Honestly it was a bit reassuring that they just seemed to be sending reply letter after reply letter along the lines of "the FBI doesn't control what books get published, here's some stuff to read"
Myself I don't see the big deal with the book.
You'd be a bit insane to try the "recipies" in it, for anything real what you want is a big fat chemistry book with the most boring title you can find.
I think the point is that there's a difference between making sure someone has their own choices and forcing the choices you think they should make upon them.
In canada a few years back it was ruled that women could go topless (equality thing because it was legal for men to walk round topless.). Women gained the freedom to go topless if they wanted. If on the other hand the court had ruled that women *had* to go topless whether they wanted to or not then would they be more free? of course not.
Similarly there's a difference between making sure women have the choice not to wear a burka and *forcing* them not to wear it. Particularly for older women it can be essentially forcing them to expose parts of their body they consider private.
And? the catholic church used to punish/torture people for stupid things as well. The Magdalene laundries weren't all that long ago.
And the catholic chruch simply maintains that you simply cannot leave. (there used to be a formal defection procedure but they removed it because people were using it after the whole international coverup of child rape thing)
Actually there's a treatment which as far as I remember was developed for earthbound people with bone mass problems which may also work in low G or freefall. It boils down to a vibrating surface you're strapped to or sit on and the vibrating stresses your bones a little to encourage bone growth.
Imagine a world where cooking wasn't covered by IP law you'd never be able to set up your own restaurant!
Why would a chef ever come up with a new recipe? Surely if he came up with a good one then McDonalds would just steal it and include it in their own chain and lock that chef out.
As soon as you came up with a good idea, theme or dish someone would just swoop in , copy your ideas and push you out of business.
Nobody would ever even try! We'd all be stuck without anything good to eat!
1. A method of inducing aerobic exercise in an unrestrained cat comprising the steps of:
(a) directing an intense coherent beam of invisible light produced by a hand-held laser apparatus to produce a bright highly-focused pattern of light at the intersection of the beam and an opaque surface, said pattern being of visual interest to a cat; and
(b) selectively redirecting said beam out of the cat's immediate reach to induce said cat to run and chase said beam and pattern of light around an exercise area.
2. The method of claim 1 wherein said bright pattern of light is small in area relative to a paw of the cat.
3. The method of claim 1 wherein said beam remains invisible between said laser and said opaque surface until impinging on said opaque surface.
4. The method of claim 1 wherein step (b) includes sweeping said beam at an angular speed to cause said pattern to move along said opaque surface at a speed in the range of five to twenty-five feet per second.
1. A method of swinging on a swing, the method comprising the steps of: a) suspending a seat for supporting a user between only two chains that are hung from a tree branch; b) positioning a user on the seat so that the user is facing a direction perpendicular to the tree branch; c) having the user pull alternately on one chain to induce movement of the user and the swing toward one side, and then on the other chain to induce movement of the user and the swing toward the other side; and d) repeating step c) to create side-to-side swinging motion, relative to the user, that is parallel to the tree branch.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the method is practiced independently by the user to create the side-to-side motion from an initial dead stop.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises the step of: e) inducing a component of forward and back motion into the swinging motion, resulting in a swinging path that is generally shaped as an oval.
4. The method of claim 3, wherein the magnitude of the component of forward and back motion is less than the component of side-to-side motion.
The fashion industry manages to innovate just fine without strong IP laws for anything but trademarks. The food industry does just fine without patentst on recipes. etc
it's a myth. A myth perpetuated by a horde of business graduates who wouldn't know an original thought if it bit them in the ass and who just accept the idea that patents are utterly essential because the general idea sounds kinda good.
I think it's along the lines of some other company like *Generic package handling Inc* owns and runs the warehouses. amazon has a contract with them to handle the packages for them.
People buy from amazon and then *Generic package handling Inc* makes sure it gets to their door. And amazon is arguing that DHL/fedex doesn't get the tax bill for packages they deliver so why should some other contractor.
There's also something about the state trying to collect taxes from before the warehouses in question were even set up I think.
If my doctor fucks up my surgery I should be able to complain about them providing crappy service. The doctor on the other hand still has to respect doctor patient privilege.
The students are not professionals, they have no duty to act professionally. The teachers are supposed to be professionals and are supposed to act professionally.
So they suspect an actual crime. They know you destroyed *something*.
The mere fact that you wanted to cover *something* up does not mean you wanted to cover up what they suspect you did.
You could have been covering up something merely socially damaging but not illegal like a conservative republican senator destroying a drive when he fears that it will come out that he's having lots of gay sex and the pictures to prove it were on the drive.
"It is about collecting a very large range of facts and opinions, selecting between them and constructing those chosen into a narrative for a particular purpose.Because there is selection and construction involved, different individuals will necessarily disagree on the result."
Wow, when you put it like that cutting out everything you don't agree with and lying though your teeth to create a misleading story sounds almost reasonable.
Please, please use quotes, since the comment you're replying to is modded to invisibility your post just looks schizophrenic.
Anyway, when it comes to the pay...as with most things in life the phrase "it's a little more complicated that that" applies.
women do tend to get paid slightly less.
Women genuinely are less likely to *ask* for more. I'll dig out the link later but I came across a fascinating study done by an economics professor who looked into the subject in detail. What prompted her interest was coming across a situation which at first looked like terrible discrimination but turned out to be a little more complicated. She noticed that of the grad students in the department almost every male was teaching classes and no females were. In academia that's kind of a big deal since it means experience etc etc. At first glance a simple case of discrimination..... so she went to ask the head of department why he was discriminating against all her female grad students. And found out the simple reason. Anyone who'd come to him and asked to teach a class had been given a class to teach.No females had actually asked. The males had. It wasn't the head of departments fault the women hadn't asked.
So she organised some experiments to look into the phenomenon further. participants were given a task and at the end were given a small sum of money and asked if they were happy with it. If they said no got slightly more. most of the males bargained for more, most of the females did not.
ie: women get less because they ask for less.
but of course still "it's a little more complicated that that" applies. after even more experiments which included groups who could penalise each other and the opinions of other people was taken into account something else came up.
everyone (especially women) was more likely to penalise a women who asked for more more than a man who asked for more and their opinions would be more negatively affected by women than men.
so it isn't utterly irrational. Women don't ask for more because they genuinely do get penalised more socially and they themselves penalise people more for the same actions so even when there is no penalty they're less likely to ask for the jobs they want or the extra pay they want.
They sell me a system. later they try to pretend that no they didn't really sell me it *after* they've claimed that they're selling me a whole system and *after* they've already accepted my money.
do you honestly see absolutely nothing dishonest or generally scummy about such attempts to change a bargain after the fact?
it only says they *may* allow me to use it. they promise nothing whatsoever.
so there is no nominal consideration, there is nothing promised. As written you could follow every single rule and they could simply not provide any service of any kind.
I honestly have no idea what you were trying to protray with that analogy. Perhaps where you buy the car, it gets delivered to your house and then you open the hood to find a contract stuck to the inside of the bonnet reading "by opening this bonnet you agree to never ever alter this engine in any way and ford maintains ownership of this engine and you agree not to look at it, buy fuel from a non-ford liscenced petrol station or ever get it serviced at a non-ford liscenced mechanic or we will sue you"
This is what I was thinking of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppercorn_(legal) it can be small, even a peppercorn will do but both parties have to promise something concrete. So your example of 10,000 each day for no reason wouldn't be a legal contract unless you were also required to give your friend something in return. Sonys eula binds them to do exactly nothing for you.
There's exageration and then there's just plain lying through your teeth. You can't have it both ways.
either you buy both the hardware and the software as a *system* or you buy one and the other is a completely seperate thing which you get free and which the company may withold if they feel like it.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, you're right.
It wasn't *only* the catholic church that ran them.
a number of the other crazy christian cults were in on it too.
"used to" is only a few decades ago in this case.
It wasn't the middle ages it was the mid 60's.
That some countries and religions are a mere few decades behind our own isn't all that surprising.
Go back a mere handful of generations more and people were still being executed for heracy.
Not all muslim countries are equal, not all are equally extreme.
some are mere decades behind, others as much as a couple of centuries.
I actually had the same thought.
Honestly it was a bit reassuring that they just seemed to be sending reply letter after reply letter along the lines of "the FBI doesn't control what books get published, here's some stuff to read"
Myself I don't see the big deal with the book.
You'd be a bit insane to try the "recipies" in it, for anything real what you want is a big fat chemistry book with the most boring title you can find.
I think the point is that there's a difference between making sure someone has their own choices and forcing the choices you think they should make upon them.
In canada a few years back it was ruled that women could go topless (equality thing because it was legal for men to walk round topless.). Women gained the freedom to go topless if they wanted.
If on the other hand the court had ruled that women *had* to go topless whether they wanted to or not then would they be more free?
of course not.
Similarly there's a difference between making sure women have the choice not to wear a burka and *forcing* them not to wear it.
Particularly for older women it can be essentially forcing them to expose parts of their body they consider private.
Only one big catholic freakshow cult comes to mind.
The biggest one.
The catholic church:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magdalene_asylum
And?
the catholic church used to punish/torture people for stupid things as well.
The Magdalene laundries weren't all that long ago.
And the catholic chruch simply maintains that you simply cannot leave. (there used to be a formal defection procedure but they removed it because people were using it after the whole international coverup of child rape thing)
Actually there's a treatment which as far as I remember was developed for earthbound people with bone mass problems which may also work in low G or freefall.
It boils down to a vibrating surface you're strapped to or sit on and the vibrating stresses your bones a little to encourage bone growth.
Imagine a world where cooking wasn't covered by IP law you'd never be able to set up your own restaurant!
Why would a chef ever come up with a new recipe?
Surely if he came up with a good one then McDonalds would just steal it and include it in their own chain and lock that chef out.
As soon as you came up with a good idea, theme or dish someone would just swoop in , copy your ideas and push you out of business.
Nobody would ever even try!
We'd all be stuck without anything good to eat!
you can't patent a cake recipie.
you can't patent a roll of pastry.
you can't patent a taste.
you might be able to patent a new chemical additive but that's as close as you'll get.
I can hear it now, him chuckling away as he glibly dismisses the entire issue.
Prime examples:
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5443036.html
What is claimed is:
1. A method of inducing aerobic exercise in an unrestrained cat comprising the steps of:
(a) directing an intense coherent beam of invisible light produced by a hand-held laser apparatus to produce a bright highly-focused pattern of light at the intersection of the beam and an opaque surface, said pattern being of visual interest to a cat; and
(b) selectively redirecting said beam out of the cat's immediate reach to induce said cat to run and chase said beam and pattern of light around an exercise area.
2. The method of claim 1 wherein said bright pattern of light is small in area relative to a paw of the cat.
3. The method of claim 1 wherein said beam remains invisible between said laser and said opaque surface until impinging on said opaque surface.
4. The method of claim 1 wherein step (b) includes sweeping said beam at an angular speed to cause said pattern to move along said opaque surface at a speed in the range of five to twenty-five feet per second.
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6368227.html
1. A method of swinging on a swing, the method comprising the steps of: a) suspending a seat for supporting a user between only two chains that are hung from a tree branch; b) positioning a user on the seat so that the user is facing a direction perpendicular to the tree branch; c) having the user pull alternately on one chain to induce movement of the user and the swing toward one side, and then on the other chain to induce movement of the user and the swing toward the other side; and d) repeating step c) to create side-to-side swinging motion, relative to the user, that is parallel to the tree branch.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the method is practiced independently by the user to create the side-to-side motion from an initial dead stop.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises the step of: e) inducing a component of forward and back motion into the swinging motion, resulting in a swinging path that is generally shaped as an oval.
4. The method of claim 3, wherein the magnitude of the component of forward and back motion is less than the component of side-to-side motion.
The fashion industry manages to innovate just fine without strong IP laws for anything but trademarks.
The food industry does just fine without patentst on recipes.
etc
it's a myth.
A myth perpetuated by a horde of business graduates who wouldn't know an original thought if it bit them in the ass and who just accept the idea that patents are utterly essential because the general idea sounds kinda good.
I think it's along the lines of some other company like *Generic package handling Inc* owns and runs the warehouses.
amazon has a contract with them to handle the packages for them.
People buy from amazon and then *Generic package handling Inc* makes sure it gets to their door.
And amazon is arguing that DHL/fedex doesn't get the tax bill for packages they deliver so why should some other contractor.
There's also something about the state trying to collect taxes from before the warehouses in question were even set up I think.
"You can't have it both ways!"
yes. yes you can.
If my doctor fucks up my surgery I should be able to complain about them providing crappy service.
The doctor on the other hand still has to respect doctor patient privilege.
The students are not professionals, they have no duty to act professionally.
The teachers are supposed to be professionals and are supposed to act professionally.
So they suspect an actual crime.
They know you destroyed *something*.
The mere fact that you wanted to cover *something* up does not mean you wanted to cover up what they suspect you did.
You could have been covering up something merely socially damaging but not illegal like a conservative republican senator destroying a drive when he fears that it will come out that he's having lots of gay sex and the pictures to prove it were on the drive.
no no. destroying his hard drive is one thing.
Talking about it. at all. with anyone.
That's the stupid bit.
never confess to anything. ever. to anyone.
Without that all they have is lack of information.
"It is about collecting a very large range of facts and opinions, selecting between them and constructing those chosen into a narrative for a particular purpose.Because there is selection and construction involved, different individuals will necessarily disagree on the result."
Wow, when you put it like that cutting out everything you don't agree with and lying though your teeth to create a misleading story sounds almost reasonable.
Please, please use quotes, since the comment you're replying to is modded to invisibility your post just looks schizophrenic.
Anyway, when it comes to the pay...as with most things in life the phrase "it's a little more complicated that that" applies.
women do tend to get paid slightly less.
Women genuinely are less likely to *ask* for more.
I'll dig out the link later but I came across a fascinating study done by an economics professor who looked into the subject in detail.
What prompted her interest was coming across a situation which at first looked like terrible discrimination but turned out to be a little more complicated.
She noticed that of the grad students in the department almost every male was teaching classes and no females were. In academia that's kind of a big deal since it means experience etc etc.
At first glance a simple case of discrimination..... so she went to ask the head of department why he was discriminating against all her female grad students.
And found out the simple reason.
Anyone who'd come to him and asked to teach a class had been given a class to teach.No females had actually asked. The males had.
It wasn't the head of departments fault the women hadn't asked.
So she organised some experiments to look into the phenomenon further.
participants were given a task and at the end were given a small sum of money and asked if they were happy with it.
If they said no got slightly more.
most of the males bargained for more, most of the females did not.
ie: women get less because they ask for less.
but of course still "it's a little more complicated that that" applies.
after even more experiments which included groups who could penalise each other and the opinions of other people was taken into account something else came up.
everyone ( especially women) was more likely to penalise a women who asked for more more than a man who asked for more and their opinions would be more negatively affected by women than men.
so it isn't utterly irrational. Women don't ask for more because they genuinely do get penalised more socially and they themselves penalise people more for the same actions so even when there is no penalty they're less likely to ask for the jobs they want or the extra pay they want.
They sell me a system.
later they try to pretend that no they didn't really sell me it *after* they've claimed that they're selling me a whole system and *after* they've already accepted my money.
do you honestly see absolutely nothing dishonest or generally scummy about such attempts to change a bargain after the fact?
it only says they *may* allow me to use it.
they promise nothing whatsoever.
so there is no nominal consideration, there is nothing promised. As written you could follow every single rule and they could simply not provide any service of any kind.
so there is no contract.
only a company wishlist.
and you still seem to be implying that without any copying or sales of work that copyright kicks in despite copyright being about *copying*
I was talking about altering my property myself in my own home for my own enjoyment.
Who said anything about putting anything up on display etc?
I honestly have no idea what you were trying to protray with that analogy.
Perhaps where you buy the car, it gets delivered to your house and then you open the hood to find a contract stuck to the inside of the bonnet reading "by opening this bonnet you agree to never ever alter this engine in any way and ford maintains ownership of this engine and you agree not to look at it, buy fuel from a non-ford liscenced petrol station or ever get it serviced at a non-ford liscenced mechanic or we will sue you"
This is what I was thinking of:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppercorn_(legal)
it can be small, even a peppercorn will do but both parties have to promise something concrete. So your example of 10,000 each day for no reason wouldn't be a legal contract unless you were also required to give your friend something in return. Sonys eula binds them to do exactly nothing for you.
There's exageration and then there's just plain lying through your teeth.
You can't have it both ways.
either you buy both the hardware and the software as a *system* or you buy one and the other is a completely seperate thing which you get free and which the company may withold if they feel like it.