt the most dangerous developed country around because of weapons - there are actually places with more weapons per capita than here, yet much lower rates of violence. We are a dangerous place because culturally we accept a number of flawed premises relating to violence. We are a violent culture that approves of our government bombing children all around the world on a nearly daily basis, a culture that believes that raw violence is a legitimate way to solve all kinds of problems, that accepts the rationalisation of murder as 'collateral damage' in a routine way. It should surprise no one that a culture so disfunctional also produces school massacres.

Yes, indeed, we need to dumb linux down to the point where it is useless to us, in order to convince people that dont like it and want something entirely different... wait, why?

It's a good choice for a lot of cases. Trying to pretend you have an 'issue' with this rather than simply trying to smear me because I dared to comment on Steam negatively is just... silly.

The fact is that malware is prevalent on windows systems by design. I dont tell anyone to buy windows. I dont tell anyone they can run it without having a clue and then an antivirus will keep them safe. Microsoft and other companies do that. And I dont even work for any of those companies. I'm just the guy that cleans it up after it gets borked to put bread on the table. You got a problem with that it's your problem.

Yeah, it's kind of funny really, on win8 I can either search and try to figure out what series of magic spots to rub and click in exactly the right order to get where I am going, or I can just remember the command and win+r right to it. In a way it's kind of cool, I should really be doing that anyway, but I think by the goals the 'designers' set for themselves it's epic fail. And every 'normal user' type I have spoken to that has it... hates it.

Hello? There is no way you can be sure of that even before it was trampled since we are not talking about Free systems anyway. In the real world you make your money on what people use. People use windows and mac. They get em hosed. They need them fixed, they usually have a ton of data and no backup. Even with good backups they want to avoid the lengthy restore process if at all possible and they are a lot more concerned about that than taking the absolutely sure route in most cases. If they arent they can get a format and restore instead. Very very few takers on that.

And, gee, guess what? If the system isnt too badly hosed to get the appropriate tools working (NOT scanners much simpler things) then yes, you can find and remove just about infestation manually a lot quicker than you can reformat the hard drive (let alone trying to backup any data.)

Well, maybe not you specifically, but someone that actually knows what he is talking about on this subject can.

I dont think you understand the words you are using.

Authoritarian != Authoritative

It is authoritarian, but sound, advice, in the sense that it falls into the category of things that people just dont naturally tend to do without some older and wiser person initially forcing it. Kind of like potty training.

I will be more than happy to write out the design specifications once the money is in escrow or a job offer has been accepted. Until then, quit expecting me to do your homework for you.

Why would I want to use an interface designed for a 3 year old? Hmm? Come on.

Yes I use the command line and the function keys and I can fly around the thing when I have to. Doesnt change the fact it's just about the worst interface imaginable, and confuzzles the regular users to no end, resulting in them constantly calling me to figure out how to do the simplest of things. I am not saying previous windows interfaces were all that great, but in general people had gotten to the point of being accustomed to them at least. Breaking things for the sake of breaking things does not a good product make.

The metaphysical bank called - your check bounced.

If even a small percentage of the school staff had been carrying concealed weapons the death toll would have been lower. Most likely much lower.

The US has a very violent culture, and has a lot of deaths by firearm and otherwise as a result. Large areas of the country DO have the laws you want and those areas are generally the most dangerous ones. The density of firearm ownership is higher in rural areas which also coincidentally have far less crime. Other countries have higher rates of firearm ownership than the US yet far less crime. One example is Sweden. Why does Sweden have fewer shootings despite having more weapons per capita? The same reason they have fewer stabbings, and fewer bludgeonings. It's a less violent culture.

A 'well regulated militia' means a general population which is armed and practiced with their arms. The founders intention was to prevent us from ever entrusting our safety to a standing army, which they considered would be a grave mistake, and their alternative to provide defense was to ensure that the populace in general would remain armed and ready to resist.