By succeeding at something hard, either through genetics or upbringing. The fact that fructose (may) play a role doesn't mean it's impossible to find skinny people, but it is sufficient to explain geographical differences in the ratio of skinny to non-skinny people.
Of course, I'm tempted to blame American culture as well, but I have no scientific evidence to back that up.
Wikileaks didn't steal anything. They didn't break into anywhere or con information out of someone. They were given the information by someone who was unauthorized to do so, and then redistributed it. Whether or not that constitutes a crime depends on the law.
If you're selling a large commercial closed software blob anyway, why not ship static libraries and park the whole thing in/opt? That, and GNOME and KDE menu entries, should be enough to make you compatible with 99% of Linux distros out there.
See, that's the huge fallacy with the argument that intellectual property has no owner, and therefore no financial value to any entity as it should be distributed without recompense
Those aren't the only two options. According to the US Constitution copyrights are supposed to be for "limited times", making the copyright holder more of a temporary steward than an owner. Which is fine by me, someone gets some benefit, then we all get benefit, win/win. Except Congress isn't living up to their end and defines "limited times" as longer than any of us expect to live.
But by freely pirating unavailable works you make it difficult for the publisher to find it profitable to eventually bring his product there, creating a sort of death spiral for legitimate works. I'm not suggesting that society has an obligation to help him make money, but if we've agreed that domestically that's an ingredient that helps promote the creation of works, then surely that holds internationally too? Even if there's a delay in the release cycle (not something I'm happy about either)?
The Supreme Court is not meant to be the ultimate arbiter of what the Constitution means.
That battle was fought and lost all the way back in 1789, decided by our founding fathers themselves. Judicial review is an important check on legistlative and executive power.
just like most doctors nowadays are proponents of evidence-based medicine
Were these the same doctors that were up in arms when a US council recommended women get fewer mammograms, after evidence showed that (even absent any cost argument!) the reduced frequency was just as effective at detecting breast cancer?
Continuing the off-topic discussion, I agree. I think it also furthers the artificial distinction between "producers" and "consumers", by saying they don't want big-bad-companies to use their works, but hobbyists, etc, are ok. Were that regular people were ENCOURAGED to engage in the world of commerce, it might someday be less dominated by those big evil companies.
My point was less about strict adherence to a license, and more about how many people view noncommercial copyright infringement as much less serious than commercial copyright infringement, including (presumably) the author of the work in question, as he explicitly permitted it himself.
As a footnote, I'm not attempting to debate the merits of such a view, or even claim that I agree (I think every author should be free to choose how they want a work disseminated). I am, however, attempting to point out that many people can and will legitimately distinguish this situation from casual movie/music piracy on the basis of their own values.
But selling a home DVD-ripping set-top-box/media-server is still in muddy legal water, at best. The whole world isn't made of geeks who can do-it-themselves, and people being able to have this technology in their homes shouldn't be dependent on the MPAA's say-so!
The summary states plain as day that the non-commercial CC license was used, so if the offenders weren't using his material in the furtherance of making a buck he wouldn't have a problem.
With a cloud provider, all I have is a promise of security.
Well, no, you have a contract. The same way most places subcontract their physical security too. You accept there's some possibility of screw ups but at least cede that people doing this for a business might have better skills at something that's outside your core competency.
You're certain, but you're wrong, at least in two states my entirely deaf relative has lived (CT,MD). There are multiple ways people are alerted to emergency situations (flashing lights), and people are generally responsible for their own awareness of what's going on around them in the first place (mirrors, etc). Deafness might make it a small bit less safe to drive, I'll concede, but the state has decided that small amount isn't worth making it even harder for handicapped people to live their lives as normally as possible.
Everything has to be maintained, plus there's the ongoing costs of billing and customer support.
I don't mean to support outrageous prices for outrageously slow speeds, but I do mean to say that 50 residential customers at different residences incur higher total costs than 50 employees at a single business that uses the same total bandwidth.
What makes your questions interesting has absolutely nothing to do with copyright. You could replace copying in your examples with other torts or crimes that you're unintentionally abetting.
For example, if it rains, and the rain freezes to my walkway, and I don't clear it off or post a sign, and somebody walks up to my door but slips and severely injures themself, am I liable? (yes!)
Bandwidth doesn't scale down well, there's last-mile costs. There's the upfront roll-out for one, then the DSLAMs, then account management. That said, this level of cap is downright highway robbery, only a monopoly could get away with that.
It's a fair statistical method, it just shows something different than the title claims. It may even perhaps be a more interesting result than a flat random sample (it shows what people are *actually* sharing, weighted by how much, rather than how many times you've uploaded videos of your recital nobody cares about).
I can release my plugin without ever agreeing to your license, in which case neither I nor any sane court gives a damn what the GPL says.
The salient question is whether your work is a derivative work under copyright law. If it is, you need a license, and the GPL is being offered to you as one. If it isn't, you don't.
I can't predict what the courts would decide, but it's entirely independent of the text of the GPL.
Nonsense. There's nothing per-se wrong with Turing completeness, see things like Postscript and SVG. It's the APIs in and out of the interpreter, which admittedly is *very* easy to screw up (see things like PDF and Flash).
If you are new to computers, you don't know what you need, and there are good odds that you may need MS Office or Outlook. Yes, that's listed as a previous bullet point, but if you're new to computers you might literally be too ignorant to understand that does or will apply to you.
On the other hand, occasionally you have an extremely lightweight payload of human beings. Send them at very high acceleration on a much faster hyperbolic (far above escape velocity) transfer orbit.
Is it really feasible to send humans faster than Hohmann with current tech? Last I heard it wasn't... which makes radiation (and perhaps worse, isolation!) a legit problem.
Similarly I was under the impression that it wasn't necessarily attenuation from atmospheric mass that provided cosmic radiation shielding, but rather the magnetosphere, which is something not easily duplicatable on an interplanetary craft.
FOSS programmers can and often do find parallel solutions to problems where patents are involved. The problem lies in compatibility, people want to be able to distribute files in one format and have them usable by everyone. You can't even write a format converter without using the patented algorithm to interpret the original ttf (or gif, or mpg) files.
Patents cover methods, as they were designed to do, but in the software world that means they by necessity cover interfaces too.
Slashdot Mirror
By succeeding at something hard, either through genetics or upbringing. The fact that fructose (may) play a role doesn't mean it's impossible to find skinny people, but it is sufficient to explain geographical differences in the ratio of skinny to non-skinny people.
Of course, I'm tempted to blame American culture as well, but I have no scientific evidence to back that up.
Wikileaks didn't steal anything. They didn't break into anywhere or con information out of someone. They were given the information by someone who was unauthorized to do so, and then redistributed it. Whether or not that constitutes a crime depends on the law.
If you're selling a large commercial closed software blob anyway, why not ship static libraries and park the whole thing in /opt? That, and GNOME and KDE menu entries, should be enough to make you compatible with 99% of Linux distros out there.
See, that's the huge fallacy with the argument that intellectual property has no owner, and therefore no financial value to any entity as it should be distributed without recompense
Those aren't the only two options. According to the US Constitution copyrights are supposed to be for "limited times", making the copyright holder more of a temporary steward than an owner. Which is fine by me, someone gets some benefit, then we all get benefit, win/win. Except Congress isn't living up to their end and defines "limited times" as longer than any of us expect to live.
But by freely pirating unavailable works you make it difficult for the publisher to find it profitable to eventually bring his product there, creating a sort of death spiral for legitimate works. I'm not suggesting that society has an obligation to help him make money, but if we've agreed that domestically that's an ingredient that helps promote the creation of works, then surely that holds internationally too? Even if there's a delay in the release cycle (not something I'm happy about either)?
The Supreme Court is not meant to be the ultimate arbiter of what the Constitution means.
That battle was fought and lost all the way back in 1789, decided by our founding fathers themselves. Judicial review is an important check on legistlative and executive power.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison
just like most doctors nowadays are proponents of evidence-based medicine
Were these the same doctors that were up in arms when a US council recommended women get fewer mammograms, after evidence showed that (even absent any cost argument!) the reduced frequency was just as effective at detecting breast cancer?
Continuing the off-topic discussion, I agree. I think it also furthers the artificial distinction between "producers" and "consumers", by saying they don't want big-bad-companies to use their works, but hobbyists, etc, are ok. Were that regular people were ENCOURAGED to engage in the world of commerce, it might someday be less dominated by those big evil companies.
My point was less about strict adherence to a license, and more about how many people view noncommercial copyright infringement as much less serious than commercial copyright infringement, including (presumably) the author of the work in question, as he explicitly permitted it himself.
As a footnote, I'm not attempting to debate the merits of such a view, or even claim that I agree (I think every author should be free to choose how they want a work disseminated). I am, however, attempting to point out that many people can and will legitimately distinguish this situation from casual movie/music piracy on the basis of their own values.
The legal theory is sensible. What's fucked up is that two grown adults can't settle their dispute outside a court of law.
But selling a home DVD-ripping set-top-box/media-server is still in muddy legal water, at best. The whole world isn't made of geeks who can do-it-themselves, and people being able to have this technology in their homes shouldn't be dependent on the MPAA's say-so!
The summary states plain as day that the non-commercial CC license was used, so if the offenders weren't using his material in the furtherance of making a buck he wouldn't have a problem.
With a cloud provider, all I have is a promise of security.
Well, no, you have a contract. The same way most places subcontract their physical security too. You accept there's some possibility of screw ups but at least cede that people doing this for a business might have better skills at something that's outside your core competency.
You're certain, but you're wrong, at least in two states my entirely deaf relative has lived (CT,MD). There are multiple ways people are alerted to emergency situations (flashing lights), and people are generally responsible for their own awareness of what's going on around them in the first place (mirrors, etc). Deafness might make it a small bit less safe to drive, I'll concede, but the state has decided that small amount isn't worth making it even harder for handicapped people to live their lives as normally as possible.
Everything has to be maintained, plus there's the ongoing costs of billing and customer support.
I don't mean to support outrageous prices for outrageously slow speeds, but I do mean to say that 50 residential customers at different residences incur higher total costs than 50 employees at a single business that uses the same total bandwidth.
What makes your questions interesting has absolutely nothing to do with copyright. You could replace copying in your examples with other torts or crimes that you're unintentionally abetting.
For example, if it rains, and the rain freezes to my walkway, and I don't clear it off or post a sign, and somebody walks up to my door but slips and severely injures themself, am I liable? (yes!)
Zack Morris, is that you??
Bandwidth doesn't scale down well, there's last-mile costs. There's the upfront roll-out for one, then the DSLAMs, then account management. That said, this level of cap is downright highway robbery, only a monopoly could get away with that.
It's a fair statistical method, it just shows something different than the title claims. It may even perhaps be a more interesting result than a flat random sample (it shows what people are *actually* sharing, weighted by how much, rather than how many times you've uploaded videos of your recital nobody cares about).
I can release my plugin without ever agreeing to your license, in which case neither I nor any sane court gives a damn what the GPL says.
The salient question is whether your work is a derivative work under copyright law. If it is, you need a license, and the GPL is being offered to you as one. If it isn't, you don't.
I can't predict what the courts would decide, but it's entirely independent of the text of the GPL.
Nonsense. There's nothing per-se wrong with Turing completeness, see things like Postscript and SVG. It's the APIs in and out of the interpreter, which admittedly is *very* easy to screw up (see things like PDF and Flash).
Is it really feasible to send humans faster than Hohmann with current tech?
Apologies, I meant to imply "to Mars", which was what this thread started off talking about.
If you are new to computers, you don't know what you need, and there are good odds that you may need MS Office or Outlook. Yes, that's listed as a previous bullet point, but if you're new to computers you might literally be too ignorant to understand that does or will apply to you.
On the other hand, occasionally you have an extremely lightweight payload of human beings. Send them at very high acceleration on a much faster hyperbolic (far above escape velocity) transfer orbit.
Is it really feasible to send humans faster than Hohmann with current tech? Last I heard it wasn't... which makes radiation (and perhaps worse, isolation!) a legit problem.
Similarly I was under the impression that it wasn't necessarily attenuation from atmospheric mass that provided cosmic radiation shielding, but rather the magnetosphere, which is something not easily duplicatable on an interplanetary craft.
FOSS programmers can and often do find parallel solutions to problems where patents are involved. The problem lies in compatibility, people want to be able to distribute files in one format and have them usable by everyone. You can't even write a format converter without using the patented algorithm to interpret the original ttf (or gif, or mpg) files.
Patents cover methods, as they were designed to do, but in the software world that means they by necessity cover interfaces too.