Posted on 05/02/2006 5:49:36 AM PDT by ShadowAce
WIPO is pushing open source, just like all UN agencies. Are you ever going to actually speak out against them and Stallman, like I do? Or just continue to claim I somehow support them LOL.
Reduced to childish insults, like normal, when your same exact BS was blown up again. Quit posting it, and you won't have deal with it being thrown back in your face everytime.
Ha ha! That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard! You support their laws, even if they erode US sovereignty and then you condemn ME for not speaking out against them!
LMAO!
Laugh all you want flamer, the UN is fully committed to open source just like you. They reference Stallman constantly just like you too. Only one portion of the DMCA was related to the UN and it's now obviously contrary to their current goals.
WIPO Announces Plans to Support Open Source
http://www.linuxelectrons.com/article.php/20041004215722422
"Today WIPO supports an entirely different approach, which emphasizes open source software"
"Only one portion of the DMCA was related to the UN and it's now obviously contrary to their current goals. "
Spin, spin, spin. It's UN law, implemented with your blessing. Of course, you love all things "one world" just like Microsoft money for China and Planned Parenthood.
"it's now obviously contrary to their current goals. "
Ha! They haven't repealed the WIPO Copyright and Performances and Phonograms Treaties Implementation Act, have they? That's the model for the DMCA, you know, right? Did we just lie again?
And as for condeming the WIPO, I was expressing my disgust with them as you argued against me, earlier, lying about DMCA not being UN law, etc.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1620494/posts?page=163#163
So, lie again if you want, but the facts once again don't line up with your version of reality.
Context, GE. His original post stated how many desktops he has and how he uses them. The statement in a vacuum on this thread is technically incorrect (although it was preceded with "I don't think" so is not an absolute statement), but you posted a link to the other thread, which has context, and makes his statement true.
Correction to the above...Instead of "WIPO Copyright and Performances and Phonograms Treaties Implementation Act", that should read "WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty".
The treaty was the model for DMCA. The Implementation Act was where we actually sold out our sovereignty to the UN and WIPO, with the full backing of GE.
LOL there's not even such a thing. If there was, we'd all have to use open source now since that's what they are pushing, along with you of course.
"one world"
Which is why they suppport open source now, a software world without borders, just like you. Proprietary software puts up too many borders for you guys, known as "ownership".
The constitutional source of the copyright laws of the United States is very different in spirit than the copyright laws of much of the rest of the world. WIPO so far has had a very non-US approach, which tried to give absolute power to the copyright holders, and we adopted WIPO policies as our laws in direct opposition to the spirit of the Constitution. Not only the WIPO-based DMCA, but the CTEA and others influenced by the international community have made our copyright laws stray very far from their constitutional basis.
It is good that WIPO is moving towards a US-based model that balances copyright holders' limited monopoly powers with the public good.
WIPO has always basically been owned by the big corporations. It is a tool to advance their power and make them more money. Didn't you notice that WIPO didn't say anything about open source until big business players got behind it?
"LOL there's not even such a thing."
UN policy. Law might not have been the correct word, but someone with greater intelligence than a cockroach would have been able to understand. But, dealing with you as much as I do, even I am occasionally astounded by the depths of your ignorance.
"Which is why they suppport open source now, a software world without borders, just like you."
Well, I'm not the one here defending their policies. You, however, defend the DMCA, straight from the UN, until you froth at the mouth.
LOL the DMCA is not "straight from the UN", it has one section related to their former position on intellectual property. However the UN is obviously now commited fully to open source, just like you. The US Congress is rightfully going the other way, for stricter enforcement of IP laws, not pushing open source like you and the UN now constantly do.
Guess who's going to win out in the US Flamer? Me and the Congress who want IP protected, or you and the UN who want it freely given away?
Wow. Tristan sounds just like GE.
That one's quite bad. Here's a few funny GE-type bits of stupidity (I promised not to call GE ignorant anymore):
this rugged IBM laptop I am using was designed and built by an American company
Using largely non-American parts.
It's a computer program that was initially developed in Finland as a means of circumventing valuable copyrights and patents owned by an American company called SCO Group.
It was built to get around the licensing of MINIX, which was created by a Dutch professor. That is aside from the un-established question of whether SCO actually owns the copyrights to UNIX.
a leading computer expert Steve Balmer
Steve Ballmer is not a computer expert. He is a manager in a software company.
A generation of computer users might get use to accepting foreign software hand-outs rather than paying for a superior American products.
Superior American products like SuSE and Red Hat Linux?
And guess what software Osama Bin Laden uses on his laptop? If you guessed it was Linux you would be 100% right.
What orifice did he pull that one out of? This idiot's blog is the only source for this information I could find on the 'net.
Report them to the Business Software Alliance who have the legal authority to inspect any company's computers for illegal programs like Linux.
Huh? No they don't, aside from the fact that you can't run an illegal copy of Linux.
But the BSA underscores a danger with commercial software. You may have paid full-price for 20 licenses of Windows and Office Pro, but you face a big lawsuit or settlement if you can't produce proof of purchase when the BSA comes knocking. You are assumed guilty until proven innocent. This means businesses have to add costly license compliance overhead in order to not get screwed by the BSA.
You're right, this blogger sounds just as stupid and paranoid as GE, so it could be him.
The US Congress has been going the unconstitutional (not rightful) way for years because of payoffs by the copyright cartel and complying with WIPO.
By constitutional definition, anything that hurts the progress of the arts and sciences cannot be part of our copyright law, period. Yet it's there, and there even stronger in the proposed new laws.
So, one more time for those who still might be reading this thread (which has devolved far off topic due to GE's trolling).
Here's exactly what I said...
OTOH, running dual head with either separate desktops (my personal preference) or with one desktop spanning both monitors rocks. Windows will do dual heads, but I don't think you can get dual desktops without third party tools.
NOTE the term "separate deskstops". I'll spell it for you slowly so perhaps you can understand it. "s-e-p-a-r-a-t-e d-e-s-k-t-o-p-s". This is an entirely different concept from having a single desktop that spans two monitors. it also doesn't specifically make any statement about multiple virtual desktops, though I elaborated later to clarify for others on the thread, that with Linux you can run BOTH multiple desktops AND multiple virtual desktops AT THE SAME TIME.
antirepublicrat, I do not believe I was factually incorrect in my statement. I don't have a place to install that particular MS tool, but from what I've read, it will support multiple virts, not multiple desktops, and certainly not multiple desktops with multiple virts on each. If you have seen any information to the contrary, I'd be interested in knowing about it, as there are a couple of folks where I work that might be able to make use of it.
Only incorrect in that statement in a vacuum without the context of the thread GE linked to. GE knew the context, yet he still claimed you lied -- standard tactics. Stating without context that you can't get "dual desktops" without 3rd party tools on Windows is an incorrect statement, since it doesn't have the clarification omitting dual virtual desktops.
I think we're misunderstanding each other a bit. My original statement didn't mention virtual desktops at all. What I was saying was that MS didn't provide for the ability of running dual desktops. That is, each physical screen is a separate entity from the other. They would have different taskbar, tray, and "start" button that are independent of each other.
Regardless, it's a pointless bit to argue over in any case. The only reason I even bothered was for the benefit of the non-trolls on the thread. I couldn't care less what the troll writes or thinks, as it's sole purpose is to disrupt threads.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.