It is completely false that you have 'rights that others must attend to'. The only thing others 'have' to do is obey the law. If there is no law prohibiting me from doing something, then I am free to do it, whether or not it interferes with your rights. The Constitution says how laws are made, and what laws must or must not be made. That is, it controls the government, not individuals. I, as an individual, can not violate your rights (although I can break a law), because I, as an individual, do not have to recognize your rights.
This is completely false. Your rights (especially your so-called natural or god-given rights) put no requirements on me, and my rights put no requirements on you. If your rights put requirements on me, then I have, by definition, lost my own freedom.
It won't give us the ability to do anything we can't already do today, though.
Yes, it will. It will give you the ability to afford the technology, so that applications may turn up in places where you would not be able to put an Infinera type device.
How is it misleading? It says right in the summary that their claim is that the use silicon and "standard 90nm semiconductor processes". The Infinera site says that Infinera were able to accomplish their stuff 'by not having to evolve existing manufacturing'. So it sounds quite a bit different to me.
So the 'Linux Community' has access to Dell's designs and prototypes before they go on the market? If not, then how does the 'Linux Community' ensure that the product will work before Dell releases it?
Also, can you show me a site where the 'Linux Community' guarantees (as in, will replace the box) that any particular configuration of Linux will work on any specific box? No, you cannot, because they can't and don't do that. Dell does.
You don't seem to understand the difference between doing something for yourself, and creating a product for sale. Yes, if you are building your own PC you can do what you said, and if you're lucky it will work right out of the gate. If you're not so lucky you may have to do some tweaking, or otherwise understand that there are certain things that just don't quite work right. If you're putting your name on a product, selling it, and offering a warranty on it, that won't do. You don't want all of your customers discovering that after a few days or months of operation things stop working, because you decided that two minutes of testing was enough. You don't want all of your customers annoyed because things don't work quite right. You really don't want all your customers calling and complaining that after they got an update their computer stopped working because you picked a driver that was 'close enough' and now is not 'close enough'.
You forgot to divide the cost by expected sales. Sure the actual COST of doing the work may be the same for Windows and Linux, but if you are expecting to sell 100 Windows boxes for every Linux box, each Linux box is going to have 100x more of that cost passed to the buyer.
'Just picking the right parts' does not happen for free. Somebody has to find 'the right parts' (that also fit in with the other requirements of the box (including price point). Somebody has to verify that 'the right parts' do indeed work with the distro you are using. Somebody has to create the install image, and verify that it is good. Somebody has to decide how much of the production run should be devoted to this config. Somebody has to find room in the warehouse to store a different config. Somebody has to ensure that those boxes are actually getting sold and not just collecting dust. Somebody has to write (and test) the call center scripts. Somebody has to update the sales system to include the new config (including it's description).
None of that stuff is free. So you add up how much you are spending doing all those things, and divide it by the expected number of sales. That is how much is costs per box.
So what you are saying is that in the absence of these tools the data centers would NOT fail? That is just stupid. With the tools, the data centers are RECOVERING from failure, or AVOIDING failure, or some such. Take out those important words, and you convey the exact opposite meaning from that which was intended. At that is pretty much the definition of a really crappy headline.
Still doesn't make sense. In your example, running is what the Olympian wants to do, and Nike is giving him the shoes to do it. This stupid headline makes it sound like failing is the goal, and Netflix is helping them accomplish failure.
Nope. Copyright violations are violations of a specific law, with penalties for that violation set down in the law. No damages need to be proven, only that a certain prohibited act was committed. Just like with theft. The only thing you have right is that it would be handled in civil court, thus shifting the burden of prosecuting the case to the infringed party instead of the state.
I don't know why you thought that, since this entire thread contains no reference to enforceability in court. It does, on the other hand, contain discussion on whether all value can be expressed as money or not, and whether or not things that have no monetary value can still be valuable.
All that is required for infrigment purposes is the ACT of copying or distributing. And since you can not calculate the 'value' of the harm in any meaningful way (because all of the value is based on either unknown future or personal/human value), the consequences of performing that act have been assigned by statute.
Yes, but that is still not access to the source code. If decompliing or reverse engineering is the equivalent to having the source code, then why does the GPL require distribution of the source? Instead, the license could just prevent you from disallowing reverse engineering or decompiling. In this case, you could just decompile the whole Linux kernel, and you have the source. Surely that is good enough?
Eliminating copyright would not eliminate the need for the GPL. Source would not magically appear if copyright were eliminated. Even in the absense of copyright source code can still be protected, both by technical means (keep it tightly secured, encrypt it, use a proprietary language to write it, whatever) and legal means (trade secrets, NDAs for anyone seeing it, etc). Eliminating copyright would make the GPL impossible, no matter how people try to spin it.
OK, so you answered half of my question - your child is valuable to you, which is as it should be. But now for the second half of the question - can your child be replaced with money?
When someone's house is destroyed, what do you most often hear them say? They aren't bemoaning the loss of wood and bricks, or even a place to live. Insurance can fix those things with money. What they are most sad about is the loss of stuff that had great value to them, and which can not be replaced with money. Photographs of their parents, their grandmothers china set, the marks on the wall where they measured their children, a pet. Those things have enormous human value and zero monetary value. They can not be measured, 'objectively' or otherwise, with money.
While 'conversion to money' sometimes is directly useful for making up for a loss, it is also useful as punishment for the person causing the loss, even when the loss itself can not be replaced.
That is complete nonsense. If you (not being the author) violate the GPL (by requiring an NDA for instance), then you have no authorization to distribute AT ALL. Copyright law makes that so, and law trumps contracts.
Of course, if you are the author of the code you can put whatever requirements you want on it, including an NDA. But then you aren't releasing it as GPL code, so there is no point in mentioning it here.
Your statement would imply that if Joe writes a song, and Bobby gives that song to Jane under some contract, Joe magically lost his rights. Complete nonsense.
So are you saying that your child's life has no value to you, or that your child can be replaced with money? Both of those statements are (hopefully) equally stupid.
Money is sometimes used as a (poor) substitute to make up for lost value, but saying that money is value is just stupid.
Of course, that is true of many crimes. If you take an apple from a store without paying, is it only theft if it can be proved that the apple would otherwise have been sold? No, of course not. If you tap into your neighbors cable, is it only theft of service if the cable company is now unable to supply another customer? No. If you kill someone, does the punishment vary based on proof of how long the person would otherwise have lived? No.
This is why laws specify specific prohibited actions, not altered potential futures, and the consequences of performing those actions.
All of them are obviously (having listed them) possible ways you could unlock a phone. NONE of them are obviously THE way to unlock a phone.
I am thinking of several other ways to unlock a phone right now. I bet you can't list them all. I also bet that if I told you what they were you would claim they were obvious.
China does not ignore IP law. China just ignores everyone else's rights while enforcing their own (they file more patents than anyone else). Of course they owe quite a bit of their boom to that. It is damn easy to have boom when you eliminate all the pesky costs of actually developing something and get your competitors to pay for the development instead.
And here is the crux of the problem. What, exactly, makes slide-to-unlock 'obvious', other than the fact that someone else did it? 'Obviously it can work' is not a flaw in a patent, it is a requirement.
Before anyone ever did slide-to-unlock, how many different answers do you think you would get if you asked a roomful of phone designers 'how do you unlock a phone'? If the answer is more than one (slide), then it is NOT obvious. And I am betting you would get a whole bunch of answers (tap, press and hold, touch multiple spots at once, touch multiple spots in a sequence, etc).
Slashdot Mirror
It is completely false that you have 'rights that others must attend to'. The only thing others 'have' to do is obey the law. If there is no law prohibiting me from doing something, then I am free to do it, whether or not it interferes with your rights. The Constitution says how laws are made, and what laws must or must not be made. That is, it controls the government, not individuals. I, as an individual, can not violate your rights (although I can break a law), because I, as an individual, do not have to recognize your rights.
This is completely false. Your rights (especially your so-called natural or god-given rights) put no requirements on me, and my rights put no requirements on you. If your rights put requirements on me, then I have, by definition, lost my own freedom.
It won't give us the ability to do anything we can't already do today, though.
Yes, it will. It will give you the ability to afford the technology, so that applications may turn up in places where you would not be able to put an Infinera type device.
How is it misleading? It says right in the summary that their claim is that the use silicon and "standard 90nm semiconductor processes". The Infinera site says that Infinera were able to accomplish their stuff 'by not having to evolve existing manufacturing'. So it sounds quite a bit different to me.
So the 'Linux Community' has access to Dell's designs and prototypes before they go on the market? If not, then how does the 'Linux Community' ensure that the product will work before Dell releases it?
Also, can you show me a site where the 'Linux Community' guarantees (as in, will replace the box) that any particular configuration of Linux will work on any specific box? No, you cannot, because they can't and don't do that. Dell does.
You don't seem to understand the difference between doing something for yourself, and creating a product for sale. Yes, if you are building your own PC you can do what you said, and if you're lucky it will work right out of the gate. If you're not so lucky you may have to do some tweaking, or otherwise understand that there are certain things that just don't quite work right. If you're putting your name on a product, selling it, and offering a warranty on it, that won't do. You don't want all of your customers discovering that after a few days or months of operation things stop working, because you decided that two minutes of testing was enough. You don't want all of your customers annoyed because things don't work quite right. You really don't want all your customers calling and complaining that after they got an update their computer stopped working because you picked a driver that was 'close enough' and now is not 'close enough'.
You forgot to divide the cost by expected sales. Sure the actual COST of doing the work may be the same for Windows and Linux, but if you are expecting to sell 100 Windows boxes for every Linux box, each Linux box is going to have 100x more of that cost passed to the buyer.
'Just picking the right parts' does not happen for free. Somebody has to find 'the right parts' (that also fit in with the other requirements of the box (including price point). Somebody has to verify that 'the right parts' do indeed work with the distro you are using. Somebody has to create the install image, and verify that it is good. Somebody has to decide how much of the production run should be devoted to this config. Somebody has to find room in the warehouse to store a different config. Somebody has to ensure that those boxes are actually getting sold and not just collecting dust. Somebody has to write (and test) the call center scripts. Somebody has to update the sales system to include the new config (including it's description).
None of that stuff is free. So you add up how much you are spending doing all those things, and divide it by the expected number of sales. That is how much is costs per box.
So what you are saying is that in the absence of these tools the data centers would NOT fail? That is just stupid. With the tools, the data centers are RECOVERING from failure, or AVOIDING failure, or some such. Take out those important words, and you convey the exact opposite meaning from that which was intended. At that is pretty much the definition of a really crappy headline.
Still doesn't make sense. In your example, running is what the Olympian wants to do, and Nike is giving him the shoes to do it. This stupid headline makes it sound like failing is the goal, and Netflix is helping them accomplish failure.
How much of a refund do you get if you don't want the 'vendor-forced' processor, memory, motherboard, power supply, etc?
Nope. Copyright violations are violations of a specific law, with penalties for that violation set down in the law. No damages need to be proven, only that a certain prohibited act was committed. Just like with theft. The only thing you have right is that it would be handled in civil court, thus shifting the burden of prosecuting the case to the infringed party instead of the state.
I don't know why you thought that, since this entire thread contains no reference to enforceability in court. It does, on the other hand, contain discussion on whether all value can be expressed as money or not, and whether or not things that have no monetary value can still be valuable.
All that is required for infrigment purposes is the ACT of copying or distributing. And since you can not calculate the 'value' of the harm in any meaningful way (because all of the value is based on either unknown future or personal/human value), the consequences of performing that act have been assigned by statute.
Yes, but that is still not access to the source code. If decompliing or reverse engineering is the equivalent to having the source code, then why does the GPL require distribution of the source? Instead, the license could just prevent you from disallowing reverse engineering or decompiling. In this case, you could just decompile the whole Linux kernel, and you have the source. Surely that is good enough?
Eliminating copyright would not eliminate the need for the GPL. Source would not magically appear if copyright were eliminated. Even in the absense of copyright source code can still be protected, both by technical means (keep it tightly secured, encrypt it, use a proprietary language to write it, whatever) and legal means (trade secrets, NDAs for anyone seeing it, etc). Eliminating copyright would make the GPL impossible, no matter how people try to spin it.
OK, so you answered half of my question - your child is valuable to you, which is as it should be. But now for the second half of the question - can your child be replaced with money?
When someone's house is destroyed, what do you most often hear them say? They aren't bemoaning the loss of wood and bricks, or even a place to live. Insurance can fix those things with money. What they are most sad about is the loss of stuff that had great value to them, and which can not be replaced with money. Photographs of their parents, their grandmothers china set, the marks on the wall where they measured their children, a pet. Those things have enormous human value and zero monetary value. They can not be measured, 'objectively' or otherwise, with money.
While 'conversion to money' sometimes is directly useful for making up for a loss, it is also useful as punishment for the person causing the loss, even when the loss itself can not be replaced.
That is complete nonsense. If you (not being the author) violate the GPL (by requiring an NDA for instance), then you have no authorization to distribute AT ALL. Copyright law makes that so, and law trumps contracts.
Of course, if you are the author of the code you can put whatever requirements you want on it, including an NDA. But then you aren't releasing it as GPL code, so there is no point in mentioning it here.
Your statement would imply that if Joe writes a song, and Bobby gives that song to Jane under some contract, Joe magically lost his rights. Complete nonsense.
So are you saying that your child's life has no value to you, or that your child can be replaced with money? Both of those statements are (hopefully) equally stupid.
Money is sometimes used as a (poor) substitute to make up for lost value, but saying that money is value is just stupid.
Of course, that is true of many crimes. If you take an apple from a store without paying, is it only theft if it can be proved that the apple would otherwise have been sold? No, of course not. If you tap into your neighbors cable, is it only theft of service if the cable company is now unable to supply another customer? No. If you kill someone, does the punishment vary based on proof of how long the person would otherwise have lived? No.
This is why laws specify specific prohibited actions, not altered potential futures, and the consequences of performing those actions.
How exactly would he be able to get the source code? How does loss of copyright make source code magically appear?
All of them are obviously (having listed them) possible ways you could unlock a phone. NONE of them are obviously THE way to unlock a phone.
I am thinking of several other ways to unlock a phone right now. I bet you can't list them all. I also bet that if I told you what they were you would claim they were obvious.
So name them.
China does not ignore IP law. China just ignores everyone else's rights while enforcing their own (they file more patents than anyone else). Of course they owe quite a bit of their boom to that. It is damn easy to have boom when you eliminate all the pesky costs of actually developing something and get your competitors to pay for the development instead.
And here is the crux of the problem. What, exactly, makes slide-to-unlock 'obvious', other than the fact that someone else did it? 'Obviously it can work' is not a flaw in a patent, it is a requirement.
Before anyone ever did slide-to-unlock, how many different answers do you think you would get if you asked a roomful of phone designers 'how do you unlock a phone'? If the answer is more than one (slide), then it is NOT obvious. And I am betting you would get a whole bunch of answers (tap, press and hold, touch multiple spots at once, touch multiple spots in a sequence, etc).
No, I have not considered that, because nobody has shown any evidence of it. What innovations have been blocked due to patents?