So I've looked at this some more and this is what US law states on deprive:
3. "Deprive." To "deprive" another of property means (a) to withhold it or cause it to be withheld from him permanently or for so extended a period or under such circumstances that the major portion of its economic value or benefit is lost to him, or (b) to dispose of the property in such manner or under such circumstances as to render it unlikely that an owner will recover such property.
Since Google could quite successfully argue in court that their closed source code has lost value it's theft.
Your book analogy isn't a similar situation at all. You didn't write the book, you weren't trying to keep it secret and the person possessing a copy doesn't negatively effect the original holder.
All of these things apply in Google's situation. Also my definition of steal is accurate, they broke in and copied the code without consent from Google. The copying part isn't the problem it is the without their consent part which makes it stealing.
When I was at university I had to cite code I had written previously as well as everything else. This is standard in academia.
AFAIK there is no method for citing code because they always expect it to be written by the submitter.
Wrong on many levels.
1) You may include many different dependencies in your code to get things done which needs citing 2) You may be including work you've written previously which needs citing 3) There is no standard way to cite code however that doesn't mean there is no way to cite it. Citing it gives you marks, not doing so makes you look unprofessional and you could be accused of cheating.
How I would do it is first mention in your paper that you "used soandso to quickly build upon" your project. In your references section include it there as well. In your code try to make it very clear what code is yours and which isn't. If you have included any code that isn't yours then put it in a separate folder and mention that "all code in this folder is what I have written for this assignment".
and Seaweed, eggs and pretty much everything else.
I actually had some of the seaweed pictured in that post and can confirm it to be plastic. After that experience if there's a situation where I have a choice I never go with Chinese stuff.
In one instance you have worker extortion in the US where the employers (who I understand are from India) are caught and will be punished. On the other you have Chinese scientists who have successfully lied to the international science community in 60 of their papers and will not be punished in any way.
"like Madoff did, rather than being caught"
Are you from some kind of parallel universe? Madoff is doing jail time.
Also, and this is the most important point. Why is it just because America has some issues you think that the Chinese should get a free pass to do even worse things without punishment. What the hell is wrong with you?
So what you are saying is that because Apple has managed a successful advertising campaign that they will now control nix operating systems forever? Yeah, I can see how the "me too" apple fan club might see it that way but back in reality it's pretty even turf with no clear winner. Apple advertises a lot, Linux has 0 advertising and is on tons of embedded systems and desktops. Just because you don't know it's there doesn't mean people aren't using it.
My point isn't about piracy and where people download content. It is that people will purchase other media from new companies that has less restrictions imposed on them.
and are pushing laws to crush emerging technologies that might obsolete their main revenue source.
Maybe I missed it in the article but how so in the context of a competitor that doesn't infringe on their copyright? They're trying to impose harsh restrictions on their copyright but how does it effect consumers of competitors such as Jamendo?
They can really only push so far before people get fed up and just go elsewhere even if there isn't as much content available. When that happens they won't be able to do anything without breaking laws.
...that they'd be unable to back up any claims of a good track record on this, or they would speak up.
Or they simply have no idea about what's going on hence why:
1) they can't answer any specific questions 2) they're investigating the issue
Problem is you have some kind of issues with corporations. You find them guilty until proven innocent which gets boring to read when you have no evidence to your "claims".
The person sending the spam isn't necessary the same person selling the goods; and I very much doubt that Viagra companies pay spammers via credit card.
Also your idea wouldn't solve the spam issue. All it would do is provide a way for people to steal legitimate purchases the same way fraudsters used to do with ebay and paypal purchases.
So I buy a Samsung TV and get the credit card company to do a charge back because I got a newsletter or I forge some email myself?
Your idea is completely ridiculous, stop defending it.
Sooner or later when things get ridiculous the market with solve the problem. Sites like Jamendo already exist for freely sharing music. There is impulse for distributing games DRM free and is making a profit at it.
These old dinosaurs have a lot of power but it will soon evaporate once the world has moved on without them. There is a long line of new businesses that do "get it" which can replace them.
A few simple laws could cover that. Going through the credit card companies would probably work great. Simply allow people a chargeback for any and all products sold via spam. All you have to do is send the spam message to the credit card company and ask for it. The CC company may not charge you. They don't want to pay for the trouble themselves, either. They will charge the merchant. That would pretty much eliminate all the non-working crap that's being sold via spam.
approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses ( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected (X) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money ( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks ( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it ( ) Users of email will not put up with it ( ) Microsoft will not put up with it ( ) The police will not put up with it ( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers ( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once ( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers ( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists (X) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
(X) Laws expressly prohibiting it ( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email ( ) Open relays in foreign countries ( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses ( ) Asshats (X) Jurisdictional problems ( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes ( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money ( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP ( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack ( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email ( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes ( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches ( ) Extreme profitability of spam ( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft ( ) Technically illiterate politicians (X) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers ( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves ( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering ( ) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
( ) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical ( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable ( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation ( ) Blacklists suck ( ) Whitelists suck ( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored (X) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud ( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks ( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually ( ) Sending email should be free ( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers? ( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses ( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem ( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome ( ) I don't want the government reading my email ( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
(X) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work. ( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it. ( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!
I don't think anyone claims that bandwidth doesn't cost money.
My guess is you're referring to articles where telecom giants try to get a company like Google to pay for transferring their content. In those instances people here argue that Google has already paid and the consumer has paid their ISP too so why should the ISP company get extra money for nothing.
Agreed. If they really gave a rat's ass about the conditions in their mouse factory, they'd audit this and other suppliers regularly.
How do you know they don't do that? Perhaps they pay a company in China who is suppose to do it for them. I don't like Microsoft that much but i'm not about to make shit up to condemn them when the full facts aren't available.
or (more likely) will end up with a million different forks due to all of the inevitable bickering about which direction development should go
As opposed to what? People simply going off and doing something else entirely? I'd rather have lots of people working on their own forks then one person working on one project.
Slashdot Mirror
So you're saying they have stolen Google's right to control their information, but at the same time they have not stolen anything?
So I've looked at this some more and this is what US law states on deprive:
Since Google could quite successfully argue in court that their closed source code has lost value it's theft.
That's a different issue really. Copyright Infringement would be re-distributing copyright without permission of the owner, etc.
This code theft is taking copyright that they had no permission to take.
Yes, downloading shit for free off the internet is stealing too. Also who is the "We" you're talking about.
Your book analogy isn't a similar situation at all. You didn't write the book, you weren't trying to keep it secret and the person possessing a copy doesn't negatively effect the original holder.
All of these things apply in Google's situation. Also my definition of steal is accurate, they broke in and copied the code without consent from Google. The copying part isn't the problem it is the without their consent part which makes it stealing.
Would you be so kind as to cite an example?
When I was at university I had to cite code I had written previously as well as everything else. This is standard in academia.
Wrong on many levels.
1) You may include many different dependencies in your code to get things done which needs citing
2) You may be including work you've written previously which needs citing
3) There is no standard way to cite code however that doesn't mean there is no way to cite it. Citing it gives you marks, not doing so makes you look unprofessional and you could be accused of cheating.
How I would do it is first mention in your paper that you "used soandso to quickly build upon" your project. In your references section include it there as well. In your code try to make it very clear what code is yours and which isn't. If you have included any code that isn't yours then put it in a separate folder and mention that "all code in this folder is what I have written for this assignment".
Ask your lecturer how he wants it.
Being positive today I'm going to go with maybe English isn't your first language. Here is a definition..
They took the code without Google's consent, hence they stole it.
How retarded do you have to be to not notice the about -> code link that's been on slashdot for years? Well just look at the parent!
The GP said "incompetence" because of the API changes. It has nothing to do with units sold.
If you can't read comments please don't make your own.
and Seaweed, eggs and pretty much everything else.
I actually had some of the seaweed pictured in that post and can confirm it to be plastic. After that experience if there's a situation where I have a choice I never go with Chinese stuff.
In one instance you have worker extortion in the US where the employers (who I understand are from India) are caught and will be punished. On the other you have Chinese scientists who have successfully lied to the international science community in 60 of their papers and will not be punished in any way.
"like Madoff did, rather than being caught"
Are you from some kind of parallel universe? Madoff is doing jail time.
Also, and this is the most important point. Why is it just because America has some issues you think that the Chinese should get a free pass to do even worse things without punishment. What the hell is wrong with you?
Uh, no. I am English and you are wrong. It has always been pronounced historic.
So what you are saying is that because Apple has managed a successful advertising campaign that they will now control nix operating systems forever? Yeah, I can see how the "me too" apple fan club might see it that way but back in reality it's pretty even turf with no clear winner. Apple advertises a lot, Linux has 0 advertising and is on tons of embedded systems and desktops. Just because you don't know it's there doesn't mean people aren't using it.
I gave two examples of organisations that are filling the gap that old media isn't. None of what I said is imaginary.
My point isn't about piracy and where people download content. It is that people will purchase other media from new companies that has less restrictions imposed on them.
Maybe I missed it in the article but how so in the context of a competitor that doesn't infringe on their copyright? They're trying to impose harsh restrictions on their copyright but how does it effect consumers of competitors such as Jamendo?
They can really only push so far before people get fed up and just go elsewhere even if there isn't as much content available. When that happens they won't be able to do anything without breaking laws.
Or they simply have no idea about what's going on hence why:
1) they can't answer any specific questions
2) they're investigating the issue
Problem is you have some kind of issues with corporations. You find them guilty until proven innocent which gets boring to read when you have no evidence to your "claims".
The person sending the spam isn't necessary the same person selling the goods; and I very much doubt that Viagra companies pay spammers via credit card.
Also your idea wouldn't solve the spam issue. All it would do is provide a way for people to steal legitimate purchases the same way fraudsters used to do with ebay and paypal purchases.
So I buy a Samsung TV and get the credit card company to do a charge back because I got a newsletter or I forge some email myself?
Your idea is completely ridiculous, stop defending it.
Sooner or later when things get ridiculous the market with solve the problem. Sites like Jamendo already exist for freely sharing music. There is impulse for distributing games DRM free and is making a profit at it.
These old dinosaurs have a lot of power but it will soon evaporate once the world has moved on without them. There is a long line of new businesses that do "get it" which can replace them.
Your post advocates a
( ) technical ( ) legislative (X) market-based ( ) vigilante
approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses
( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
(X) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
( ) Users of email will not put up with it
( ) Microsoft will not put up with it
( ) The police will not put up with it
( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers
( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists
(X) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
(X) Laws expressly prohibiting it
( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email
( ) Open relays in foreign countries
( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses
( ) Asshats
(X) Jurisdictional problems
( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP
( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack
( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email
( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
( ) Extreme profitability of spam
( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
( ) Technically illiterate politicians
(X) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers
( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves
( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
( ) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
( ) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever
been shown practical
( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation
( ) Blacklists suck
( ) Whitelists suck
( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored
(X) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
( ) Sending email should be free
( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome
( ) I don't want the government reading my email
( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
(X) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your
house down!
I don't think anyone claims that bandwidth doesn't cost money.
My guess is you're referring to articles where telecom giants try to get a company like Google to pay for transferring their content. In those instances people here argue that Google has already paid and the consumer has paid their ISP too so why should the ISP company get extra money for nothing.
65 cents * 8 hours a day = 520 U.S. cents = 35.4941537 Chinese yuan
I've been reading around that a meal will cost you around 5 yuan so it seems like they're making money like you say.
How do you know they don't do that? Perhaps they pay a company in China who is suppose to do it for them. I don't like Microsoft that much but i'm not about to make shit up to condemn them when the full facts aren't available.
As opposed to what? People simply going off and doing something else entirely? I'd rather have lots of people working on their own forks then one person working on one project.