The copyright only restricts redistribution of derivative works, not just works with some common elements like pointy ears and character references, and even setting references. So for this lawsuit to proceed, plaintiffs would have to identify which exact work is Axanar derived work of, that is adaptation(for example, a movie based on a novel) or translation or some other similar transformation. Naming Star Trek in general is insufficient because it's not a work but a group of works. Fair use is a moot point here, because there is no claim in the first place against which fair use defense would be needed. Given that judge has let the case proceed does it mean he's using some other definition of copyright? Why it wasn't enshrined in law? People can't be expected to comply with unwritten laws which they don't even know to exist.
And? Definitely not all immaterial things can have value. The original argument just attempted to stealthily assert that this particular kind of things has intrinsic value and prevent the possibility of discussion of whether it actually does by presenting it in such context that rules for material things could be incorrectly used.
Nope, it is you who depended on semantics. Because indeed "something" doesn't imply something material in general, yet in context of buying and selling it does. So your argument is based on mixing of two subtle variations of meaning of one word.
Nobody says that "things" should be free. Only physical things can be actually traded though. Artifacts of culture can't. They have different properties that make them ineligible as objects of trade. I must insist that you stop pretending that there even exist tradeable goods in this particular case because that asserting this would be outright scam.
They use Russia as political scapegoat, always blaming it for any possible geopolitical snafus. The same strategy was used by Soviet government before. They really liked to blame slightest setbacks on capitalist aggressors from US. In fact abusing such easy solution to internal problems will backfire. Not only people will refuse to believe at some point, but also internal problems from which that trickery distracted attention will not be solved. And abuse definitely happens. Like even Snowden was forced to stay in Russia, only because that was the most "geopolitically advantageous" country for his stay, to maximally discredit him.
But you need to always remember that more money isn't automatically more work done. In practice access to more money leads to their inefficient use. Also, 4 times as much R&D isn't that much if you take possible inefficiency of spending into account. And market capitalization is very subjective measure.
Information security regulations is something Hilary would feel beneath her to follow. She wouldn't want some four-eyed nerds to tell her what to do, and if any negative consequences would come out of this it'll be their fault that rules were too inconvenient.
I didn't say it's insufficient time. It's sufficient for what they actually do. But administering entire country isn't done by a single person in any case. It's done by teams of administrators at many territorial levels, and presidents are merely figureheads. And the point is that a single limited term isn't enough to take place in one of such teams. Either new president is already a team player or his decisions will get disregarded. So basically president is less important than most people think.. No major reform comes from particular president, it's always a team effort.
Clinton, Bush, Trump.. so many attempts to establish a dynasty. I wonder how soon one of them wins and USA will be formally declared constitutional monarchy.
There isn't a better side. The president is a cosmetic figure who doesn't govern day to day affairs. Someone who is changed every 5 years simply doesn't have enough time to become an effective administrator. Instead president has to rely on actual bureaucrats who implement what they want. And president's only job is to present those bureaucratic decisions to people and to convince them that those are good decisions.
Trolls are by definition people who enjoy causing strife by broaching subjects that cause friction. They're not political propagandists. Trolling isn't a good tool of propaganda because heart of trolling isn't creating falsehood but uncovering unpleasant truth. And such truth seeking does never serve a particular political need. So in my mind calling potential Kremlin propagandists trolls implies that they bring up unpleasant truth. While generally actual propagandists work by highlighting truths that further political goals while downplaying unpleasant truths that doesn't. So basically accusing propagandists in trolling is tantamount to complaining that there's too much truth in propaganda..
But if you resell some physical good, say, a car or a clothes iron it won't be a loss for original vendor right? The root of issue that no actual good is sold in case of ebook, this word simply doesn't apply to this transaction. It's applied incorrectly and it results in internal inconsistency allowing many different interpretations. Thus ebook "sellers" try to push interpretation favoring themselves and ebook "resellers" push other interpretation favoring themselves.
How is it removed from reality when so many DRM schemes were reversed and then crackers posted detailed accounts of how they did it? Anyone who isn't aware of this is most definitely ignorant of issues surrounding DRM systems.
Code being closed means next to nothing to DRM crackers. They just undo encryption/obfuscation and RE it with IDA Pro or some other code analyzer or disassembler. No source being available can only hamper people who try to be law abiding or can't spare extra effort to contribute to closed systems(which is pretty much everyone except DRM crackers).
I don't see how it follows. You can modify software even if it's closed source. It's still under user's control. You can state that doing so is illegal or ensure integrity using signing, but this approach works exactly the same with open source. It doesn't change anything at all.
There is no rational reason why anything, including games should be closed source. Currently the situation works out to be defacto donation sponsored software(most people pirate and only "buy" to support makers that they like). Enshrining the donation based model explicitly would have the benefit of allowing source to be open, and thus make it easier to develop third party plugins, or just make system easier to study for purpose of troubleshooting. But most makers insist on closed source/"commercial" model for ideological reasons. In the end open source trend will take over games just like any other software. Games are always a bit behind on trends like that because of their nature. Games aren't mission critical software thus makers can afford to be less rational and more ideology motivated because no real life goal can suffer as result (control system for nuclear plant this isn't).
There already were situations in history when population growths outpaced available occupation opportunities and the ability of people to readjust their skillsets. There's nothing new about it. This leads to social unrest and eventually to civil war. A good civil war both allows us to readjust administrative institutions to handle new economic realities and also alleviates overpopulation problem a bit.
Both kinds of office are extremely inefficient and require a lot of training to use effectively. But even if they can't even afford the costs of training with libreoffice then ms office is even more likely to be a failure. Many people think that ms office is obvious and known to everyone, but going, say, from ms office xp to ms office 2003 will take as much training as going to libreoffice. And, naturally, MS will always expect them to use latest and greatest things with greatest retraining costs. So, you could as well go with libreoffice in any case. If you fail with it then you would fail with office 2016 either.
It was always totally acceptable for everyone except the minority concerned about inequality and cronyism, aka commies. So they decided to do this leak to cause a rift between Russian commies and commies from the rest of the word. Divide et impera.
One makes electronic devices, other makes leather products. I simply don't see how there can even be a dispute given that trademark applies only to particular product category.
You say it like Left is an ideology. It isn't. It's just designation of a split in particular parliament. Exact ideological leanings change with time and is different in different parliaments.
Slashdot Mirror
The copyright only restricts redistribution of derivative works, not just works with some common elements like pointy ears and character references, and even setting references. So for this lawsuit to proceed, plaintiffs would have to identify which exact work is Axanar derived work of, that is adaptation(for example, a movie based on a novel) or translation or some other similar transformation. Naming Star Trek in general is insufficient because it's not a work but a group of works. Fair use is a moot point here, because there is no claim in the first place against which fair use defense would be needed. Given that judge has let the case proceed does it mean he's using some other definition of copyright? Why it wasn't enshrined in law? People can't be expected to comply with unwritten laws which they don't even know to exist.
And? Definitely not all immaterial things can have value. The original argument just attempted to stealthily assert that this particular kind of things has intrinsic value and prevent the possibility of discussion of whether it actually does by presenting it in such context that rules for material things could be incorrectly used.
Nope, it is you who depended on semantics. Because indeed "something" doesn't imply something material in general, yet in context of buying and selling it does. So your argument is based on mixing of two subtle variations of meaning of one word.
Nobody says that "things" should be free. Only physical things can be actually traded though. Artifacts of culture can't. They have different properties that make them ineligible as objects of trade. I must insist that you stop pretending that there even exist tradeable goods in this particular case because that asserting this would be outright scam.
They use Russia as political scapegoat, always blaming it for any possible geopolitical snafus. The same strategy was used by Soviet government before. They really liked to blame slightest setbacks on capitalist aggressors from US. In fact abusing such easy solution to internal problems will backfire. Not only people will refuse to believe at some point, but also internal problems from which that trickery distracted attention will not be solved. And abuse definitely happens. Like even Snowden was forced to stay in Russia, only because that was the most "geopolitically advantageous" country for his stay, to maximally discredit him.
But you need to always remember that more money isn't automatically more work done. In practice access to more money leads to their inefficient use. Also, 4 times as much R&D isn't that much if you take possible inefficiency of spending into account. And market capitalization is very subjective measure.
Information security regulations is something Hilary would feel beneath her to follow. She wouldn't want some four-eyed nerds to tell her what to do, and if any negative consequences would come out of this it'll be their fault that rules were too inconvenient.
I didn't say it's insufficient time. It's sufficient for what they actually do. But administering entire country isn't done by a single person in any case. It's done by teams of administrators at many territorial levels, and presidents are merely figureheads. And the point is that a single limited term isn't enough to take place in one of such teams. Either new president is already a team player or his decisions will get disregarded. So basically president is less important than most people think.. No major reform comes from particular president, it's always a team effort.
Clinton, Bush, Trump.. so many attempts to establish a dynasty. I wonder how soon one of them wins and USA will be formally declared constitutional monarchy.
There isn't a better side. The president is a cosmetic figure who doesn't govern day to day affairs. Someone who is changed every 5 years simply doesn't have enough time to become an effective administrator. Instead president has to rely on actual bureaucrats who implement what they want. And president's only job is to present those bureaucratic decisions to people and to convince them that those are good decisions.
Trolls are by definition people who enjoy causing strife by broaching subjects that cause friction. They're not political propagandists. Trolling isn't a good tool of propaganda because heart of trolling isn't creating falsehood but uncovering unpleasant truth. And such truth seeking does never serve a particular political need. So in my mind calling potential Kremlin propagandists trolls implies that they bring up unpleasant truth. While generally actual propagandists work by highlighting truths that further political goals while downplaying unpleasant truths that doesn't. So basically accusing propagandists in trolling is tantamount to complaining that there's too much truth in propaganda..
But if you resell some physical good, say, a car or a clothes iron it won't be a loss for original vendor right? The root of issue that no actual good is sold in case of ebook, this word simply doesn't apply to this transaction. It's applied incorrectly and it results in internal inconsistency allowing many different interpretations. Thus ebook "sellers" try to push interpretation favoring themselves and ebook "resellers" push other interpretation favoring themselves.
How is it removed from reality when so many DRM schemes were reversed and then crackers posted detailed accounts of how they did it? Anyone who isn't aware of this is most definitely ignorant of issues surrounding DRM systems.
Code being closed means next to nothing to DRM crackers. They just undo encryption/obfuscation and RE it with IDA Pro or some other code analyzer or disassembler. No source being available can only hamper people who try to be law abiding or can't spare extra effort to contribute to closed systems(which is pretty much everyone except DRM crackers).
Him looking like fool wouldn't be a problem for Paramount or those lawyers..
I don't see how it follows. You can modify software even if it's closed source. It's still under user's control. You can state that doing so is illegal or ensure integrity using signing, but this approach works exactly the same with open source. It doesn't change anything at all.
There is no rational reason why anything, including games should be closed source. Currently the situation works out to be defacto donation sponsored software(most people pirate and only "buy" to support makers that they like). Enshrining the donation based model explicitly would have the benefit of allowing source to be open, and thus make it easier to develop third party plugins, or just make system easier to study for purpose of troubleshooting. But most makers insist on closed source/"commercial" model for ideological reasons. In the end open source trend will take over games just like any other software. Games are always a bit behind on trends like that because of their nature. Games aren't mission critical software thus makers can afford to be less rational and more ideology motivated because no real life goal can suffer as result (control system for nuclear plant this isn't).
There's really no reason for DRM system to be closed source. Only encryption keys need to be secret, not entire system.
There already were situations in history when population growths outpaced available occupation opportunities and the ability of people to readjust their skillsets. There's nothing new about it. This leads to social unrest and eventually to civil war. A good civil war both allows us to readjust administrative institutions to handle new economic realities and also alleviates overpopulation problem a bit.
Both kinds of office are extremely inefficient and require a lot of training to use effectively. But even if they can't even afford the costs of training with libreoffice then ms office is even more likely to be a failure. Many people think that ms office is obvious and known to everyone, but going, say, from ms office xp to ms office 2003 will take as much training as going to libreoffice. And, naturally, MS will always expect them to use latest and greatest things with greatest retraining costs. So, you could as well go with libreoffice in any case. If you fail with it then you would fail with office 2016 either.
It was always totally acceptable for everyone except the minority concerned about inequality and cronyism, aka commies. So they decided to do this leak to cause a rift between Russian commies and commies from the rest of the word. Divide et impera.
One makes electronic devices, other makes leather products. I simply don't see how there can even be a dispute given that trademark applies only to particular product category.
You say it like Left is an ideology. It isn't. It's just designation of a split in particular parliament. Exact ideological leanings change with time and is different in different parliaments.
No,it's security issue. If even toddlers can steal money so easily then imagine what a proper real criminal could do.
Only Stalin would consider such a situation being like communism, and he was a moron.