If they had been slipped cyanide, they wouldn't be acting like anything. They'd be dead.
Drugging somebody against their will is a rather serious crime, and there is no doubt this was premeditated, making it almost on par with attempted murder. In many jurisdictions, the victim of a crime of this severity might be allowed to request that charges be dropped, but it is still up to prosecuting attorney to actually do so. If the prosecuting attorney thinks that the crime is too severe to allow the perpetrator to go unpunished, and, subjectively, especially if there is no indication of repentance on the part of the perpetrator, then the charges will stand. A judge will determine what actual sentence is appropriate.
I don't really understand why people are more amenable to a mile tax system vs gas tax
That's because most people drive cars that actually use gas, and aren't expecting to change anytime soon, so a mile-tax system could save them a bit of money.
... programmers could be held responsible for whatever it is that they explicitly designed the software to do, to the extent that fitness for a particular purpose is actually applicable. Other than that, no.
I don't recall suggesting anything of the sort... I only suggested that humans have shown themselves to be adaptable to changing environments many times more quickly than evolution could otherwise incorporate the necessary physiological changes, and it is because of this that I believe man would probably be able to survive another similar extinction-level event, and the likelihood of such an event in the human race's future almost certainly approaches 100%.
The Batman logo itself is almost certainly a trademark and copyright violation
So is wolfram alpha infringing on trademark or copyright with this? And if not, then why should plotting that function onto some hubcaps suddenly infringe?
As a readily recognized facsimile of logo can be recreated simply by a mathematical equation, I'm not sure how they can claim any sort of infringement unless they are claiming to own that sequence of mathematical operations (which is bollocks).
I fail to see how "maintain copyright" is an advantage for him
Neither do I, based on his statements.
If copyright protects against loss of value or avoids trouble, then it would seem to hold some value just on that premise alone.
Fact remains, however, that copyright *DOES* hold some real value for most content makers, and I'm not just talking about big media here. Of course, that value is derived from the copy control that it is supposed to offer, and if the public does not respect that, then its value is reduced for the content-maker.
Considering you can also put your work into public domain with the addition of a single and very brief sentence ("this work is hereby released into public domain"). I fail to see any significant advantage of most CC licenses over public domain, other than to maintain copyright. If just a single boilerplate sentence in an accompanying documentation file is really just too much work for you, then wow.... just wow. You'll spend orders of magnitude more effort creating the software in the first place. In fact, you'll spent more time trying to think of reasons not to do it than it will take to simply do it.
I place a positive value copyright personally, but if you are going to argue that a world without copyright would be preferable (which you appeared to be doing), then I fail to see why you'd be using a CC license when you can put it into public domain, unless you really *do* value copyright and are simply not consciously aware of how much.
As for what one can do with your work if it were public domain that they cant do with CC, it depends on which CC license you utilized. At the very least, even the most permissive CC license still requires attribution, while public domain does not.
...since releasing those works into the public domain would require a nontrivial amount of effort for each of those works,...
Uh... completely untrue. All it requires is a simple statement somewhere along with the work (such as the accompanying readme file in the case of software) that the work is released into public domain, and it's done. No copyright. At all.
If copyright holds a negative value for you, then I would think it makes much more sense for you to strip any copyright notices from your code,. and adding in the documentation that the work is public domain. And you're done. The end.
I won't argue that ripping out all the copyright notices might be a bit tedious, but you did put them there, but certainly if you had simply initially just used public domain instead of CC, that wouldn't have ever been a problem.
I wasn't ignoring it... in fact, you illustrate the very point I was making. Even people who release for free prefer to copyright over putting things in public domain, so the notion that freedom somehow prefers an absence of copyright is unfounded.
The notion is that the owner of the website would have to pay for such links... It would be up to the website to extract payment from its users... Which, in the case if one that permits anonymous comments, is not possible, and the website would assume liability.
it's absurd, and can't be enforced outside of their own jurisdiction.
The dinosaurs not return because ther weren't any left to propagate the species.
and the world was quite habitable during the climate change period... As I said, small mammals survived it. As a species, man is more adaptable to changing environments than any other creature (other than possible microbial life forms), and there's no reason to think that such an event, if repeated, would actually annihilate man. Something far more serious might, but I'd dare say that it would probably have to render the planet an uninhabitable rock... Something tha by no means is a future certainty merely on account of a collision.
Pirating any copyrighted content reduces the perceived merits of copyright for content makers, which was to supposedly offer them control over who is permitted to make copies. Decreasing the incentive copyright offers them only stands to decrease future availability of similarly protected works, and provides incentive to content makers to utilize other means to protect their interests such as DRM.
Are you going to argue that works which have such protections in place, and impose limits on the end user with regards to the circumstances that they can be utilized, are just as valuable as those that are not?
Copy control has *ALWAYS* existed on creative works... before copyright existed, such copy control was regulated by the natural difficulty that existed behind copying such works in the first place, which had to be done manually, and was extremely tedious and error prone, leading to significant costs that only the very wealthy could generally afford (and that's why patronage was utilized). Then copyright was invented, and it offered content-makers a measure of copy control (as long as society agreed to respect it). The alternative to copyright is not public domain, it is draconian DRM.... DRM that we are only now just beginning to see the impact of. DRM that will prevent otherwise completely legitimate usability, and will be utterly against the law to bypass *REGARDLESS* of purpose.
Sufficiently technically minded people would still be able to work around such systems, but it will not be generally practical for the masses to utilize such systems without drawing attention to themselves. The end result will be decreased availability of generally usable content, as the predominant forms of electronically published works deteriorates into an indecipherable mess of spam, porn, and cat-videos.
I meant preferable for society, not necessarily preferable for content-makers. Anything that protects their control of copies is valuable to content makers.
The chance of an extinction-level collision may be 100%, but that's a very different thing than planet-obliterating.
Of course, small mammals survived the extinction-level event which wiped out the dinosaurs. Considering our adaptability, and especially considering how much more intelligent we are than dinosaurs, that enables us to adapt by judicious use of intellect orders of magnitude faster than evolution can incorporate physiological changes, I might dare suggest that humanity (not necessarily you or I, or even civilization itself... but humans, as a species) might even actually survive another such collision in the future.
Slashdot Mirror
If they had been slipped cyanide, they wouldn't be acting like anything. They'd be dead.
Drugging somebody against their will is a rather serious crime, and there is no doubt this was premeditated, making it almost on par with attempted murder. In many jurisdictions, the victim of a crime of this severity might be allowed to request that charges be dropped, but it is still up to prosecuting attorney to actually do so. If the prosecuting attorney thinks that the crime is too severe to allow the perpetrator to go unpunished, and, subjectively, especially if there is no indication of repentance on the part of the perpetrator, then the charges will stand. A judge will determine what actual sentence is appropriate.
It's not right for a parent to adjudicate who is allowed to use the Internet that *THEY* pay for?
Really, if the kid wants their own internet, they should get themselves emancipated and move out.
The latter. No contest.
That's because most people drive cars that actually use gas, and aren't expecting to change anytime soon, so a mile-tax system could save them a bit of money.
... programmers could be held responsible for whatever it is that they explicitly designed the software to do, to the extent that fitness for a particular purpose is actually applicable. Other than that, no.
I don't recall suggesting anything of the sort... I only suggested that humans have shown themselves to be adaptable to changing environments many times more quickly than evolution could otherwise incorporate the necessary physiological changes, and it is because of this that I believe man would probably be able to survive another similar extinction-level event, and the likelihood of such an event in the human race's future almost certainly approaches 100%.
"pals", "buddies", "friends"...?
You can declare on the invoice that it was 1.996, but on the receipt, after the sale, the amount will still say 2.00, as long as cash is being used.
I was going to post something similar... now you have me wondering if it was about me at all.
And not respecting copyright is done by consumers themselves. Either way, the value is reduced for other party.
You first.
That only works if there is no sales tax.
So is wolfram alpha infringing on trademark or copyright with this? And if not, then why should plotting that function onto some hubcaps suddenly infringe?
You can't own math.
As a readily recognized facsimile of logo can be recreated simply by a mathematical equation, I'm not sure how they can claim any sort of infringement unless they are claiming to own that sequence of mathematical operations (which is bollocks).
Neither do I, based on his statements.
If copyright protects against loss of value or avoids trouble, then it would seem to hold some value just on that premise alone.
Fact remains, however, that copyright *DOES* hold some real value for most content makers, and I'm not just talking about big media here. Of course, that value is derived from the copy control that it is supposed to offer, and if the public does not respect that, then its value is reduced for the content-maker.
Kind of like how DRM reduces value for consumers.
Considering you can also put your work into public domain with the addition of a single and very brief sentence ("this work is hereby released into public domain"). I fail to see any significant advantage of most CC licenses over public domain, other than to maintain copyright. If just a single boilerplate sentence in an accompanying documentation file is really just too much work for you, then wow.... just wow. You'll spend orders of magnitude more effort creating the software in the first place. In fact, you'll spent more time trying to think of reasons not to do it than it will take to simply do it.
I place a positive value copyright personally, but if you are going to argue that a world without copyright would be preferable (which you appeared to be doing), then I fail to see why you'd be using a CC license when you can put it into public domain, unless you really *do* value copyright and are simply not consciously aware of how much.
As for what one can do with your work if it were public domain that they cant do with CC, it depends on which CC license you utilized. At the very least, even the most permissive CC license still requires attribution, while public domain does not.
Uh... completely untrue. All it requires is a simple statement somewhere along with the work (such as the accompanying readme file in the case of software) that the work is released into public domain, and it's done. No copyright. At all.
If copyright holds a negative value for you, then I would think it makes much more sense for you to strip any copyright notices from your code,. and adding in the documentation that the work is public domain. And you're done. The end.
I won't argue that ripping out all the copyright notices might be a bit tedious, but you did put them there, but certainly if you had simply initially just used public domain instead of CC, that wouldn't have ever been a problem.
I wasn't ignoring it... in fact, you illustrate the very point I was making. Even people who release for free prefer to copyright over putting things in public domain, so the notion that freedom somehow prefers an absence of copyright is unfounded.
Actually, that fee would end up coming from slashdot, if it were actually enforceable outside Ireland
The notion is that the owner of the website would have to pay for such links... It would be up to the website to extract payment from its users... Which, in the case if one that permits anonymous comments, is not possible, and the website would assume liability.
it's absurd, and can't be enforced outside of their own jurisdiction.
The dinosaurs not return because ther weren't any left to propagate the species.
and the world was quite habitable during the climate change period... As I said, small mammals survived it. As a species, man is more adaptable to changing environments than any other creature (other than possible microbial life forms), and there's no reason to think that such an event, if repeated, would actually annihilate man. Something far more serious might, but I'd dare say that it would probably have to render the planet an uninhabitable rock... Something tha by no means is a future certainty merely on account of a collision.
Pirating any copyrighted content reduces the perceived merits of copyright for content makers, which was to supposedly offer them control over who is permitted to make copies. Decreasing the incentive copyright offers them only stands to decrease future availability of similarly protected works, and provides incentive to content makers to utilize other means to protect their interests such as DRM.
Are you going to argue that works which have such protections in place, and impose limits on the end user with regards to the circumstances that they can be utilized, are just as valuable as those that are not?
Neither is society's.
Copy control has *ALWAYS* existed on creative works... before copyright existed, such copy control was regulated by the natural difficulty that existed behind copying such works in the first place, which had to be done manually, and was extremely tedious and error prone, leading to significant costs that only the very wealthy could generally afford (and that's why patronage was utilized). Then copyright was invented, and it offered content-makers a measure of copy control (as long as society agreed to respect it). The alternative to copyright is not public domain, it is draconian DRM.... DRM that we are only now just beginning to see the impact of. DRM that will prevent otherwise completely legitimate usability, and will be utterly against the law to bypass *REGARDLESS* of purpose.
Sufficiently technically minded people would still be able to work around such systems, but it will not be generally practical for the masses to utilize such systems without drawing attention to themselves. The end result will be decreased availability of generally usable content, as the predominant forms of electronically published works deteriorates into an indecipherable mess of spam, porn, and cat-videos.
I meant preferable for society, not necessarily preferable for content-makers. Anything that protects their control of copies is valuable to content makers.
The chance of an extinction-level collision may be 100%, but that's a very different thing than planet-obliterating.
Of course, small mammals survived the extinction-level event which wiped out the dinosaurs. Considering our adaptability, and especially considering how much more intelligent we are than dinosaurs, that enables us to adapt by judicious use of intellect orders of magnitude faster than evolution can incorporate physiological changes, I might dare suggest that humanity (not necessarily you or I, or even civilization itself... but humans, as a species) might even actually survive another such collision in the future.