You attacked first with "you should look inward for the ignorance you speak of". You even ended the sentence with a preposition.
As for my beliefs, please refer to cid #21359263 for confirmation that I stated the following: "I absolutely believe intellectual property exists, just not that everything can be or should be owned." I don't see how that is relevant, the discussion was about your beliefs, not mine.
The whole point of the lightning situation is to demonstrate that things aren't always black and white. You said in cid #21354811 that "1) Intellectual Property really exists... or 2) Intellectual Property is not real..." and "I have yet to see a single creative work that is not based on previous works. I can guarantee that not one single creative work has been produced where every person was paid for their contribution."
I responded with "Why should an artist have to "reinvent the wheel" every time they try to make art?"
You replied "They shouldn't. Thus scenario #2 is the logical world view for you."
I've been trying to show you that my beliefs are different and that you are wrong to have such a binary view. Not everything can be put in a neat category, they aren't always black and white and are usually a shade of gray.
I'm done with this arguement. It is apparent you are a ignorant fool that refuses to be rescued.
Why do you keep using the word "steal" and its derivatives? You claim that I may be ignorant but your ignorance is quite blatant. You also keep tying things together that aren't necessarily related.
I do understand the difference between true/false and percentages. They are quite clearly not mutually exclusive. One can arrive at absolutes like true and false, but the method is most often not so straight forward.
Claiming something in terms of absolutes is often a sign of ignorance. One example, lightning, comes to mind immediately. Claiming that the chances of getting struck by lightning are 50/50 because you either will or won't get hit completely ignores the fact that significantly fewer people have actually been hit by lighting than haven't been hit by lightning, including those not directly hit, along with the many factors that determine when and where lightning strikes.
Tying this back into copyright, if you invent the c-major scale and then I write a song that at some point incorporates a c-major scale, have I infringed on your copyright? Can you even have a copyright on the c-major scale?
You strike me as one of those people that believes one has a 50/50 chance of getting struck by lightning because you either will or you won't get struck by lightning. If you understand that fallacy, maybe you will you will understand that Intellectual Property isn't black and white.
That's not at all what I'm suggesting. Should I have to pay whoever came up with C-major every time I write a song in C-major? Who came up with it, anyways? Was there a single person that the original c-major scale can be traced to? Who invented 3/4 time? I can't think of a single classical composer that didn't use 3/4 time in at least some part of at least one piece.
Besides, it isn't stealing if I use your idea without paying you. You still have your idea, don't you? Furthermore, it isn't copyright infringement if I base my work on your idea. If I write a story about a utopia, I can't sue anyone that reads my book and also writes a story about a utopia as long as the story is different enough. In fact, if you think you can write a better story about a utopia, you should and there isn't anything I can do about it. A runner can't sue another because they run the same way.
I have yet to see a single creative work that is not based on previous works. Why should an artist have to "reinvent the wheel" every time they try to make art? That doesn't make any sense.
Tools->Folder Options->View, "Hide file extensions for known types". This should be on by default. Funny, I was just reading farther up in the thread a declaration that all file extensions should be shown so it will be harder for viruses and trojans to disguise themselves.
The usability tests I saw stated up front they are not objective but they tried. They gave the test subjects various tasks and timed them. Those with the iPhone almost always completed their task faster than those with the N95.
Of course, usability is not the only factor, but who wants a phone that takes a long time to learn and is still frustrating to use?
why should military spending dictate research? You prepare for the war you are going to fight, not for the war you are fighting.
The whole point of having such badass weapons is so the US can strike when and where it chooses. It is part of the military's doctrine to take action rather than react.
I've been seeing this article everywhere and the thing that strikes me as odd is this is being developed mostly by the US but the article just kind of glosses over that.
Any windows smartphone has a good web browser. What are you smoking? PIE sucks. Some websites look great in one-column view, some look great in another view, some look terrible in any view, and constantly switching views is very annoying.
Easy to use for you. Did you not read the usability tests one group did. The N95 was harder to use in most cases and at best as easy to use in a few cases.
Your parents also work in fields where one must be continuously learning. They aren't set in their ways like most peoples' parents. Your parents may not be geeks but they are certainly an exception.
Slashdot Mirror
Since this is a different argument, here goes.
You attacked first with "you should look inward for the ignorance you speak of". You even ended the sentence with a preposition.
As for my beliefs, please refer to cid #21359263 for confirmation that I stated the following: "I absolutely believe intellectual property exists, just not that everything can be or should be owned." I don't see how that is relevant, the discussion was about your beliefs, not mine.
The whole point of the lightning situation is to demonstrate that things aren't always black and white. You said in cid #21354811 that "1) Intellectual Property really exists... or 2) Intellectual Property is not real..." and "I have yet to see a single creative work that is not based on previous works. I can guarantee that not one single creative work has been produced where every person was paid for their contribution."
I responded with "Why should an artist have to "reinvent the wheel" every time they try to make art?"
You replied "They shouldn't. Thus scenario #2 is the logical world view for you."
I've been trying to show you that my beliefs are different and that you are wrong to have such a binary view. Not everything can be put in a neat category, they aren't always black and white and are usually a shade of gray.
I'm done with this arguement. It is apparent you are a ignorant fool that refuses to be rescued.
Why do you keep using the word "steal" and its derivatives? You claim that I may be ignorant but your ignorance is quite blatant. You also keep tying things together that aren't necessarily related.
I do understand the difference between true/false and percentages. They are quite clearly not mutually exclusive. One can arrive at absolutes like true and false, but the method is most often not so straight forward.
Claiming something in terms of absolutes is often a sign of ignorance. One example, lightning, comes to mind immediately. Claiming that the chances of getting struck by lightning are 50/50 because you either will or won't get hit completely ignores the fact that significantly fewer people have actually been hit by lighting than haven't been hit by lightning, including those not directly hit, along with the many factors that determine when and where lightning strikes.
Tying this back into copyright, if you invent the c-major scale and then I write a song that at some point incorporates a c-major scale, have I infringed on your copyright? Can you even have a copyright on the c-major scale?
A magnetosphere doesn't exactly qualify as an object. It can't be preceived by any senses.
I say that if those were missed, it was indeed a quick perusal rather than an in-depth perusal.
You strike me as one of those people that believes one has a 50/50 chance of getting struck by lightning because you either will or you won't get struck by lightning. If you understand that fallacy, maybe you will you will understand that Intellectual Property isn't black and white.
That's not at all what I'm suggesting. Should I have to pay whoever came up with C-major every time I write a song in C-major? Who came up with it, anyways? Was there a single person that the original c-major scale can be traced to? Who invented 3/4 time? I can't think of a single classical composer that didn't use 3/4 time in at least some part of at least one piece.
Besides, it isn't stealing if I use your idea without paying you. You still have your idea, don't you? Furthermore, it isn't copyright infringement if I base my work on your idea. If I write a story about a utopia, I can't sue anyone that reads my book and also writes a story about a utopia as long as the story is different enough. In fact, if you think you can write a better story about a utopia, you should and there isn't anything I can do about it. A runner can't sue another because they run the same way.
That is an awfully binary way to view things. I absolutely believe intellectual property exists, just not that everything can be or should be owned.
You gave up because you couldn't type proficiently on a new keyboard on your first try? That's weak.
I believe it detects the slight electrical charge of the body.
After typing the last initial, just hit the "x" on the proposed correction. After a certain number of rejections, it is supposed to stop trying.
Excellent question! I bet most AOL users go to Wal-Mart and buy a cheap computer. They don't understand the specs or anything like that.
You are not alone. This confused me only until I was about 10 years old.
Pixar's shorts are definitely a good reason to go watch their movies. I especially enjoyed that one with all the switches.
The usability tests I saw stated up front they are not objective but they tried. They gave the test subjects various tasks and timed them. Those with the iPhone almost always completed their task faster than those with the N95.
Of course, usability is not the only factor, but who wants a phone that takes a long time to learn and is still frustrating to use?
The whole point of having such badass weapons is so the US can strike when and where it chooses. It is part of the military's doctrine to take action rather than react.
I've been seeing this article everywhere and the thing that strikes me as odd is this is being developed mostly by the US but the article just kind of glosses over that.
Easy to use for you. Did you not read the usability tests one group did. The N95 was harder to use in most cases and at best as easy to use in a few cases.
Your parents also work in fields where one must be continuously learning. They aren't set in their ways like most peoples' parents. Your parents may not be geeks but they are certainly an exception.
What cellphone(read: non-smartphone) has Flash?
It seems there won't be any gPhones until the second half of next year, so you have basically a year to think about it.