I promise a power plant does not get shut down because a timeclock application breaks. Claiming such is just plain old ridiculous, and destroys any of your points that might have made sense by simple association (and because nobody bothers reading another word).
Much smaller, but Western democracies can usually live with such things, as evidenced by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aboriginal_Tent_Embassy . Note that the police did force-ably remove people more than once...
And I guess your an anonymous coward, but did you really not notice I was trying to do the exact thing I was making fun of originally. You don't think maybe that might have been the point?
A civil judgment awarding significant damages will give a good incentive for other districts to not do this in the future (and for this one to not do it again).
Of course said parents should be selling there house now, they can buy it back once the property taxes have gone to the moon and hence the price down.
Also, I'd being willing to bet that a prtty big proportion of "stolen" laptops are just "lost" - as in left in the teacher left them in room 123 last week.
America is irrelevant, the comparison is the UK and China, neither of which is America.
When was the last time thousands of Americans (or to stay more on topic Brits) were run over with tanks by their government for speaking?
And I disagree that "freedom of speech" means I can blast my rants over a megaphone.
It does however let me rant and rave about how the 9/11 attacks on the US were justified by US actions, or how they were Gods judgement on our evil sinful society. And people did. And those people were not punished by the government.
Try making claims about how Tibet should be free of Chinese oppression in China and let us know how that goes.
Seriously, anyone who can claim with a straight face that Britain has less freedom of speech than China (and hence is only beginning to take steps to elevate above it) is living in a fantasy world.
That just moves the big if chain into a set of classes. You still have to write all the code for the various incompatible functions.
Yes, if you are lucky there's an abstraction layer already, but sometimes you are implementing that layer because it's not normal functionality or you found a way to do something on previous iterations that no one else has thought of/bother with yet.
Which leaves you in the same place - huge test burden to make sure you don't break some obscure variant.
But this is common in unixland dev and it's not *that* big a deal. Though unixland dev has the advantage of usually doing it at compile time not run time.
I guess windows game dev was similar before the various graphics card vendors collapsed into two.
It is a pity that the family involved filed a lawsuit first. Rather than going to the FBI and explaining their concern and how their son changed in his room while the laptop was running on his desk every day and probably lots of other kids do too. And that they are concerned pedophiles might be watching.
Sure they'll probably do nothing (or not have enough grounds to do anything), but give them a week to hopefully get a warrant and grab the server to search before announcing to the people who might be doing so that they should delete everything ASAP by filing a lawsuit.
Yes, because code like that is so pleasant to work with.
if (hasCompassV2()) {// do something; } else if (hasCompassV1()) {// do soemthing slightly different } else if (hasOldBrokenCompass()) {// do painful work around } else if (hasOtherThing()) {// fake it up using the other thing } else if (hackTestForPropertyX()) {// do something nasty } else {//damn it, just draw a non-working icon }
And of course now whenever you change something you have to test it on a dozen variants to make sure you didn't break any.
And then of course you find one that hasCompassV2() us true, but has a something broken/different so you need to special case that one out to...
Did you really not notice that you used *different* examples. The benefit is that both are true. John Lennon autographs decay, as do George Washington's teeth - plus Washington's teeth are too rare.
Here's a bigger (off the top of my head, so not complete) set of properties that make gold a good substance to use as a currency:
* It has the right ballpark rarity - rare enough that small amounts can be worth enough, not so rare that there isn't enough to "go round". You don't need a wheel barrow full to buy a loaf of bread, but don't need to use pieces so small as to be unmanageable.
* It doesn't decay, so it doesn't lose value over time due to corrosion or spoiling.
* It's physical properties are about as good as it gets to be hard to fake. It's both denser and softer than almost everything you can mix it with (either alloying or using a non-gold center weight). Making it very simple to weigh and test hardness to check it is in fact gold. This is less true now (tungsten makes an almost perfect center weight, for example) than it was a thousand years ago.
* It is easily worked - it is cheap to make small coins, it is easy to melt and cast.
* It is a commodity - two John Lennon autographs are not identical. Two 1-ounce pieces of gold are identical for monetary purposes (obviously one could be a sculpture, etc but that's no longer purely monetary).
The claim that a protocol can be copyrighted is the assertion. Since it's pretty damn obvious they can't given there's no copying involved in implementing one.
The only citation for the fact that they can't is all of copyright law - and that they don't come under any of the things specified within it.
Whereas if they are copyrightable you should be able to give a citation to the item in copyright law that says so.
The best I can do (without just saying read it all and see it isn't there) is:
17.1.102.b:
""" In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work. """
It takes methane and oxygen, two absolutely standard fuel cell chemicals. Does a little CH4 + 2O2 -> CO2 + 2H2O, and wala electricity.
Now they may very well be on a track to nowhere other than money in their personal bank accounts, but it's not comparable to the usual over unity idiocy.
You're the one who needs to provide the citation. What exactly is being copyrighted in order to copyright a protocol?
Sure the code that implements is would be a computer program, that's copyrightable.
A document that specifies it would be a literary work, that's copyrightable.
But the protocol itself??? So my clean room implementation without ever seeing any of the work of the protocol author violates their copyright? What did I copy?
It seems like a pretty standard fuel cell. Sure they have their "ink" which is whatever their catalyst is. Usually platinum or palladium, but those are too expensive.
Then again given their price example and "savings" in the example, they aren't cost effective:)
Very poor, considering you 30 year treasury bonds are paying about 4.5%. So they could take that $4 million and get $180,000 a year clipping coupons...
Slashdot Mirror
I promise a power plant does not get shut down because a timeclock application breaks. Claiming such is just plain old ridiculous, and destroys any of your points that might have made sense by simple association (and because nobody bothers reading another word).
No, there would be no outcry if Microsoft Bing does not support Netscape 6. In fact, does it now?
Much smaller, but Western democracies can usually live with such things, as evidenced by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aboriginal_Tent_Embassy . Note that the police did force-ably remove people more than once...
And I guess your an anonymous coward, but did you really not notice I was trying to do the exact thing I was making fun of originally. You don't think maybe that might have been the point?
A civil judgment awarding significant damages will give a good incentive for other districts to not do this in the future (and for this one to not do it again).
Of course said parents should be selling there house now, they can buy it back once the property taxes have gone to the moon and hence the price down.
The overlap of idiots and thieves is pretty high.
Also, I'd being willing to bet that a prtty big proportion of "stolen" laptops are just "lost" - as in left in the teacher left them in room 123 last week.
America is irrelevant, the comparison is the UK and China, neither of which is America.
When was the last time thousands of Americans (or to stay more on topic Brits) were run over with tanks by their government for speaking?
And I disagree that "freedom of speech" means I can blast my rants over a megaphone.
It does however let me rant and rave about how the 9/11 attacks on the US were justified by US actions, or how they were Gods judgement on our evil sinful society. And people did. And those people were not punished by the government.
Try making claims about how Tibet should be free of Chinese oppression in China and let us know how that goes.
No, you'd see the bog standard "what would a reasonable person understand the statement to mean" being applied. And nowhere near the limits...
Seriously, anyone who can claim with a straight face that Britain has less freedom of speech than China (and hence is only beginning to take steps to elevate above it) is living in a fantasy world.
That's the world I've been in for a long time now, so it's not really a welcome...
That just moves the big if chain into a set of classes. You still have to write all the code for the various incompatible functions.
Yes, if you are lucky there's an abstraction layer already, but sometimes you are implementing that layer because it's not normal functionality or you found a way to do something on previous iterations that no one else has thought of/bother with yet.
Which leaves you in the same place - huge test burden to make sure you don't break some obscure variant.
But this is common in unixland dev and it's not *that* big a deal. Though unixland dev has the advantage of usually doing it at compile time not run time.
I guess windows game dev was similar before the various graphics card vendors collapsed into two.
Ah, yes wish a library into being. That'll work.
To wear to a topless beach?
To wear with a different bikini top you think looks better?
To wear with a t-shirt?
It is a pity that the family involved filed a lawsuit first. Rather than going to the FBI and explaining their concern and how their son changed in his room while the laptop was running on his desk every day and probably lots of other kids do too. And that they are concerned pedophiles might be watching.
Sure they'll probably do nothing (or not have enough grounds to do anything), but give them a week to hopefully get a warrant and grab the server to search before announcing to the people who might be doing so that they should delete everything ASAP by filing a lawsuit.
Yes, because code like that is so pleasant to work with.
if (hasCompassV2()) { // do something; // do soemthing slightly different // do painful work around // fake it up using the other thing // do something nasty //damn it, just draw a non-working icon
} else if (hasCompassV1()) {
} else if (hasOldBrokenCompass()) {
} else if (hasOtherThing()) {
} else if (hackTestForPropertyX()) {
} else {
}
And of course now whenever you change something you have to test it on a dozen variants to make sure you didn't break any.
And then of course you find one that hasCompassV2() us true, but has a something broken/different so you need to special case that one out to...
Nothing like that at all.
They were told the url by someone.
They entered it into their browser and got a everyday normal web page.
They clicked on the menu items and printed out the pages.
No guessing involved. No typing (other than the initial url) involved.
The 3727 is probably the number of request logs on the web server from them, counting all the images/css/js/etc files to make it look larger.
If they were slightly technical they might have done:
wget -m http://nswtransportblueprint.com.au/
but that would be *more* typing...
Did you really not notice that you used *different* examples. The benefit is that both are true. John Lennon autographs decay, as do George Washington's teeth - plus Washington's teeth are too rare.
Here's a bigger (off the top of my head, so not complete) set of properties that make gold a good substance to use as a currency:
* It has the right ballpark rarity - rare enough that small amounts can be worth enough, not so rare that there isn't enough to "go round". You don't need a wheel barrow full to buy a loaf of bread, but don't need to use pieces so small as to be unmanageable.
* It doesn't decay, so it doesn't lose value over time due to corrosion or spoiling.
* It's physical properties are about as good as it gets to be hard to fake. It's both denser and softer than almost everything you can mix it with (either alloying or using a non-gold center weight). Making it very simple to weigh and test hardness to check it is in fact gold. This is less true now (tungsten makes an almost perfect center weight, for example) than it was a thousand years ago.
* It is easily worked - it is cheap to make small coins, it is easy to melt and cast.
* It is a commodity - two John Lennon autographs are not identical. Two 1-ounce pieces of gold are identical for monetary purposes (obviously one could be a sculpture, etc but that's no longer purely monetary).
I take it you also believe that North Korea is a democracy. That is why is named the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" after all.
The claim that a protocol can be copyrighted is the assertion. Since it's pretty damn obvious they can't given there's no copying involved in implementing one.
The only citation for the fact that they can't is all of copyright law - and that they don't come under any of the things specified within it.
Whereas if they are copyrightable you should be able to give a citation to the item in copyright law that says so.
The best I can do (without just saying read it all and see it isn't there) is:
17.1.102.b:
"""
In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.
"""
Except it doesn't.
It takes methane and oxygen, two absolutely standard fuel cell chemicals. Does a little CH4 + 2O2 -> CO2 + 2H2O, and wala electricity.
Now they may very well be on a track to nowhere other than money in their personal bank accounts, but it's not comparable to the usual over unity idiocy.
You're the one who needs to provide the citation. What exactly is being copyrighted in order to copyright a protocol?
Sure the code that implements is would be a computer program, that's copyrightable.
A document that specifies it would be a literary work, that's copyrightable.
But the protocol itself??? So my clean room implementation without ever seeing any of the work of the protocol author violates their copyright? What did I copy?
Since the contributor agreement had nothing to do with the over-reaching, that's pretty much irrelevant.
How so?
It seems like a pretty standard fuel cell. Sure they have their "ink" which is whatever their catalyst is. Usually platinum or palladium, but those are too expensive.
Then again given their price example and "savings" in the example, they aren't cost effective :)
Yes, a fuel cell is just like a perpetual motion machine.
Well aside from it being a pretty simple chemical reaction that consumes the fuel.
Very poor, considering you 30 year treasury bonds are paying about 4.5%. So they could take that $4 million and get $180,000 a year clipping coupons...
It's a school not a court.
"I think he did it" is good enough in that environment.