Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:You've got competitive markets (Score 1) 201

there's plenty of alternatives for Internet Service. Some are better than others. There's cell phones, Satelites, etc.

In many cases, those aren't even competitors - AT&T owns all three now.

You can also move. And that's not me being flippant, Ajit Pai himself suggested it.

Nothing says privilege like arguing that a viable option for switching to a different ISP is to just move to a different city.

Comment Re:This has everything to do with Trump (Score 4, Insightful) 201

What I'm saying is that Net Neutrality is incompatible with one of the basic tenants of the Republican party. If you agree with Net Neutrality you disagree with the Republican party. Maybe not individuals, but with the party's ideals.

And here I was thinking that having competitive markets was one of those basic tenets.

Comment Re: I don't understand all the hate on the mini NE (Score 1) 94

I love the mentality that says, "You made a good thing but because I can't get one you are terrible." They didn't break a contract, they didn't take your money and not deliver, they simply made a product that you desire and decided not to meet demand for their own reasons. Nintendo did not wrong you.

Why exactly is it unreasonable to call a company "terrible" just because they didn't break a contract with you or directly harm you?

Comment Re:How is that possible? (Score 1) 134

California "requires ride-hailing companies to have a zero-tolerance policy for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs,"

That's a deeply meaningful policy definition. What about someone who had too much coffee?

If someone has consumed enough coffee that their ability to drive is impaired, then yes, they would probably be arrested for DUI. For the vast majority of people, one or two cups of coffee won't impair them at all. Whether or not "enough" is above the LD50 level, I don't know.

Comment Re:Wait... bad summary? (Score 1) 209

But who is making these decisions?

If it's truly just annotations, I would assume that it's the author and/or publisher.

And, since it is the annotated state code that is the official law

That seems to be the open question in this conversation, and I don't personally know the answer. I was only commenting on the statements of yours that I quoted. If these "annotations" are part of the legally binding text, then I absolutely agree that they are part of the law and thus should not be eligible for copyright. If they really are just annotations (e.g. excerpts from court decisions, commentary, etc.), then the book is a copyrightable work.

Comment Re:Once again I'd like to remind America (Score 1) 209

In case you have noticed lately, the vast majority of the strong proponents of gun ownership are quite happy with rule by the rich, as long as they think the rich will protect them from the blacks, Muslims, and gays. I wouldn't count on them to side with the populace in your scenario.

Comment Re:Wait... bad summary? (Score 1) 209

The annotations are not the product of creative work, only the compilation of existing public information.

The former does not necessarily follow from the latter. Compiling public information can still be a creative work if, for example, decisions must be made about what information to include in the compilation and what information to exclude.

The same logic was applied by the US Supreme Court to deny copyright protection of phone books.

The denial of copyright protection only applies to the content of the phone book, insofar as there are no creative decisions involved in listing all names, addresses, and phone numbers in alphabetical order.

Comment Re:It will not happen (Score 1) 110

I always hear this refrain in situations like this. But suppose one of the contributions went something like this:

if (flag1 != "value") { doIt(); }

How the hell do you re-write something like that? An "if" statement keys on the value of a single variable and conditionally executes a function. There are some things for which there is only one solution.

If there's truly only one possible solution for something that simple, then it isn't copyrightable anyway. Copyright requires some amount of creative expression, and something like that wouldn't meet the minimum level of creativity.

Comment Re:Problem is a matter of Fraud. Rent vs Sell (Score 1) 243

I've worked with lawyers enough already, thank you very much.

a) It depends on how the fraud laws are written. If the law says something like, "only the following specific things are fraud", then yes, it would require changing the law. If, however, the law is general, such as saying something like "any deception regarding the terms of a transaction", then that law can be applied to a case such as this one. To be honest, I don't care enough to look them up, and the specifics will vary by state anyway.

b) As far as I know, "buyer beware" is not a law. In fact, if that were the case, fraud wouldn't be illegal.

c) Maybe to make it a binding precedent across the entire country, but I doubt the Supreme Court would accept a case like this, so any lower court rulings would stand.

Comment Re:Problem is a matter of Fraud. Rent vs Sell (Score 4, Interesting) 243

We need a simple law that clarifies this point. Out law the use of the words 'buy' or 'sell' when dealing with a license - including physical products that include a necessary license, such as those evil John Deere Tractors.

Then when some shmuck tries to sell a John Deere tractor, arrest them for fraud, as they are actually renting it to you for an unspecified amount of time. If they want to use the words 'buy' or sell', they have to include free-as-in-speech software on it. Otherwise, it is fraud, punishable by a fine.

We don't need an additional law for that, we just a need a judge and/or jury to decide that it counts as fraud.

Comment Re:WTF (Score 1) 249

Incorrect. The Hawaiian judge based his opinion upon "intent" as expressed verbally by members of the Trump campaign in the run-up to the election. The actual (second) order was more carefully written to avoid any reference to religion (here, read it yourself.) There is not a legal scholar, Left or Right, in the U.S. who believes that the partisan Hawaiian ruling will withstand appeal.

If a person didn't read the Washington judge's opinion, in which he cited precedent for finding that statements indicating discriminatory intent can be used to invalidate a law, then he isn't much of a legal scholar.

It is well established that evidence of purpose beyond the face of the challenged law may be considered in evaluating Establishment and Equal Protection Clause claims. See, e.g., Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 534 (1993) (“The Free Exercise Clause, like the Establishment Clause, extends beyond facial discrimination. . . . Official action that targets religious conduct for distinctive treatment cannot be shielded by mere compliance with the requirement of facial neutrality.”); Larson, 456 U.S. at 254-55 (holding that a facially neutral statute violated the Establishment Clause in light of legislative history demonstrating an intent to apply regulations only to minority religions); Village of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Housing Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 266- 68 (1977) (explaining that circumstantial evidence of intent, including the historical background of the decision and statements by decisionmakers, may be considered in evaluating whether a governmental action was motivated by a discriminatory purpose).

Slashdot Top Deals

Consultants are mystical people who ask a company for a number and then give it back to them.

Working...