You obviously do not understand the difference between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0.
Web 1.0 - Only served up static content. Information. That you searched for. That you were interested in. It's all about you, you, you.
Web 2.0 - All about serving up content that someone else thinks you should be interested in. It's all about them, them, them thinking me, me, me, thinking that means you, you, you.
When you have an employee who is doing things that - in your opinion as managment - hurt the company, it is your obligation to the stockholders to find out who it is and. ..
. ..have them shot. It's a legal duty to the stockholders.
By the way, why do you think they call them "directors"? It is the CEO who is the employee.
...should they have to pay twice to the lyricist because the singer had marbles in his mouth?
Why are you supporting lousy singers who record on labels that do not provide lyric sheets with the recording?.
For purposes of bias revelation I will point out that I have never downloaded an infringing mp3, but have a number of infringing midi and text files. I learn many of the songs/tunes I perform that way, I do mostly "covers" (goes with the territory of being a "folk" singer) and they are often better references than a sound recording (the lyricist/composer, at least in theory, gets paid if the works are under copyright. ASCAP and BMI are supposed see to that. BMI does a better job).
I take it there's something in what I said that makes you think that I think it is always morally wrong to download an infringing lyric sheet? If so, you are in error.
My preference, however, is for buying legitimate "fake" books, especially if the publisher has the good sense to spiral bind them.
In that case, what they ought to do is demand that the source code be released without giving the option to merely cease and desist.
That might well be within their legal powers, although outside the scope of the actual suit. Whether they ought to or not is a moral/ethical problem. It is the same as saying the the RIAA ought to sue the pants off anyone they think is violating, instead of demanding that they cease and desist.
. ..they ought to demand damages equal to the amount it would cost to buy the code from DLink, and then buy the code and assign copyright to the Free Software Foundation.
D-Link's code that has been "infected" by the GPL has no monetary value. It only has barter value for code, as defined by the GPL. D-Link's code that has not been "infected" is theirs to do with as they please. They cannot be compelled to sell; and if they wish to sell it is D-Link; and D-Link alone, that decides what they want to charge for it.
The primary goal of the suit has been met, getting people to take the GPL as a serious, enforcable license and understanding that violating it can result in financial loss.
Copyright is about copying; monopoly. What you do with a monopoply is largely up to you; within the limits of law. You may choose to exploit it for financial gain or not. If you do not that does not infringe on the enforcability of your legal monopoly.
The GPL requires a sharing of code. Code is what you can demand in court. Those are the only teeth that the GPL is designed to have. It's about the code, not money.
If you want money for your code, just use another license, but don't use the GPL and expect to hold the code close. The license has been shown to have teeth.
Force output per unit of power input is not relative to anything.
It is a figure provided by measurement. It only has meaning relative to the measurement process.
Surely you understand the concepts of accuracy, precision and signal to noise ratio?
The gentleman himself avers that the reason his results cannot simply be accepted prime facie is because the measurements are taken at the threshold of noise.
Noise is not an empircical result just because you get a reading from your meter.
Next time that you're going to rant and judge something based on your acquired beliefs. ..
My acquired beliefs are as valid as; and only as valid as, my measurements, since that is how I acquired them. I'm perfectly willing to try measuring his as soon as he shows there might actually be something to measure. If there is, I'm perfectly willing to validate them and attempt to explain them theoretically.
I would think that it would have a far stronger legal standing than EULAs which often make the people who agree to them take all sorts of measures that have nothing to do with traditional copyright protection.
They do not make people do anything. They make people think they make people do things. Provisions within a EULA that are not legally binding are not . ..legally binding.
Beyond simply being deceptive, most click through EULAs are boilerplate. They include every possible provision which might be legally binding across all jurisdictions in which the software might be sold. That is the genesis of the clause you will find stating that any individual provision which is found to not be legally binding does not legally invalidate the entire license. They know there are questionable/nonbinding terms in the license "agreement" and are protecting those provisions which bind.
The premise of the submitter only holds if ALL of the search engines hang tough. If only Google tells em to go piss up a rope, they lose most of the news sources and readers start using someone else.
Yeah, and only one religion rules: yours. Everyone else is converted or killed.
The fact that there have been people who have used my spiritual beliefs as a justification for warfare is a great sorrow to me.
One of the fundamental precepts of my religion is to "harm no sentient being." One of the other fundamental precepts is that you are responsible for your actions.
This is on par with charging money for getting lyrics online. Greed never ceases to amaze.
No more nor less stupid than charging money for any other form of recorded music/literature online. A recording artist makes money by selling his sound recordings, a lyricist makes money by selling his text recordings.
If you purchase a sound recording or sheet to learn the lyrics, the lyricist gets paid. If you download a free sound recording or sheet, the lyricist does not.
So the question, as always, develoves back to the root; the inherent validity of the copyright concept, whether or not you think that lyricists should get paid for using their works.
At the moment I solve the issue by forcing you to come to enough of my live performances to memorize my work (at least those that I haven't "given away" by posting on Slashdot), or you could book a lesson, but not everyone sees it that way.
So would I. Just because I don't own 'em doesn't imply that I don't use 'em. That's why there are jobs to be found in the enterprise.
Will you help me too?
Yes, I will. Although. ..I may well charge you for it. It would be my job.
The route to my job is 50km long each way, and in the winter the temperature drops to -25C.
About the same as the local conditions I have operated under. I can show you solutions, some of which would . ..creat jobs.
Remember that jobs are the context? Bicycles are not "free." They require support systems just like cars, and thus people to operate those support systems.
. ..so is there any legal avenue to take against Wal-mart for this kind of action (other than consumer action which doesn't work so well when dealing with lower prices)?
Sure, for the distributors to not cave and just tell Wal-Mart, "Fine, we have alternate outlets if you don't want to profit from our work. Cut your own throat, see if we care."
I love windmills. I hate windfarms. Windmills are a viable energy independence technology. Stop thinking that energy necessarily has to come from some massively centralized third party.
Even though fossil fuels may be deemed as evil the working guy/gal at these places would probably like to remain employed.
I'm perfectly willing to teach them to fix/build bicycles, show them what sort of fuel/comfort stations cyclists would find useful and spend money at, what sort of road system would better suit cyclists rather than cars, how human muscle can be used to transport goods, make electricity, etc.
"Paradigm shifts" always result in increased employment, although to take advantage of them one might have to learn some new skills.
For many of the workers in the car based economy these new "skills" would amount to nothing more than learning the new set of lies appropriate to selling the new product.
this Space Tourist should really try to make a connection or three with some Muslim schools; I think it would even be a first (as most of the schools that are selected from the queue are from USA, I understand).
There are Muslim schools in the USA. There are Christian schools in Iran. They are religions, not countries or races.
I think the key part of your debate falls down with discounting things by predicting theoretical failures before a test is made.
I'm an empiricist. Testing is what I do.
Theory always alters to fit the observed facts.
You'll find my other posts littered with statements that the equations are only models, not the reality and that reality always, always, always trumps the model. In this particular case, however, we are dealing with some of the most basic and rigorously tested facts in history.
There's nothing I like better than running a test that destroys a bad model, because I loath bad models. If the model is suffieciently established there could even be something like a Nobel in it. ..
It's also possible to find something that works despite what the equations say.
. ..however, if you tell me you have created a "free energy" device by a particularly clever arrangement of magnets I do not have to pay much attention to you, because I have tested magnets. I do not have test every arrangement of magnets in the world.
This is, in fact, one of the primary functions of a model. To allow us to spend our time persuing that which is likely to be true and ignore that which is certain to be false, not on the basis of a priori assumptions, but on the basis of a priori test.
This guy has come up with a scheme with all the hallmarks of a clever arrangement of magnets. From obvious misunderstanding of the phenomena he is dealing with to the belief that if he could just find his way around some insoluable problem with another layer of misunderstanding things will come out all right.
Well, all of that, I acknowledge, is neither here nor there if the device can actually be shown to work. If it works we've got to get back to work on the models. That is how science is supposed to work and you'll find my posts littered with complaints that science is dying because no one works it that way anymore.
But here's the thing. It's his crackpot idea. As a crackpot idea he has to show that it works. As a bystander it's simply my role to retest to find out if/how/why his tests are bogus or not. If they work, he get the Nobel, not me. The onus is on him.
And he hasn't produced results yet. All his careful documentation and measurement show . ..nothing.
Except a device that just keeps getting bigger and bigger, more and more complicated, heavier and heavier, as he chases down solutions to more and more insoluable problems.
As an old school empiricist I know something that most, even most scientists, seem to have forgotten, that measurement is an inexact science and for a result to be meaningful it has to, inherently, be above a certain threshold. Anything below that threshold is a null result. Any outlying result beyond the threshold is almost always a bringer of false hope if the main bulk of the data is still inside the threshold.
Results at the margin only serve, in the end, to demonstrate the validity of the margin.
Now, a modern automobile engine is a large, heavey and complicated mechanical and electronic object that has evolved over time to solve a whole slew of engineering problems that have arisen in trying to extract useful work from the device, but. ..
I can demonstrate that it will, in the end, work with nothing more than a bit of PVC pipe, a bit of potato, a shot of hairspray and a match. The basic principles are, well, basic. I can do an analogous demonstration that a particle accelerator will work with a couple hundred dollars worth of stuff I've got just lying around the lab, on a lab table.
All I can do for his device in the lab is show that it won't work, because the basic principles do not support it.
Based on actual test I have to predict that his machine will just keep getting bigger and bigger, more and more complicated while doing nothing but returning "better" and "bette
Yeah, all we need are inertialess mass, room temperature superconductors, "free" free hydrogen and infinitely long, tangle proof extension cords and we're golden.
Slashdot Mirror
"comp" is a verb?
Yep.
"Comp: Complimentary or free items and or services casinos give gamblers in gratitude for their business."
Some jokes you can't write because they just drop into your lap.
KFG
You obviously do not understand the difference between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0.
Web 1.0 - Only served up static content. Information. That you searched for. That you were interested in. It's all about you, you, you.
Web 2.0 - All about serving up content that someone else thinks you should be interested in. It's all about them, them, them thinking me, me, me, thinking that means you, you, you.
Web 3.0 - Profit!
KFG
When you have an employee who is doing things that - in your opinion as managment - hurt the company, it is your obligation to the stockholders to find out who it is and. . .
.have them shot. It's a legal duty to the stockholders.
. .
By the way, why do you think they call them "directors"? It is the CEO who is the employee.
KFG
Wait - should I now infer that all those cookies I left *weren't* actually eaten by Santa Claus?
I'd set 'em in a bear trap if I were you.
KFG
...should they have to pay twice to the lyricist because the singer had marbles in his mouth?
Why are you supporting lousy singers who record on labels that do not provide lyric sheets with the recording?.
For purposes of bias revelation I will point out that I have never downloaded an infringing mp3, but have a number of infringing midi and text files. I learn many of the songs/tunes I perform that way, I do mostly "covers" (goes with the territory of being a "folk" singer) and they are often better references than a sound recording (the lyricist/composer, at least in theory, gets paid if the works are under copyright. ASCAP and BMI are supposed see to that. BMI does a better job).
I take it there's something in what I said that makes you think that I think it is always morally wrong to download an infringing lyric sheet? If so, you are in error.
My preference, however, is for buying legitimate "fake" books, especially if the publisher has the good sense to spiral bind them.
KFG
In that case, what they ought to do is demand that the source code be released without giving the option to merely cease and desist.
.they ought to demand damages equal to the amount it would cost to buy the code from DLink, and then buy the code and assign copyright to the Free Software Foundation.
That might well be within their legal powers, although outside the scope of the actual suit. Whether they ought to or not is a moral/ethical problem. It is the same as saying the the RIAA ought to sue the pants off anyone they think is violating, instead of demanding that they cease and desist.
. .
D-Link's code that has been "infected" by the GPL has no monetary value. It only has barter value for code, as defined by the GPL. D-Link's code that has not been "infected" is theirs to do with as they please. They cannot be compelled to sell; and if they wish to sell it is D-Link; and D-Link alone, that decides what they want to charge for it.
The primary goal of the suit has been met, getting people to take the GPL as a serious, enforcable license and understanding that violating it can result in financial loss.
KFG
. . .without seeking damages.. GPL has no teeth.
Damages are about financial loss.
Copyright is about copying; monopoly. What you do with a monopoply is largely up to you; within the limits of law. You may choose to exploit it for financial gain or not. If you do not that does not infringe on the enforcability of your legal monopoly.
The GPL requires a sharing of code. Code is what you can demand in court. Those are the only teeth that the GPL is designed to have. It's about the code, not money.
If you want money for your code, just use another license, but don't use the GPL and expect to hold the code close. The license has been shown to have teeth.
KFG
Force output per unit of power input is not relative to anything.
.
It is a figure provided by measurement. It only has meaning relative to the measurement process.
Surely you understand the concepts of accuracy, precision and signal to noise ratio?
The gentleman himself avers that the reason his results cannot simply be accepted prime facie is because the measurements are taken at the threshold of noise.
Noise is not an empircical result just because you get a reading from your meter.
Next time that you're going to rant and judge something based on your acquired beliefs. .
My acquired beliefs are as valid as; and only as valid as, my measurements, since that is how I acquired them. I'm perfectly willing to try measuring his as soon as he shows there might actually be something to measure. If there is, I'm perfectly willing to validate them and attempt to explain them theoretically.
KFG
I would think that it would have a far stronger legal standing than EULAs which often make the people who agree to them take all sorts of measures that have nothing to do with traditional copyright protection.
.legally binding.
They do not make people do anything. They make people think they make people do things. Provisions within a EULA that are not legally binding are not . .
Beyond simply being deceptive, most click through EULAs are boilerplate. They include every possible provision which might be legally binding across all jurisdictions in which the software might be sold. That is the genesis of the clause you will find stating that any individual provision which is found to not be legally binding does not legally invalidate the entire license. They know there are questionable/nonbinding terms in the license "agreement" and are protecting those provisions which bind.
KFG
. . .was there some reason that they could not also just distribute the source, which would have also made them compliant with the GPL?
The empirical evidence would suggest that they don't want to.
KFG
And put in your earplugs
Brought to you by Bose(tm)
put on your eyeshades
Brought to you by Paramount Studios(tm)
you know where to put the cork...
Brought to you by Kaopectate(tm)
KFG
The premise of the submitter only holds if ALL of the search engines hang tough. If only Google tells em to go piss up a rope, they lose most of the news sources and readers start using someone else.
See my post about Wal-Mart shipping back DVDs.
KFG
I wish certain other people of faith or ideology would think the same.
.prosilitize.
So do I, but that would require that I . .
KFG
Claiming an amount of force output per unit of power input is perfectly meaningful.
Not without defining the conditions under which the measurement was taken.
KFG
Yeah, and only one religion rules: yours. Everyone else is converted or killed.
The fact that there have been people who have used my spiritual beliefs as a justification for warfare is a great sorrow to me.
One of the fundamental precepts of my religion is to "harm no sentient being." One of the other fundamental precepts is that you are responsible for your actions.
KFG
This is on par with charging money for getting lyrics online. Greed never ceases to amaze.
No more nor less stupid than charging money for any other form of recorded music/literature online. A recording artist makes money by selling his sound recordings, a lyricist makes money by selling his text recordings.
If you purchase a sound recording or sheet to learn the lyrics, the lyricist gets paid. If you download a free sound recording or sheet, the lyricist does not.
So the question, as always, develoves back to the root; the inherent validity of the copyright concept, whether or not you think that lyricists should get paid for using their works.
At the moment I solve the issue by forcing you to come to enough of my live performances to memorize my work (at least those that I haven't "given away" by posting on Slashdot), or you could book a lesson, but not everyone sees it that way.
KFG
. . .without a car, I would be fscked.
.I may well charge you for it. It would be my job.
.creat jobs.
So would I. Just because I don't own 'em doesn't imply that I don't use 'em. That's why there are jobs to be found in the enterprise.
Will you help me too?
Yes, I will. Although. .
The route to my job is 50km long each way, and in the winter the temperature drops to -25C.
About the same as the local conditions I have operated under. I can show you solutions, some of which would . .
Remember that jobs are the context? Bicycles are not "free." They require support systems just like cars, and thus people to operate those support systems.
Jobs.
KFG
He reports in his PDF paper to be generating 214mN/kW at the moment. By no stretch of the imagination is that *nothing*.
This: "generating 214mN/kW at the moment," is a meaningless statement.
Although you claim to be an empiricist, all in all, most of your post is a rant based on your prior beliefs. That's not being empirical.
Empiricism can be summed up in two words, "Show me," which is all I have asked for.
KFG
. . .so is there any legal avenue to take against Wal-mart for this kind of action (other than consumer action which doesn't work so well when dealing with lower prices)?
Sure, for the distributors to not cave and just tell Wal-Mart, "Fine, we have alternate outlets if you don't want to profit from our work. Cut your own throat, see if we care."
KFG
I love windmills. I hate windfarms. Windmills are a viable energy independence technology. Stop thinking that energy necessarily has to come from some massively centralized third party.
.own.
Make . . . your . .
KFG
Even though fossil fuels may be deemed as evil the working guy/gal at these places would probably like to remain employed.
I'm perfectly willing to teach them to fix/build bicycles, show them what sort of fuel/comfort stations cyclists would find useful and spend money at, what sort of road system would better suit cyclists rather than cars, how human muscle can be used to transport goods, make electricity, etc.
"Paradigm shifts" always result in increased employment, although to take advantage of them one might have to learn some new skills.
For many of the workers in the car based economy these new "skills" would amount to nothing more than learning the new set of lies appropriate to selling the new product.
KFG
this Space Tourist should really try to
make a connection or three with some Muslim schools; I think it would
even be a first (as most of the schools that are selected from the
queue are from USA, I understand).
There are Muslim schools in the USA. There are Christian schools in Iran. They are religions, not countries or races.
KFG
The idea that their "Playskool" interface is an attempt to not be condescending is just too condescending to bear.
KFG
I think the key part of your debate falls down with discounting things by predicting theoretical failures before a test is made.
.
.however, if you tell me you have created a "free energy" device by a particularly clever arrangement of magnets I do not have to pay much attention to you, because I have tested magnets. I do not have test every arrangement of magnets in the world.
.nothing.
.
I'm an empiricist. Testing is what I do.
Theory always alters to fit the observed facts.
You'll find my other posts littered with statements that the equations are only models, not the reality and that reality always, always, always trumps the model. In this particular case, however, we are dealing with some of the most basic and rigorously tested facts in history.
There's nothing I like better than running a test that destroys a bad model, because I loath bad models. If the model is suffieciently established there could even be something like a Nobel in it. .
It's also possible to find something that works despite what the equations say.
. .
This is, in fact, one of the primary functions of a model. To allow us to spend our time persuing that which is likely to be true and ignore that which is certain to be false, not on the basis of a priori assumptions, but on the basis of a priori test.
This guy has come up with a scheme with all the hallmarks of a clever arrangement of magnets. From obvious misunderstanding of the phenomena he is dealing with to the belief that if he could just find his way around some insoluable problem with another layer of misunderstanding things will come out all right.
Well, all of that, I acknowledge, is neither here nor there if the device can actually be shown to work. If it works we've got to get back to work on the models. That is how science is supposed to work and you'll find my posts littered with complaints that science is dying because no one works it that way anymore.
But here's the thing. It's his crackpot idea. As a crackpot idea he has to show that it works. As a bystander it's simply my role to retest to find out if/how/why his tests are bogus or not. If they work, he get the Nobel, not me. The onus is on him.
And he hasn't produced results yet. All his careful documentation and measurement show . .
Except a device that just keeps getting bigger and bigger, more and more complicated, heavier and heavier, as he chases down solutions to more and more insoluable problems.
As an old school empiricist I know something that most, even most scientists, seem to have forgotten, that measurement is an inexact science and for a result to be meaningful it has to, inherently, be above a certain threshold. Anything below that threshold is a null result. Any outlying result beyond the threshold is almost always a bringer of false hope if the main bulk of the data is still inside the threshold.
Results at the margin only serve, in the end, to demonstrate the validity of the margin.
Now, a modern automobile engine is a large, heavey and complicated mechanical and electronic object that has evolved over time to solve a whole slew of engineering problems that have arisen in trying to extract useful work from the device, but. .
I can demonstrate that it will, in the end, work with nothing more than a bit of PVC pipe, a bit of potato, a shot of hairspray and a match. The basic principles are, well, basic. I can do an analogous demonstration that a particle accelerator will work with a couple hundred dollars worth of stuff I've got just lying around the lab, on a lab table.
All I can do for his device in the lab is show that it won't work, because the basic principles do not support it.
Based on actual test I have to predict that his machine will just keep getting bigger and bigger, more and more complicated while doing nothing but returning "better" and "bette
Yeah, all we need are inertialess mass, room temperature superconductors, "free" free hydrogen and infinitely long, tangle proof extension cords and we're golden.
KFG