More probably, I would think, it's unimportant to them because such workarounds are going to be trivial, and they aren't even going to have to worry about it.
... this whole I will patent the idea of X resulting in Y, where X is just an idea, and Y is a desired outcome.... neither of which are themselves patentable.
Along the same veins, it would have also been possible to, say (were such a thing practiced when the english language was evolving), patent putting the letter 'e' being at the end of a word to change the sound of the vowel inside the word.
You hold, what I think, may be an overly optimistic view.
More likely, I think, is that those that survive would *RAISE* their prices, becoming highly exclusive, and strongly associated with the extravagantly wealthy.
In most large cities in North America, it is impossible to own a home without the sort of income that is acquired only either by staggering luck or else a career that demands a certain amount of higher education.
Initially, a galaxy would be just an enormous cloud of hydrogen, swirling around its gravitational center in essentially random directions. However, owing to the fact that it is not ever perfectly symmetrical, the angular momentum of the matter will not perfectly cancel out and there will always be some net angular momentum in one direction (which itself may have precession). Matter will thus have a tendency to be drawn into a plane perpendicular to the axis of the galaxy's net angular momentum through the pull of gravity... and the more matter that gets pulled into the plane, the faster it pulls other matter into the plane. Within a relatively short time (in cosmological terms), you end up with a distinct accretion disk forming around the gravitational center of the hydrogen cloud. This accretion disk eventually forms individual stars (although it's possible that stars could form outside of the disk, it is unlikely because it would not generally be close enough to enough other matter to get large enough for fusion to begin). Each star, in turn, may develop its own accretion disk that becomes the planets that circle it through the exact same process.
No... they will lay off teachers, and teach fewer classes. Institutions that are not able to downsize will close their doors, reducing competition, and making it easier for those that are able to downsize to stay afloat at a smaller size with a reduced enrollment. The end result will still be that only the rich will be get decent educations.
Yes... a lot of schools *would* quite quickly go bankrupt... the upshot of that would be that competition would be reduced and the ones that didn't go bankrupt right away would not have to compete with as many other institutions, thus pushing their intake to levels that would allow them to stay afloat, albeit probably with a vastly reduced campus size and teaching staff.
The end result, either way, is a nation of educated rich, and uneducated poor. It is a 100% certain way to keep people in their income class, forever.
The interesting thing about most recent graduates who haven't yet found a job is that they don't typically have anything significant to lose by declaring bankruptcy. The most immediate result of implementing your suggestion would be that students who did not secure good jobs within a few years of graduation would likely end up declaring bankruptcy. The net result would be the complete dissolution of the student loan program.
I'm pretty sure that if student loans went away, the actual costs of going to school would stay about the same. The net result would be that only the rich would get higher education, thus creating an enduring class system.
While certain degrees of government involvement might be contributing to part of today's high tuition costs, I seriously doubt that getting rid of loans would make a significant difference. All I can see happening as an immediate result is massive numbers of layoffs of college and university professors, because there are not as many people going to school.
Yes... people *COULD* do that... it's still a barrier to most people, and not as free as having access to the source code, which is the whole point of why people would want to use the GPL in the first place.
"Linux would in no way be harmed if copyright went away."
Incorrect.
"Linux uses copyleft, which is a terrible hack of copyright which uses copyright in order to prevent people from exercising copyright. "
The GPL doesn't change copyright, nor does it even get around copyright. It uses copyright exactly the way it is supposed to be used - which is to require permission from the copyright holder to copy the work. The only thing that makes the GPL distinct is that it explicitly grants such permission to anyone that agrees to its terms. But in no way, shape, or form is it a loophole in copyright.
Without copyright, people would not need permission from a GPL author to copy the work (or did you think that nobody needs any such permission anyways? If so, please reread the GPL, which explicitly grants such permission to people who agree to its terms). If they don't need permission, they would not have to agree to its terms, and could make changes to it without releasing the source code. Although without copyright this alternative work would be freely copyable (to the extent that the people who made it do not take measures to prevent commonly available tools and devices from being able to, such as advanced DRM... which might eventually be defeated, but in the interim, that would still present a barrier to copying for most people), without access the source code, it is not the kind of free that people who uphold the GPL care about (which I have touched on above, as I gave an example of how DRM can present a barrier to the ability to make a copy in the first place). Even if you do not agree with those principles, that does not mean they are worthless.
Isn't that a pretty weak standard to fall back on for something like this?
I mean, where's the requirement that it actually *BE* libel?
It could be a completely true statement...It could be just some random post that somebody disagrees with... and have no bearing on truth or falsehood at all... all somebody has to assert is that it contains libel, and by law the post would have to be removed.
"If someone complains"... what a completely ignorant standard.
I'm pretty sure that there's precedent that you cannot patent the "look" of something you made, except to the extent that the form factor actually directly contributes to the invention's utility.
The kindle display doesn't give me a headache either, but waiting for the screen to refresh does. I still prefer using real books, where I can see the contents of a page the instant I open the book to that page, and can quickly leaf through pages to visually find something that I might be looking for (painfully slow to do on the kindle), sometimes even more quickly than looking it up in an index.
Ever. The logistics of enforcement alone would prohibit it.
They may as well pass a law that it is illegal to remember any movie you ever saw, because remembering it constitutes unauthorized reproduction.
Even if such laws are part of media companies' wet dreams, the technological barriers, (as well as the undeniable philosophical ramifications of the invasion of every person's private thoughts, even if it were technologically possible) make it something that is wholly infeasible.
My point is that EVERYONE values personal liberty... and the philosophical implications of invading every person's private thoughts and determining whether or not they are doing something inappropriate or illegal, 24 hours a day, every day, would mean that something like that would never happen... and as I said above, the logistics of enforcing it would be completely impossible without the aforementioned super technology.
Ever. The logistics of enforcing it would be completely unmanageable without some super technology not altogether unlike the "instrument of obedience"in the ST:TOS episode "For the World is Hollow and I Have Touched the Sky". The technological difficulties, coupled with philosophical implications of something like that make it something that won't happen anytime while human beings value personal liberty.
Actually, cast metal can hold far finer detail than anything that modern 3d printers are yet capable of... exquisitely capturing the texture of fine details even at 25mm scale, like individual chain links in armor, loose strands of hair, or the rings on a figure's hand.
GW has nothing to fear for the time being as long as people are willing to pay them for good workmanship. Existing 3d technology just can't compete yet on that front.
Only if they distribute them, or (in some cases) the plans they used to make them. You cannot be accused of trademark, copyright, or patent infringement on something that you created yourself, for your own enjoyment, even if what you made was protected by IP law.
Slashdot Mirror
How is unlocking a screen a "composition of matter"?
More probably, I would think, it's unimportant to them because such workarounds are going to be trivial, and they aren't even going to have to worry about it.
Along the same veins, it would have also been possible to, say (were such a thing practiced when the english language was evolving), patent putting the letter 'e' being at the end of a word to change the sound of the vowel inside the word.
You hold, what I think, may be an overly optimistic view.
More likely, I think, is that those that survive would *RAISE* their prices, becoming highly exclusive, and strongly associated with the extravagantly wealthy.
In most large cities in North America, it is impossible to own a home without the sort of income that is acquired only either by staggering luck or else a career that demands a certain amount of higher education.
Initially, a galaxy would be just an enormous cloud of hydrogen, swirling around its gravitational center in essentially random directions. However, owing to the fact that it is not ever perfectly symmetrical, the angular momentum of the matter will not perfectly cancel out and there will always be some net angular momentum in one direction (which itself may have precession). Matter will thus have a tendency to be drawn into a plane perpendicular to the axis of the galaxy's net angular momentum through the pull of gravity... and the more matter that gets pulled into the plane, the faster it pulls other matter into the plane. Within a relatively short time (in cosmological terms), you end up with a distinct accretion disk forming around the gravitational center of the hydrogen cloud. This accretion disk eventually forms individual stars (although it's possible that stars could form outside of the disk, it is unlikely because it would not generally be close enough to enough other matter to get large enough for fusion to begin). Each star, in turn, may develop its own accretion disk that becomes the planets that circle it through the exact same process.
I'm pretty sure that anyone could prove that it continues to exist after you do... just not to you.
No... they will lay off teachers, and teach fewer classes. Institutions that are not able to downsize will close their doors, reducing competition, and making it easier for those that are able to downsize to stay afloat at a smaller size with a reduced enrollment. The end result will still be that only the rich will be get decent educations.
Yes... a lot of schools *would* quite quickly go bankrupt... the upshot of that would be that competition would be reduced and the ones that didn't go bankrupt right away would not have to compete with as many other institutions, thus pushing their intake to levels that would allow them to stay afloat, albeit probably with a vastly reduced campus size and teaching staff.
The end result, either way, is a nation of educated rich, and uneducated poor. It is a 100% certain way to keep people in their income class, forever.
The interesting thing about most recent graduates who haven't yet found a job is that they don't typically have anything significant to lose by declaring bankruptcy. The most immediate result of implementing your suggestion would be that students who did not secure good jobs within a few years of graduation would likely end up declaring bankruptcy. The net result would be the complete dissolution of the student loan program.
How do you get them to demonstrate that without letting them try first?
And if a person fails at it, how long before you let them try again, if ever?
I'm pretty sure that if student loans went away, the actual costs of going to school would stay about the same. The net result would be that only the rich would get higher education, thus creating an enduring class system.
While certain degrees of government involvement might be contributing to part of today's high tuition costs, I seriously doubt that getting rid of loans would make a significant difference. All I can see happening as an immediate result is massive numbers of layoffs of college and university professors, because there are not as many people going to school.
How?
Seriously... how? How could *ANY* amount of skin be preserved for that amount of time?
Also.... "loaned" to a museum?
For crying out loud, why? Give it to them, sell it to them, or whatever... but what are you going to do with a 135 million year old dinosaur fossil?
Yes... people *COULD* do that... it's still a barrier to most people, and not as free as having access to the source code, which is the whole point of why people would want to use the GPL in the first place.
Incorrect.
The GPL doesn't change copyright, nor does it even get around copyright. It uses copyright exactly the way it is supposed to be used - which is to require permission from the copyright holder to copy the work. The only thing that makes the GPL distinct is that it explicitly grants such permission to anyone that agrees to its terms. But in no way, shape, or form is it a loophole in copyright.
Without copyright, people would not need permission from a GPL author to copy the work (or did you think that nobody needs any such permission anyways? If so, please reread the GPL, which explicitly grants such permission to people who agree to its terms). If they don't need permission, they would not have to agree to its terms, and could make changes to it without releasing the source code. Although without copyright this alternative work would be freely copyable (to the extent that the people who made it do not take measures to prevent commonly available tools and devices from being able to, such as advanced DRM... which might eventually be defeated, but in the interim, that would still present a barrier to copying for most people), without access the source code, it is not the kind of free that people who uphold the GPL care about (which I have touched on above, as I gave an example of how DRM can present a barrier to the ability to make a copy in the first place). Even if you do not agree with those principles, that does not mean they are worthless.
Lack of copyright would *DEFINITELY* harm Linux.
Isn't that a pretty weak standard to fall back on for something like this?
I mean, where's the requirement that it actually *BE* libel?
It could be a completely true statement...It could be just some random post that somebody disagrees with... and have no bearing on truth or falsehood at all... all somebody has to assert is that it contains libel, and by law the post would have to be removed.
"If someone complains"... what a completely ignorant standard.
I'm pretty sure that there's precedent that you cannot patent the "look" of something you made, except to the extent that the form factor actually directly contributes to the invention's utility.
The kindle display doesn't give me a headache either, but waiting for the screen to refresh does. I still prefer using real books, where I can see the contents of a page the instant I open the book to that page, and can quickly leaf through pages to visually find something that I might be looking for (painfully slow to do on the kindle), sometimes even more quickly than looking it up in an index.
You are what you do. Dennis Ritchie was a computer scientist, even if his academic background was not in that field.
Ever. The logistics of enforcement alone would prohibit it.
They may as well pass a law that it is illegal to remember any movie you ever saw, because remembering it constitutes unauthorized reproduction.
Even if such laws are part of media companies' wet dreams, the technological barriers, (as well as the undeniable philosophical ramifications of the invasion of every person's private thoughts, even if it were technologically possible) make it something that is wholly infeasible.
My point is that EVERYONE values personal liberty... and the philosophical implications of invading every person's private thoughts and determining whether or not they are doing something inappropriate or illegal, 24 hours a day, every day, would mean that something like that would never happen... and as I said above, the logistics of enforcing it would be completely impossible without the aforementioned super technology.
Uhmmm.... Two people working together is a team.
Ever. The logistics of enforcing it would be completely unmanageable without some super technology not altogether unlike the "instrument of obedience"in the ST:TOS episode "For the World is Hollow and I Have Touched the Sky". The technological difficulties, coupled with philosophical implications of something like that make it something that won't happen anytime while human beings value personal liberty.
Actually, cast metal can hold far finer detail than anything that modern 3d printers are yet capable of... exquisitely capturing the texture of fine details even at 25mm scale, like individual chain links in armor, loose strands of hair, or the rings on a figure's hand.
GW has nothing to fear for the time being as long as people are willing to pay them for good workmanship. Existing 3d technology just can't compete yet on that front.
In about 5 to 10 years, however.... maybe.
Could this be a cost effective way to supplement my miniature fantasy figure collection? I suspect not, but it can't hurt to ask.
Only if they distribute them, or (in some cases) the plans they used to make them. You cannot be accused of trademark, copyright, or patent infringement on something that you created yourself, for your own enjoyment, even if what you made was protected by IP law.