It's an attempt to apply Israeli values to the American Facebook site and that's just not going to stick in an American court, and an Israeli court has no nexus to force Facebook to care about its result. They should be happy the page was pulled and go home.
Just to set the record straight, I don't see such a claim succeeding in Israel either. While Israel does have laws prohibiting speech if it advocates violence, those are criminal laws (i.e. - you cannot sue yourself), and cases of anyone being successfully prosecuted with those laws are extremely rare. The Israeli laws have a mixed record of what to do when a site is sued for content uploaded by site's users, but the general consensus is that this is harder to sue in Israel than in the US. Lastly, filing a suit in Israel requires fees that are proportional to the amount sued, so filing a 1 billion dollars (or Sheqels, for that matter) suit is all but unheard of, as few people would risk several millions of dollars on a suit that has a very small chance of succeeding.
First, any publication is prior art. Even setting it up on your web site for all to see (though harder to prove, of course).
I should also point out that at least where I live (first to file since forever), if you use an invention but do not publish it, and someone issues a patent after you went to market, they cannot take you out of the market. The patent only applies to people who use the invention after the filing date.
But the gist of it is - if you never intended to publish, then the patent system wasn't for you.
I needed patent protection so I could license out my product. I still lose.
Too bad for you. You should have done one of two things: 1. Made your invention public, either through a patent (a provisional patent costs very little money) or through publishing. or 2. Made sure no one gets wind of it.
The patent system was established to give inventors to publish their inventions so that society at large can benefit from it. You attempted to to circumvent that, and, indeed, lost. Why is that not a win for the system, again?
This is 180 degrees from what the local Israeli interpreters are saying (or rather, same motives, opposite action). The explanation I've heard was that Turkey has given up on being accepted into the EU, and therefor decided to become a major force in the Islamic middle east by going more extreme and more outspoken against Israel.
In other words, the claim is that the political sight is dictating its Islamic move, rather than the other way around.
It did not ban non-copyleft Free Software licenses, such as BSD or MIT/X11.
I thought so too, at first, but then I thought about it again.
They DID ban BSD and MIT licenses. You can still use code you received under the MIT license, but you will need to relicense it (which you are allowed to do) in order to get it into the store.
In Israel the political system encourages relatively small parties. The result is that whoever actually gets elected finds it increasingly difficult to actually secure the majority one always needs in order to create a functioning government. During the latest elections, Zipi Livni claimed she won because she was leading the biggest party, while Binyamin Netanyaho claimed he won because he was leading the biggest block of somewhat like-ideology parties. The simple truth is that even if you took the two of them and formed a coalition between the two, that wouldn't have been enough to secure a majority.
If you believe that it is better for someone you do not agree with to hold the wheel than to have no one hold it, then this is not such a great move.
It still just might cause a war. Sure, Iran can't fight a war with the US, but it can (and probably will) fight Israel. THAT would be nasty.
Iran is already fighting Israel. They do most of it by financing, supplying weapons (and using it to gain influence on) Hammas, but sometimes they use a direct agent (Hizbullah). If Israel is behind Stuxnet (no personal knowledge, but it makes sense that it is), then this is not "just cause for war". It is merely a battle in a war that is already ongoing (as is Iran's disregard for signing the no dissemination treaty, and so on and so forth).
I would like to think that had Seldon tried to patent a "Thing with wheels on it and an engine" back in the early 1900's/late 1890's, he would have been laughed out of the patent office. It is my impression (that might be wrong) that the patent examiner's output is deteriorating over time (which means that it is improving when going back in time).
I should just point out that PrimeSense, the hardware manufacturer behind the Kinect, also has open source drivers, as well (closed source, free of charge) libraries for skeleton detection and other stuff. Info in this, still pending, Slashdot article.
Of course, sonic booms are a much more likely explanation than, say, the fact that the winter is slow to arrive this year, and the weather feels like to spring.
Having had the dubious pleasure of going through radio-therapy, where the exposure levels are considerably higher than the worst you can imagine a misconfigured X-Ray machine to be, I can tell you that the burns: a. Take a LOT of radiation to happen (it took me about a week and a half of daily radiation before they did, and when they did, they were internal) b. Take time to manifest
As such, I doubt your scenario will actually happen. A much more likely one is people dieing from cancer, which takes even longer to happen, and is even less deterministically attributable to the machines.
To be fair, I'm not sure how much the term "democratic" applies to Hammas. We are talking about a body that slaughtered its own people for no greater offense than belonging to the rival party.
I started to write a detailed response, and decided it doesn't matter. Anyone writing:
Not a lick if you're Palestenian
is obviously not after the facts. Funny thing is, you are accusing me of propaganda.
So lets keep things on topic here, and you are welcome to contact me in private if you want an actual debate. For this thread, grandparent said that Israel has anti-blasphemy laws. I said "no, it doesn't". If you have evidence to the contrary, please bring it forward. I'm not interested in conducting a public "Israel is evil" "no it isn't" debate right now.
I will answer the one relevant example you gave (i.e. - Liberman and the Boycott movement) - there is a huge gap between what Liberman vows to do, and what actually happens. Speech, including hypocritical self-serving feel-good-while-burning-the-ship-down Boycott movement, is free in Israel, and is, thankfully, likely to remain so in the foreseeable future, no matter what Liberman says.
Actually, if they weren't, they might not have voted Hamas in in the first place.
A common misconception. Hamas was voted in not because of the anti-Israel agenda, but because they promised to fight the extremely corrupt Fatah regime that preceded it. That was the focus of their election campaign, and that was what actually got them the votes. That would have happened whether they were oppressed (with or without quotes) or not.
I second Katz above me in the request for any substantiation to that claim. Not only am I not familiar with any anti-blasphemy laws, anti-religious public commentators have actually moved on to become members of parliament in the past.
As for criticizing the government, not only is that not forbidden by law, it is being actively practiced, including going as far as advocating boycotts on Israel, including by people whose paycheck is largely funded by the Israeli tax payer (government backed academic institutes, for example).
Why is your right to acquire something more important than his right to control his creation?
Because neither are rights. 91degrees has no "right to acquire", and Hexage has no right to control their creation.
Copyright was introduce in order to encourage people to create and publish, knowing that, for a limited amount of time, they get to make money from that creation. As such, copyright is not a right (the way free speech is), it is a compromise between free commerce and creating incentive to create, and one which there are people (not me) claiming unnecessary from the get go.
Once viewed like that, a publisher that creates, publishes but only sales selectively does not promote any of the copyright's core objectives.
In other fields, this compromise has been explicitly coded into the copyright law itself. Musicians, for example, have no right to prevent anyone from performing their songs. The only right they have is to get money for said performance.
IANAL
Shachar
Re:IBM PCs compared extremely poorly with Amigas
on
The Amiga Turns 25
·
· Score: 1
I might misremember. It was a long time ago, and I was young. I don't think so, however.
According to my memory, The "one memory cycle is four CPU cycle" came from the generic 68000 handbook, not the Amiga specific documentation. Furthermore, if you wanted to know how much an instruction would take, you took the number of memory accesses it required, multiplied by 4, and 95% of the time, you got the right number.
Now it is possible that the limitation had something to do with the internal 68000 constraints, and not the memory controller speed, in which case it is entirely possible that what you said above is 100% accurate, except for one minor detail - I did not misremember, I never knew that:-) Please remember that it was 20 years ago, I was 18, and did not know what "CISC" meant at the time.
Shachar
Re:IBM PCs compared extremely poorly with Amigas
on
The Amiga Turns 25
·
· Score: 1
To be fair, the Amiga wasn't exactly "home free" while sound was taking place. It had just 512KB of memory from which all DMA could take place, and it had LOTS of DMA clients. Just the audio system meant four DMA channels active, and that's not counting the actual display, blitting, sprits, floppy access etc, all using DMA to the same memory as the CPU.
Since most Amigas of the time only had 512KB of RAM, that meant that the CPU had to compete with 20 or so other DMA controllers over memory access. An Amiga 500 ran at 7.2Mhz, with a memory bus cycle of 4 (four!) CPU cycles. I remember going over the copper registers list one day, and finding a "CPU danger bit". Enabling it meant that the mechanism that was designed to force the CPU to get one memory bus cycle if it has been trying to get to the memory for three times in a row and denied is disabled.
So I wouldn't call it exactly "running your game/app code", though definitely better than the PC of the time.
I have a plan for allowing any publisher to publish packages in the CoApp ecosystem, provided they meet two qualifications: - They must be able to host their repository meta-data on an SSL protected connection. - All packages must be digitally signed with a certificate that chains back to to a commonly-accepted CA.
Doesn't seem like a very good solution. The whole point of APT is its ability for ANYONE to open repositories, including digitally signed repositories.
If, for whatever reason, you don't like PGP, that's fine. Go with X509. Just don't force a SPECIFIC root CA - allow the package user to choose which is his CA of choice (one or more). This way, for example, a company can set up a local repository to push to its own employees.
Same goes with where you host this. Your answer did not make it clear whether any server can be configured, or just MS's servers.
Maybe at the API level. The API for asynchronous IO is there for every system call in Win32. What isn't there, however, is the use. I've read through the specs for doing "overlapped IO", and the conclusion is always the same - getting the semantics right is a pain. It's so much easier to create a GUI thread and a working thread, that no one I have ever seen bothered with it.
Linux does have asynchronous IO, and they suffer from, pretty much, the same problem - getting the semantics right is difficult.
They didn't explicitly "approve" anything. They basically said that the legislature needs to make a law about it first. How long before that happens?
Not long, probably. Then again, we all know absolute, unrestrained, unchecked freedom is not a desirable thing either.
What I can tell you is that the Israeli parliament has a relatively open and uncorrupted law-passing procedures (which is not the same as saying that stupid, anti-democratic laws never make it through). When such a law goes through the Knesset, we (civil liberties groups) will be there to voice our concerns.
Shachar
Fair policies do not mean everyone get treated the same. It means that your chances of getting a bad treatment are not dependent on irrelevant reasons.
Of course, defining what's "relevant" is always a problem, which is why anyone saying "fair" is either meaning "relatively", or does not know what they mean.
Slashdot Mirror
It's an attempt to apply Israeli values to the American Facebook site and that's just not going to stick in an American court, and an Israeli court has no nexus to force Facebook to care about its result. They should be happy the page was pulled and go home.
Just to set the record straight, I don't see such a claim succeeding in Israel either. While Israel does have laws prohibiting speech if it advocates violence, those are criminal laws (i.e. - you cannot sue yourself), and cases of anyone being successfully prosecuted with those laws are extremely rare. The Israeli laws have a mixed record of what to do when a site is sued for content uploaded by site's users, but the general consensus is that this is harder to sue in Israel than in the US. Lastly, filing a suit in Israel requires fees that are proportional to the amount sued, so filing a 1 billion dollars (or Sheqels, for that matter) suit is all but unheard of, as few people would risk several millions of dollars on a suit that has a very small chance of succeeding.
Shachar
First, any publication is prior art. Even setting it up on your web site for all to see (though harder to prove, of course).
I should also point out that at least where I live (first to file since forever), if you use an invention but do not publish it, and someone issues a patent after you went to market, they cannot take you out of the market. The patent only applies to people who use the invention after the filing date.
But the gist of it is - if you never intended to publish, then the patent system wasn't for you.
Shachar
Too bad for you. You should have done one of two things:
1. Made your invention public, either through a patent (a provisional patent costs very little money) or through publishing.
or
2. Made sure no one gets wind of it.
The patent system was established to give inventors to publish their inventions so that society at large can benefit from it. You attempted to to circumvent that, and, indeed, lost. Why is that not a win for the system, again?
Shachar
This is 180 degrees from what the local Israeli interpreters are saying (or rather, same motives, opposite action). The explanation I've heard was that Turkey has given up on being accepted into the EU, and therefor decided to become a major force in the Islamic middle east by going more extreme and more outspoken against Israel.
In other words, the claim is that the political sight is dictating its Islamic move, rather than the other way around.
Shachar
I thought so too, at first, but then I thought about it again.
They DID ban BSD and MIT licenses. You can still use code you received under the MIT license, but you will need to relicense it (which you are allowed to do) in order to get it into the store.
Shachar
In Israel the political system encourages relatively small parties. The result is that whoever actually gets elected finds it increasingly difficult to actually secure the majority one always needs in order to create a functioning government. During the latest elections, Zipi Livni claimed she won because she was leading the biggest party, while Binyamin Netanyaho claimed he won because he was leading the biggest block of somewhat like-ideology parties. The simple truth is that even if you took the two of them and formed a coalition between the two, that wouldn't have been enough to secure a majority.
If you believe that it is better for someone you do not agree with to hold the wheel than to have no one hold it, then this is not such a great move.
Shachar
It still just might cause a war. Sure, Iran can't fight a war with the US, but it can (and probably will) fight Israel. THAT would be nasty.
Iran is already fighting Israel. They do most of it by financing, supplying weapons (and using it to gain influence on) Hammas, but sometimes they use a direct agent (Hizbullah). If Israel is behind Stuxnet (no personal knowledge, but it makes sense that it is), then this is not "just cause for war". It is merely a battle in a war that is already ongoing (as is Iran's disregard for signing the no dissemination treaty, and so on and so forth).
Shachar
Oh, there is cake, alright. What there isn't is a spoon.
Shachar
I would like to think that had Seldon tried to patent a "Thing with wheels on it and an engine" back in the early 1900's/late 1890's, he would have been laughed out of the patent office. It is my impression (that might be wrong) that the patent examiner's output is deteriorating over time (which means that it is improving when going back in time).
Shachar
I should just point out that PrimeSense, the hardware manufacturer behind the Kinect, also has open source drivers, as well (closed source, free of charge) libraries for skeleton detection and other stuff. Info in this, still pending, Slashdot article.
Shachar
Of course, sonic booms are a much more likely explanation than, say, the fact that the winter is slow to arrive this year, and the weather feels like to spring.
Shachar
Having had the dubious pleasure of going through radio-therapy, where the exposure levels are considerably higher than the worst you can imagine a misconfigured X-Ray machine to be, I can tell you that the burns:
a. Take a LOT of radiation to happen (it took me about a week and a half of daily radiation before they did, and when they did, they were internal)
b. Take time to manifest
As such, I doubt your scenario will actually happen. A much more likely one is people dieing from cancer, which takes even longer to happen, and is even less deterministically attributable to the machines.
Shachar
They're called "mock locations" on Android. Settings/Applications/Allow mock location.
Shachar
To be fair, I'm not sure how much the term "democratic" applies to Hammas. We are talking about a body that slaughtered its own people for no greater offense than belonging to the rival party.
Shachar
I started to write a detailed response, and decided it doesn't matter. Anyone writing:
Not a lick if you're Palestenian
is obviously not after the facts. Funny thing is, you are accusing me of propaganda.
So lets keep things on topic here, and you are welcome to contact me in private if you want an actual debate. For this thread, grandparent said that Israel has anti-blasphemy laws. I said "no, it doesn't". If you have evidence to the contrary, please bring it forward. I'm not interested in conducting a public "Israel is evil" "no it isn't" debate right now.
I will answer the one relevant example you gave (i.e. - Liberman and the Boycott movement) - there is a huge gap between what Liberman vows to do, and what actually happens. Speech, including hypocritical self-serving feel-good-while-burning-the-ship-down Boycott movement, is free in Israel, and is, thankfully, likely to remain so in the foreseeable future, no matter what Liberman says.
Shachar
Actually, if they weren't, they might not have voted Hamas in in the first place.
A common misconception. Hamas was voted in not because of the anti-Israel agenda, but because they promised to fight the extremely corrupt Fatah regime that preceded it. That was the focus of their election campaign, and that was what actually got them the votes. That would have happened whether they were oppressed (with or without quotes) or not.
Shachar
I second Katz above me in the request for any substantiation to that claim. Not only am I not familiar with any anti-blasphemy laws, anti-religious public commentators have actually moved on to become members of parliament in the past.
As for criticizing the government, not only is that not forbidden by law, it is being actively practiced, including going as far as advocating boycotts on Israel, including by people whose paycheck is largely funded by the Israeli tax payer (government backed academic institutes, for example).
Shachar
Because neither are rights. 91degrees has no "right to acquire", and Hexage has no right to control their creation.
Copyright was introduce in order to encourage people to create and publish, knowing that, for a limited amount of time, they get to make money from that creation. As such, copyright is not a right (the way free speech is), it is a compromise between free commerce and creating incentive to create, and one which there are people (not me) claiming unnecessary from the get go.
Once viewed like that, a publisher that creates, publishes but only sales selectively does not promote any of the copyright's core objectives.
In other fields, this compromise has been explicitly coded into the copyright law itself. Musicians, for example, have no right to prevent anyone from performing their songs. The only right they have is to get money for said performance.
IANAL
Shachar
I might misremember. It was a long time ago, and I was young. I don't think so, however.
According to my memory, The "one memory cycle is four CPU cycle" came from the generic 68000 handbook, not the Amiga specific documentation. Furthermore, if you wanted to know how much an instruction would take, you took the number of memory accesses it required, multiplied by 4, and 95% of the time, you got the right number.
Now it is possible that the limitation had something to do with the internal 68000 constraints, and not the memory controller speed, in which case it is entirely possible that what you said above is 100% accurate, except for one minor detail - I did not misremember, I never knew that :-) Please remember that it was 20 years ago, I was 18, and did not know what "CISC" meant at the time.
Shachar
To be fair, the Amiga wasn't exactly "home free" while sound was taking place. It had just 512KB of memory from which all DMA could take place, and it had LOTS of DMA clients. Just the audio system meant four DMA channels active, and that's not counting the actual display, blitting, sprits, floppy access etc, all using DMA to the same memory as the CPU.
Since most Amigas of the time only had 512KB of RAM, that meant that the CPU had to compete with 20 or so other DMA controllers over memory access. An Amiga 500 ran at 7.2Mhz, with a memory bus cycle of 4 (four!) CPU cycles. I remember going over the copper registers list one day, and finding a "CPU danger bit". Enabling it meant that the mechanism that was designed to force the CPU to get one memory bus cycle if it has been trying to get to the memory for three times in a row and denied is disabled.
So I wouldn't call it exactly "running your game/app code", though definitely better than the PC of the time.
Shachar
I have a plan for allowing any publisher to publish packages in the CoApp ecosystem, provided they meet two qualifications:
- They must be able to host their repository meta-data on an SSL protected connection.
- All packages must be digitally signed with a certificate that chains back to to a commonly-accepted CA.
Doesn't seem like a very good solution. The whole point of APT is its ability for ANYONE to open repositories, including digitally signed repositories.
If, for whatever reason, you don't like PGP, that's fine. Go with X509. Just don't force a SPECIFIC root CA - allow the package user to choose which is his CA of choice (one or more). This way, for example, a company can set up a local repository to push to its own employees.
Same goes with where you host this. Your answer did not make it clear whether any server can be configured, or just MS's servers.
Shachar
Maybe at the API level. The API for asynchronous IO is there for every system call in Win32. What isn't there, however, is the use. I've read through the specs for doing "overlapped IO", and the conclusion is always the same - getting the semantics right is a pain. It's so much easier to create a GUI thread and a working thread, that no one I have ever seen bothered with it.
Linux does have asynchronous IO, and they suffer from, pretty much, the same problem - getting the semantics right is difficult.
Shachar
They didn't explicitly "approve" anything. They basically said that the legislature needs to make a law about it first. How long before that happens?
Not long, probably. Then again, we all know absolute, unrestrained, unchecked freedom is not a desirable thing either. What I can tell you is that the Israeli parliament has a relatively open and uncorrupted law-passing procedures (which is not the same as saying that stupid, anti-democratic laws never make it through). When such a law goes through the Knesset, we (civil liberties groups) will be there to voice our concerns. Shachar
Fair policies do not mean everyone get treated the same. It means that your chances of getting a bad treatment are not dependent on irrelevant reasons.
Of course, defining what's "relevant" is always a problem, which is why anyone saying "fair" is either meaning "relatively", or does not know what they mean.
Shachar
Read the article. It was the police. Possibly, a bomb squad robot. They carry a shotgun.
Shachar