Nowhere does it say this is used BEFORE they have committed a crime. It is used AFTER they have committed a crime to decide how best to treat them so they don't commit ANOTHER crime. Obviously if they are in the justice system it is because they are ALREADY in trouble.
Well clearly their nurturing, education, and opportunity have failed, or they wouldn't be in the justice system. So what do you do with them now? Exactly HOW do you nurture them? WHAT do you teach them? WHAT opportunities do you provide? Do you have the answers to all those also? If so, I am sure all of civilization will be eternally grateful. If not, maybe some sort of analytics could help answer those questions for each individual, which seems to be the exact goal of the project.
There is nothing about this that is 'pre-crime' or would have 'false positives'. This is about how to determine what to with people who have already entered the juvenile justice system (ie. post-crime), to try to rehab them. So, the question is, can analysis of risk factors for recidivism actual prevent recidivism? I don't know, but it seems silly to just dismiss it out of hand.
It would be a complete nightmare.
Anyone with a birthday before April 15 would have less time to get all the required docs, do the paperwork, and come up with any monies owed. Anyone with a birthday after April 15 will have to wait (in most cases much) longer for their refund.
The only way around that would be for every person to have his own fiscal year, which would change every single accounting system in use, from the most basic paper ledgers to the most sophisticated software. Every payroll system would change, every banking system would change, every securities system would change, every bit of personal financial software would change. And of course, all the IRS systems would have to change.
Then their are joint assets - who's fiscal year are they attached to?
All that to save a bump in IRS processing? The payback time would probably be measured in centuries.
They are not even remotely the same. Your representative and senator are supposed to listen to your opinion - it is their job. A judge is NOT supposed to listen to your opinion - he is supposed to know the law and apply it according to what happens in the courtroom. Your opinion (unless you happen to be on the jury) does not (and most certainly should not) matter at all in a court case. Trying to influence a judge outside of the courtroom proceedings is considered a very bad thing, no matter how it is done.
The problem with tiered web browsing is that unlike electricity, gas and water, the internet and technologies surrounding it have ALWAYS been developed with the ideals of unlimited bandwidth capabilities.
Got a citation for that? It seems to me that 'the internet' has always been designed with the very real fact of bandwidth limitations in mind (congestion algorithms, etc). It would be far fairer to say that some internet applications have been designed with the (completely faulty) ideal of unlimited bandwidth.
The only thing that allows any of those services to exist (for a price we can afford) is the switched network, and the idea behind the switched network is that no-one is using it all the time, and thus you are only paying for a tiny fraction of the cost of the network between you and NetFlix. As soon as you demand 'unlimited' downloads from NetFlix (eg) you are really in effect asking for a dedicated line from you to NetFlix. Do you really think you could afford that?
Verizon is an $85.5B company (market cap), not $1B. So first you need to raise at least $43B. Next, you need to convince the existing shareholders to sell at least half their shares. It doesn't take a financial genius to see that that is going to really drive up the price. So let's say you spent $55B and take over the company. Congratulations, now what do you do? I guess since you a 'freeing the net' you will now guarantee that all users can use their max download speed 24x7, no caps, right? Do you have anywhere near the infrastructure to do that? I can assure you, you do not. OK, so you need to beef up your infrastructure, shouldn't cost more than a few billion. Where does that money come from? Do you go back to your freedom fighters and say cough up a few more billion dollars? Do you pass this on to the customers? Say goodbye to the 99% of your customers that don't care in the slightest about bandwidth caps. Now the remaining 1% get to fund the entire operation. Sounds like quite the sound plan.
Are you serious? What DSLRs don't have manual focus? Certainly all the ones from Canon, Nikon, etc do. And I never heard of a camera that has '7 fixed focal lengths' - either the lens zooms or it doesn't. And focal length is not the same as focus. The only thing I am aware of that even sort of matches that description are the focus points. These have nothing to do with focal length (or manual focusing) - they just tell the AF mechanism what area of the image you want to be in focus (it doesn't have to be the center). You can always just switch off the AF completely and turn the focus ring yourself.
And somewhere in all those attempts, you get one that runs great, but is impossible to read/maintain. So you refactor it to make it maintainable. Because of something in the refactoring, performance suffers. What do you do now? Keep the one that runs great, or the one that is maintainable? If you use their new, patented method, you keep BOTH - one for the programmer, and the other for the compiler. How do they do this? I don't know - it is new and novel, and thus patented.
I don't mean from a performance point of view, I mean it physically can't drive the IO. There is no support for FICON, ESCON, or parallel channels. All the DASD on Hercules are emulated disks on the physical PC disk. Hot-backups usually involve twin-tailed IO or ICB connections between the systems, neither of which are available.
Where exactly are they attacking the project? Did they send a letter to the developers? Did they send a letter to the users? Did they make a general public announcement? Did they in any way threaten any of the above? In IBM's original pledge, they did have a clause that said the pledge was not valid if the other party initiated legal proceedings, which is what happened here. Look at it hypothetically: suppose IBM owns patents that cover something someone implemented and released under the GPL. Microsoft used that code. Now Microsoft sues some OSS developer. Would IBM be viewed as 'evil' if they used their patent as a weapon against Microsoft to get them to back down? Would anybody even bother making the ridiculous claim that IBM is attacking the OSS project?
It is not a 'patent attack', it is a patent counter-attack. TurboHercules is suing IBM, not the other way around. IBM has not counter-sued. What they have done is signal that if TurboHercules continues with their suit they can expect a world of hurt. IBM can absolutely allow Hercules (the OSS project) to survive and at the same time reduce TurboHercules (the company) to a cinder. There is no contradiction there.
The DMCA is for copyright, not patents. The particular patents are for new mainframe features, not old legacy stuff. zSeries is alive and well, it is certainly easily available (but expensive).
'The internet' (whatever that is) may be a public medium, but Facebooks' servers certainly are not. Facebook just happens to grant the public access to them. Furthermore, Facebook is not 'posting fliers' in public spaces, they are posting them in their private property. Granting access to the public does not mean you give up all your rights. For example, go down to your local mall (or, if that is too corporate, your favorite mom-and-pop corner store). They have it open to the public - you can walk right in without any passwords or signing any contracts. By your logic, you can now do whatever you want in there, because it is 'public'. Now engage in some behavior they do not approve of. Do you still have a 'right' to be in there? No, they will ask you to leave. If you don't leave, they can call the cops and get you forcibly ejected or arrested for trespass.
OK, so you make ME one. How does the rest of the world benefit from that? Do you think that only people who can afford to pay the full cost of production for something are entitled to it? Or am I somehow bound to release it to the rest of the world (for free)? Or are you free to give the work that I paid for to the rest of the world?
How exactly is copyright not merit based? Here is my offering - if you want it, pay me. What could be more merit based than that? Where does the god-given right to make money come from? If there is such an automatic right granted by copyright, why aren't you wealthy beyond your wildest dreams? After all, all you need to do is slap a copyright on something, and you can make a fortune.
This is nonsense. The GPL exists to keep open source open. Without copyright, that is not possible. Without copyright, I could take your source code, make my changes to it, stick that source code in a vault, just release the binaries, and there is nothing you can do about it. Or do you think that without copyright all source code just magically appears?
No, the logic is good. You can be liable for your robot breaking a contract (or a law). What he said however was that a robot can not enter into a contract, and that is correct. Entering a contract requires two parties to agree to something (be of one mind), and a robot can not do that (at least not something like a web crawler). Since no contract was entered into, neither party is bound by it.
Quick! Go read his FAQ! Right there under 'Can I low-level format my drive' it says 'not possible on any modern hardware'. Randomly poking bits at specific PHYSICAL locations (which is what the poster wants to do) is low-level formatting.
Nonsense. Asking a drive to write logical sector 1234 is trivial. Asking a drive to write a 1 to the location on platter 2, x microns from the edge, at y degrees of rotation (the actual physical address) is not possible without special drive electronics and firmware.
So basically you want the copyright holder to perform an impossible task before asserting their rights. It is most certainly NOT the copyright holders responsibility to do what you said, and nowhere in the law does it even imply that it is. The fair use provisions all come down to pretty much 'what is the intent of the use'. How is the copyright holder supposed to know that? That is something for the user to assert, not the copyright holder. I can't think of any situation where it is up to an accuser to provide a defense for the accused before making the accusation. Even if that were a requirement, how could they do it? It would at least require some basic communication to try to establish intent. Do you want YouTube to provide your contact info to any copyright holder who says they would like to talk to you?
But that is not what the GP was arguing. He was trying to make the claim that in order for something to be 'property' it must have intrinsic value. There is no intrinsic value in a bank account (or cash). The only reason it has any value at all is because there are laws stating it has value (and can be owned). Exactly the same as copyright.
Also, the only thing that copyright gives you is the EXCLUSIVE right to make/distribute copies. Once someone infringes their copyright they no longer have that - it is gone. Exactly like a bank account.
Slashdot Mirror
Nowhere does it say this is used BEFORE they have committed a crime. It is used AFTER they have committed a crime to decide how best to treat them so they don't commit ANOTHER crime. Obviously if they are in the justice system it is because they are ALREADY in trouble.
Well clearly their nurturing, education, and opportunity have failed, or they wouldn't be in the justice system. So what do you do with them now? Exactly HOW do you nurture them? WHAT do you teach them? WHAT opportunities do you provide? Do you have the answers to all those also? If so, I am sure all of civilization will be eternally grateful. If not, maybe some sort of analytics could help answer those questions for each individual, which seems to be the exact goal of the project.
There is nothing about this that is 'pre-crime' or would have 'false positives'. This is about how to determine what to with people who have already entered the juvenile justice system (ie. post-crime), to try to rehab them. So, the question is, can analysis of risk factors for recidivism actual prevent recidivism? I don't know, but it seems silly to just dismiss it out of hand.
It would be a complete nightmare. Anyone with a birthday before April 15 would have less time to get all the required docs, do the paperwork, and come up with any monies owed. Anyone with a birthday after April 15 will have to wait (in most cases much) longer for their refund. The only way around that would be for every person to have his own fiscal year, which would change every single accounting system in use, from the most basic paper ledgers to the most sophisticated software. Every payroll system would change, every banking system would change, every securities system would change, every bit of personal financial software would change. And of course, all the IRS systems would have to change. Then their are joint assets - who's fiscal year are they attached to? All that to save a bump in IRS processing? The payback time would probably be measured in centuries.
They are not even remotely the same. Your representative and senator are supposed to listen to your opinion - it is their job. A judge is NOT supposed to listen to your opinion - he is supposed to know the law and apply it according to what happens in the courtroom. Your opinion (unless you happen to be on the jury) does not (and most certainly should not) matter at all in a court case. Trying to influence a judge outside of the courtroom proceedings is considered a very bad thing, no matter how it is done.
The problem with tiered web browsing is that unlike electricity, gas and water, the internet and technologies surrounding it have ALWAYS been developed with the ideals of unlimited bandwidth capabilities.
Got a citation for that? It seems to me that 'the internet' has always been designed with the very real fact of bandwidth limitations in mind (congestion algorithms, etc). It would be far fairer to say that some internet applications have been designed with the (completely faulty) ideal of unlimited bandwidth.
The only thing that allows any of those services to exist (for a price we can afford) is the switched network, and the idea behind the switched network is that no-one is using it all the time, and thus you are only paying for a tiny fraction of the cost of the network between you and NetFlix. As soon as you demand 'unlimited' downloads from NetFlix (eg) you are really in effect asking for a dedicated line from you to NetFlix. Do you really think you could afford that?
Verizon is an $85.5B company (market cap), not $1B. So first you need to raise at least $43B. Next, you need to convince the existing shareholders to sell at least half their shares. It doesn't take a financial genius to see that that is going to really drive up the price. So let's say you spent $55B and take over the company. Congratulations, now what do you do? I guess since you a 'freeing the net' you will now guarantee that all users can use their max download speed 24x7, no caps, right? Do you have anywhere near the infrastructure to do that? I can assure you, you do not. OK, so you need to beef up your infrastructure, shouldn't cost more than a few billion. Where does that money come from? Do you go back to your freedom fighters and say cough up a few more billion dollars? Do you pass this on to the customers? Say goodbye to the 99% of your customers that don't care in the slightest about bandwidth caps. Now the remaining 1% get to fund the entire operation. Sounds like quite the sound plan.
Are you serious? What DSLRs don't have manual focus? Certainly all the ones from Canon, Nikon, etc do. And I never heard of a camera that has '7 fixed focal lengths' - either the lens zooms or it doesn't. And focal length is not the same as focus. The only thing I am aware of that even sort of matches that description are the focus points. These have nothing to do with focal length (or manual focusing) - they just tell the AF mechanism what area of the image you want to be in focus (it doesn't have to be the center). You can always just switch off the AF completely and turn the focus ring yourself.
And somewhere in all those attempts, you get one that runs great, but is impossible to read/maintain. So you refactor it to make it maintainable. Because of something in the refactoring, performance suffers. What do you do now? Keep the one that runs great, or the one that is maintainable? If you use their new, patented method, you keep BOTH - one for the programmer, and the other for the compiler. How do they do this? I don't know - it is new and novel, and thus patented.
I don't mean from a performance point of view, I mean it physically can't drive the IO. There is no support for FICON, ESCON, or parallel channels. All the DASD on Hercules are emulated disks on the physical PC disk. Hot-backups usually involve twin-tailed IO or ICB connections between the systems, neither of which are available.
Where exactly are they attacking the project? Did they send a letter to the developers? Did they send a letter to the users? Did they make a general public announcement? Did they in any way threaten any of the above? In IBM's original pledge, they did have a clause that said the pledge was not valid if the other party initiated legal proceedings, which is what happened here. Look at it hypothetically: suppose IBM owns patents that cover something someone implemented and released under the GPL. Microsoft used that code. Now Microsoft sues some OSS developer. Would IBM be viewed as 'evil' if they used their patent as a weapon against Microsoft to get them to back down? Would anybody even bother making the ridiculous claim that IBM is attacking the OSS project?
I think it would be pretty hard to use Hercules as a hot-backup. It can't even drive the real IO (DASD).
It is not a 'patent attack', it is a patent counter-attack. TurboHercules is suing IBM, not the other way around. IBM has not counter-sued. What they have done is signal that if TurboHercules continues with their suit they can expect a world of hurt. IBM can absolutely allow Hercules (the OSS project) to survive and at the same time reduce TurboHercules (the company) to a cinder. There is no contradiction there.
The DMCA is for copyright, not patents. The particular patents are for new mainframe features, not old legacy stuff. zSeries is alive and well, it is certainly easily available (but expensive).
'The internet' (whatever that is) may be a public medium, but Facebooks' servers certainly are not. Facebook just happens to grant the public access to them. Furthermore, Facebook is not 'posting fliers' in public spaces, they are posting them in their private property. Granting access to the public does not mean you give up all your rights. For example, go down to your local mall (or, if that is too corporate, your favorite mom-and-pop corner store). They have it open to the public - you can walk right in without any passwords or signing any contracts. By your logic, you can now do whatever you want in there, because it is 'public'. Now engage in some behavior they do not approve of. Do you still have a 'right' to be in there? No, they will ask you to leave. If you don't leave, they can call the cops and get you forcibly ejected or arrested for trespass.
OK, so you make ME one. How does the rest of the world benefit from that? Do you think that only people who can afford to pay the full cost of production for something are entitled to it? Or am I somehow bound to release it to the rest of the world (for free)? Or are you free to give the work that I paid for to the rest of the world?
How exactly is copyright not merit based? Here is my offering - if you want it, pay me. What could be more merit based than that? Where does the god-given right to make money come from? If there is such an automatic right granted by copyright, why aren't you wealthy beyond your wildest dreams? After all, all you need to do is slap a copyright on something, and you can make a fortune.
This is nonsense. The GPL exists to keep open source open. Without copyright, that is not possible. Without copyright, I could take your source code, make my changes to it, stick that source code in a vault, just release the binaries, and there is nothing you can do about it. Or do you think that without copyright all source code just magically appears?
No, the logic is good. You can be liable for your robot breaking a contract (or a law). What he said however was that a robot can not enter into a contract, and that is correct. Entering a contract requires two parties to agree to something (be of one mind), and a robot can not do that (at least not something like a web crawler). Since no contract was entered into, neither party is bound by it.
Quick! Go read his FAQ! Right there under 'Can I low-level format my drive' it says 'not possible on any modern hardware'. Randomly poking bits at specific PHYSICAL locations (which is what the poster wants to do) is low-level formatting.
Nonsense. Asking a drive to write logical sector 1234 is trivial. Asking a drive to write a 1 to the location on platter 2, x microns from the edge, at y degrees of rotation (the actual physical address) is not possible without special drive electronics and firmware.
Yes, it certainly does mean that.
So basically you want the copyright holder to perform an impossible task before asserting their rights. It is most certainly NOT the copyright holders responsibility to do what you said, and nowhere in the law does it even imply that it is. The fair use provisions all come down to pretty much 'what is the intent of the use'. How is the copyright holder supposed to know that? That is something for the user to assert, not the copyright holder. I can't think of any situation where it is up to an accuser to provide a defense for the accused before making the accusation. Even if that were a requirement, how could they do it? It would at least require some basic communication to try to establish intent. Do you want YouTube to provide your contact info to any copyright holder who says they would like to talk to you?
But that is not what the GP was arguing. He was trying to make the claim that in order for something to be 'property' it must have intrinsic value. There is no intrinsic value in a bank account (or cash). The only reason it has any value at all is because there are laws stating it has value (and can be owned). Exactly the same as copyright.
Also, the only thing that copyright gives you is the EXCLUSIVE right to make/distribute copies. Once someone infringes their copyright they no longer have that - it is gone. Exactly like a bank account.