A 13 year old does not have the same level of emotional and intellectual maturity as a person ten years older. While certainly all the potential is there, they simply lack the life experience and wisdom to be able to, at least consistently, make smarter life choices.
I'm not suggesting that kids should not be allowed to think for themselves, but really... there's always going to be a limit to this. To be fair, however, I know people who are in their forties that still haven't learned how to make mature decisions for themselves either, so it really isn't always tied to simple chronological age, but more to actual life experience. I only suggest that people who haven't been on the planet for as long are considerably less likely to have acquired that amount of life experience than those that have been around longer. We rather arbitrarily draw the line for this at around age 18 or 19, only because we have to draw it somewhere... and it doesn't seem to me to be a bad choice.
The congestion fee isn't stealing any money. There is absolutely nothing prohibiting people from taking alternative transport to or from work beyond a person's own unwillingness to utilize it.
9 lines out of 15 million is well below any reasonable threshold of incidental copying that might occur simply because one only intended to copy a general idea and not the literal code.
If one thinks that being asked to sign an NDA should ever be taken as even the slightest questioning of a person's integrity, then they are so grossly insecure about what they feel other people think, that it's probably for the best if they *DON'T* work for or with anybody else.
Most people who are educated enough to read and write also have enough experience with their language to cope with the existence of homonyms, and not be compelled to associate a term only to one particular thing when the context is obviously referring to something else that only happens to share the same spelling.
Fortunately for them the thermal receipt will fade after two years
Not if you keep the receipt in your freezer. There is a small area of my freezer that I have specifically designated for thermal paper receipts. They do not ever fade as long as they are kept cool. I keep my thermal receipts in a sealed baggy in my freezer so that condensation does not get on them.
Most stores use thermal paper receipts which fade after a year or so. What would be interesting would be to send them a faded 10-year old piece of thermal paper and see what happens.:)
In an unrelated incident, my wife and I had to deal with this exact situation once. The bill had faded long before the 2 year warranty on our new vacuum expired, and the store would not honor their guarantee. We were more than slightly miffed about the incident, when the only way we could get service on the vacuum was to buy the extended warranty (which they were still willing to sell us, even though it was 8 months later). These days, my wife and I have a policy of always putting thermal paper receipts in a baggy that we keep in the freezer. The thermal paper printing does not seem to ever fade as long as the paper is kept cool.
A number of years ago... I don't recall when. Maybe around 2005 or so, I tried claiming a replacement on a CFL once that came with an alleged 2 year guarantee when it lasted only something like 2 months.
The replacement policy required the original receipt... no photocopies or duplicates... and I had to send the bulb I had purchased, along with the receipt I had for it to the manufacturer myself, all at my own expense.
This was problematic for three reasons. The first was that I would not be able to claim any warranty at all on the replacement bulb.... if it was faulty and burned out within 20 minutes of my plugging it in, I'd be SOL. Even the store where I had bought it from would have allowed me an immediate over-the-counter replacement in such a circumstance.
The second factor was that actually sending them the bulb in a box, with postage, worked out to almost as much as buying a brand new light bulb.
Finally, in my case, the receipt had many other items on it... including other bulbs. If I sent them the entire receipt just to replace this one bulb, if another one went, I'd have no receipt to send them anymore... in addition to being unable to prove my date of purchase for any other items on the bill.
I came to conclusion then and there that that their guarantees are just a scam to get you buy their bulbs.
I wasn't talking about compensation. I was talking about exclusivity.
Exclusivity is not at all an artificial thing.... a creator of a work has inherent exclusivity to control who is allowed to copy that work if he or she chooses not to distribute the work to anyone, or to restrict its distribution to a smaller set of the population.
When somebody else copies the work without permission, by very definition of the word "exclusive", the exclusivity is compromised.
Obviously, the choice to widely distribute can adversely impact that exclusivity, so as encouragement for the copyright holder to publish, and the general public to benefit from the distribution of the work, copyright exists as a social contract to allow the creator to keep some of his or her exclusivity for a limited time, while at the same time gaining some notoriety. It's supposed to be win-win. If the social contract is not adhered to, the creator loses incentive to utilize it, and if he or she still desires control over their work, they will either not publish at all, or voluntarily limit their distribution of the work to a subset of the population that they can have at least some measure of confidence will not destroy their exclusivity. The only other recourse to attempt to retain their exclusivity, is to try to directly limit unauthorized copying by making it harder to do. In addition to this latter choice being a largely wasted effort on account of people who will certainly determine ways to bypass the publisher's limitation, it usually has the upshot of making the work more difficult to use, or requiring special circumstances for use of the work that might not be as convenient for consumers. This, in turn, causes the consumer to actually *disrespect* the publisher's rights, and ends up only further eroding copyright.
In a world without copyright, the only works that would generally be published would be so heavily laden with DRM as to be all but unusable by many people.... and those without DRM would have to have been funded by some benefactor, or else sponsored by entities such as the government... which is liable to result in effective censorship of what content the general public can have unrestricted access to. While self-publication would, of course, be possible with the internet (or whatever communication technology succeeds it), it is likely that such self-published works that have some real quality to them would be lost amidst a never-ending deluge of cat videos, spam, and pornography. The occasional gem would still occasionally surface... but it would still tend to reflect the creator's ability to market their work or increase its visibility than it would be a reflection of its underlying worth or merit.
File copying is not stealing since no one loses anything when it happens.
Nobody is losing anything *TANGIBLE*.
It does not mean there is not a loss when somebody copies copyrighted material without permission. It's just that what is lost is intangible and most likely worthless to all but the copyright holder and the agents that represent him or her.
The submitter cared enough to submit it. The submitter is someone, and therefore not nobody.
It got approved to be an actual headline story. Those that approved it are also not nobody.
Your statement is better qualified as *YOU* do not care... and perhaps are incapable of imagining how anybody else could care.
Short of having some possible religious reasons to not recognize birthdays and anniversaries, I'm unsure why the fact that some other people might care about this should be a problem for you.
For better or worse, they have to show that they've always vigourously defended their copyrights in the past, otherwise it's fair game like Aspirin or Kleenex
You are conflating copyrights and trademarks.
They are different. Trademarks must be defended as you describe. Copyrights do not.
Actually, I'm pretty sure that Canada Post isn't under any real obligation to deliver packages that don't have a postal code given. If you go to a post office to drop off a package you want to send, they won't even accept it if it doesn't have a postal code on it. Also, if there is no postal code on a letter that was dropped in a mailbox, then they tend to deliver it when they "get around to it"... which can take a *VERY* long time. On the order of months.
Well yes... YMMV, of course. I can only speak from personal experience.
I don't watch anything on FOX.... and as for the stuff on Syfy that I might want to watch, I'd rather wait until the entire current season comes out on DVD, and I can watch it all at my own pace anyways.
But then you are looking at actually having to take pause and explicitly listen for an engine sound that you are already expecting to be there, which is why you can hear it.
In practice, with most cars you're going to hear the sound of the tires on the road *LONG* before you hear the engine, unless there is something wrong with its muffler, and at speeds that are too low to hear the tires on the ground, with some manufacturer's cars equipped with a new engine and a good muffler, it can sneak up on you just as easily as an electric car could.
Both Rolls Royce and Lexus come to mind as especially silent. At low speeds you're just not going to hear its engine unless you are right beside it and listening for it. At higher speeds, again, you'll hear the tires on the road first.
This law requiring electric cars to make noise may as well prohibit companies from making good mufflers. It should also require noisemakers on bicycles, and motorized wheelchairs, both of which can be almost as hazardous to pedestrians as automobiles.
I didn't and wouldn't say that my proposed solution doesn't have its own set of problems... But it does have the merit of nullifying the bomb threat issue... and that was what the question was about.
The question posed was "Is there any foreseeable defense (forensic or socially engineered) to a situation like this?"
I was answering that question. Yes, I realize the solution I offered is probably not very practical... but it would solve the underlying problem that the university is having, as well as the threat, insomuch as the university students are threatened due to their involvement with that institution.
As for the notion that the bomber would just target something else, that's not really the university's problem. You may as well blame a store that kept getting robbed for closing down after robberies start happening at other nearby stores.
Slashdot Mirror
It's just you.
A 13 year old does not have the same level of emotional and intellectual maturity as a person ten years older. While certainly all the potential is there, they simply lack the life experience and wisdom to be able to, at least consistently, make smarter life choices.
I'm not suggesting that kids should not be allowed to think for themselves, but really... there's always going to be a limit to this. To be fair, however, I know people who are in their forties that still haven't learned how to make mature decisions for themselves either, so it really isn't always tied to simple chronological age, but more to actual life experience. I only suggest that people who haven't been on the planet for as long are considerably less likely to have acquired that amount of life experience than those that have been around longer. We rather arbitrarily draw the line for this at around age 18 or 19, only because we have to draw it somewhere... and it doesn't seem to me to be a bad choice.
The congestion fee isn't stealing any money. There is absolutely nothing prohibiting people from taking alternative transport to or from work beyond a person's own unwillingness to utilize it.
9 lines out of 15 million is well below any reasonable threshold of incidental copying that might occur simply because one only intended to copy a general idea and not the literal code.
Ideas cannot be copyrighted.
You might want to double check that
If one thinks that being asked to sign an NDA should ever be taken as even the slightest questioning of a person's integrity, then they are so grossly insecure about what they feel other people think, that it's probably for the best if they *DON'T* work for or with anybody else.
Most people who are educated enough to read and write also have enough experience with their language to cope with the existence of homonyms, and not be compelled to associate a term only to one particular thing when the context is obviously referring to something else that only happens to share the same spelling.
[NT]
Not if you keep the receipt in your freezer. There is a small area of my freezer that I have specifically designated for thermal paper receipts. They do not ever fade as long as they are kept cool. I keep my thermal receipts in a sealed baggy in my freezer so that condensation does not get on them.
In an unrelated incident, my wife and I had to deal with this exact situation once. The bill had faded long before the 2 year warranty on our new vacuum expired, and the store would not honor their guarantee. We were more than slightly miffed about the incident, when the only way we could get service on the vacuum was to buy the extended warranty (which they were still willing to sell us, even though it was 8 months later). These days, my wife and I have a policy of always putting thermal paper receipts in a baggy that we keep in the freezer. The thermal paper printing does not seem to ever fade as long as the paper is kept cool.
A number of years ago... I don't recall when. Maybe around 2005 or so, I tried claiming a replacement on a CFL once that came with an alleged 2 year guarantee when it lasted only something like 2 months.
The replacement policy required the original receipt... no photocopies or duplicates... and I had to send the bulb I had purchased, along with the receipt I had for it to the manufacturer myself, all at my own expense.
This was problematic for three reasons. The first was that I would not be able to claim any warranty at all on the replacement bulb.... if it was faulty and burned out within 20 minutes of my plugging it in, I'd be SOL. Even the store where I had bought it from would have allowed me an immediate over-the-counter replacement in such a circumstance.
The second factor was that actually sending them the bulb in a box, with postage, worked out to almost as much as buying a brand new light bulb.
Finally, in my case, the receipt had many other items on it... including other bulbs. If I sent them the entire receipt just to replace this one bulb, if another one went, I'd have no receipt to send them anymore... in addition to being unable to prove my date of purchase for any other items on the bill.
I came to conclusion then and there that that their guarantees are just a scam to get you buy their bulbs.
I wasn't talking about compensation. I was talking about exclusivity.
Exclusivity is not at all an artificial thing.... a creator of a work has inherent exclusivity to control who is allowed to copy that work if he or she chooses not to distribute the work to anyone, or to restrict its distribution to a smaller set of the population.
When somebody else copies the work without permission, by very definition of the word "exclusive", the exclusivity is compromised.
Obviously, the choice to widely distribute can adversely impact that exclusivity, so as encouragement for the copyright holder to publish, and the general public to benefit from the distribution of the work, copyright exists as a social contract to allow the creator to keep some of his or her exclusivity for a limited time, while at the same time gaining some notoriety. It's supposed to be win-win. If the social contract is not adhered to, the creator loses incentive to utilize it, and if he or she still desires control over their work, they will either not publish at all, or voluntarily limit their distribution of the work to a subset of the population that they can have at least some measure of confidence will not destroy their exclusivity. The only other recourse to attempt to retain their exclusivity, is to try to directly limit unauthorized copying by making it harder to do. In addition to this latter choice being a largely wasted effort on account of people who will certainly determine ways to bypass the publisher's limitation, it usually has the upshot of making the work more difficult to use, or requiring special circumstances for use of the work that might not be as convenient for consumers. This, in turn, causes the consumer to actually *disrespect* the publisher's rights, and ends up only further eroding copyright.
In a world without copyright, the only works that would generally be published would be so heavily laden with DRM as to be all but unusable by many people.... and those without DRM would have to have been funded by some benefactor, or else sponsored by entities such as the government... which is liable to result in effective censorship of what content the general public can have unrestricted access to. While self-publication would, of course, be possible with the internet (or whatever communication technology succeeds it), it is likely that such self-published works that have some real quality to them would be lost amidst a never-ending deluge of cat videos, spam, and pornography. The occasional gem would still occasionally surface... but it would still tend to reflect the creator's ability to market their work or increase its visibility than it would be a reflection of its underlying worth or merit.
Nobody is losing anything *TANGIBLE*.
It does not mean there is not a loss when somebody copies copyrighted material without permission. It's just that what is lost is intangible and most likely worthless to all but the copyright holder and the agents that represent him or her.
Your assertion is provably false.
The submitter cared enough to submit it. The submitter is someone, and therefore not nobody.
It got approved to be an actual headline story. Those that approved it are also not nobody.
Your statement is better qualified as *YOU* do not care... and perhaps are incapable of imagining how anybody else could care.
Short of having some possible religious reasons to not recognize birthdays and anniversaries, I'm unsure why the fact that some other people might care about this should be a problem for you.
No, it was not a Mac. It was an Apple ][... a completely different computer from even the very first Macintosh computer that Apple made.
You are conflating copyrights and trademarks.
They are different. Trademarks must be defended as you describe. Copyrights do not.
Actually, I'm pretty sure that Canada Post isn't under any real obligation to deliver packages that don't have a postal code given. If you go to a post office to drop off a package you want to send, they won't even accept it if it doesn't have a postal code on it. Also, if there is no postal code on a letter that was dropped in a mailbox, then they tend to deliver it when they "get around to it"... which can take a *VERY* long time. On the order of months.
FTFY. We're talking about Canada here.
This would necessitate having enough interest in sports to watch the live coverage.
I'd dare say you aren't going to get live sports coverage on something like Hulu either.
Of course.... but I was talking about a solution that the networks would approve of.
Well yes... YMMV, of course. I can only speak from personal experience.
I don't watch anything on FOX.... and as for the stuff on Syfy that I might want to watch, I'd rather wait until the entire current season comes out on DVD, and I can watch it all at my own pace anyways.
All of the TV shows that I or my family regularly watch are readily available online at the network's website within about 24 hours of airing.
But then you are looking at actually having to take pause and explicitly listen for an engine sound that you are already expecting to be there, which is why you can hear it.
In practice, with most cars you're going to hear the sound of the tires on the road *LONG* before you hear the engine, unless there is something wrong with its muffler, and at speeds that are too low to hear the tires on the ground, with some manufacturer's cars equipped with a new engine and a good muffler, it can sneak up on you just as easily as an electric car could.
Both Rolls Royce and Lexus come to mind as especially silent. At low speeds you're just not going to hear its engine unless you are right beside it and listening for it. At higher speeds, again, you'll hear the tires on the road first.
This law requiring electric cars to make noise may as well prohibit companies from making good mufflers. It should also require noisemakers on bicycles, and motorized wheelchairs, both of which can be almost as hazardous to pedestrians as automobiles.
I didn't and wouldn't say that my proposed solution doesn't have its own set of problems... But it does have the merit of nullifying the bomb threat issue... and that was what the question was about.
The question posed was "Is there any foreseeable defense (forensic or socially engineered) to a situation like this?"
I was answering that question. Yes, I realize the solution I offered is probably not very practical... but it would solve the underlying problem that the university is having, as well as the threat, insomuch as the university students are threatened due to their involvement with that institution.
As for the notion that the bomber would just target something else, that's not really the university's problem. You may as well blame a store that kept getting robbed for closing down after robberies start happening at other nearby stores.