I think it IS easy for an average Joe to put a CD into a computer drive having a proper manual (with pictures).
In former times, when there were no pre-installed OSes, somehow people had managed to read and understand manuals.
I think that such an attitude just puts more arguments in the hands of companies like RIAA when convincing politicians with tighter control and stronger regulations.
I like watching movies myself, but from the perspective, I think than in most of the cases I just wasted my time. It is far better to learn something or do some sport.
Issuing a "faulty" patent should be treated (by the law) like building a faulty bridge.
Additionally (maybe) no license for issuing patents in case of a willful wrongdoing.
True, additionally there is an issue of a long distance energy transportation. But what I wanted to point out is that the Earth receives really a lot of Solar energy, and the area for solar panels is not a problem.
But I do support nuclear power plants, especially the Molten Salt Type. This is the only alternative for now regarding the Earth climate and civilization growth.
I would welcome calculations regarding CO2 emission (including manufacturing and construction) for all the available energy sources. I bet nuclear power plants are close to the lowest if not the lowest.
I think that it is dangerous for humankind to depend on one type of energy source. So I would say "yes" for solar panels, wind, water related sources, etc. but also "yes" for nuclear power (at least as a backup).
Regarding the solar power it is true that a small portion of Sahara covered with panels would be enough, despite all the issues with the atmosphere absorption, spectrum usability, panels efficiency, etc., but the best if in space, so it would additionally boost the space technology.
Regarding the previous post, I misunderstood your point. Since patents are designed for implemented processes in a machine or an apparatus (e.g. a telephone). I assumed you are talking about an implemented mathematical algorithm, which is "software", which is covered by the copyright. But if you would like to have "pure" mathematical algorithms patentable, I can only say that in my opinion it is a sleepy slope.
I am sorry for poking a stick into an ant mound, but isn't it better to talk about the "copyright" instead of "intellectual property". The latter sounds sort of like the "new speech" from 1984. How can something intellectual be a property, e.g. a "car" is a property, but an "idea"? How can one "show" his idea to someone and say, now give it back, because I need it to go home.
But still, am not a native English speaker, there are different words for a property as a "car", and e.g. an "intellectual property" as an "intelligence" in my native language.
Seems like you are not aware of the fact that the copyright law covers things as algorithms, books, music, etc. Simply the "patent law" is designed for different things.
Rewording a creator/inventor is one thing, and using the patent law to enforce it is another thing. In the case of algorithms it is simply not the right tool. People like it because is simpler to prove (when provable) in a court, but because is not adequate makes a lot of mess.
About X-V century BC Jewish people had a law that someone can become a slave for debts, but every 5 years or so, any debts were canceled even when had not been payed, so a person was required to be set free.
In XXI century AD, we have a law, which makes a person practically a slave for the rest of his/her live for infringing copyright on 24 songs, which market value is around $24.
At the same time a rapist of a 4 year old girl is sentenced for 1 year, because the girl is so afraid of him, than she cannot say a word when confronted with him, so due to weak evidences the settlement was 1 year in prison.
No, the penalty (if any) should be based on what RIAA really lost, not imagined to earn. It is simple: decline in income from these very songs after uploading, verified by natural time decline in sales. It is also very easy to check, but RIAA will never do this - because it would most likely show they have lost NOTHING. It is even likely that they have earned something, because possibly some people heard these songs, found them interesting and bought a CD.
Why do you insist on replacing "actual damages" with "wishful earnings"?
It is not so simple. Indeed media are highly politicized, they are not accountable for what they are saying, and they present mainly opinions not facts. They also do not dare to verify politicians' claims, and statements (which are sometimes as easy as who voted/did not vote for something). They are very prone to flooding the airtime with any major event, i.e. all the other world events disappear for a while. But, ask yourself who pays for the media, then you will have an answer whose agenda is promoted.
Another issue is the public response, here rules the majority opinion, and the majority needs "bread and games", it is as simple as that. How many people were outraged by the Sony rootkit, and how many did something about it (how many new about it).
The last issue is the law legislature system, it seems that the bills are not read by those who vote. I am explicitly referring to sneaking some agendas into popular bills packages.
I think that damages should be calculated in a different way, because we do not talk about potential (very potential) revenues, but about damages.
So, lets check the RIAA income from selling the very songs, compare it before, during, and after the alleged uploading, correct the comparison with the natural sales decline (from other similar songs considering popularity), do the simple math and then we can talk about actual "damages", and not wishful revenues.
My post was not about EU vs US, and never meant to be. I am really sorry, that it triggered so much emotions.
Regarding the merit, I lived in both places, and I am just pointing out the differences, which I know of.
So, regarding EU, I was talking about:
free education on ALL levels for (in most cases) everyone, i.e. many European countries have it as a law, that education should be available for everyone, even not citizens, additionally the standard basic education is required by the law
health, retirement, and disability insurance for everyone, regardless of whether a person is employed or not
social help regardless of the situation, also when one simply cannot find a job
sick time is payed
vacation are guaranteed and payed (>= 28 days/year)
it is required by the law for employees to take their vacation
What is good? I do not say, e.g. I understand that students are usually more diligent when they pay for the lectures, but on the other hand a free academic education gives everyone a chance, regardless of their status. What I said was just that one cannot compare taxes between EU and US directly.
In my humble opinion it would be good if people were not only required to take their vacation, but also to go abroad once a while.
In general taxes in Europe (the continent) are higher, but one gets a lot of benefits in return, such as:
health insurance
retirement insurance
unemployment insurance
social insurance (in case one has no job for a longer time)
free education for children on all levels
So it is very misleading to compare taxes in the US with those in European countries directly.
But still, if you do not use it, you benefit to others, e.g. there is a bachelor tax in Germany, but on the other hand a couple having a child can stay with a child for 2 years with something like full (or close to full) salary (only one of the parents of course).
How about following the real spirit of promoting innovations, not protecting monopolies, i.e.:
10-20 years of exclusive monopoly granted by the public in exchange of one's idea publication (from the moment of granting the monopoly)
patents are granted as "first come first serve" (the real spirit of promoting innovation, i.e. better hurry with polishing and "announcing" an idea, because someone can be faster)
it is no one else's business what one does at home with his purchased items, if it is safe for others (i.e. one can make a coffee machine from his car if wishes, also one can disassemble any piece of code, when wishes)
Lets not forget that "intellectual property" is an oxymoron. When someone takes your property, you do not have it anymore, but when someone adopts your idea, you still have it, and still can use it to the full extent.
There is no reason to panic, but there is a good reason to take some actions. According to wikipedia the fatality rate of the swine flu is about 0.4% (in Mexico), were a seasonal flu has the fatality rate < 0.05%. The difference is obvious, despite the fact that the worst for the swine flu will come this autumn.
The few people who have actually died and had swine flu were all very ill before they were infected.
I would appreciate some evidences to prove this statement, since what I have heard/read about gives a quite different picture. Lets see, the first case I found on the Internet:
Mitchell Wiener, a 55-year-old assistant principal at Intermediate School 238 in Hollis, Queens, died yesterday at Flushing Hospital Medical Center, said Andrew Rubin, a hospital spokesman. Wiener had swine flu and no other pre-existing medical conditions that the hospital knows of, said Rubin in a telephone interview today.
Despite valuable comments describing differences between religion and science you still miss the point that there are a few cases when military pilots sent to intercept the UFO spotted on radars confirmed the case of the UFO existence visually. A few, but still some.
Lets not forget that "UFO" does not mean "alien", it simply means that we still cannot explain it.
In my opinion the unhealthy emotions involved in this issue do harm the progress of finding an explanation of these interesting events.
As far as I know it is usually so, that any measuring device is described by specifying the maximum error, the exact is obviously not known (unless it is a systematic error), and the minimum error would be kind of not useful.
Sorry for a colloquial expression, it of course refers to the maximum error of the device.
I am sorry for this not a scientific expression. I heard it from a commenter during the lift-off. Honestly I do not know what he meant, but considering that (from ESA:
... Planck will examine this to a sensitivity, angular resolution and frequency range never achieved before.
I believe this 1% (+- 0.01) can be either the error level of one of the measurements or a general expression for an overall performance (not very scientific indeed). The commenter mentioned 10% (+- 0.1) for WMAP, and something around 40-50% (I do not remember exactly) for COBE.
I am grateful for the correction, and I am sorry for the mistake. English is not my native language. And please do not contribute this error to ESA - I do not work for this agency, I am just a space exploration enthusiast.
That is why the company would be very welcomed in the PO if they invented a medicine to cure this type of cancer based on the gene sequence, but till then keep researching.
The same nobody was granted a patent for deuterium, but everyone showing an effective fusion power generating machine is very welcome in the PO.
Please do not misled the public, the news (I have read about it on the cnn site) clearly states that the genes itself were patented: Myriad and the research foundation hold patents on the pair of genes - known as BRCA1 and BRCA2.
The methods of sequencing the genes are known, and there is nothing about any new revolutionary way they do the research in the article, so considering the above and the definition of patents:
... patent provides the right to exclude others[4] from making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing the patented invention for the term of the patent...
I see a real legal problem for people who by chance have such a gene. Of course nowadays no-one would think about such implications (I hope), but the fact that reading books aloud violates the copyright law is nowadays not only a concept, but an implemented practice.
So:
a cancer medicament - yes, patent it
a new revolutionary method to sequence genes - yes
a gene which many people already have - no, it should not be patentable
As far as I know one of the goals is to attach a deorbit module to Hubble, which is needed to safely end its life, so there has to be this mission anyway. Non of the other existing spacecrafts can perform this task. There were plans to send a robot, but finally they made a bold decision to send humans and repair/improve the telescope besides just solving the problem of a safe deorbitation. And I am thankful for that, the HST served not only the scientific community, but had a great influence in popularizing science as well. The only said thing is that it is too expensive to take it down to a museum, or to send it to a more stable orbit in case in the future the technology is cheap enough to put it in a museum.
The followers of Hubble are scheduled, and lets hope we will see images they will take soon.
Besides the JWST there is also the Harschel Space Observatory scheduled to be launch coming days (May 14). It is an infrared telescope with a mirror larger than Hubble.
I hope everything will be OK with all the space observatories. Those in orbit, and those coming. Their scientific value is astonishing.
When the actual F-35 is deployed, it will defeat those countermeasures and deliver its nuclear payload to Beijing -- on time and on target.
Why do you want to deliver a nuclear payload to Beijing or anywhere?
Is it your answer to the security problems?
I would say that a better way (better for the humankind) is to improve the safety of sensitive information and the defense, instead of looking where and how to send a nuke.
Do not say it is not what you meant, because it is exactly what you meant.
Slashdot Mirror
I think it IS easy for an average Joe to put a CD into a computer drive having a proper manual (with pictures). In former times, when there were no pre-installed OSes, somehow people had managed to read and understand manuals.
Well, maybe not carries, but US government lobbying over companies is not a rarity
I think that such an attitude just puts more arguments in the hands of companies like RIAA when convincing politicians with tighter control and stronger regulations.
I like watching movies myself, but from the perspective, I think than in most of the cases I just wasted my time. It is far better to learn something or do some sport.
Issuing a "faulty" patent should be treated (by the law) like building a faulty bridge.
Additionally (maybe) no license for issuing patents in case of a willful wrongdoing.
True, additionally there is an issue of a long distance energy transportation. But what I wanted to point out is that the Earth receives really a lot of Solar energy, and the area for solar panels is not a problem.
But I do support nuclear power plants, especially the Molten Salt Type. This is the only alternative for now regarding the Earth climate and civilization growth.
I would welcome calculations regarding CO2 emission (including manufacturing and construction) for all the available energy sources. I bet nuclear power plants are close to the lowest if not the lowest.
I think that it is dangerous for humankind to depend on one type of energy source. So I would say "yes" for solar panels, wind, water related sources, etc. but also "yes" for nuclear power (at least as a backup).
Regarding the solar power it is true that a small portion of Sahara covered with panels would be enough, despite all the issues with the atmosphere absorption, spectrum usability, panels efficiency, etc., but the best if in space, so it would additionally boost the space technology.
Well, regarding the post above: you are right.
Regarding the previous post, I misunderstood your point. Since patents are designed for implemented processes in a machine or an apparatus (e.g. a telephone). I assumed you are talking about an implemented mathematical algorithm, which is "software", which is covered by the copyright. But if you would like to have "pure" mathematical algorithms patentable, I can only say that in my opinion it is a sleepy slope.
I am sorry for poking a stick into an ant mound, but isn't it better to talk about the "copyright" instead of "intellectual property". The latter sounds sort of like the "new speech" from 1984. How can something intellectual be a property, e.g. a "car" is a property, but an "idea"? How can one "show" his idea to someone and say, now give it back, because I need it to go home.
But still, am not a native English speaker, there are different words for a property as a "car", and e.g. an "intellectual property" as an "intelligence" in my native language.
Seems like you are not aware of the fact that the copyright law covers things as algorithms, books, music, etc. Simply the "patent law" is designed for different things.
Rewording a creator/inventor is one thing, and using the patent law to enforce it is another thing. In the case of algorithms it is simply not the right tool. People like it because is simpler to prove (when provable) in a court, but because is not adequate makes a lot of mess.
About X-V century BC Jewish people had a law that someone can become a slave for debts, but every 5 years or so, any debts were canceled even when had not been payed, so a person was required to be set free.
In XXI century AD, we have a law, which makes a person practically a slave for the rest of his/her live for infringing copyright on 24 songs, which market value is around $24.
At the same time a rapist of a 4 year old girl is sentenced for 1 year, because the girl is so afraid of him, than she cannot say a word when confronted with him, so due to weak evidences the settlement was 1 year in prison.
Have we really made any progress?
No, the penalty (if any) should be based on what RIAA really lost, not imagined to earn. It is simple: decline in income from these very songs after uploading, verified by natural time decline in sales. It is also very easy to check, but RIAA will never do this - because it would most likely show they have lost NOTHING. It is even likely that they have earned something, because possibly some people heard these songs, found them interesting and bought a CD.
Why do you insist on replacing "actual damages" with "wishful earnings"?
It is not so simple. Indeed media are highly politicized, they are not accountable for what they are saying, and they present mainly opinions not facts. They also do not dare to verify politicians' claims, and statements (which are sometimes as easy as who voted/did not vote for something). They are very prone to flooding the airtime with any major event, i.e. all the other world events disappear for a while. But, ask yourself who pays for the media, then you will have an answer whose agenda is promoted.
Another issue is the public response, here rules the majority opinion, and the majority needs "bread and games", it is as simple as that. How many people were outraged by the Sony rootkit, and how many did something about it (how many new about it).
The last issue is the law legislature system, it seems that the bills are not read by those who vote. I am explicitly referring to sneaking some agendas into popular bills packages.
I think that damages should be calculated in a different way, because we do not talk about potential (very potential) revenues, but about damages.
So, lets check the RIAA income from selling the very songs, compare it before, during, and after the alleged uploading, correct the comparison with the natural sales decline (from other similar songs considering popularity), do the simple math and then we can talk about actual "damages", and not wishful revenues.
My post was not about EU vs US, and never meant to be. I am really sorry, that it triggered so much emotions.
Regarding the merit, I lived in both places, and I am just pointing out the differences, which I know of.
So, regarding EU, I was talking about:
What is good? I do not say, e.g. I understand that students are usually more diligent when they pay for the lectures, but on the other hand a free academic education gives everyone a chance, regardless of their status. What I said was just that one cannot compare taxes between EU and US directly.
In my humble opinion it would be good if people were not only required to take their vacation, but also to go abroad once a while.
So it is very misleading to compare taxes in the US with those in European countries directly.
But still, if you do not use it, you benefit to others, e.g. there is a bachelor tax in Germany, but on the other hand a couple having a child can stay with a child for 2 years with something like full (or close to full) salary (only one of the parents of course).
Lets not forget that "intellectual property" is an oxymoron. When someone takes your property, you do not have it anymore, but when someone adopts your idea, you still have it, and still can use it to the full extent.
The few people who have actually died and had swine flu were all very ill before they were infected.
I would appreciate some evidences to prove this statement, since what I have heard/read about gives a quite different picture. Lets see, the first case I found on the Internet: Mitchell Wiener, a 55-year-old assistant principal at Intermediate School 238 in Hollis, Queens, died yesterday at Flushing Hospital Medical Center, said Andrew Rubin, a hospital spokesman. Wiener had swine flu and no other pre-existing medical conditions that the hospital knows of, said Rubin in a telephone interview today.
Despite valuable comments describing differences between religion and science you still miss the point that there are a few cases when military pilots sent to intercept the UFO spotted on radars confirmed the case of the UFO existence visually. A few, but still some.
Lets not forget that "UFO" does not mean "alien", it simply means that we still cannot explain it.
In my opinion the unhealthy emotions involved in this issue do harm the progress of finding an explanation of these interesting events.
As far as I know it is usually so, that any measuring device is described by specifying the maximum error, the exact is obviously not known (unless it is a systematic error), and the minimum error would be kind of not useful.
Sorry for a colloquial expression, it of course refers to the maximum error of the device.
Thanks, I appreciate your comments.
... Planck will examine this to a sensitivity, angular resolution and frequency range never achieved before.
I believe this 1% (+- 0.01) can be either the error level of one of the measurements or a general expression for an overall performance (not very scientific indeed). The commenter mentioned 10% (+- 0.1) for WMAP, and something around 40-50% (I do not remember exactly) for COBE.
I am grateful for the correction, and I am sorry for the mistake. English is not my native language. And please do not contribute this error to ESA - I do not work for this agency, I am just a space exploration enthusiast.
Please do not misled the public, the news (I have read about it on the cnn site) clearly states that the genes itself were patented: Myriad and the research foundation hold patents on the pair of genes - known as BRCA1 and BRCA2. The methods of sequencing the genes are known, and there is nothing about any new revolutionary way they do the research in the article, so considering the above and the definition of patents:
I see a real legal problem for people who by chance have such a gene. Of course nowadays no-one would think about such implications (I hope), but the fact that reading books aloud violates the copyright law is nowadays not only a concept, but an implemented practice.
So:
As far as I know one of the goals is to attach a deorbit module to Hubble, which is needed to safely end its life, so there has to be this mission anyway. Non of the other existing spacecrafts can perform this task. There were plans to send a robot, but finally they made a bold decision to send humans and repair/improve the telescope besides just solving the problem of a safe deorbitation. And I am thankful for that, the HST served not only the scientific community, but had a great influence in popularizing science as well. The only said thing is that it is too expensive to take it down to a museum, or to send it to a more stable orbit in case in the future the technology is cheap enough to put it in a museum.
The followers of Hubble are scheduled, and lets hope we will see images they will take soon.
Besides the JWST there is also the Harschel Space Observatory scheduled to be launch coming days (May 14). It is an infrared telescope with a mirror larger than Hubble.
I hope everything will be OK with all the space observatories. Those in orbit, and those coming. Their scientific value is astonishing.
When the actual F-35 is deployed, it will defeat those countermeasures and deliver its nuclear payload to Beijing -- on time and on target.
Why do you want to deliver a nuclear payload to Beijing or anywhere?
Is it your answer to the security problems?
I would say that a better way (better for the humankind) is to improve the safety of sensitive information and the defense, instead of looking where and how to send a nuke.
Do not say it is not what you meant, because it is exactly what you meant.