It's moderators are you and me and everyone else -- well, me and everyone else: you only get a look in if you post as yourself, not as AC. The moderators are not an elite corps, they're ordinary/. users chosen by a randomised algorithm. So if it says anything about the moderators, it does say something about/..
It was sort of an allusion to the famous incident reported by Press et al in the "Numerical Recipes in [language]" series: "One of us recalls producing a 'random' plot with only 11 planes, and being told by his computer center's programming consultant that he had misused the random number generator. 'We guarantee that each number is random individually, but we don't guarantee that more than one of them is random.' Figure that out."
a contract isn't valid, if it is for an illegal activity...you can't uphold a contract for prostitution
Prostitution isn't illegal everywhere. Just try to renege on your obligation to pay for personal services in Amsterdam and see who the cops throw in jail.
It would have been easier to spot had the poster known the difference between "mote" and "moat". I for one couldn't tell what the poster was on about, because I naively thought "mote" meant "mote".
So how can you tell that the 'high percentage of (disks) lost' in the mail were really 'lost in the mail' and not merely reported as such?
The arrests may be a clue. If they translate into prosecutions they will be an even bigger clue. If they translate into convictions, I reckon they've nailed it.
Agreed completely, but it's irrelevant. IP isn't about thoughts, it's about works.
So according to you it's even worse; you can't freely share and/or express your thoughts.
How is that worse than not even being allowed to think them? Your own thinking seems a little muddled here.
Anyway, the math analogy is false. Math theorems are facts, you can't copyright facts, (even if they're not actually facts but only passed off as facts, as Baigent & Lee discovered). As the judge ruled in the daVinci Code case, "the facts and the themes and the ideas cannot be protected but how those facts, themes and ideas are put together ⦠can be."
Did you read Godwin's statement? Did you read the letters on the wikipediaart website? Did you even read the message to which you were replying? They're not litigating, they're not even threatening to litigate. One of the letters they've written to wikipediaart specifically complains about wikipediaart misrepresenting them as threatening to litigate.
So in summary: the EFF accusations are complete BS. And although IANAL, having read the letters posted on the wikipediaart website, it looks to me as if he's right. The Wikipedia foundation has not "demanded that the artists give up the domain name peaceably" and has not threatened to "attempt to take it by legal force". So that's no story, then.
Are thoughts goods? Is your thinking part of a public pool, like your arm?
The answer is no.
Agreed completely, but it's irrelevant. IP isn't about thoughts, it's about works. If I think of a copyright tune in my head, as long as I don't hum it, there's no breach of copyright. I'm sure the PRS/RIAA/etc wish it were otherwise, but it isn't.
A lot of taxis doing 100,000 miles with no problems would indeed be evidence that 100,000 miles with no trouble is a reasonable claim. But the links provided don't give that data, so it's an assumption.
That's PER YEAR!!!
He said:
Specifically, the fact taxis have travelled 240,000 [greentaxi.org] or even 300,000 [jcwinnie.biz] miles with no major problems
The greentaxi.org site is an advocacy site and the page is labelled "Testimonials", so it's a selective sample. That just means that they might go 300,000 miles, not that one can have a reasonable expectation that they will. By it's nature, such a site will only report exceptional cases. The jcwinnie.biz is quoting a manufacturer, too, so again, no evidence that these figures are typical, only that they are achievable.
His statement is consistent with the article. That's one taxi that went 240,000 miles. Another taxi went 300,000 miles. Not 300,000 taxis going one mile.
"Some taxis", not just one, but we have no idea how many (knowing what corporate PR is like, "some" might actually mean one). But it doesn't help. If you want to know battery life, you want the whole population, not just the top-end outliers.
The warranty period is an excellent (not perfect) indicator of the maximum frequency with which you can expect to incur that cost.
[citation required]
You are wrong. All the articles linked in this discussion indicate otherwise. Manufacturers set the warranty without knowing how long it will actually last, because they can't do real-world testing. This is logical and consistent with how warranties on other products work, where it is difficult to measure the expected lifespan of the product when it is new.
Read what I wrote. Even if the warranty tells you nothing at all about how long the battery will last, it tells you a great deal about whether you will have to pay for a replacement.
300,000 miles can be achieved, but there's no reason to think this is typical.
From what I've read, taxis commonly do 100,000 miles per year. So this should not be unusual at all.
A lot of taxis doing 100,000 miles with no problems would indeed be evidence that 100,000 miles with no trouble is a reasonable claim. But the links provided don't give that data, so it's an assumption.
I think the manufacturer's warranty periods are the best available indication of what to expect in practice, rather than looking at exceptional cases.
That is a mistaken assumption. In most products, warranty periods are chosen without any real-world experience.
Perhaps. I don't know. But the original comment was about the cost of the battery rather than the inconvenience of a failure. The warranty period is an excellent (not perfect) indicator of the maximum frequency with which you can expect to incur that cost.
Or copyright. And I happen to have more respect for copyright of IP than I do for patenting of IP (although I do have some respect for patenting of IP, too).
politically incorrect material. Here in Norway, we've had a similar filter[1] in place for a few years now, and it hasn't been extended in any degree to include anything other than what has been deemed as child porn.
The article you reference contradicts that claim: "Many of the sites on the list have no obvious connection to child pornography."
Because the Oxford Online Dictionary is temporarily unavailable I am going to quote the word property from the Cambridge Dictionaries Online;
Then allow me in turn to quote the entry for "Dictionary Definitions" in Nigel Warburton's "Thinking from A to Z":
Dictionary Definitions
Accounts of how words have been used. Some people treat the dictionary as the ultimate judge on questions of meaning. For instance, such people will assume that the question "what is art" can be answered by consulting the best available dictionary. But this is over-optimistic: when people ask a question such as "what is art" they aren't requesting information of this sort. We know roughly how people use the word "art", but that won't solve the question of what art actually is and of whether certain ways of using the word can be justified. A satisfactory answer to the question will go far beyond a description of linguistic practice and, perhaps, will tell us whether we are justified inapplying the word to, for example, a dead sheep suspended in a tank of formaldehyde.
[snip]
To treat the dictionary as the arbiter of debates of this kind is to give it an inappropriate authority; it involves the assumption that the common use of the term is the one for which there is the best justification. An assumption that is not usually warranted.
This isn't to say that the dictionary cannot be the ultimate judge on some questions; if you want to know how words happen to be used and how they are conventionally spelt, then this is the place to look. However, to expect a dictionary to provide answers to theoretical questions such as "what is art" or "what is justice" [or "what is property" -- digitig] is a mistake.
.
Conclusion: your argument is not sound, so the conclusion does not follow.
Cool. I want to have a party this weekend. Mind if I borrow your place?
You can't use my place, but leave that beer, thanks. The careful reader -- indeed, the reader -- will note that I said it can be made available, not that it should or must.
Add up the total number of miles each taxi under consideration has driven, you get taxi miles.
If there's only one taxi then taxi miles are irrelevant because that's no sort of statistical sample. If there's more than one taxi then it would only be significant if the failure rate follows a Poisson process, which is only (approximately) true during the normal life of a component, not during the burn-in and wear-out phases. It's the wear-out phase that's of most concern for battery life, so the Poisson process doesn't apply. So either way, taxi miles are not a relevant metric.
Slashdot Mirror
It's moderators are you and me and everyone else -- well, me and everyone else: you only get a look in if you post as yourself, not as AC. The moderators are not an elite corps, they're ordinary /. users chosen by a randomised algorithm. So if it says anything about the moderators, it does say something about /..
It was sort of an allusion to the famous incident reported by Press et al in the "Numerical Recipes in [language]" series: "One of us recalls producing a 'random' plot with only 11 planes, and being told by his computer center's programming consultant that he had misused the random number generator. 'We guarantee that each number is random individually, but we don't guarantee that more than one of them is random.' Figure that out."
the 80's, where "bad" means "good".
I've heard the Michael Jackson album. Are you sure?
Every file is random. It's as likely as any other sequence of bits.
Don't you love it when people who don't understand irony think you actually mean what you say.
Actually, no, I don't.
a contract isn't valid, if it is for an illegal activity...you can't uphold a contract for prostitution
Prostitution isn't illegal everywhere. Just try to renege on your obligation to pay for personal services in Amsterdam and see who the cops throw in jail.
Good luck getting as far as the cops.
It would have been easier to spot had the poster known the difference between "mote" and "moat". I for one couldn't tell what the poster was on about, because I naively thought "mote" meant "mote".
So how can you tell that the 'high percentage of (disks) lost' in the mail were really 'lost in the mail' and not merely reported as such?
The arrests may be a clue. If they translate into prosecutions they will be an even bigger clue. If they translate into convictions, I reckon they've nailed it.
Agreed completely, but it's irrelevant. IP isn't about thoughts, it's about works.
So according to you it's even worse; you can't freely share and/or express your thoughts.
How is that worse than not even being allowed to think them? Your own thinking seems a little muddled here.
Anyway, the math analogy is false. Math theorems are facts, you can't copyright facts, (even if they're not actually facts but only passed off as facts, as Baigent & Lee discovered). As the judge ruled in the daVinci Code case, "the facts and the themes and the ideas cannot be protected but how those facts, themes and ideas are put together ⦠can be."
Yeah ... still a threat.
No, a negotiating position.
"you mistakenly state that Wikimedia wants âoeto suppress free speech by threatening legal action.â The truth is that Wikipedia has not threatened any legal action" -- http://wikipediaart.org/legal/040909-WikimediaResponse.html
Did you read Godwin's statement? Did you read the letters on the wikipediaart website? Did you even read the message to which you were replying? They're not litigating, they're not even threatening to litigate. One of the letters they've written to wikipediaart specifically complains about wikipediaart misrepresenting them as threatening to litigate.
So in summary: the EFF accusations are complete BS. And although IANAL, having read the letters posted on the wikipediaart website, it looks to me as if he's right. The Wikipedia foundation has not "demanded that the artists give up the domain name peaceably" and has not threatened to "attempt to take it by legal force". So that's no story, then.
Are thoughts goods? Is your thinking part of a public pool, like your arm?
The answer is no.
Agreed completely, but it's irrelevant. IP isn't about thoughts, it's about works. If I think of a copyright tune in my head, as long as I don't hum it, there's no breach of copyright. I'm sure the PRS/RIAA/etc wish it were otherwise, but it isn't.
Yes he did. See my other comments in this thread.
I have, and you are mistaken.
In what regard?
A lot of taxis doing 100,000 miles with no problems would indeed be evidence that 100,000 miles with no trouble is a reasonable claim. But the links provided don't give that data, so it's an assumption.
That's PER YEAR!!!
He said:
Specifically, the fact taxis have travelled 240,000 [greentaxi.org] or even 300,000 [jcwinnie.biz] miles with no major problems
The greentaxi.org site is an advocacy site and the page is labelled "Testimonials", so it's a selective sample. That just means that they might go 300,000 miles, not that one can have a reasonable expectation that they will. By it's nature, such a site will only report exceptional cases. The jcwinnie.biz is quoting a manufacturer, too, so again, no evidence that these figures are typical, only that they are achievable.
His statement is consistent with the article. That's one taxi that went 240,000 miles. Another taxi went 300,000 miles. Not 300,000 taxis going one mile.
"Some taxis", not just one, but we have no idea how many (knowing what corporate PR is like, "some" might actually mean one). But it doesn't help. If you want to know battery life, you want the whole population, not just the top-end outliers.
The warranty period is an excellent (not perfect) indicator of the maximum frequency with which you can expect to incur that cost.
[citation required] You are wrong. All the articles linked in this discussion indicate otherwise. Manufacturers set the warranty without knowing how long it will actually last, because they can't do real-world testing. This is logical and consistent with how warranties on other products work, where it is difficult to measure the expected lifespan of the product when it is new.
Read what I wrote. Even if the warranty tells you nothing at all about how long the battery will last, it tells you a great deal about whether you will have to pay for a replacement.
oldspewey quoted taxi miles, which are irrelevant
No, he didn't.
Yes he did. See my other comments in this thread.
300,000 miles can be achieved, but there's no reason to think this is typical.
From what I've read, taxis commonly do 100,000 miles per year. So this should not be unusual at all.
A lot of taxis doing 100,000 miles with no problems would indeed be evidence that 100,000 miles with no trouble is a reasonable claim. But the links provided don't give that data, so it's an assumption.
I think the manufacturer's warranty periods are the best available indication of what to expect in practice, rather than looking at exceptional cases.
That is a mistaken assumption. In most products, warranty periods are chosen without any real-world experience.
Perhaps. I don't know. But the original comment was about the cost of the battery rather than the inconvenience of a failure. The warranty period is an excellent (not perfect) indicator of the maximum frequency with which you can expect to incur that cost.
Or copyright. And I happen to have more respect for copyright of IP than I do for patenting of IP (although I do have some respect for patenting of IP, too).
We need book DRM so that only the person who bought the book can read it.
That would be the Kindle, then. I knew there had to be some reason for dedicated eBook readers.
politically incorrect material. Here in Norway, we've had a similar filter[1] in place for a few years now, and it hasn't been extended in any degree to include anything other than what has been deemed as child porn.
The article you reference contradicts that claim: "Many of the sites on the list have no obvious connection to child pornography."
Because the Oxford Online Dictionary is temporarily unavailable I am going to quote the word property from the Cambridge Dictionaries Online;
Then allow me in turn to quote the entry for "Dictionary Definitions" in Nigel Warburton's "Thinking from A to Z":
Dictionary Definitions
Accounts of how words have been used. Some people treat the dictionary as the ultimate judge on questions of meaning. For instance, such people will assume that the question "what is art" can be answered by consulting the best available dictionary. But this is over-optimistic: when people ask a question such as "what is art" they aren't requesting information of this sort. We know roughly how people use the word "art", but that won't solve the question of what art actually is and of whether certain ways of using the word can be justified. A satisfactory answer to the question will go far beyond a description of linguistic practice and, perhaps, will tell us whether we are justified inapplying the word to, for example, a dead sheep suspended in a tank of formaldehyde.
[snip]
To treat the dictionary as the arbiter of debates of this kind is to give it an inappropriate authority; it involves the assumption that the common use of the term is the one for which there is the best justification. An assumption that is not usually warranted.
This isn't to say that the dictionary cannot be the ultimate judge on some questions; if you want to know how words happen to be used and how they are conventionally spelt, then this is the place to look. However, to expect a dictionary to provide answers to theoretical questions such as "what is art" or "what is justice" [or "what is property" -- digitig] is a mistake.
.
Conclusion: your argument is not sound, so the conclusion does not follow.
Wrong. I don't know that. I never said anything about patenting anyway.
Cool. I want to have a party this weekend. Mind if I borrow your place?
You can't use my place, but leave that beer, thanks. The careful reader -- indeed, the reader -- will note that I said it can be made available, not that it should or must.
Add up the total number of miles each taxi under consideration has driven, you get taxi miles.
If there's only one taxi then taxi miles are irrelevant because that's no sort of statistical sample. If there's more than one taxi then it would only be significant if the failure rate follows a Poisson process, which is only (approximately) true during the normal life of a component, not during the burn-in and wear-out phases. It's the wear-out phase that's of most concern for battery life, so the Poisson process doesn't apply. So either way, taxi miles are not a relevant metric.
Freely available to whom? Everyone? On whose conditions?
Up to the owner.
What kinds of property, besides intellectual, can/should be made freely available?
I never said "should". You can give away almost anything you own.
Really? I don't believe in intellectual property... do you?
I do.
-Linux user
I also believe that like most property, it can be made freely available.