The problem with that is that the *only* way you can prove the veracity of your statement is in court, and the only way to end up in court is to start a lawsuit (difficult and expensive) or to be on the receiving end of a lawsuit (also difficult and expensive.) More importantly, as far as I can tell, there is no provision in the DMCA that would allow the court to say, "whoops, you were correct - sorry about all this trouble." Even if you *proove* that you are right in a court of law, you are *still* a criminal under the DMCA. The truth of what you did or did not discover has nothing to do with the charges against you. That is what is fundamentally wrong with the DMCA. It is a law that makes speaking the truth about certain types of things a criminal offense.
The first amendment does not protect your ability to instruct people about the precise details of the flaw and how to exploit it.
Yes, it does.
If I am not allowed to show that a flaw does indeeed exist in the product, and that it is an exploitable flaw, then I am in a situation where anything I say about the flaw can result in my being charged with libel, because I am not allowed to prove to anyone that my statements about the product are true.
I sincerely doubt that there are very many analogous situations in the legal system - where you are prevented, by law, from providing evidence in your own defense.
Dont forget about all the people who have the most expensive and lowest speed DSL, iDSL. DSL over ISDN.
Expensive? Yes.
Lowest speed? Yes.
Better than dialup? Oh, yeah.
I live on a farm in a rural area a few miles outside of Pittsburgh, PA. IIRC, we're 19K feet from the CO. When we moved in, iDSL was the best connection we could get - and it probably will be the best available for years to come. Even a cable connection isn't an option. For the past three years, the local company has been promising that digital cable will be rolled out in our area Real Soon Now. Yep, sure, any day.
iDSL may not be blindingly fast, but the only time I really notice it is when I'm doing a large download. VPN to the office network, CVS access, web browsing, online games - our iDSL line gives more than adequate performance. If it's all you have available to you, it's certainly usable.
Half your job for the first few years is just keep them alive from risks like light sockets, busy streets, falling down stairs, etc.
I have a friend who commented that young children only seem like they're actively trying to kill themselves... you don't actually get to see someone completely focused on becoming a Darwin award winner until you have a teenager.
The GUI API is created for every taget platform, so the final code wont run without modifications in other hardware than the one you used to create the program.
Only partially true. Yes, SWT is platform-specific - that was a design decision made by OTI to deal with the (then current, and still current) problems with Swing performance. If you use Eclipse or SWT, you're restricted to only being able to run on a subset of platforms...
Windows 98/ME/2000/XP
Linux (x86/Motif)
Linux (x86/GTK 2)
Solaris 8 (SPARC/Motif)
QNX (x86/Photon)
AIX (PPC/Motif)
HP-UX (HP9000/Motif)
So, really, it's hardly as limited as you make it out to be. On top of that, as an open source project, all the code is available - if you have a need to port SWT to run with a specific windowing system, you can do it. It's my understanding that the OS X port is at least partially a result of this kind of effort.
Right now, I'm working on a cross-platform product that we build under Linux, and runs under Windows and Linux (GTK and Motif). We also build a Solaris test version. Should we want to support AIX, OS X, or HP-UX, that's a simple and straightforward addition. Considering that with Windows, Linux, OS X and Solaris we can probably cover 99% of the workstation platforms our clients use, SWT is hardly a liability.
That's all I can say... they've certainly packed an awful lot into this release. The JDT team, in particular, seems to be consistent about picking up some of the best features of other IDEs and editors and incorporating them into Eclipse.
If you do Java development, I'd recommend giving Eclipse a try. I've been using it for about a year now, to do plugin developent for Eclipse itself, and I'm still finding out new tricks and shortcuts to make my life easier.
If you do C/C++ development, check out the CDT project. While the current incarnation (1.0.1) of CDT is definitely usable, there's a lot of work going on to expand the capabilities of the C/C++ support and bring it up to par with the Java development tools - adding in things like incremental compilation, source navigation/browsing, refactoring, and all the other IDE goodies that Java devlopers already enjoy.
Plus - there's over 250 plugins available for Eclipse, including things like an RSS channel monitor for slashdot in your IDE.
Why are you assuming a single signal?
on
8.6 GB Internet?
·
· Score: 1
Also a standard pc bus can not handle the load. This makes any card that can receive the signal at such a high speed useless.
Let's say a DVD holds 3 hours of video. If you can transfer the same DVD contents 5 seconds over this connection, that means that you can transfer information... (3*60*60)/5 = 2160 times as fast as a DVD player requires. So, rather than one DVD every 5 seconds, you could transfer ~2000 DVDs along the same channel at the same time; which one you watched would be a matter of "tuning" in on the right time-slice.
There are conventions on war - agreements between nations as to what kind of conduct is allowed and what is not allowed during times of war. It is legal for your superiors to order you to do that which is allowed ("Kill those soldiers!") and illegal for your superiors to order you to do that which is not allowed ("Kill those children!").
I don't know about the military forces of other nations, but the US Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) makes a distinction between legal and illegal orders:
UCMJ, Section 14c(2)(a)(i)
Inference of lawfulness. A order requiring the performance of a military duty or act may be inferred to be lawful and it is disobeyed at the peril of the subordinate. This inference does not apply to a patently illegal order, such as one that directs the commission of a crime.
Aside from that, you can take a look at what the US US Army training on the UCMJ has to say about illegal orders:
Illegal Orders
Definition: Orders that do not relate to "military duty." They do not:
Accomplish a military mission or
Safeguard or promote morale, discipline, and usefulness of soldiers and
Directly connected to good order in the Army
There is no obligation for a soldier to obey an illegal order. However, soldiers disobey at own risk.
Your Response to an Illegal Order
Clarify the order with the superior (You might have misunderstood!).
Next, inform the superior that you believe the order is illegal.
If the illegal order stands, request to speak with the company commander or a higher-level commander.
Surely those who target primarily Linux use it as their main desktop OS.
Probably true for those who target only Linux. Those doing cross-platform development will probably use whatever platform their most comfortable on, and (if they have any sense) they'll use a mix of platforms for development and testing starting from day one. At work, I currently have two Linux boxes for testing and development, though I tend to prefer W2K + Cygwin.
If you read RMS' statement, there's an excellent reply that states:
...you are unwilling to participate in these events unless these events acknowledge the existence of the Free Software Movement. Yet by refusing to speak about the Free Software Movement to them, you further marginalize yourself. You refuse to educate the public about something they may not be aware exists.
I can understand why RMS doesn't want to act in a way that would seem to compromise his ideals. While that's great - and important - he apparently extends his idealism to the point where he's not willing to talk to you unless you start the conversation on his terms. While it might be an ego boost to only argue with people who agree with you, it does get in the way of actually convincing people to accept your point of view in the first place.
To be a public document, the document has to be owned by the public (a.k.a., public domain, a.k.a. not copyrighted)--either by expiration, by legislation or by original owner's waiver of rights.
So... one of the tests to determine if something can be copyrighted is if it is copyrighted? Well, sure...
In any case - the passage in question refered to lists and tables contained in public documents and other sources, not to any available public document. So that's one place your library analogy breaks down. Another place it breaks down is that the works in a library are already under copyright - there's no need to determine whether or not they are copyrightable, yes? The intent of the rule seems to imply that if you make a list or table of data available to the public - and that list or table of data is the entirety of the work - then it is not something that can be covered by copyright. The organization and presentation of such a list, yes, but not the data itself (as others comments here have pointed out.)
Works consisting entirely of information that is common property and containing no original authorship (for example: standard calendars, height and weight charts, tape measures and rulers, and lists or tables taken from public documents or other common sources)
Emphasis added. I think you could reasonably argue that the website fell into the category of "public document or other common sources". If they tabulate their data and make it available on the webite - which I'm willing to bet is the case - then it would seem that the US Copyright Office would not conisder the information to be copyrightable[1], unless they're using "public documents" in some twisted legal sense...
"Your Honor, these documents were available to the public, but they were not 'public documents' as specified in section 10, paragraph 3, subparagraph 6a of Title 3 of the Maleficient Goombah code."
Legacy X86 is dying. But really, how much die space does the 386 real mode take up? A few hundred thousand transistors? That's nothing these days so it's worth keeping it around even if only 0.001% of your customers make use of it simply from a marketing perspective.
Sorry - I don't buy that. You're talking about an industry that has prospered over the past 20 years largely by creating the perception that there is a continual need to upgrade. They'd probably be quite cheerful as they sold 0.001% of their market a special, expensive, backwards-compatible chip for legacy systems.
Even then, they are too primitive for Linux. For instance, they have only basic concepts of dependancies.
Or, perhaps, Linux dependencies are too complex? I've lost track of the number of times I've had to do the "upgrade tango" and install a dozen different packages just to satisfy the dependencies for a program I needed. More often than not, I've decided that a stable system was more valuable than trying to figure out what an upgrade to libfoo-2.11a would break.
Windows has "DLL Hell"; Linux has "Dependency Hell". I'd rather see a general solution to the problem of overly complex dependencies on Linux than yet another package manager. Hiding complexity is well and good, when you have no other choice; hiding complexity because solving the problem the Right Way (whatever that is) is just putting bandage on a more serious problem.
A small innocent source code file in the collection of hundreds of source code files can change the behaviour of a program in an unpleasant way.
That's a true statement about any program. Just try tossing in a random uninitialized pointer or runtime exception here or there in any utility function, rebuild, and see what happens.
I've written "aspect"-like code before... a system that I worked on not too long ago (hey, Honus!) made use of a pretty nice set of functions and macros in order to:
trace function call entry
do parameter checking
log return values
log exceptions/unexpected return values
This involved manually adding the appropriate macro at the start and end of each function. A pain in the butt, and the inevitable tyop came back to bite you hard:-/ IMHO, this is the type of problem that aspect oriented programming is intended to solve.
Yah, improperly coding an aspect could cause all sorts of heartache and difficult to solve problems. But... when we did the same thing by hand, it still caused heartache and difficult to solve problems. I'll take AOP (supported by an AOP-aware debugger) over doing this sort of thing by hand any day of the week.
Have you ever tried talking to a reporter about something vaguely scientific?
No, but this is similar...
True story:
I was working for a startup named CoManage a couple of years ago. They were making network management software for the telcom industry. We had a reporter come in to do the obligatory, "Wow, look at these crazy dot-com folks!" story, and he stopped to ask me what my job was.
So, choosing my words carefully - I don't want to start spouting weird terms at him right away - I start describing what I'm working on.
"Network resource discovery... locating and identifying the equipment on a network, and the services that are..."
"No, no," he interrupts. "That's too much. Can you give me one sentence that tells me what you're doing, in words you grandmother could understand?"
So I just looked back at him for a few seconds, my brain spinning. I could explain it to my grandma - I mean, I had explained it to her when I took the job - but it took me a whole lot more than one setnence.
So I finally just shrugged, and said, "No. No I, can't." Mr. reporter went away and ended up interviewing someone in QA, I think, where he could get a decent soundbite.
Your email address is public much as your snail address is public.
I think it's more like your phone number. Your physical address is a matter of public record because it's a matter of public interest - there are numerous government agencies (postal service, law enforcement, fire stations, EMT) that need to know your phycial address in order to function properly.
It isn't nearly as important that your phone number be a matter of public record, and so it is possible to request an unlisted phone number. Likewise, I think you should be able to have a reasonable expecation of privacy for your email address, and the government should honor this expectation by assuming that you do not want your address / phone number / fax number / pager number / cell phone number / email address / other personal information distributed unless you've given them explicit permission to do so.
I suspect that the recording companies would reject the analogy to investment firms and argue that relatively few acts ever make a profit, so they have every reason to take their profits when they do.
But of course, that's the point. If they didn't take their profits when they do, then many, many more acts would be profitable... but the recording companies wouldn't make quite as much money, and (heaven forbid) would actually have to take on some amount of risk along with the band.
As things stand, the recording companies structure deals so that they always make a profit, no matter what. To the recording companies, an "unprofitable" band is one that they do not have to pay any money. See the small problem here?
Did anyone else find that the best way to create realistic landscapes was to just take topographic maps of the world...
The world map for my current campaign is set on Mars - take a look at Blue Mars. Download the terrain map, and rotate it 180 degrees, and there you have it. Adapting the world history to the map was interesting and fun... the large inland sea is the result of a magical catastrophy that destoryed the Elven empire ~ 2000 years ago, and most of the campaign's activity so far has occured in the Small Kingdoms along the coast south of the inland sea.
I suppose one possible resolution to this would be the idea that God sees time not only from start to finish, but also all possible alternate times as well, in which people made different choices.
Good link - yah, this is pretty much the point of view I'd take. I still don't think there's a problem, though, unless it's that seemingly intelligent people seem to enjoy saying "Here's an apparent paradox. I can't explain it, so rather than admit that or examine the problem any further, I'll just draw conclusions from my ignorance."
I myself lean toward intelligent design, but, by the nature of God (who could set things up from the Big Bang and know exactly how it would turn out in the end) there's no way to really know if God made it happen, or if it was all one big coincidence. In that sense, I don't really believe that evolution and intelligent design conflict at all, and I see no reason to exclude one or the other.
I tend to have much the same view. I've had one person tell me that this implies that God is a liar, though, as he has made it look as if evolution took place, when in fact it hasn't. Arguing that their misinterpretation of the evidence is not God's fault generally gets you nowhere, though:-/
Couldn't He have chosen to do things a tiny, tiny bit differently and cause the future to play out in a different way?
Sure. Consider this, though: God is omnipotent, omniscent, perfect, and merciful:
Omnipotent - He created the universe.
Omniscent - He knew what the result of His creation would be.
Perfect - He is perfect, and is capable of perfect creation.
Merciful - He did not want puppets or slaves, so He created beings who may choose (or not) to worship Him
Given those statments, this world - the one we're living in right now - is the best of all possible worlds. Depending on your viewpoint, you can either argue that this is proof positive that God does not exist, or an example of how devastating the effect of sin (the choice to do evil in the eyes of God) really is.
And if God already knows what's going to happen, doesn't that mean that our destinies are set in stone, and we have no free will?
No - your knowing that something will happen does not mean (or even imply) that you cause it to happen.
Best analogy I can come up with: watch a movie. Now, watch it a second time. Do you know what's going to happen now? Yes. Did you actually cause it to happen? No - the actors, the directors, the editors did. They exercised their free will, and you are viewing the results. Because you are (essentially) looking at it from outside the moving-making space and time, you have a viewpoint similar to the one that God has from his "position" outside our space and time.
Slashdot Mirror
No, if they don't have to pay taxes, they are not "getting money from the government". Instead, the government is not taking money from them.
Probably too subtle a point for some people, but there's a significant difference between giving someone money vs. not taking money from them.
The problem with that is that the *only* way you can prove the veracity of your statement is in court, and the only way to end up in court is to start a lawsuit (difficult and expensive) or to be on the receiving end of a lawsuit (also difficult and expensive.) More importantly, as far as I can tell, there is no provision in the DMCA that would allow the court to say, "whoops, you were correct - sorry about all this trouble." Even if you *proove* that you are right in a court of law, you are *still* a criminal under the DMCA. The truth of what you did or did not discover has nothing to do with the charges against you. That is what is fundamentally wrong with the DMCA. It is a law that makes speaking the truth about certain types of things a criminal offense.
Yes, it does.
If I am not allowed to show that a flaw does indeeed exist in the product, and that it is an exploitable flaw, then I am in a situation where anything I say about the flaw can result in my being charged with libel, because I am not allowed to prove to anyone that my statements about the product are true.
I sincerely doubt that there are very many analogous situations in the legal system - where you are prevented, by law, from providing evidence in your own defense.
Expensive? Yes.
Lowest speed? Yes.
Better than dialup? Oh, yeah.
I live on a farm in a rural area a few miles outside of Pittsburgh, PA. IIRC, we're 19K feet from the CO. When we moved in, iDSL was the best connection we could get - and it probably will be the best available for years to come. Even a cable connection isn't an option. For the past three years, the local company has been promising that digital cable will be rolled out in our area Real Soon Now. Yep, sure, any day.
iDSL may not be blindingly fast, but the only time I really notice it is when I'm doing a large download. VPN to the office network, CVS access, web browsing, online games - our iDSL line gives more than adequate performance. If it's all you have available to you, it's certainly usable.
I have a friend who commented that young children only seem like they're actively trying to kill themselves... you don't actually get to see someone completely focused on becoming a Darwin award winner until you have a teenager.
So, really, it's hardly as limited as you make it out to be. On top of that, as an open source project, all the code is available - if you have a need to port SWT to run with a specific windowing system, you can do it. It's my understanding that the OS X port is at least partially a result of this kind of effort.
Right now, I'm working on a cross-platform product that we build under Linux, and runs under Windows and Linux (GTK and Motif). We also build a Solaris test version. Should we want to support AIX, OS X, or HP-UX, that's a simple and straightforward addition. Considering that with Windows, Linux, OS X and Solaris we can probably cover 99% of the workstation platforms our clients use, SWT is hardly a liability.
You can turn off the incremental compilation feature - open "Preferences" under the Windows menu and look under the Java preferences panel .
That's all I can say... they've certainly packed an awful lot into this release. The JDT team, in particular, seems to be consistent about picking up some of the best features of other IDEs and editors and incorporating them into Eclipse.
If you do Java development, I'd recommend giving Eclipse a try. I've been using it for about a year now, to do plugin developent for Eclipse itself, and I'm still finding out new tricks and shortcuts to make my life easier.
If you do C/C++ development, check out the CDT project. While the current incarnation (1.0.1) of CDT is definitely usable, there's a lot of work going on to expand the capabilities of the C/C++ support and bring it up to par with the Java development tools - adding in things like incremental compilation, source navigation/browsing, refactoring, and all the other IDE goodies that Java devlopers already enjoy.
Plus - there's over 250 plugins available for Eclipse, including things like an RSS channel monitor for slashdot in your IDE.
Let's say a DVD holds 3 hours of video. If you can transfer the same DVD contents 5 seconds over this connection, that means that you can transfer information... (3*60*60)/5 = 2160 times as fast as a DVD player requires. So, rather than one DVD every 5 seconds, you could transfer ~2000 DVDs along the same channel at the same time; which one you watched would be a matter of "tuning" in on the right time-slice.
I don't know about the military forces of other nations, but the US Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) makes a distinction between legal and illegal orders:
Aside from that, you can take a look at what the US US Army training on the UCMJ has to say about illegal orders:
Illegal Orders
Definition: Orders that do not relate to "military duty." They do not:
Your Response to an Illegal Order
Probably true for those who target only Linux. Those doing cross-platform development will probably use whatever platform their most comfortable on, and (if they have any sense) they'll use a mix of platforms for development and testing starting from day one. At work, I currently have two Linux boxes for testing and development, though I tend to prefer W2K + Cygwin.
If you read RMS' statement, there's an excellent reply that states:
I can understand why RMS doesn't want to act in a way that would seem to compromise his ideals. While that's great - and important - he apparently extends his idealism to the point where he's not willing to talk to you unless you start the conversation on his terms. While it might be an ego boost to only argue with people who agree with you, it does get in the way of actually convincing people to accept your point of view in the first place.
So... one of the tests to determine if something can be copyrighted is if it is copyrighted? Well, sure...
In any case - the passage in question refered to lists and tables contained in public documents and other sources, not to any available public document. So that's one place your library analogy breaks down. Another place it breaks down is that the works in a library are already under copyright - there's no need to determine whether or not they are copyrightable, yes? The intent of the rule seems to imply that if you make a list or table of data available to the public - and that list or table of data is the entirety of the work - then it is not something that can be covered by copyright. The organization and presentation of such a list, yes, but not the data itself (as others comments here have pointed out.)
Emphasis added. I think you could reasonably argue that the website fell into the category of "public document or other common sources". If they tabulate their data and make it available on the webite - which I'm willing to bet is the case - then it would seem that the US Copyright Office would not conisder the information to be copyrightable[1], unless they're using "public documents" in some twisted legal sense...
[1] Is that really a word?
Sorry - I don't buy that. You're talking about an industry that has prospered over the past 20 years largely by creating the perception that there is a continual need to upgrade. They'd probably be quite cheerful as they sold 0.001% of their market a special, expensive, backwards-compatible chip for legacy systems.
Or, perhaps, Linux dependencies are too complex? I've lost track of the number of times I've had to do the "upgrade tango" and install a dozen different packages just to satisfy the dependencies for a program I needed. More often than not, I've decided that a stable system was more valuable than trying to figure out what an upgrade to libfoo-2.11a would break.
Windows has "DLL Hell"; Linux has "Dependency Hell". I'd rather see a general solution to the problem of overly complex dependencies on Linux than yet another package manager. Hiding complexity is well and good, when you have no other choice; hiding complexity because solving the problem the Right Way (whatever that is) is just putting bandage on a more serious problem.
That's a true statement about any program. Just try tossing in a random uninitialized pointer or runtime exception here or there in any utility function, rebuild, and see what happens.
I've written "aspect"-like code before... a system that I worked on not too long ago (hey, Honus!) made use of a pretty nice set of functions and macros in order to:
This involved manually adding the appropriate macro at the start and end of each function. A pain in the butt, and the inevitable tyop came back to bite you hard :-/ IMHO, this is the type of problem that aspect oriented programming is intended to solve.
Yah, improperly coding an aspect could cause all sorts of heartache and difficult to solve problems. But... when we did the same thing by hand, it still caused heartache and difficult to solve problems. I'll take AOP (supported by an AOP-aware debugger) over doing this sort of thing by hand any day of the week.
In other words, OODB technology is doomed.
No, but this is similar...
True story:
I was working for a startup named CoManage a couple of years ago. They were making network management software for the telcom industry. We had a reporter come in to do the obligatory, "Wow, look at these crazy dot-com folks!" story, and he stopped to ask me what my job was.
So, choosing my words carefully - I don't want to start spouting weird terms at him right away - I start describing what I'm working on.
"Network resource discovery... locating and identifying the equipment on a network, and the services that are..."
"No, no," he interrupts. "That's too much. Can you give me one sentence that tells me what you're doing, in words you grandmother could understand?"
So I just looked back at him for a few seconds, my brain spinning. I could explain it to my grandma - I mean, I had explained it to her when I took the job - but it took me a whole lot more than one setnence.
So I finally just shrugged, and said, "No. No I, can't." Mr. reporter went away and ended up interviewing someone in QA, I think, where he could get a decent soundbite.
I think it's more like your phone number. Your physical address is a matter of public record because it's a matter of public interest - there are numerous government agencies (postal service, law enforcement, fire stations, EMT) that need to know your phycial address in order to function properly.
It isn't nearly as important that your phone number be a matter of public record, and so it is possible to request an unlisted phone number. Likewise, I think you should be able to have a reasonable expecation of privacy for your email address, and the government should honor this expectation by assuming that you do not want your address / phone number / fax number / pager number / cell phone number / email address / other personal information distributed unless you've given them explicit permission to do so.
But of course, that's the point. If they didn't take their profits when they do, then many, many more acts would be profitable... but the recording companies wouldn't make quite as much money, and (heaven forbid) would actually have to take on some amount of risk along with the band.
As things stand, the recording companies structure deals so that they always make a profit, no matter what. To the recording companies, an "unprofitable" band is one that they do not have to pay any money. See the small problem here?
The world map for my current campaign is set on Mars - take a look at Blue Mars. Download the terrain map, and rotate it 180 degrees, and there you have it. Adapting the world history to the map was interesting and fun... the large inland sea is the result of a magical catastrophy that destoryed the Elven empire ~ 2000 years ago, and most of the campaign's activity so far has occured in the Small Kingdoms along the coast south of the inland sea.
Good link - yah, this is pretty much the point of view I'd take. I still don't think there's a problem, though, unless it's that seemingly intelligent people seem to enjoy saying "Here's an apparent paradox. I can't explain it, so rather than admit that or examine the problem any further, I'll just draw conclusions from my ignorance."
I tend to have much the same view. I've had one person tell me that this implies that God is a liar, though, as he has made it look as if evolution took place, when in fact it hasn't. Arguing that their misinterpretation of the evidence is not God's fault generally gets you nowhere, though :-/
Sure. Consider this, though: God is omnipotent, omniscent, perfect, and merciful:
- Omnipotent - He created the universe.
- Omniscent - He knew what the result of His creation would be.
- Perfect - He is perfect, and is capable of perfect creation.
- Merciful - He did not want puppets or slaves, so He created beings who may choose (or not) to worship Him
Given those statments, this world - the one we're living in right now - is the best of all possible worlds. Depending on your viewpoint, you can either argue that this is proof positive that God does not exist, or an example of how devastating the effect of sin (the choice to do evil in the eyes of God) really is.No - your knowing that something will happen does not mean (or even imply) that you cause it to happen.
Best analogy I can come up with: watch a movie. Now, watch it a second time. Do you know what's going to happen now? Yes. Did you actually cause it to happen? No - the actors, the directors, the editors did. They exercised their free will, and you are viewing the results. Because you are (essentially) looking at it from outside the moving-making space and time, you have a viewpoint similar to the one that God has from his "position" outside our space and time.