57% were businesses targeting competitors. I take that to mean that they were trying to shut down their competitor's production/sales, rather than having a legitimate beef against a product.
That's a flawed interpretation, doesn't it make sense that a vast majority of claims were against competitors? If someone is breaching copyright on your products for commercial purposes, they are selling your product too, making them a competitor. That means that the other 43% are probably made up partially by the 37%, with the rest being valid claims against non-competitors, which to me says private entities (ie, not commercial ones).
I find it surprising that there aren't more claims against competitors, given that if someone is violating copyright on your work (and then selling it), that pretty much makes them a competitor by definition, if they weren't already.
The difference for us in Australia is that our uncovered areas (Nullarbor plain etc) have almost no people living there, where in the US (where they may have even more square km's covered), they might still have population uncovered.
Probably hanging out with the ark of the covenant, Joe Smith's golden plates, the city of atlantis, xenu and russel's teapot.
Except that the missing links actually existed at some point.
It still baffles me that people can delude themselves to the point of arguing with evolution and still claiming to know the truth.
Since you clearly believe that everything that has ever lived exists in the ground somewhere, how do you account for the gigantic underestimate of the number of atoms in the universe? Or the way the Earth manages not to collapse into a black hole under the weight of every life form that has existed since the first replicators formed in primordial ooze?
So the bible is fact until science disproves some part of it, at which point you can simply decide that that part is just metaphorical and thus is still correct by some interpretation.
Genesis is not a retelling of anything. It is just as truthful as the Australian Aboriginal "Dream Time" and the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster's story of drunken creation.
Algorithms can't "implent free will". If an algorithm were given identical inputs, it would produce the same output every time.*
Likewise, your mind (which you correctly state is running an algorthm of some kind) will always react the same way if given identical inputs. If you could model the universe exactly as it exists at a particular point in time to infinite precision (and avoiding quantum effects of observing sub atomic particles etc), you could predict the future with 100% accuracy, provided you knew the laws of mathematics (and thus, physics, chemistry etc).
* Identical inputs includes the state of random number generators, time of execution and all other factors that effect the execution of said algorithm.
I have no problem with bikes sharing the road with cars and even having the same rights as motor vehicles - on the condition that they pay yearly registration to help maintain the roads.
It's not about having 100%, 50%, 75% or 10% of your money, it's about having the $60 or whatever the game costs. If you only have enough money for one game, you only get one game. Why isn't it as black and white as that?
Each copy of a game does NOT equal a lost sale.
You're back at the "I wasn't going to buy it anyway" argument. If you don't think it's worth buying...
The only valid justification for IP laws (IMHO) is for the benefit of society.
What about for the benefit of (for example) software houses that spend thousands (millions?) of dollars paying designers, programmers, marketers, managers etc etc to build software which is then released as 1's and 0's to the whole world? The first person who buys it can easily just tell the next person about the 1's and 0's and copying them takes no skill whatsoever (unlike paintings for example which can't be easily reproduced at the same quality).
If we're looking at it morally, it is moral to just copy the work of the software house and deprive* them of the money that would be used to pay their employees? What if the software they develop is a completely new way of doing things? The designers and planners who did all the work get little or less reward than they are "entitled" to for doing it. This gets into the reason for "copy protection" and DRM. People who made "creative works" are trying to prevent them being obtained without compensating the owner.
So hey, what do you know, there is another valid justification for IP laws!
I've seen the argument "but you aren't removing anything physical from the owner!" so many times and sometimes supported by "if i could copy my bank account and give the copy to you, I would". Of course people fail to remember that if everyone was just copying money, it would be worth nothing. The same thing is analogous to software/music/movies. If you can make unlimited copies for free, then the product itself becomes worthless.
*before you all start whining "But it's not depriving if i wasn't going to buy it anyway!" let me present you with this: whenever you are about to download software/music/movies/whatever and you know that you are infringing/violating copyright or stealing or whatever you want to call it, get a piece of paper. Draw two squares on the paper, one just above the other. Then write next to the top square "I want this software/music/movie/etc". Next to the bottom square write "I don't want this software/music/movie/etc". Then tick the box that applies. If you tick the "I want this.." box: Go and buy it**. If you tick the "I don't want this..." box: then don't download it.
you are installing predictable rules into the camera, which (like in the Matrix) can then be bent or broken.
No rules are being bent or broken, in fact, you take advantage of the fact that the AI can't bend or break those rules.
Slashdot Mirror
Science is not separate from religion; it will merely prove what religion already says is out there and how it got here
Exactly, just like Noah's flood, and how the earth was created around 6000 years ago and how people used to live for hundreds of years. Oh wait....
Are you 100% sure that Thor, Zeus etc don't exist?
Are you 100% sure that you shouldn't be following the 5 pillars of Islam?
Are you 100% sure that you shouldn't be ridding youself of body-thetans at your local Scientology center?
I am 100% sure that I'll make my life decisions based on the evidence I have at hand.
The Bible is anecdote.
Data is not the plural of anecdote.
57% were businesses targeting competitors. I take that to mean that they were trying to shut down their competitor's production/sales, rather than having a legitimate beef against a product.
That's a flawed interpretation, doesn't it make sense that a vast majority of claims were against competitors? If someone is breaching copyright on your products for commercial purposes, they are selling your product too, making them a competitor. That means that the other 43% are probably made up partially by the 37%, with the rest being valid claims against non-competitors, which to me says private entities (ie, not commercial ones).
I find it surprising that there aren't more claims against competitors, given that if someone is violating copyright on your work (and then selling it), that pretty much makes them a competitor by definition, if they weren't already.
If I had points, I'd mod you up, both for the informative post and the subtle(?) Heroes reference.
I still find nethack mesmerising, you insensitive clod!
The difference for us in Australia is that our uncovered areas (Nullarbor plain etc) have almost no people living there, where in the US (where they may have even more square km's covered), they might still have population uncovered.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=RDF&defid=1134528
Probably hanging out with the ark of the covenant, Joe Smith's golden plates, the city of atlantis, xenu and russel's teapot.
Except that the missing links actually existed at some point.
It still baffles me that people can delude themselves to the point of arguing with evolution and still claiming to know the truth.
Since you clearly believe that everything that has ever lived exists in the ground somewhere, how do you account for the gigantic underestimate of the number of atoms in the universe? Or the way the Earth manages not to collapse into a black hole under the weight of every life form that has existed since the first replicators formed in primordial ooze?
So the bible is fact until science disproves some part of it, at which point you can simply decide that that part is just metaphorical and thus is still correct by some interpretation.
Genesis is not a retelling of anything. It is just as truthful as the Australian Aboriginal "Dream Time" and the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster's story of drunken creation.
Robocode is a modern, Java version of this.
Algorithms can't "implent free will". If an algorithm were given identical inputs, it would produce the same output every time.*
Likewise, your mind (which you correctly state is running an algorthm of some kind) will always react the same way if given identical inputs. If you could model the universe exactly as it exists at a particular point in time to infinite precision (and avoiding quantum effects of observing sub atomic particles etc), you could predict the future with 100% accuracy, provided you knew the laws of mathematics (and thus, physics, chemistry etc).
* Identical inputs includes the state of random number generators, time of execution and all other factors that effect the execution of said algorithm.
Just as long as you don't try to do any database access from your app. Mono's implementation of the ADO.NET libraries are broken :S
Less than temperate gerbils
The goal of Wine is a full reimplementation of the Windows API which will make Windows unnecessary.
Empahasis mine.
http://www.winehq.org/site/myths
Wine isn't an emulator. http://www.winehq.org/site/myths
I can't believe it's not unencrypted traffic!
I'm not sure if it's considered illegal wiretapping
How in the world could it possibly be wiretapping?
I have no problem with bikes sharing the road with cars and even having the same rights as motor vehicles - on the condition that they pay yearly registration to help maintain the roads.
+1 Literal interpretation
A team produces something better than the sum of the parts.
+1 Avoided buzzword "Synergy"
they still have all of my money
It's not about having 100%, 50%, 75% or 10% of your money, it's about having the $60 or whatever the game costs. If you only have enough money for one game, you only get one game. Why isn't it as black and white as that?
Each copy of a game does NOT equal a lost sale.
You're back at the "I wasn't going to buy it anyway" argument. If you don't think it's worth buying...
The only valid justification for IP laws (IMHO) is for the benefit of society.
What about for the benefit of (for example) software houses that spend thousands (millions?) of dollars paying designers, programmers, marketers, managers etc etc to build software which is then released as 1's and 0's to the whole world? The first person who buys it can easily just tell the next person about the 1's and 0's and copying them takes no skill whatsoever (unlike paintings for example which can't be easily reproduced at the same quality).
If we're looking at it morally, it is moral to just copy the work of the software house and deprive* them of the money that would be used to pay their employees? What if the software they develop is a completely new way of doing things? The designers and planners who did all the work get little or less reward than they are "entitled" to for doing it.
This gets into the reason for "copy protection" and DRM. People who made "creative works" are trying to prevent them being obtained without compensating the owner.
So hey, what do you know, there is another valid justification for IP laws!
I've seen the argument "but you aren't removing anything physical from the owner!" so many times and sometimes supported by "if i could copy my bank account and give the copy to you, I would". Of course people fail to remember that if everyone was just copying money, it would be worth nothing. The same thing is analogous to software/music/movies. If you can make unlimited copies for free, then the product itself becomes worthless.
*before you all start whining "But it's not depriving if i wasn't going to buy it anyway!" let me present you with this: whenever you are about to download software/music/movies/whatever and you know that you are infringing/violating copyright or stealing or whatever you want to call it, get a piece of paper. Draw two squares on the paper, one just above the other. Then write next to the top square "I want this software/music/movie/etc". Next to the bottom square write "I don't want this software/music/movie/etc". Then tick the box that applies. If you tick the "I want this.." box: Go and buy it**. If you tick the "I don't want this..." box: then don't download it.
No rules are being bent or broken, in fact, you take advantage of the fact that the AI can't bend or break those rules.
Not a double-click?
Especially if the .porn TLD won't tell you which IP to use!