Uh... the post to which you're replying didn't make a judgment about the fact that some plants can be pollinated by more than one type of insect; it just pointed it out. Your paraphrase-in-quotes puts words into his/her comment box that aren't there. It's almost certainly the case that if bees were to vanish, some pollination would get done by other species. As a lover of honey, I would deplore this and I don't think it's a Good Thing, but it's reasonable to point it out.
Copyrights (in the US and most countries) are automatic and do NOT require registration, unlike patents or trademarks.
Poor copies are still copies. If I release a crappy cover version of a song, I still owe the songwriter money (however, there is a mandatory licensing scheme for music in the US, so that once it's been released as a recording anyone else can cover it). An abridged or even adapted version of a book can still be in violation.
As others have pointed out, choreography is copyrightable (there are people who make their livings, for example, choreographing ballet). However, this has only been the case since 1978: http://www.csulb.edu/~jvancamp/copyrigh.html, so it may not apply here (the claim is from 1976).
With OCR or voice recognition, 99.5% accuracy is pretty good. Most such software can learn from its mistakes as it's "trained" on a particular user's body of input.
That's not exactly feasible with vehicles moving at 100+ kph. It's not like we can say, "Okay, a school bus just plowed into an oil tanker, let's tweak the algorithm."
True, but the English subset of the alphabet has another feature that matters in this regard: it's a lowest common denominator that all computers on the planet are capable of producing. I can type any letter easily on a computer in China, Israel, Jordan, Russia, Spain, India, etc. I can't necessarily input a given Chinese character, Arabic letter, or Cyrillic letter.
Why does this matter? Well, one argument is that it doesn't, much: if I want to view a Chinese website I'm probably in China and can input Chinese characters on my computer. But what about a Chinese person visiting an English-speaking country and surfing at a public computer (e.g. in a web cafe)? If the computer isn't set up for input of Chinese, he/she won't be able to view certain sites if they can only be accessed by inputting a non-latin URI. Thus to serve all possible customers, the computer would need dozens of input systems installed. That simply isn't going to happen. The alternative of just inputting Unicode codes is unworkable.
Hence it makes more sense to have a requirement that any non-Latin DNS registration ALSO be accompanied by a pure ASCII one, so that any computer will be able to access it. This also helps people who don't know a given language very well: if you don't know Chinese well, and are just learning it, you may find it hard to type in a web address with unfamiliar characters, even if your computer has Chinese input enabled. That shouldn't keep you from visiting a site.
In fact, there are some Chinese systems that do this, by creating a registry of Chinese names for websites. But they involve kludgy workarounds like browser bars that are not universal and are otherwise evil.
The point of copyright is not necessarily money. I can defend my copyright over a work of art because I am concerned that it be (for example) consistently attributed to me, because I am worried about maintaining my reputation. Or I could want to protect my copyright over some code because that ensures that no one else can claim to have written it and thus profit from it, while I prefer to release it under an open source license. A charity can hold copyright over pamphlets it distributes for free. No need for it to be about money.
Pretty much the same way they keep your from looking at Penthouse centerfolds or playing porn on your mini DVD player. Social pressure plus, I'd assume, a polite (at least initially) request from the crew. In this case, it works. There's nothing new here in this respect.
Exactly. It is reducing a public harm (pollution), so having a company pay somewhat less in taxes (as they do now for certain other improvements of this sort, in many places) would make sense.
Also, it simply isn't the case that builders decide all on their own what to build: most big projects require agreements with local governments over zoning, and this is something government could push for--ok, you can build a large project that will cause more traffic, but you have to abate some of that pollution, just as builders are often required to cover some of the cost of extra roads, put in services such as sewers, etc.
So by your logic, if Target decided it didn't want to sell its product to people of a certain race, it could put that into its terms of service (and perhaps check surnames to enforce that, in some cases), and exclude a significant portion of the population?
Moreover, there are products Target sells ONLY online, so visiting the retail stores is NOT a satisfactory solution.
It's unlikely that the grave robbers were the owners of the land in question. Presumably, much of this land belongs to the Egyptian state, or to private owners; in either case, this is no different from stealing a property from a house or government office.
Moreover, most countries have laws about what can and can't be done with ancient artifacts, which have a protected status analogous to that of endangered species. Saying it's "not stealing" and thus "fair game" is as specious saying it's okay to shoot an endangered animal on someone else's land since wild animals, unlike domestic ones, don't belong to anybody.
Actually it's a pretty remarkable error: it misparses a verb ending -ta (to itta, "that said") and puts the last syllable with the prefix go (from "gorenraku", "your communications") so that they together become the word "tago," a rare term for a wooden water pail.
Something is seriously wrong with Babelfish here (Google gets this passage righter): the English translation has a Hiragana "little tsu" in it, indicating that the translation system is not recognizing it as Japanese at all. Or something. Oops.
1. You eat, presumably? Maybe drink? That's the FDA's bailiwick. Spending on food is ~13% of household income in the US (http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2006/may/wk4/art05.ht m)
2. You're not an old person, probably, so you don't take lots of drugs. But many do.
3. You're not a drug addict, probably, so you don't take lots of drugs. But many do.
Add up the above and you easily get 20%.
Yes, it could be accurate. On city streets in China, there are lots of vendors with a tableful of DVDs and CDs, and they also have stalls in markets, storefronts, etc... all selling pirated materials. If you add the whole supply chain supporting that, it doesn't seem implausible.
Slashdot Mirror
Uh... the post to which you're replying didn't make a judgment about the fact that some plants can be pollinated by more than one type of insect; it just pointed it out. Your paraphrase-in-quotes puts words into his/her comment box that aren't there. It's almost certainly the case that if bees were to vanish, some pollination would get done by other species. As a lover of honey, I would deplore this and I don't think it's a Good Thing, but it's reasonable to point it out.
In post-Soviet Russia, new overlords welcome you!
No on all counts.
Did anyone else reading this headline think it was going to be about Robocop--"his own source code"?
Sir or madam,
I find your remark barely humorous, not rising to the level of "droll."
With OCR or voice recognition, 99.5% accuracy is pretty good. Most such software can learn from its mistakes as it's "trained" on a particular user's body of input.
That's not exactly feasible with vehicles moving at 100+ kph. It's not like we can say, "Okay, a school bus just plowed into an oil tanker, let's tweak the algorithm."
Period? Aside from case insensitivity (you clod), a PERIOD can't be part of the domain name, excet as a separator.
True, but the English subset of the alphabet has another feature that matters in this regard: it's a lowest common denominator that all computers on the planet are capable of producing. I can type any letter easily on a computer in China, Israel, Jordan, Russia, Spain, India, etc. I can't necessarily input a given Chinese character, Arabic letter, or Cyrillic letter.
Why does this matter? Well, one argument is that it doesn't, much: if I want to view a Chinese website I'm probably in China and can input Chinese characters on my computer. But what about a Chinese person visiting an English-speaking country and surfing at a public computer (e.g. in a web cafe)? If the computer isn't set up for input of Chinese, he/she won't be able to view certain sites if they can only be accessed by inputting a non-latin URI. Thus to serve all possible customers, the computer would need dozens of input systems installed. That simply isn't going to happen. The alternative of just inputting Unicode codes is unworkable.
Hence it makes more sense to have a requirement that any non-Latin DNS registration ALSO be accompanied by a pure ASCII one, so that any computer will be able to access it. This also helps people who don't know a given language very well: if you don't know Chinese well, and are just learning it, you may find it hard to type in a web address with unfamiliar characters, even if your computer has Chinese input enabled. That shouldn't keep you from visiting a site.
In fact, there are some Chinese systems that do this, by creating a registry of Chinese names for websites. But they involve kludgy workarounds like browser bars that are not universal and are otherwise evil.
The point of copyright is not necessarily money. I can defend my copyright over a work of art because I am concerned that it be (for example) consistently attributed to me, because I am worried about maintaining my reputation. Or I could want to protect my copyright over some code because that ensures that no one else can claim to have written it and thus profit from it, while I prefer to release it under an open source license. A charity can hold copyright over pamphlets it distributes for free. No need for it to be about money.
Pretty much the same way they keep your from looking at Penthouse centerfolds or playing porn on your mini DVD player. Social pressure plus, I'd assume, a polite (at least initially) request from the crew. In this case, it works. There's nothing new here in this respect.
Bash scripting? Is that what they're calling the series of destructive tests?
Exactly. It is reducing a public harm (pollution), so having a company pay somewhat less in taxes (as they do now for certain other improvements of this sort, in many places) would make sense.
Also, it simply isn't the case that builders decide all on their own what to build: most big projects require agreements with local governments over zoning, and this is something government could push for--ok, you can build a large project that will cause more traffic, but you have to abate some of that pollution, just as builders are often required to cover some of the cost of extra roads, put in services such as sewers, etc.
So by your logic, if Target decided it didn't want to sell its product to people of a certain race, it could put that into its terms of service (and perhaps check surnames to enforce that, in some cases), and exclude a significant portion of the population?
Moreover, there are products Target sells ONLY online, so visiting the retail stores is NOT a satisfactory solution.
That's why we of the FUDS (Fraternity of those Unable to Detect Sarcasm) insist that tags be made mandatory for all sarcastic web content.
More completely:
Sociology: Jews studying gentiles.
Anthropology: Christians studying heathens.
Be descended from this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_More.
Soviet Russia: new overlords welcome you!
It's unlikely that the grave robbers were the owners of the land in question. Presumably, much of this land belongs to the Egyptian state, or to private owners; in either case, this is no different from stealing a property from a house or government office.
Moreover, most countries have laws about what can and can't be done with ancient artifacts, which have a protected status analogous to that of endangered species. Saying it's "not stealing" and thus "fair game" is as specious saying it's okay to shoot an endangered animal on someone else's land since wild animals, unlike domestic ones, don't belong to anybody.
They certainly can, but there's no typo here, just a bad machine translation.
Actually it's a pretty remarkable error: it misparses a verb ending -ta (to itta, "that said") and puts the last syllable with the prefix go (from "gorenraku", "your communications") so that they together become the word "tago," a rare term for a wooden water pail.
Something is seriously wrong with Babelfish here (Google gets this passage righter): the English translation has a Hiragana "little tsu" in it, indicating that the translation system is not recognizing it as Japanese at all. Or something. Oops.
1. You eat, presumably? Maybe drink? That's the FDA's bailiwick. Spending on food is ~13% of household income in the US (http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2006/may/wk4/art05.ht m)
2. You're not an old person, probably, so you don't take lots of drugs. But many do.
3. You're not a drug addict, probably, so you don't take lots of drugs. But many do.
Add up the above and you easily get 20%.
Yes, it could be accurate. On city streets in China, there are lots of vendors with a tableful of DVDs and CDs, and they also have stalls in markets, storefronts, etc... all selling pirated materials. If you add the whole supply chain supporting that, it doesn't seem implausible.
Agreed. Saying they haven't done evil yet is like saying they have a hit man on payroll but he hasn't actually killed anyone yet.
You had atoms? We had to make all our own subatomic particles from quarks--and we didn't have any leptons!
A plurality, but not a majority. See http://www.ranknfile-ue.org/cap_st07.html#What.