Mere modification of a natural object is not sufficient... it must be modified by unnatural means, which means specifically employing something outside of one's own natural capabilities to make something more fit for purpose than it otherwise would be, which in the case of smelting and making cast weapons, would be fire.
Call that a moved goalpost if you want to, but I never laid any claim to any other standard. Human ancestors leaned how to control fire to achieve productive ends over a hundred thousand years ago... so I'd suggest that the actual goalpost was set in pre-history. Besides, somebody asked where my yardstick was... challenging it by suggesting that any logical similarity to a less specific form of measurement should automatically make a concept with higher standards is somehow equivalent to a lower standard one is fallacious.
Unless the format involves directly beaming the experience of hearing the music into human brains, without actually producing any audible sound whatsoever, I'm pretty sure it can be pirated using long existing methods.
My yardstick is not merely using tools, but manufacturing them, specifically using what would be considered unnatural techniques. In the example above, I referred to making a specific choice to melt metal, so that it can be poured into sword or other weapon-shaped moulds to create said weapons, to in turn be more effective at killing. This is something that our ancestors figured out how to do an untold number of years ago, going back to pre-historic times.
Sure, but there's not a lot of incentive for the big auto manufacturers to not allow dealerships to continually renew franchise license agreements that are nearing expiry, because if they ever decided to not allow renewal, they would be taking quite a large financial hit from that point forward until they got any new direct-to-consumer system up and running in a self-sustaining capacity.... a large enough hit that it might even bankrupt them.
The manufacturers can't bypass them because the manufacturers sold the dealerships franchise rights in the first place.
Tesla hasn't sold any franchises to any dealers, so there's no dealership it actually competes with.
Now theoretically, big auto manufacturers could pull their franchise lciense renewals and wait for the existing ones to expire before selling direct, but they probably would take a large financial hit in doing so, and its unlikely to be in their best interest.
The big barrier (for other auto manufacturers) here is that all of the big auto makers have already sold franchises to dealerships, giving dealerships a right to sell their cars, so if the manufacturers of said cars started selling direct to consumers, they would be competing with the franchises that they sold to dealerships in the first place. This is unfair competition, and why it is illegal.
However, Tesla hasn't sold any franchises, and so wouldn't be competing with any of the dealerships in any kind of unfair capacity.
Right, but to say that one cannot do something, as the expression is commonly used, is to mean that one cannot actually succeed at whatever it is that they were supposedly going to do.
It is thus perfectly correct to say, matter-of-factly, that one cannot sue a person for reason XYZ, even if they can try and start proceedings against them.
Just as certainly as I could say that I can't play the piano, for instance... I mean, I physically can, obviously, any able-bodied person can sit at a piano and pound on keys, but I certainly can't play it to any measure that sounds like I am competent. Success is an implied outcome of any ordinary verb usage.
Verbs generally connote that you actually succeed at whatever the thing is that you are doing... and an inability to successfully achieve a task is often linguistically synonymous with the declaration of being unable to do that task.
Only if there is some level of raw access that bypasses the security. The security can, in theory, be enforced on the individual chip level and without the right password available to it, you can't image any of the chip's contents, raw or decrypted.
When you can't successfully complete something that you try to start, then you can't really say that you are genuinely able to do that thing in the first place, can you?
And how would you do step 1 or 2, exactly? Consider the possibility that the passcode protection could actually be enforced right down to the individual chip level, so trying to image the storage without the correct password would be futile, only giving you garbage at best.
If you genuinely have something important enough on the phone that you don't want them to know about, then time spent in jail for contempt of court might be preferable to the penalties that you would have otherwise incurred.
If you didn't want it to completely erase everything after a number of failed attemps, but the device could still be set up to block more than, say, 10 attempts per hour, then you're looking at closer to a month and a half, assuming you make 10 attemps every hour, night and day until you crack it... or on average, still more than 20 days to crack. In that amount of time, it's not inconceivable that one could have reasonably earned enough money to buy a whole new iphone, so the data would have to be of extreme importance to even want to go through with that. If you restrict it to no more than 10 attempts per 24 hours, then you're looking at the average length of time to crack being well in excess of a year. And again, it would have to all be done manually.... Who the fuck has that kind of patience?
If the passcode must be manually entered, then even a 4 digit password is not particulalry feasible to try and crack. Sure, it can be done by a determined enough person, but you're talking about sitting around doing nothing but pressing virtual keys on a screen for what on average would probably be at least half a dozen hours before they might luck out and get it right. Most people have something considerably better to do with their time... If that couples with a password count restriction, say, limited to 10 attempts to unlock per hour, then it's completely infeasible.
It would be more like saying that everyone should be calling your home an El-Gaz home because you got central heating from El-Gaz, even though your home is not owned in any way by El-Gaz... but calling it that would suggest it...
Really, if Stallman had ever suggested that Minix should be called GNU/Minix because of the full suite of GNU tools that it used to come with, Tannenbaum would have probably dropped their use almost immediately (he eventually did anyways, but if it wasn't using the GNU tools back when Linux was first being developed, there's every likelihood that Linux wouldn't have been dependent on GNU tools either, if it had ever been developed at all).
And besides, everything else that uses the GNU project name in its title is at least intended to be strongly affiliated with the GNU project, if not actually *part* of the GNU project itself. Linux uses the GPL, and most distros use GPL tools, but Linux is *NOT* a GPL project, nor it is really affiliated with it.
Of course not.... but II was just offering a conjecture for what their possible problem with it might be... that merely even *imagining* something else being infinite would amount to putting something else as being somehow equal to Allah, which is why they would view it as objectionable.
My point is that names are important, and they should do so in a way that isn't going to leave a person confused about what something is. Prefixing the name of a piece of software with the name of the GNU project carries the connotation that it is something that is actually *PART* of that project, or else it was at least explicitly the intent of its creators to be strongly affiliated with the GNU project. Linux uses the GPL, but is not actually affiliated with the GNU project in any way, so calling it GNU/Linux is misleading at best, an outright lie at worst. If one really feels a need to have to point out that Linux is being distributed with GNU software, then it would make sense to explicitly point out that fact... nobody is stopping anybody from being honest about the origins of the software most Linux distros come bundled with. But calling Linux GNU/Linux as some sort of a shorthand form carries the connotation that Linux is somehow actually part of the GNU project, which it isn't... or at least implies that they actively support or publish some specific distribution of Linux (in which case, the term would refer specifically to that distribution), but that's not the case either.
If true, I suspect that it may be because it includes concepts like infinity... and they might be concerned that even merely imagining the existence of such a thing would be tantamount to challenging the infinite nature of Allah.
I was puzzling over this for a while myself, but then I considered that it may be because it includes concepts like infinity... and even merely acknowledging the existence of such a thing, and even though it is purely an abstract concept, it may be considered tantamount to challenging the infinite nature of Allah, and thus not something that should be taught.
Slashdot Mirror
Mere modification of a natural object is not sufficient... it must be modified by unnatural means, which means specifically employing something outside of one's own natural capabilities to make something more fit for purpose than it otherwise would be, which in the case of smelting and making cast weapons, would be fire.
Call that a moved goalpost if you want to, but I never laid any claim to any other standard. Human ancestors leaned how to control fire to achieve productive ends over a hundred thousand years ago... so I'd suggest that the actual goalpost was set in pre-history. Besides, somebody asked where my yardstick was... challenging it by suggesting that any logical similarity to a less specific form of measurement should automatically make a concept with higher standards is somehow equivalent to a lower standard one is fallacious.
Nope... And I'm surprised as of the time of this posting that there appears to be only one other post than yours that even mentions it.
Unless the format involves directly beaming the experience of hearing the music into human brains, without actually producing any audible sound whatsoever, I'm pretty sure it can be pirated using long existing methods.
My yardstick is not merely using tools, but manufacturing them, specifically using what would be considered unnatural techniques. In the example above, I referred to making a specific choice to melt metal, so that it can be poured into sword or other weapon-shaped moulds to create said weapons, to in turn be more effective at killing. This is something that our ancestors figured out how to do an untold number of years ago, going back to pre-historic times.
... and cast weapons made of metal from molds that they manufactured themselves, just so they can kill more effectively.
Sure, but there's not a lot of incentive for the big auto manufacturers to not allow dealerships to continually renew franchise license agreements that are nearing expiry, because if they ever decided to not allow renewal, they would be taking quite a large financial hit from that point forward until they got any new direct-to-consumer system up and running in a self-sustaining capacity.... a large enough hit that it might even bankrupt them.
Tesla hasn't sold any franchises to any dealers, so there's no dealership it actually competes with.
Now theoretically, big auto manufacturers could pull their franchise lciense renewals and wait for the existing ones to expire before selling direct, but they probably would take a large financial hit in doing so, and its unlikely to be in their best interest.
The big barrier (for other auto manufacturers) here is that all of the big auto makers have already sold franchises to dealerships, giving dealerships a right to sell their cars, so if the manufacturers of said cars started selling direct to consumers, they would be competing with the franchises that they sold to dealerships in the first place. This is unfair competition, and why it is illegal.
However, Tesla hasn't sold any franchises, and so wouldn't be competing with any of the dealerships in any kind of unfair capacity.
Ford, GM, et al would be competing with dealerships that they sold franchises to in the first place, it would be unfair competition.
Tesla hasn't sold any franchises, and doesn't compete with any dealerships.
Tesla isn't bypassing dealerships because no dealerships actually sell Tesla automobiles.
And where the material cost per item printed is cheap... and I mean cheap... like cheap as in cheap as dirt, cheap.
And I'll happily throw down a thousand bucks for something like that.
Right, but to say that one cannot do something, as the expression is commonly used, is to mean that one cannot actually succeed at whatever it is that they were supposedly going to do.
It is thus perfectly correct to say, matter-of-factly, that one cannot sue a person for reason XYZ, even if they can try and start proceedings against them.
Just as certainly as I could say that I can't play the piano, for instance... I mean, I physically can, obviously, any able-bodied person can sit at a piano and pound on keys, but I certainly can't play it to any measure that sounds like I am competent. Success is an implied outcome of any ordinary verb usage.
Verbs generally connote that you actually succeed at whatever the thing is that you are doing... and an inability to successfully achieve a task is often linguistically synonymous with the declaration of being unable to do that task.
Only if there is some level of raw access that bypasses the security. The security can, in theory, be enforced on the individual chip level and without the right password available to it, you can't image any of the chip's contents, raw or decrypted.
When you can't successfully complete something that you try to start, then you can't really say that you are genuinely able to do that thing in the first place, can you?
How do you clone the data in the first place if the hardware won't let you read it without the right password?
And how would you do step 1 or 2, exactly? Consider the possibility that the passcode protection could actually be enforced right down to the individual chip level, so trying to image the storage without the correct password would be futile, only giving you garbage at best.
If you genuinely have something important enough on the phone that you don't want them to know about, then time spent in jail for contempt of court might be preferable to the penalties that you would have otherwise incurred.
If you didn't want it to completely erase everything after a number of failed attemps, but the device could still be set up to block more than, say, 10 attempts per hour, then you're looking at closer to a month and a half, assuming you make 10 attemps every hour, night and day until you crack it... or on average, still more than 20 days to crack. In that amount of time, it's not inconceivable that one could have reasonably earned enough money to buy a whole new iphone, so the data would have to be of extreme importance to even want to go through with that. If you restrict it to no more than 10 attempts per 24 hours, then you're looking at the average length of time to crack being well in excess of a year. And again, it would have to all be done manually.... Who the fuck has that kind of patience?
If the passcode must be manually entered, then even a 4 digit password is not particulalry feasible to try and crack. Sure, it can be done by a determined enough person, but you're talking about sitting around doing nothing but pressing virtual keys on a screen for what on average would probably be at least half a dozen hours before they might luck out and get it right. Most people have something considerably better to do with their time... If that couples with a password count restriction, say, limited to 10 attempts to unlock per hour, then it's completely infeasible.
It would be more like saying that everyone should be calling your home an El-Gaz home because you got central heating from El-Gaz, even though your home is not owned in any way by El-Gaz... but calling it that would suggest it...
Really, if Stallman had ever suggested that Minix should be called GNU/Minix because of the full suite of GNU tools that it used to come with, Tannenbaum would have probably dropped their use almost immediately (he eventually did anyways, but if it wasn't using the GNU tools back when Linux was first being developed, there's every likelihood that Linux wouldn't have been dependent on GNU tools either, if it had ever been developed at all).
And besides, everything else that uses the GNU project name in its title is at least intended to be strongly affiliated with the GNU project, if not actually *part* of the GNU project itself. Linux uses the GPL, and most distros use GPL tools, but Linux is *NOT* a GPL project, nor it is really affiliated with it.
Of course not.... but II was just offering a conjecture for what their possible problem with it might be... that merely even *imagining* something else being infinite would amount to putting something else as being somehow equal to Allah, which is why they would view it as objectionable.
My point is that names are important, and they should do so in a way that isn't going to leave a person confused about what something is. Prefixing the name of a piece of software with the name of the GNU project carries the connotation that it is something that is actually *PART* of that project, or else it was at least explicitly the intent of its creators to be strongly affiliated with the GNU project. Linux uses the GPL, but is not actually affiliated with the GNU project in any way, so calling it GNU/Linux is misleading at best, an outright lie at worst. If one really feels a need to have to point out that Linux is being distributed with GNU software, then it would make sense to explicitly point out that fact... nobody is stopping anybody from being honest about the origins of the software most Linux distros come bundled with. But calling Linux GNU/Linux as some sort of a shorthand form carries the connotation that Linux is somehow actually part of the GNU project, which it isn't... or at least implies that they actively support or publish some specific distribution of Linux (in which case, the term would refer specifically to that distribution), but that's not the case either.
If true, I suspect that it may be because it includes concepts like infinity... and they might be concerned that even merely imagining the existence of such a thing would be tantamount to challenging the infinite nature of Allah.
I was puzzling over this for a while myself, but then I considered that it may be because it includes concepts like infinity... and even merely acknowledging the existence of such a thing, and even though it is purely an abstract concept, it may be considered tantamount to challenging the infinite nature of Allah, and thus not something that should be taught.