The previously undiscovered black holes provide an important link that sheds light on the way black holes grow.
The light was then promptly swallowed into oblivion, leaving the researchers no bewildered and rather annoyed.
Re:Guardian Interview with Christopher Reeve
on
Politicizing Science
·
· Score: 2
Truth is, it is impossible to separate Church and State because the rock that our moral code is built upon comes from God.
Speak for yourself, pal. My moral code does NOT come from any god. Attack me if you will, but I don't think the pronouncement that your morals come from some omniscient superbeing makes you any better than anyone else on this rock.
I've heard that question addressed before. I don't remember the exact response, but the short version is that it's not legal if you do it knowingly. How they prove that, I'm not sure. Maybe they ask the kid.
Yes, but you're forgetting a crucial point. The patent office is impervious to logic. I think that must be the result of an early patent. But they have some sort of logic barrier set up so that all the good suggestions that come their way are blocked from ever reaching a brain that might comprehend them. You're quite right though. At the very least, anyone who creates the same thing independently should not be subject to the other creator's patent.
For all we know, wookies really exist in a galaxy far far away. But until it's proven, it's fiction. Prove your god exists and your religion will cease to be fiction.
Submarine patents have not been made illegal. The PTO did make some changes to their procedures so that patent filings will become public sooner, making it tougher to keep them hidden for a long time while the technology takes off.
The obvious answer would be that they would do it for the same reason they did it before copyright existed. But that's not terribly realistic. The realistic answer is that the real problem here is not that copyright exists. It's that copyright has been extended and expanded beyond all recognition. Roll it back to a reasonable term (14 years was the original term, and if anything, it's more appropriate today than it was back then). Get rid of stupid laws like the DMCA. Then things will be fine. As it stands now, the public has no interest in copyright. Copyright was intended to entice people to create things that would eventually be added to the public domain for all to build upon. That doesn't happen anymore.
I think that if the use of these tags was very common, then some ISPs would begin to block them all and advertise it as a feature to potential customers.
Right. They seem to think that the correct price for a CD is "whatever we want to charge." Then they're pissed that a lot of people don't find the product to be worth the price.
Life has pretty much always been a constant struggle. War has been an omnipresent fixture of human existance. There are games that don't deal with war. Games like The Sims, the various Tycoon games, Sim <whatever>, etc. They do fairly well in the mainstream. But there is a certain appeal to war and fighting games. Perhaps it's a way for us to take part in war without actually damaging anything or killing anyone. We get to experience some simulation of the decision-making, the strategy, the tactics, and to some (very limited) extent, some of the emotions of fighting a war or battle without the risk. Without conflict, there is not much you can do with a game besides create elaborate puzzles, or open-ended, non-goal-oriented games. Even sports are a conflict of sorts. Sure, it's not usually a life or death thing, but the conflict exists. It's just so basic that it's hard to imagine there not being a great number of games that use it as a basis. Sure they could make games that are non-violent, but that would rule out creating games about the vast majority of our history (and our present) without being highly revisionist.
What are you talking about?? Saying, "I know I'll get modded down for this" virtually assures that you'll be modded up. This is because moderators are generally about as sharp as a sack of wet mice.
As far as games go, there's not much to be enthusiastic about on Linux. All of the major games that get released for it were released for Windows months, if not years, ago. When we can buy something new and interesting before, or at least at the same time as Windows, then maybe there will be something to be enthusiastic about.
And when project Moses fails to achieve its goal, project Noah will be put into action. A giant gondola will be built to carry the inhabitants of Venice to safety... and romance.;)
There are some areas where open source software is seriously lacking. Linux currently does not have a coherent, widely adopted assessability framework. Personally, I find myself stuck with closed source software because the tools that I need in order to work are only available through closed source products under Microsoft Windows. As a result, I think there are some areas where closed source software should be considered on a case-by-case basis such as American Disabilities Act compliance, while encouraging those vendors to open up their source code.
I understand exactly what you're saying here. I think that the government needs to, first and foremost, choose the right tool for the job. But, determining which tool is right is the real issue. If the government is producing documents, of whatever sort, whether they be text documents, graphics, databases, web pages, etc., they should be in formats that are open and freely implementable. Otherwise the government is forcing citizens to purchase proprietary software to view public information. That should not be allowed to happen. When determining which tool should be used, one of the criteria should be that the file format be completely documented and free of any fees, royalties, patents, etc.
Simply making open formats a requirement would suffice. If Microsoft cannot meet the requirement, then it is removed from consideration. If only open source software meets the requirement, then open source software should be used. The government should be held accountable by the people. If they publish things in a format that cannot be freely and accurately implemented, then they should be taken to task and forced to republish in an open format.
The government doesn't have to control the format. The format just has to be made available in its entirety to the public so that anyone can create a program that can read/write to that format without having to pay anyone a fee or royalty.
If it's necessary, then it would happen even without Microsoft's despicable business tactics. If it requires those tactics, then perhaps it isn't so necessary after all.
Could it be that the current trend is to have it so that copyrights never expire and as such the "IP" is actually considered PROPERTY instead of what it really is?
Yep. That seems to be the plan. Don't expect it to change unless A LOT of people get REALLY pissed off and make the congresscritters fear that they won't be reelected.
Actually, I would think that it would lead to the understanding that "*zilla" is really not deserving of protection at this point. Mozilla has been in worldwide use for 10 years. Seems to me that they've foreited their chance to make a claim about it. I don't know how courts normally look at a trademark issue and what standards they use, but it seems that the standards would have to pretty loose for their infringement claim to hold water.
Slashdot Mirror
* ** ***
* Damn
** that's
*** annoying
The previously undiscovered black holes provide an important link that sheds light on the way black holes grow.
The light was then promptly swallowed into oblivion, leaving the researchers no bewildered and rather annoyed.
Truth is, it is impossible to separate Church and State because the rock that our moral code is built upon comes from God.
Speak for yourself, pal. My moral code does NOT come from any god. Attack me if you will, but I don't think the pronouncement that your morals come from some omniscient superbeing makes you any better than anyone else on this rock.
I've heard that question addressed before. I don't remember the exact response, but the short version is that it's not legal if you do it knowingly. How they prove that, I'm not sure. Maybe they ask the kid.
If your browser doesn't block those things, then maybe it isn't really suitable for your needs? I suggest getting one that is.
Yes, but you're forgetting a crucial point. The patent office is impervious to logic. I think that must be the result of an early patent. But they have some sort of logic barrier set up so that all the good suggestions that come their way are blocked from ever reaching a brain that might comprehend them. You're quite right though. At the very least, anyone who creates the same thing independently should not be subject to the other creator's patent.
Brunching Shuttlecocks
For all we know, wookies really exist in a galaxy far far away. But until it's proven, it's fiction. Prove your god exists and your religion will cease to be fiction.
Submarine patents have not been made illegal. The PTO did make some changes to their procedures so that patent filings will become public sooner, making it tougher to keep them hidden for a long time while the technology takes off.
Oh yeah, and everyone that believes that a guy was wandering around turning water into wine and walking on water has a real firm grip on reality :)
That statement just shows that you aren't drinking the right sodas.
Just in case anyone still believes that old tale... get the straight dope here.
The obvious answer would be that they would do it for the same reason they did it before copyright existed. But that's not terribly realistic. The realistic answer is that the real problem here is not that copyright exists. It's that copyright has been extended and expanded beyond all recognition. Roll it back to a reasonable term (14 years was the original term, and if anything, it's more appropriate today than it was back then). Get rid of stupid laws like the DMCA. Then things will be fine. As it stands now, the public has no interest in copyright. Copyright was intended to entice people to create things that would eventually be added to the public domain for all to build upon. That doesn't happen anymore.
I think that if the use of these tags was very common, then some ISPs would begin to block them all and advertise it as a feature to potential customers.
Right. They seem to think that the correct price for a CD is "whatever we want to charge." Then they're pissed that a lot of people don't find the product to be worth the price.
Life has pretty much always been a constant struggle. War has been an omnipresent fixture of human existance. There are games that don't deal with war. Games like The Sims, the various Tycoon games, Sim <whatever>, etc. They do fairly well in the mainstream. But there is a certain appeal to war and fighting games. Perhaps it's a way for us to take part in war without actually damaging anything or killing anyone. We get to experience some simulation of the decision-making, the strategy, the tactics, and to some (very limited) extent, some of the emotions of fighting a war or battle without the risk. Without conflict, there is not much you can do with a game besides create elaborate puzzles, or open-ended, non-goal-oriented games. Even sports are a conflict of sorts. Sure, it's not usually a life or death thing, but the conflict exists. It's just so basic that it's hard to imagine there not being a great number of games that use it as a basis. Sure they could make games that are non-violent, but that would rule out creating games about the vast majority of our history (and our present) without being highly revisionist.
What are you talking about?? Saying, "I know I'll get modded down for this" virtually assures that you'll be modded up. This is because moderators are generally about as sharp as a sack of wet mice.
Yeah. Linux is a real enthusiastic market.
As far as games go, there's not much to be enthusiastic about on Linux. All of the major games that get released for it were released for Windows months, if not years, ago. When we can buy something new and interesting before, or at least at the same time as Windows, then maybe there will be something to be enthusiastic about.
And when project Moses fails to achieve its goal, project Noah will be put into action. A giant gondola will be built to carry the inhabitants of Venice to safety... and romance. ;)
There are some areas where open source software is seriously lacking. Linux currently does not have a coherent, widely adopted assessability framework. Personally, I find myself stuck with closed source software because the tools that I need in order to work are only available through closed source products under Microsoft Windows. As a result, I think there are some areas where closed source software should be considered on a case-by-case basis such as American Disabilities Act compliance, while encouraging those vendors to open up their source code.
I understand exactly what you're saying here. I think that the government needs to, first and foremost, choose the right tool for the job. But, determining which tool is right is the real issue. If the government is producing documents, of whatever sort, whether they be text documents, graphics, databases, web pages, etc., they should be in formats that are open and freely implementable. Otherwise the government is forcing citizens to purchase proprietary software to view public information. That should not be allowed to happen. When determining which tool should be used, one of the criteria should be that the file format be completely documented and free of any fees, royalties, patents, etc.
Simply making open formats a requirement would suffice. If Microsoft cannot meet the requirement, then it is removed from consideration. If only open source software meets the requirement, then open source software should be used. The government should be held accountable by the people. If they publish things in a format that cannot be freely and accurately implemented, then they should be taken to task and forced to republish in an open format.
The government doesn't have to control the format. The format just has to be made available in its entirety to the public so that anyone can create a program that can read/write to that format without having to pay anyone a fee or royalty.
If it's necessary, then it would happen even without Microsoft's despicable business tactics. If it requires those tactics, then perhaps it isn't so necessary after all.
Could it be that the current trend is to have it so that copyrights never expire and as such the "IP" is actually considered PROPERTY instead of what it really is?
Yep. That seems to be the plan. Don't expect it to change unless A LOT of people get REALLY pissed off and make the congresscritters fear that they won't be reelected.
Actually, I would think that it would lead to the understanding that "*zilla" is really not deserving of protection at this point. Mozilla has been in worldwide use for 10 years. Seems to me that they've foreited their chance to make a claim about it. I don't know how courts normally look at a trademark issue and what standards they use, but it seems that the standards would have to pretty loose for their infringement claim to hold water.