You have no idea about either the politics of space programs or sexism.
Sending things into space has an enormous impact on society. To the Soviet society (where everyone including women were "workers" as opposed to only paying and recognising half of society based on their "scientific difference") cosmonauts were an extremely important inspiration (especially for children, including girls).
It may be "irrelevant crap" to you, but in our gendered society and in the Soviet's slightly less gendered society, women leaders serve an irreplaceable role. Without "PC bullshit" you will never get the objective, non-gendered society you yearn for, but I'm not sure you've ever actually cared to try to understand gender issues.
(PS why do you assume that when a women gets hired it must be because of "Equal Opportunity" but after years of millions of men getting hired you assume every single one was qualified and not privileged?)
The story is not about a magical new source of infinite energy. It's about not having to build, integrate, connect and maintain an external power supply.
one hand "pours" food into the "third world", whilst the other destroys it through war, mining, slave labour, environmental destruction, debt and unfair trade.
you might want to be a little less ignorant and stop asking for gratitude.
It's not a problem you can just throw money at, it's a social problem.
This has a very, very high likelihood of being an advertisement for the pads he links to.
Such a pity that advertising agencies have destroyed my ability to believe things:-(
It's possible that open source licences can be revoked by the copyright/IP holder.
Under anglo common law, a bare licence can be revoked, but a contractual licence can't be --- It all depends on whether you consider there to be a contract, supported by consideration (ie someone of value is exchanged for the licence).
I personally believe there is consideration and so no one can revoke open source licences. But unlike the US courts, Australian courts don't seem to agree.
(I wrote a dissertation on this problem: feel free to read it)
Yep, I haven't read the research, but my first reaction is that the summary is an oversimplification and seems outright wrong. I start with the assumption that this is what's happening, and then wait to read the actual research before making up my mind.
This issue hasn't really been tested, and it's unlikely to be because the parties who would likely end up in court would have the option of estoppel.
This is just theoretical, I don't think it would work in a real case, licences like these are so commonplace. But it would be nice if there were some certainty.
I wonder if these licences can be revoked after they have been dedicated to the public domain. If they are just bare licences then they can, they would have to be contractual licences to avoid that, but is there enough consideration in this agreement?
I doubt this would mean anything in reality, courts would find a way around this, but in theory these licences could be revoked at will by the copyright owner (with sufficient notice).
except that originality (creativity) has a different meaning in copyright law to the everyday notion of originality. Copyright law is used to protect unfair competition in Australia, "originality" includes the skill and labour used to create a work. This interpretation of "originality" dates back to a case in 1900 (Walter v Lane).
I personally don't like the use of copyright to police unfair competition, but that's just how copyright works (in Australia at least).
Copyright was also developed (at least in Australia) to protect skilled labour. They are not protecting a "fact" here, they are protecting a compilation. IceTV employed someone to compile the schedule by watching TV for a week, that was ok (well, it's probably ok). But they updated it by using Channel Nine's published guide --- that's a little more shady. This case sits on the boundaries of copyright law in Australia, and brings into question the notions of "original work" and "substantial part". The reason why IceTV lost on appeal was because the parts they took from Nine's schedule were the "most creative elements of the skill and labour".
I personally hope IceTV get up on this, I don't like the idea of copyright attaching itself to almost everything.
Very well said! Anyone who thinks they are someone who respects the environment and the people who physically pay for the production of new computers should ask themselves if they really need a new computer or not. I mean need.
Do my computing needs really increase every year? Why would I buy a new computer just for a shiny, unusable, new operating system?
The first step to actually making a decision would be to know more about it. What are the costs of production in terms of environmental and human exploitation? What are the costs of usage? What are the costs of disposal? I imagine very few consumers actually know and understand this information.
Slashdot Mirror
And now you've just opened up a new way do a denial of service!
pffft. no way would a big company do that, why that would be anti-competitive.
You have no idea about either the politics of space programs or sexism.
Sending things into space has an enormous impact on society. To the Soviet society (where everyone including women were "workers" as opposed to only paying and recognising half of society based on their "scientific difference") cosmonauts were an extremely important inspiration (especially for children, including girls).
It may be "irrelevant crap" to you, but in our gendered society and in the Soviet's slightly less gendered society, women leaders serve an irreplaceable role. Without "PC bullshit" you will never get the objective, non-gendered society you yearn for, but I'm not sure you've ever actually cared to try to understand gender issues.
(PS why do you assume that when a women gets hired it must be because of "Equal Opportunity" but after years of millions of men getting hired you assume every single one was qualified and not privileged?)
The story is not about a magical new source of infinite energy. It's about not having to build, integrate, connect and maintain an external power supply.
...collect clothes...
I'd rather it wait for me to give it my clothes
you seem to be equating legal theft with moral theft.
I thought "Chuck Norris" WAS the master password to all the websites on the internet. Or was that just facebook?
one hand "pours" food into the "third world", whilst the other destroys it through war, mining, slave labour, environmental destruction, debt and unfair trade.
you might want to be a little less ignorant and stop asking for gratitude.
It's not a problem you can just throw money at, it's a social problem.
I wish we took 50% of that money and used it to feed the other half of the world which is providing us with our wealth.
> Dying off of cultures and civilizations is a natural process. Then you have no idea what is happening in Australia.
I hope they at least chose non-smokers.
This has a very, very high likelihood of being an advertisement for the pads he links to. Such a pity that advertising agencies have destroyed my ability to believe things :-(
It's possible that open source licences can be revoked by the copyright/IP holder. Under anglo common law, a bare licence can be revoked, but a contractual licence can't be --- It all depends on whether you consider there to be a contract, supported by consideration (ie someone of value is exchanged for the licence). I personally believe there is consideration and so no one can revoke open source licences. But unlike the US courts, Australian courts don't seem to agree. (I wrote a dissertation on this problem: feel free to read it)
Yep, I haven't read the research, but my first reaction is that the summary is an oversimplification and seems outright wrong. I start with the assumption that this is what's happening, and then wait to read the actual research before making up my mind.
They can't because they don't own their own voices, music or performance rights.
This issue hasn't really been tested, and it's unlikely to be because the parties who would likely end up in court would have the option of estoppel. This is just theoretical, I don't think it would work in a real case, licences like these are so commonplace. But it would be nice if there were some certainty.
It'd be nicer if we didn't have to rely on estoppel, is anyone campaigning to have dedications to the public formally recognised by the law?
I wonder if these licences can be revoked after they have been dedicated to the public domain. If they are just bare licences then they can, they would have to be contractual licences to avoid that, but is there enough consideration in this agreement?
I doubt this would mean anything in reality, courts would find a way around this, but in theory these licences could be revoked at will by the copyright owner (with sufficient notice).
except that originality (creativity) has a different meaning in copyright law to the everyday notion of originality. Copyright law is used to protect unfair competition in Australia, "originality" includes the skill and labour used to create a work. This interpretation of "originality" dates back to a case in 1900 (Walter v Lane). I personally don't like the use of copyright to police unfair competition, but that's just how copyright works (in Australia at least).
Copyright was also developed (at least in Australia) to protect skilled labour. They are not protecting a "fact" here, they are protecting a compilation. IceTV employed someone to compile the schedule by watching TV for a week, that was ok (well, it's probably ok). But they updated it by using Channel Nine's published guide --- that's a little more shady. This case sits on the boundaries of copyright law in Australia, and brings into question the notions of "original work" and "substantial part". The reason why IceTV lost on appeal was because the parts they took from Nine's schedule were the "most creative elements of the skill and labour".
I personally hope IceTV get up on this, I don't like the idea of copyright attaching itself to almost everything.
Very well said! Anyone who thinks they are someone who respects the environment and the people who physically pay for the production of new computers should ask themselves if they really need a new computer or not. I mean need.
Do my computing needs really increase every year? Why would I buy a new computer just for a shiny, unusable, new operating system?
The first step to actually making a decision would be to know more about it. What are the costs of production in terms of environmental and human exploitation? What are the costs of usage? What are the costs of disposal? I imagine very few consumers actually know and understand this information.