I think the idea of preventing "services" is laughable. There are too many remote access "services" and the like that they really can't stamp down on lest they start a shit storm.
I mean, is Teamviewer a "service"? Is LogMeIn a "service"? SSH... maybe. HTTP definitely, but even a personal web service is iffy.
I don't see them invoking this unless you're running something that brings down the whole area of town.
According to Wikipedia though they did earn some good money off their patents.
It's all degree. The later version of patents (not the early version that were granted by kings) were intended to get innovation into the public and in use. Like copyright (which was intended to encourage writers to work and not to sit back like J.D.Salinger and live off the profit of one book) the good reasoning behind having it has been morphed into a cash machine.
It's a weird coincidence that all these stories are coming up now.
One of the main plot points in the new Doctor Who episode (which occurred in the future) was that the Indian Space Authority was involved in making sure that a huge out of control spacecraft did not hit earth. It was obvious that the Indians were major powers in space at the time of this story... to the point that they were taking the initiative to protect the entire earth.
Now there is a lot you can read into this story, but at least on some aspects it implies that the Indians become a major technological force in the U.S. One interpretation is that they use this to help bring massive numbers of people out of poverty.
I don't know... it's interesting that these questions come up at the same time that a sci-fi author sees that India could be a major force in the future world's space programs.
Fair use ought not only be a right, it ought to be defined as any use that doesn't cause monetary loss for the rights holders.
Using on YouTube doesn't cause loss. Making a parody video or review actually causes a gain. Despite what corpro-bots think, making a fan web site causes a BIG gain.
I think others have said that every non-commercial use (not making money for the user) should be legal.
Obviously you have to get the definitions precise, but basically there is no practical definition of fair use except "I know it when I see it," which isn't a definition at all when a judge has a lot of corporates influencing him to see things differently.
I think there is absolute zero to like. His history points towards a presidency where nothing will get done except for himself and a few choice buddies who will kick back to him later in the form of a revolving door job or the like. As I've said many times here, he makes Bush look thoughtful and forthright.
There isn't any requirement and my post didn't state such a thing. However what there IS massive public pressure for the the candidates to release the records. By not releasing the records it really does give the impression that there is something to hide, and by trying to keep information private like that you're bound to have someone take it as a challenge.
I think that perennial libtard George Will pointed out that Romney must of made a calculation and that keeping the information hidden hurts him less than releasing it. That might or might not be true, but using that shaky, sometimes wrong value called "common sense" it certainly looks true enough. It's bound to make some wayward person with a few overestimated skills want to be a hero.
You should go read the Rolling Stone story about Romney and Bain. Romney is as far as from the simple, honest businessman persona as he can get if even a part of the history is true.
I'm not sure how you can call that cognitive dissonance in this era. The Republicans have a very massive public front that is filled with idiots and a very smart back room that is using those idiots to their advantage.
Secondly, the "conspiracies" that are affecting voter turnout and possible mis-counting of votes aren't that sophisticated at all. It doesn't take much to come up with a rule that affects how the poor can get to polls (plus it wouldn't be a conspiracy because it's done right out in the open in the legislatures. Conspiracies are secret.)
It also it doesn't take much to get something nefarious into computer code when you're going to make it closed source and unavailable for neutral experts to examine it.
It was also right on that I'm sure the idiots in the Romney camp, in their little sealed off corporate reality bubbles, probably never heard of bitcoins and, on top of it, need direction in figuring out what they are (go to google).
I don't know about the veracity of the claim that came in yesterday, but one of the things that I thought about when Romney started trying to surpress this information was that is was a just about the same thing as waiving a red flag in front of a bull. It's bound to make a "hacker" go for the ultimate crack and get this information (that most of us think should be public anyway) out of the electronic vault and onto the net.
It also, IMHO, shows that Romney and his band of followers live in a bubble of corporate reality and not in the real world. Only someone one the C** would be arrogant enough to think they could keep this type of information a secret forever when you're that visible to the public and when you're decisions are going to have immediate and lasting consequences for the entire world.
Doesn't that comment really mean something like "Yeah, it's obvious it's a god damn problem but we have to be careful how we say it lest we piss off our corporate overlords." ?
Slashdot Mirror
I think the idea of preventing "services" is laughable. There are too many remote access "services" and the like that they really can't stamp down on lest they start a shit storm.
I mean, is Teamviewer a "service"? Is LogMeIn a "service"? SSH... maybe. HTTP definitely, but even a personal web service is iffy.
I don't see them invoking this unless you're running something that brings down the whole area of town.
According to Wikipedia though they did earn some good money off their patents.
It's all degree. The later version of patents (not the early version that were granted by kings) were intended to get innovation into the public and in use. Like copyright (which was intended to encourage writers to work and not to sit back like J.D.Salinger and live off the profit of one book) the good reasoning behind having it has been morphed into a cash machine.
"U.S." should of been "world."
Us USAsians are arrogant.
It's a weird coincidence that all these stories are coming up now.
One of the main plot points in the new Doctor Who episode (which occurred in the future) was that the Indian Space Authority was involved in making sure that a huge out of control spacecraft did not hit earth. It was obvious that the Indians were major powers in space at the time of this story... to the point that they were taking the initiative to protect the entire earth.
Now there is a lot you can read into this story, but at least on some aspects it implies that the Indians become a major technological force in the U.S. One interpretation is that they use this to help bring massive numbers of people out of poverty.
I don't know... it's interesting that these questions come up at the same time that a sci-fi author sees that India could be a major force in the future world's space programs.
Romney and Ryan only looks good if you're a corporate asshole or a Fox-watching bah bah sheep.
There are a number of words that point towards groupthink.
"Lefty" and "lib" are just two of them.
Speaking of Darwinism... how many of those vehicles are pickup trucks with people sitting the bed?
Phillip K. Dick said "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."
He thought it was an imperfect answer to a philosophical question, but he said he couldn't define it further.
Let's be sure to elect someone who will do nothing but kowtow to corporate leaders his entire time in office!
It worked perfectly last time. And the time before that.
I know people who have claimed to see Jesus in person!
Therefore, I know he is real.
Wait.. what?
Fair use ought not only be a right, it ought to be defined as any use that doesn't cause monetary loss for the rights holders.
Using on YouTube doesn't cause loss. Making a parody video or review actually causes a gain. Despite what corpro-bots think, making a fan web site causes a BIG gain.
I think others have said that every non-commercial use (not making money for the user) should be legal.
Obviously you have to get the definitions precise, but basically there is no practical definition of fair use except "I know it when I see it," which isn't a definition at all when a judge has a lot of corporates influencing him to see things differently.
...and sue every kid that ever quotes from a book or uses a video clip for a class.
Sounds good... ?
I think there is absolute zero to like. His history points towards a presidency where nothing will get done except for himself and a few choice buddies who will kick back to him later in the form of a revolving door job or the like. As I've said many times here, he makes Bush look thoughtful and forthright.
There isn't any requirement and my post didn't state such a thing. However what there IS massive public pressure for the the candidates to release the records. By not releasing the records it really does give the impression that there is something to hide, and by trying to keep information private like that you're bound to have someone take it as a challenge.
I think that perennial libtard George Will pointed out that Romney must of made a calculation and that keeping the information hidden hurts him less than releasing it. That might or might not be true, but using that shaky, sometimes wrong value called "common sense" it certainly looks true enough. It's bound to make some wayward person with a few overestimated skills want to be a hero.
You should go read the Rolling Stone story about Romney and Bain. Romney is as far as from the simple, honest businessman persona as he can get if even a part of the history is true.
they hold their value better, that is for sure.
I'm not sure how you can call that cognitive dissonance in this era. The Republicans have a very massive public front that is filled with idiots and a very smart back room that is using those idiots to their advantage.
Secondly, the "conspiracies" that are affecting voter turnout and possible mis-counting of votes aren't that sophisticated at all. It doesn't take much to come up with a rule that affects how the poor can get to polls (plus it wouldn't be a conspiracy because it's done right out in the open in the legislatures. Conspiracies are secret.)
It also it doesn't take much to get something nefarious into computer code when you're going to make it closed source and unavailable for neutral experts to examine it.
Apparently the reason hacker was in quotes flew right over your head. If you don't get it I am not going to explain it to you.
It was also right on that I'm sure the idiots in the Romney camp, in their little sealed off corporate reality bubbles, probably never heard of bitcoins and, on top of it, need direction in figuring out what they are (go to google).
"you can all agree on"?
"you all" = "top level plutocrats that don't give a shit about anything but themselves and their buddies" ?
I don't know about the veracity of the claim that came in yesterday, but one of the things that I thought about when Romney started trying to surpress this information was that is was a just about the same thing as waiving a red flag in front of a bull. It's bound to make a "hacker" go for the ultimate crack and get this information (that most of us think should be public anyway) out of the electronic vault and onto the net.
It also, IMHO, shows that Romney and his band of followers live in a bubble of corporate reality and not in the real world. Only someone one the C** would be arrogant enough to think they could keep this type of information a secret forever when you're that visible to the public and when you're decisions are going to have immediate and lasting consequences for the entire world.
Your congresscritter:
"I don't give a shit about the local nuclear power plant. I do give a shit about the network hardware controlling corporations."
You see, one pays much better than the other.
I bet your mustache is itching right now.
the electricity resistance will be VERY LOW.
Doesn't that comment really mean something like "Yeah, it's obvious it's a god damn problem but we have to be careful how we say it lest we piss off our corporate overlords." ?