If generated automatically by the software, then the path would derive the copyright on the software license that generated it, I think. All the more reason to generate your own paths by hand, then.
That's absurd. I'm 99% sure* in that case the owner of the copyright is the person who initiated the generation of the paths. The software simply used an algorithm to generate them, I've never heard of anyone being able to claim copyright for that.
*I'm no lawyer, so it is certainly possible I'm wrong, but I'm very sure about this.
Not until they start trading commercially developed CNC path programs for the parts.
There are already a number of FOSS programs that can print out the open industrial standards. As this gains in popularity the FOSS programs will get better, and less expensive versions of the commercial software will be released. It's not an issue at all.
For the rest, I was going to reply, but I actually don't know what I'm talking about (though I certainly think I do!) so I've decided it wiser to keep my mouth shut.
Do you realize how much damage you can do with that kind of access?
You are seriously underestimating the seriousness of the crime. That she didn't do all that much damage is relevant to a point, but she clearly intended to do as much harm as she could.
It would probably surprise you to learn that the North Pacific Gyre is not a tightly packed mass of plastic. It is simply an area where plastic is more prevalent due to oceanic currents. The fact that estimates of its size range from 270 thousand square miles and 5.8 million square miles should tell you that.
It's certainly not a good thing, and it's something that needs to be dealt with, but it's also not universally negative as alarmists like to imply. A number of species of fish flourish in the flotsam, and a number of microorganisms may thrive in such environments as well.
We have intellectual property because we decided a long time ago that ideas have value. If they have value, should it not be possible to buy, sell, or trade them? And if they can be bought, sold, or traded, are ideas then not a form of property that can be owned?
It is certainly very different than ordinary property, and so special rules must apply, but it is most certainly real.
People get confused by these things often, but the fact that it does not have an physical form that you can touch does not mean it isn't real. For example: a point a foot and a half above my table and halfway between my face and my monitor is very much real, and certainly exists, but it is not a physical object. I can look at the point, I can observe the point, I know exactly where it is, yet I cannot move or touch it, and it is made up of nothing except an idea in my head.
That point is real, but it has no physical form - it is simply an idea. Same with books - the book is not the ink or the paper, it's the ideas the ink and paper convey. As such it doesn't really matter what happens to the book, it's the ideas that are important, and they need protecting. We've gotten a bit ridiculous with our protection in that regard recently, but the core of the thing - protecting ideas - is essential for ideas to flourish.
The trouble is any overhaul of the system prompted by big business is going to largely help big business only.
There is a chance our lawmakers could be reasonable, and evaluate things with both big business and the general public's interests in mind, but lets face it, they don't exactly have a history of being calm, rational, and reasonable.
Take the current tax cut extension debate: The (liberal) democrats want to screw the rich, even if they have to screw the poor and middle class to do it. The Republicans could care less about the poor and middle class, but recognize that they can protect their rich buddies and score political points by making an all-or-none stand on the tax cuts. Obama is in the middle, finally growing a spine (only after the house and senate dems have been neutered, mind you), saying "You guys, we cannot keep screwing the poor and middle class, just make a compromise!"
That's just a DOS attack from more than one node*, it's no wonder it didn't work.
You have to get five of your buddies together and all call at once - THEN it's a DDOS, and my god that would be hell!
It wouldn't get her to come back to you though, so if that's what you really want it will still do no good. If you want to simply make her life hell then it will work wonderfully.
*Multiple nodes must be attacking at the same time for it to be a DDOS.
Frankly, I agree with the GP. I only ever use about 70 keys on my keyboard (basically the main alphabet keys and those directly surrounding them, plus a couple others), and I sit in front of a computer for a living. Function keys? I've been using a keyboard for 20 years and I've never needed 12 of them. In fact, two would be fine, and in most situations mapping the function to a letter key on the keyboard instead of a function key would be no different. Num pad? What am I, an accountant? I have no practical need for that, the numbers above the letter keys is fine. Map in any occasional functions a dual-key hotkey and you've just gotten rid of half the keyboard. WASD proves the arrow pad is superfluous too.
Most people don't need a lot of the keys on their keyboards. Those that do should by a special keyboard to suit their needs.
As opposed to letting an organization with a political axe to grind do all the publishing?
Wikileaks has already creatively edited a number of previous leaks in order to make their target look worse than they actually were, so where is the upside to keeping Wikileaks the way it is?
People have opinions, and it shapes the way they represent facts and which facts they feel are important enough to release. It's often not even intentional, but it is almost always a distortion of the truth.
I would be much more ok with a clearing house for whistleblowers to send their leaks to, which only members of the press had access to. The leaks would be posted in their raw form, and the leakers would be kept completely anonymous. The news agencies themselves would do whatever editing and redaction is appropriate.
There is enough competition in the media to keep such a system honest, and it's easy enough for a private citizen to get the press credentials necessary to access such a site.
Are you sure he didn't actually believe the other people were going for weapons on the bodies?
War is a scary thing. I've never been in it, and as such I can't fully comprehend it, but I have worked with people who have.
I'm not saying you are wrong, but it's easy to second guess the choices of people who are in the middle of combat when you yourself are not and never have been anywhere near it.
Why are journalists a special protected class in your opinion?
Because it they are given such protection by the Constitution as a check against the government pulling the wool over the eyes of its citizens. This prevents a government-controlled media, and allows for information to spread.
Would they release information without filtering it?
Yes, even though they don't have to. That is what responsible journalism is all about.
What if they were pressured to not release it by a government?
It has been tried many times, the government is virtually never successful. Only when a real, imminent threat to US citizens lives can be demonstrated can the government take action, and it must go through a federal judge first. Even then, if I remember correctly, the government cannot stop the distribution of the information, they can only punish it after the fact. There was a NY Times case regarding this in I think the WW2 era, but I don't remember exactly.
Or what if it exposes the wrongdoing of the corporation that owns the journalists?
More than likely the news agency's competitor will expose it in order to gain a commercial advantage. The whistleblower would likely not go to a journalist of that particular news agency in the first place anyway.
The ideal journalist will disseminate the information to everyone anyway, why add the extra step?
The key is responsibility. Journalists get extra protections, but they also have a responsibility to the public. They can and do face legal action for intentionally lying about the facts they are representing.
You can view membership costs here and there is a link at the bottom to apply.
Wikileaks has not become a member of any news association, and as such are not considered members of the press. That means they don't get a lot of the extra protections members of the press receive unless they can make a really, really good argument in court. They also show very little in the way of responsible reporting of these leaks. Many of the leaks offer no benefit to the public, while a few do. A good journalist would talk about the leaks that matter, and leave the rest (semi) private.
They could just become members of the press and be done with it, it isn't all that expensive to join.
Wiktionary refers to a book classifying could care less [wiktionary.org] as one of the Common Errors of English Usage
That depends entirely upon whether or not you actually can care less. Using "could care less" is a clever way of hiding the fact that you actually care a great deal about something, if you were to use it intentionally.
And, along those lines, one of my all-time favorite Dillberts:
That's because you are using the quick edit feature. You can change your preferences to switch to the full edit style, which has both a submit and a preview button. The disadvantage, of course, is that it takes you to a separate page for your comment.
You can't do nearly the volume of inane posts on a slow connection with the full edit as you can with the quick edit.
Slashdot Mirror
If generated automatically by the software, then the path would derive the copyright on the software license that generated it, I think. All the more reason to generate your own paths by hand, then.
That's absurd. I'm 99% sure* in that case the owner of the copyright is the person who initiated the generation of the paths. The software simply used an algorithm to generate them, I've never heard of anyone being able to claim copyright for that.
*I'm no lawyer, so it is certainly possible I'm wrong, but I'm very sure about this.
Not until they start trading commercially developed CNC path programs for the parts.
There are already a number of FOSS programs that can print out the open industrial standards. As this gains in popularity the FOSS programs will get better, and less expensive versions of the commercial software will be released. It's not an issue at all.
For the rest, I was going to reply, but I actually don't know what I'm talking about (though I certainly think I do!) so I've decided it wiser to keep my mouth shut.
You mean you don't want to see goatse in all it's 3d glory?
Huh.
I hear pigs love lawyers - those things will eat anything!
Do you realize how much damage you can do with that kind of access?
You are seriously underestimating the seriousness of the crime. That she didn't do all that much damage is relevant to a point, but she clearly intended to do as much harm as she could.
The page was updated 7 days ago, but the pic is from 2005.
Bingo.
The new breed of thief will be more thug than cat-burglar.
It would probably surprise you to learn that the North Pacific Gyre is not a tightly packed mass of plastic. It is simply an area where plastic is more prevalent due to oceanic currents. The fact that estimates of its size range from 270 thousand square miles and 5.8 million square miles should tell you that.
It's certainly not a good thing, and it's something that needs to be dealt with, but it's also not universally negative as alarmists like to imply. A number of species of fish flourish in the flotsam, and a number of microorganisms may thrive in such environments as well.
I don't know what I'm talking about
I wish every post on Slashdot were prefaced this way. It makes me want a +1 Honest option.
Keep telling yourself that.
If you repeat it often enough, maybe someday it will come true!
Somebody can't tell sarcasm when he reads it.
Of course he was referring to the broken window fallacy.
Duh.
You are very much correct.
We have intellectual property because we decided a long time ago that ideas have value. If they have value, should it not be possible to buy, sell, or trade them? And if they can be bought, sold, or traded, are ideas then not a form of property that can be owned?
It is certainly very different than ordinary property, and so special rules must apply, but it is most certainly real.
People get confused by these things often, but the fact that it does not have an physical form that you can touch does not mean it isn't real. For example: a point a foot and a half above my table and halfway between my face and my monitor is very much real, and certainly exists, but it is not a physical object. I can look at the point, I can observe the point, I know exactly where it is, yet I cannot move or touch it, and it is made up of nothing except an idea in my head.
That point is real, but it has no physical form - it is simply an idea. Same with books - the book is not the ink or the paper, it's the ideas the ink and paper convey. As such it doesn't really matter what happens to the book, it's the ideas that are important, and they need protecting. We've gotten a bit ridiculous with our protection in that regard recently, but the core of the thing - protecting ideas - is essential for ideas to flourish.
The trouble is any overhaul of the system prompted by big business is going to largely help big business only.
There is a chance our lawmakers could be reasonable, and evaluate things with both big business and the general public's interests in mind, but lets face it, they don't exactly have a history of being calm, rational, and reasonable.
Take the current tax cut extension debate: The (liberal) democrats want to screw the rich, even if they have to screw the poor and middle class to do it. The Republicans could care less about the poor and middle class, but recognize that they can protect their rich buddies and score political points by making an all-or-none stand on the tax cuts. Obama is in the middle, finally growing a spine (only after the house and senate dems have been neutered, mind you), saying "You guys, we cannot keep screwing the poor and middle class, just make a compromise!"
Fixed it.
First post with the new sig, seems it's a touch long.
That's just a DOS attack from more than one node*, it's no wonder it didn't work.
You have to get five of your buddies together and all call at once - THEN it's a DDOS, and my god that would be hell!
It wouldn't get her to come back to you though, so if that's what you really want it will still do no good. If you want to simply make her life hell then it will work wonderfully.
*Multiple nodes must be attacking at the same time for it to be a DDOS.
Frankly, I agree with the GP. I only ever use about 70 keys on my keyboard (basically the main alphabet keys and those directly surrounding them, plus a couple others), and I sit in front of a computer for a living. Function keys? I've been using a keyboard for 20 years and I've never needed 12 of them. In fact, two would be fine, and in most situations mapping the function to a letter key on the keyboard instead of a function key would be no different. Num pad? What am I, an accountant? I have no practical need for that, the numbers above the letter keys is fine. Map in any occasional functions a dual-key hotkey and you've just gotten rid of half the keyboard. WASD proves the arrow pad is superfluous too.
Most people don't need a lot of the keys on their keyboards. Those that do should by a special keyboard to suit their needs.
As opposed to letting an organization with a political axe to grind do all the publishing?
Wikileaks has already creatively edited a number of previous leaks in order to make their target look worse than they actually were, so where is the upside to keeping Wikileaks the way it is?
People have opinions, and it shapes the way they represent facts and which facts they feel are important enough to release. It's often not even intentional, but it is almost always a distortion of the truth.
I would be much more ok with a clearing house for whistleblowers to send their leaks to, which only members of the press had access to. The leaks would be posted in their raw form, and the leakers would be kept completely anonymous. The news agencies themselves would do whatever editing and redaction is appropriate.
There is enough competition in the media to keep such a system honest, and it's easy enough for a private citizen to get the press credentials necessary to access such a site.
Are you sure he didn't actually believe the other people were going for weapons on the bodies?
War is a scary thing. I've never been in it, and as such I can't fully comprehend it, but I have worked with people who have.
I'm not saying you are wrong, but it's easy to second guess the choices of people who are in the middle of combat when you yourself are not and never have been anywhere near it.
Why are journalists a special protected class in your opinion?
Because it they are given such protection by the Constitution as a check against the government pulling the wool over the eyes of its citizens. This prevents a government-controlled media, and allows for information to spread.
Would they release information without filtering it?
Yes, even though they don't have to. That is what responsible journalism is all about.
What if they were pressured to not release it by a government?
It has been tried many times, the government is virtually never successful. Only when a real, imminent threat to US citizens lives can be demonstrated can the government take action, and it must go through a federal judge first. Even then, if I remember correctly, the government cannot stop the distribution of the information, they can only punish it after the fact. There was a NY Times case regarding this in I think the WW2 era, but I don't remember exactly.
Or what if it exposes the wrongdoing of the corporation that owns the journalists?
More than likely the news agency's competitor will expose it in order to gain a commercial advantage. The whistleblower would likely not go to a journalist of that particular news agency in the first place anyway.
The ideal journalist will disseminate the information to everyone anyway, why add the extra step?
The key is responsibility. Journalists get extra protections, but they also have a responsibility to the public. They can and do face legal action for intentionally lying about the facts they are representing.
You can view membership costs here and there is a link at the bottom to apply.
Wikileaks has not become a member of any news association, and as such are not considered members of the press. That means they don't get a lot of the extra protections members of the press receive unless they can make a really, really good argument in court. They also show very little in the way of responsible reporting of these leaks. Many of the leaks offer no benefit to the public, while a few do. A good journalist would talk about the leaks that matter, and leave the rest (semi) private.
They could just become members of the press and be done with it, it isn't all that expensive to join.
Wiktionary refers to a book classifying could care less [wiktionary.org] as one of the Common Errors of English Usage
That depends entirely upon whether or not you actually can care less. Using "could care less" is a clever way of hiding the fact that you actually care a great deal about something, if you were to use it intentionally.
And, along those lines, one of my all-time favorite Dillberts:
http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2007-09-29/
I like it in conjunction with the previous day's entry.
Reply, not edit.
My bad.
Preview couldn't help me with that little brain fart!
That's because you are using the quick edit feature. You can change your preferences to switch to the full edit style, which has both a submit and a preview button. The disadvantage, of course, is that it takes you to a separate page for your comment.
You can't do nearly the volume of inane posts on a slow connection with the full edit as you can with the quick edit.
They are legally binding so long as what is being promised is legally enforceable. One clause being unenforceable does not negate the whole agreement.
Think of it as a verbal contract with proof.
Verbal contracts are legally binding, but don't carry quite the same weight as a formally written and signed contract.
Bingo.
See Google.
(For the record, I don't think it's a bad thing, just something people need to understand.)