Exclusive right meaning that it is a right to exclude others.m it doesn't convey any positive rights
The exclusivity aspect is negative, but the right itself, which is the right to grant somebody else legally recognized permission to copy the work *IS* a positive right. That aspect of the right isn't lost when infringement occurs, but some measure of its exclusivity is, and it's not even necessarily unreasonable to associate some value to that in a society which also values copyright.
If other copyrights interfere with their freedom to copy the work, then they don't actually have the copyright at all.
Again, copyright is literally the "right to copy". If a person claims they hold a copyright on something, but they don't actually have any legally valid right to control who else may copy the work, then they may actually possess some intellectual property associated with the work, but they do not possess the copyright. They are simply taking something else and calling it "copyright".
By "native" I meant code produced by a native C++ compiler, from roughly equivalent source (using the default 'new' operator in C++ compared to the new keyword in Java).
Obviously, the reality is that, at least in some circumstances, allocating objects with Java's new keyword does not have as much overhead as C++'s 'new' operator.
Could you design a faster one in C++? Probably... especially if you knew for sure what sort of allocations were going to be happening and coded especially for that. The neat thing I found about Java, however, was that as a program author, I didn't have to know the details of exactly what sort of code path the program would take when it executed.... I could simply implement the algorithm at a high level and the runtime environment would optimize it.
C++ (generally) compiles to native code. Java does not. When a particular task can run faster when having done it from Java than doing the exact same task, the exact same way (from a source code perspective, not with respect to what exact machine instructions are going to end up executing), it's not unreasonable to conclude that the JVM's runtime can, in such circumstances, outperform native compiled code.
I'll admit that the circumstances for this kind of performance improvement with Java over C++ are probably rare, but they still do happen. In particular, I've personally noticed that dynamic memory allocation in C++ happens to have overhead that, in quite a lot of cases, just does not get incurred when using Java's own 'new' operator to do what, from a source code perspective, should have been exactly the same thing, and this is even after factoring in Java's garbage collection compared to using C++'s 'delete' keyword.
Obviously there's under-the-hood optimization happening in Java that isn't happening with C++, but that's only because the C++ compiler can't always actually predict how the code is going to execute. The Java compiler itself can't predict how the code is going to execute either, of course... but the JVM, which actually does run it, gets a firsthand look at what the code is really doing, and can potentially perform runtime optimizations which could only be accomplished in C++ by explicitly writing the code to be optimized for such occurrences. If you were to do that, then I would fully expect C++ compiled code to end up executing faster again... but you may also end up with something which from a source code perspective may not be as reusable in potentially very different circumstances.
Of course it would... but in C++, you have to manually write the code to be optimized for whatever types of objects you were pooling, where the java runtime environment is smart enough to figure out how to do that on the fly, without having to spend any effort writing custom allocators for each type of object.
As the entire concept of copyright revolves around what is supposed to be an exclusive right to control who makes copies, usurping some of that control by taking matters into ones own hands and making an unauthorized copy *DOES* deprive the copyright holder of some of their rights.
The only way you can argue otherwise is to suggest that the copyright holder shouldn't have had such rights in the first place, but since that's entirely what copyright is, literally, as I said, the right to copy, you may as well be advocating copyright abolition.
I've seen java programs actually run *faster* than native code under certain circumstances. In particular, object allocation with the 'new' keyword in Java is often far faster than dynamic allocation with the 'new' keyword in C++, even when you factor in the costs of garbage collection compared to manually invoking delete in C++.
Considering part of the copyright holder's rights are supposed to be the right to exclusively control who else will be allowed to make copies in the first place (ie, literally the "right to copy"), the mere act of making any unauthorized copies of copyrighted works at all deprives the rights holder of at least some of their so-called rights.
But because such rights are not typically valued by the person who might make an unauthorized copy, one who does so will generally not perceive it as being similar to theft in any way.
One who is inclined to produce excuses for such activity might argue that because such rights are not natural rights, they should have no value,. except that much of the concept of property itself, and the very meaning of ownership that does not necessarily involve physical possession of something is actually entirely an artificial one, or else I could not, for example, claim that the car I drive when I leave it legally parked in a public place still actually belongs to me... even if I leave the doors unlocked, or forget the keys on the front seat (granted, for such an oversight, I'd be practically publicly announcing that I want it to be stolen, and if I were to have actually done this, it would probably affect whether or not theft insurance would cover my loss, but the thief, if any, would still be a thief, and culpable for the crime).
Factually, *EVERYBODY* has something to hide... not because they are necessarily doing anything wrong, but because some things are simply private.
To anyone who would say that they agree with such a notion, consider asking them why ordinary people wear clothes daily. Clothes, after all, cover up one's body, and therefore hide it from view. If the only reason to hide something is because something is wrong, is someone who is wearing clothes necessarily saying that there is something necessarily wrong with their body?
Unless the person you are talking to is a nudist who also happens to firmly believes that other people should openly practice nudity as well (sort of like an evangelical nudist, I guess), or else thinks for some reason that everybody *does* have something wrong with their body, they should realize the inherent flaw in their previously held assumption once this is pointed out to them.
The problem isn't accepting ssh as root, per se, the biggest problem is having passwords for usernames on another system stored on an easily compromisable computer, especially ones with sudo rights.
Going 1.1mph over the limit for 1 second amounts to your car being 19.36 inches further along the road than it would have been if it were going the speed limit. This would only reasonably be considered speeding if such a difference in position could reasonably endanger anyone who was hypothetically near you, moving at exactly the posted limit, and was using otherwise typical car spacing for the posted speed, which for such a short distance would probably require that the vehicle be expected to not move at all.
The myth that people can provide things for free is at the heart of communism - the reality that everything costs something is why all experiments with communism fail
Communism has actually been experimentally shown to work, but only with relatively small group sizes. The problem with communism is that it doesn't scale well because it does not account for the propensity for people to be greedy or lazy when given the opportunity to do so (which invariably happens as a community size exceeds a certain threshold and people no longer have direct personal accountability to more than the minimum percentage of the community that is necessary for it to function as intended). It's still fatally flawed... just not for the reasons you've described.
Actually, applying makeup would not be permitted, since the person's focus would be on their own face in a mirror and not on the road, and therefore just as culpable under distracted driving laws as a person who is reading a newspaper.
Knuth doesn't seem to be too bothered by the fact that his program is rendered in standard ascii characters as 'TeX', rather than how the name is typeset in his books, since his very own home page seems to do likewise.
... which is to blindly state that the public is wrong.
Because now it doesn't matter if they are wrong.... they've completely screwed the pooch with the people who expressed their negative opinion on the matter.
Eventually, of course, they'll have to rationalize the whole thing to themselves by concluding that these people's opinions simply don't matter to them anyways.
Way to go there, EA. Awesome PR. You will, I'm afraid, be eating those words eventually. Unfortunately, probably not before a whole lot of people lose their jobs.
By unemployment, I mean unable to secure any position, either inside of or outside of their field. Outside of their field, they were routinely considered "overqualified" (arguably understandable), and inside of their field, it was simply a matter of not being able to find any openings.
Who said I was whining? I'm not suggesting anybody owes a job to people just because they have a particular education, I'm saying that sometimes shit just happens, and getting work is difficult regardless of one's qualifications.
I know 2 people with doctorates in science-related disciplines (one in physics, the other mathematics) who've both had very serious battles with long periods of unemployment (in excess of 3 years).
It's not how much you know... it's who you know. And if you don't happen to be connected to the right people at the right time, well then, it's mostly a matter of luck.
But then, so is being connected to the right people at the right time.
I like your extension of the hammer analogy, but what's funny about that analogy is that a lighter hammer would actually be less effective than a heavier one, since hammers use momentum to deliver force to a nail and momentum is proportional to mass.
Slashdot Mirror
The exclusivity aspect is negative, but the right itself, which is the right to grant somebody else legally recognized permission to copy the work *IS* a positive right. That aspect of the right isn't lost when infringement occurs, but some measure of its exclusivity is, and it's not even necessarily unreasonable to associate some value to that in a society which also values copyright.
"nearly half of all voters were open to changing their minds", they say.
Which means that *more* than half are not.
Those are the ones to be really worried about... because close-mindedness only breeds prejudice and bigotry,
If other copyrights interfere with their freedom to copy the work, then they don't actually have the copyright at all.
Again, copyright is literally the "right to copy". If a person claims they hold a copyright on something, but they don't actually have any legally valid right to control who else may copy the work, then they may actually possess some intellectual property associated with the work, but they do not possess the copyright. They are simply taking something else and calling it "copyright".
By "native" I meant code produced by a native C++ compiler, from roughly equivalent source (using the default 'new' operator in C++ compared to the new keyword in Java).
Obviously, the reality is that, at least in some circumstances, allocating objects with Java's new keyword does not have as much overhead as C++'s 'new' operator.
Could you design a faster one in C++? Probably... especially if you knew for sure what sort of allocations were going to be happening and coded especially for that. The neat thing I found about Java, however, was that as a program author, I didn't have to know the details of exactly what sort of code path the program would take when it executed.... I could simply implement the algorithm at a high level and the runtime environment would optimize it.
Ah, typical slashdot pedantry. How refreshing.
C++ (generally) compiles to native code. Java does not. When a particular task can run faster when having done it from Java than doing the exact same task, the exact same way (from a source code perspective, not with respect to what exact machine instructions are going to end up executing), it's not unreasonable to conclude that the JVM's runtime can, in such circumstances, outperform native compiled code.
I'll admit that the circumstances for this kind of performance improvement with Java over C++ are probably rare, but they still do happen. In particular, I've personally noticed that dynamic memory allocation in C++ happens to have overhead that, in quite a lot of cases, just does not get incurred when using Java's own 'new' operator to do what, from a source code perspective, should have been exactly the same thing, and this is even after factoring in Java's garbage collection compared to using C++'s 'delete' keyword.
Obviously there's under-the-hood optimization happening in Java that isn't happening with C++, but that's only because the C++ compiler can't always actually predict how the code is going to execute. The Java compiler itself can't predict how the code is going to execute either, of course... but the JVM, which actually does run it, gets a firsthand look at what the code is really doing, and can potentially perform runtime optimizations which could only be accomplished in C++ by explicitly writing the code to be optimized for such occurrences. If you were to do that, then I would fully expect C++ compiled code to end up executing faster again... but you may also end up with something which from a source code perspective may not be as reusable in potentially very different circumstances.
That's because they don't own the copyright. Although it's often the case that authorship equates to copyright ownership, that isn't always the case.
Of course it would... but in C++, you have to manually write the code to be optimized for whatever types of objects you were pooling, where the java runtime environment is smart enough to figure out how to do that on the fly, without having to spend any effort writing custom allocators for each type of object.
As the entire concept of copyright revolves around what is supposed to be an exclusive right to control who makes copies, usurping some of that control by taking matters into ones own hands and making an unauthorized copy *DOES* deprive the copyright holder of some of their rights.
The only way you can argue otherwise is to suggest that the copyright holder shouldn't have had such rights in the first place, but since that's entirely what copyright is, literally, as I said, the right to copy, you may as well be advocating copyright abolition.
I've seen java programs actually run *faster* than native code under certain circumstances. In particular, object allocation with the 'new' keyword in Java is often far faster than dynamic allocation with the 'new' keyword in C++, even when you factor in the costs of garbage collection compared to manually invoking delete in C++.
Considering part of the copyright holder's rights are supposed to be the right to exclusively control who else will be allowed to make copies in the first place (ie, literally the "right to copy"), the mere act of making any unauthorized copies of copyrighted works at all deprives the rights holder of at least some of their so-called rights.
But because such rights are not typically valued by the person who might make an unauthorized copy, one who does so will generally not perceive it as being similar to theft in any way.
One who is inclined to produce excuses for such activity might argue that because such rights are not natural rights, they should have no value,. except that much of the concept of property itself, and the very meaning of ownership that does not necessarily involve physical possession of something is actually entirely an artificial one, or else I could not, for example, claim that the car I drive when I leave it legally parked in a public place still actually belongs to me... even if I leave the doors unlocked, or forget the keys on the front seat (granted, for such an oversight, I'd be practically publicly announcing that I want it to be stolen, and if I were to have actually done this, it would probably affect whether or not theft insurance would cover my loss, but the thief, if any, would still be a thief, and culpable for the crime).
It seems then, as I said, that a key tenet of such authoritarianism is the assumption that everyone ought to be a practicing nudist.
Factually, *EVERYBODY* has something to hide... not because they are necessarily doing anything wrong, but because some things are simply private.
To anyone who would say that they agree with such a notion, consider asking them why ordinary people wear clothes daily. Clothes, after all, cover up one's body, and therefore hide it from view. If the only reason to hide something is because something is wrong, is someone who is wearing clothes necessarily saying that there is something necessarily wrong with their body?
Unless the person you are talking to is a nudist who also happens to firmly believes that other people should openly practice nudity as well (sort of like an evangelical nudist, I guess), or else thinks for some reason that everybody *does* have something wrong with their body, they should realize the inherent flaw in their previously held assumption once this is pointed out to them.
The problem isn't accepting ssh as root, per se, the biggest problem is having passwords for usernames on another system stored on an easily compromisable computer, especially ones with sudo rights.
Going 1.1mph over the limit for 1 second amounts to your car being 19.36 inches further along the road than it would have been if it were going the speed limit. This would only reasonably be considered speeding if such a difference in position could reasonably endanger anyone who was hypothetically near you, moving at exactly the posted limit, and was using otherwise typical car spacing for the posted speed, which for such a short distance would probably require that the vehicle be expected to not move at all.
Communism has actually been experimentally shown to work, but only with relatively small group sizes. The problem with communism is that it doesn't scale well because it does not account for the propensity for people to be greedy or lazy when given the opportunity to do so (which invariably happens as a community size exceeds a certain threshold and people no longer have direct personal accountability to more than the minimum percentage of the community that is necessary for it to function as intended). It's still fatally flawed... just not for the reasons you've described.
Actually, applying makeup would not be permitted, since the person's focus would be on their own face in a mirror and not on the road, and therefore just as culpable under distracted driving laws as a person who is reading a newspaper.
Oh geeze... my age is showing.
Knuth doesn't seem to be too bothered by the fact that his program is rendered in standard ascii characters as 'TeX', rather than how the name is typeset in his books, since his very own home page seems to do likewise.
Because now it doesn't matter if they are wrong.... they've completely screwed the pooch with the people who expressed their negative opinion on the matter.
Eventually, of course, they'll have to rationalize the whole thing to themselves by concluding that these people's opinions simply don't matter to them anyways.
Way to go there, EA. Awesome PR. You will, I'm afraid, be eating those words eventually. Unfortunately, probably not before a whole lot of people lose their jobs.
I'm confused.... you seem to be agreeing with me in your second paragraph, but disagree with me in your first.
By unemployment, I mean unable to secure any position, either inside of or outside of their field. Outside of their field, they were routinely considered "overqualified" (arguably understandable), and inside of their field, it was simply a matter of not being able to find any openings.
Who said I was whining? I'm not suggesting anybody owes a job to people just because they have a particular education, I'm saying that sometimes shit just happens, and getting work is difficult regardless of one's qualifications.
Nope.
I know 2 people with doctorates in science-related disciplines (one in physics, the other mathematics) who've both had very serious battles with long periods of unemployment (in excess of 3 years).
It's not how much you know... it's who you know. And if you don't happen to be connected to the right people at the right time, well then, it's mostly a matter of luck.
But then, so is being connected to the right people at the right time.
I like your extension of the hammer analogy, but what's funny about that analogy is that a lighter hammer would actually be less effective than a heavier one, since hammers use momentum to deliver force to a nail and momentum is proportional to mass.
If there were actually any proof of that allegation, google would be a whole shitpile of trouble.