The reason that paper jams persist is because we persist in using paper in the first place.
While I apologize for how cheeky that might sound (can't help it, I'm Canadian), that doesn't mean it isn't true.
That's like the classic joke of a patient coming to a doctor and then raising one of their arms high over their head, says "Doc, it hurts when I do this!" and all the doctor says to him is "Well, don't do that!"
I remember when it was first suggested that Unity3d be ported to Linux... the request garnered a large following on their requested features forum, and by all indications it seemed like it was never going to happen, but then about three years after the request had been proposed on their feature request website, it materialized. While it still hasn't evolved to the point of being an officially supported platform, it's still a welcome addition for doing unity development.
Except some of the children will be more than clever enough to re-flash the phones with their own preferred ROMs.
And if they do that, they get told off.... everything gets reset back to the parent spec, which means possibly completely resetting the device back to factory defaultsa and then reinstalling all applicable parental controls, and if the kid is ever caught doing it again, they lose it.
And back to the TFA, is leaking private sourcecode theft?
To precisely the same degree that copyriright infringement is, which I would argue is the case.
The thing is, I've never alleged that that in the case of copyright infringement, the work itself is being stolen. It's clearly not,. because the original still exists, and looking at the situation as if the copyrighted work is the only thing of value that exists in the scenario can easily mislead a person to believe that copyright infringement and theft are understandably practically opposites of eachother.
But the thing of value that gets stolen by someone who infringes on copyright is a measure of the exclusivity that the copyright holder had over who was allowed to copy their work. That exclusivity of control is the *entire point* of copyright, so it's not something you can just say shouldn't be there. Each infringement dillutes the creator's exclusivity by some amount commensurate with the potential for future distribution from that source, so it's not something that the creator can ever really get back once its lost either. It's not even entirely an artificial form of control either... merely an extension of exclusive control over who can copy the work that would naturally exist if nobody else had access to the work in the first place, and so copyright can be seen in that context as a kind of legal backbone that gives creators assurance they can maintain control over copies of their work even if they distribute it. Obviously, it requires that people respect it to be effective... but that doesn't mean that disrespecting it isn't theft.
If you take something from someone else, that's stealing. Copyright infringement amounts to the taking of some of the exclusivity that the copyright holder otherwise had to control over who can make copies of the work, so the infringer is stealing that from the copyright holder. Full stop.
Now you can argue that one has no compunction against stealing when it might serve what they could argue is some greater and more important good, and suggest that there is no moral dilemma involved with theft in such a case, but as far as I can see, the people who insist that copyright infringement isn't theft are generally more interested in rationalizing why it might be morally okay to commit copyright infringement while simultaneously claiming to find stealing immoral are actually just unable to verbally express how stealing, as an action, might not necessarily be morally wrong at all, but instead it depends on the context in which it was done.
We can agree that murder, after all, is morally wrong, but there is nothing immoral about killing, by itself... it depends on the context in which it was done. Killing in self-defense, for example, is not generally seen as wrong, especially when use of such retaliative force was justified. Stealing, one could argue, is a similar amoral act, and the rightness or wrongness of it depends on what, exactly, is being stolen, and the context of the entire thing.
But all of this doesn't mean copyright infringement isn't stealing. And suggesting that it isn't probably only means that someone is trying to rationalize why it's morally acceptable to commit copyright infringement when they think stealing is wrong.
In your latter example, a human is still being deceived... specifically, anyone who has jurisdiction over the funds in the account, since those people are making the (invalid) assumption the computer is only going to remove authorized funds, and of course one would have to deceive the computer to otherwise access such funds. The fact that this assumption is invalid doesn't change the fact that it's still stealing any more than it's not stealing to take a convertible that doesn't belong to you if the keys are sitting in plain view on the passenger's seat. By the transitive property, in your example, a person committing such an act is still deceiving the authorized account holder(s). The law only needed to be made explicitly clear on this point so that no further potential misinterpretation could apply.
That doesn't change the fact that it still deprives the copyright holder of some level of exclusivity of control that they would have otherwise still had if the infringement had not occurred.
.... it should be based entirely on some unique identifier that people don't ordinarily use to identify the person, but can be easily discovered whenever necessary.
A username should serve only as a human-readable identifier, it should not serve as an identifier that is used by itself for any security purposes at all. If a person changes their username, their previous name should be available for reuse, just as a disconnected phone number is, but in the case of usernames, you could still readily tell the previous user from the current one because the unique identifier could be checked.
If a person doesn't think to check the unique ID, then that's their own bloody fault... about on par with a person not checking that a cashier has handed them back the right amount of change and not noticing any discrepancy until they got home.
So I take it that means you can't steal electricity, cable television, someone else's internet bandwidth, or any number of other things with no physical or tangible component?
A strict definition of theft may require that the person who has had something stolen has been deprived of something of value to them, but there's no requirement in the definition that the something necessarily be tangible, only that it has value.
And its value doesn't even need to be objective or monetary... it only needs to be valuable to the person who had lawful jurisdiction over whatever was stolen.
Consider copyright, for example, which is supposed to entail the exclusive right to control who may make copies of a work. Exclusive, by definition means that nobody else is doing it, so when someone makes an unauthorized copy, they are actually depriving the copyright holders of some measure of their exclusivity of control on the copying of that work. Whether one thinks that copyright holders should not have this amount of control is irrelevant.. it is the entire point of copyright, and because copyright is protected by law, the copyright holder is recognized as the lawful possessor of the exclusivity it entails. Once infringed, the copyright holder's exclusivity is dilluted, and is never as strong as it was before.
No lawyer would be required because such a lawsuit wouldn't even get as far as a courtroom. Of course, that is assuming what you were reporting was actually illegal, and not just something that you happened to think was illegal but was not.
Confidentiality agreements and NDA's do not apply to the lawful reporting of criminal activities, such as theft, violation of the region's labor standards, etc. They never have.
To assume that AI has not yet been achieved, that would be a prerequisite. If evolution has been directed, then by definition, any intelligence that exists as a result of that is not natural, but also artificial.
Turn that around for a second... does intelligence exist?
Joking aside, if it does, what precludes intelligence from being artificially created by otherwise intelligent beings instead of simply existing as a product of undirected evolution?
We are well within a single generation of being able to simulate an entire human brain in a computer.... why will it not be intelligent, exactly? And if it is not, why do we assume that we are?
As I said, the dialogue is not modal, so there is nothing stopping you from closing the offending page when one of these pops up without necessarily closing the entire browser. Before the dialog even opens, the thread that is opening the dialog can interrogate the client to see if the web page that spawned it is even still active. If it is, then it proceeds, but if not, then it aborts without even showing the dialog at all. Only one of these would ever be shown at one time, so you don't get a bajllion of them at once... they would be responded to on a first-come-first-serve basis. As soon as you dismiss such a dialog after having closed the offending tab or otherwise changed the web page that was loaded in that window, since the web page that was making the js request is closed, all of the other requests that may have been wanting to initiate a download and were suspended, waiting to show the dialog could be silently aborted.
This is honestly entirely trivial to implement in software. The code to manage it in any modern high level language could *EASILY* fit into less than a single printed page.
When a download is initiated by javascript, the browser should pop up a simple dialogue (non modal, but otherwise an "on top" window so they can continue to otherwise use the browser) to confirm the download with a yes/no. Permit only one of these dialogue windows at a time. Other threads wanting to pop up the dialogue can be suspended until the current dialogue is dismissed Threads requesting a download can be handled on a first come first serve.basis.
Or is this one of those really neat sciency things that people figure may someday learn some practical application for but for the moment and the foreseeable future, nobody has any idea what we could actually do with this that will be actually useful?
That's just the earliest reference to the term that I could dig up using google.
I also rather vividly remember fairly distinctly hearing about open source back in my BBS'ing days in the late 1980's with regards to an msdos game around at the time called Moria. I can't find any reference to the original license and copyright files for that game from that period, however..
AFAIK the first appearance of the term "open source" (not "open standard," "open software" or "Open Group") on USENET is in 1998
This usenet post from 1993 mentions the term "open source" right at the end of the comment, and it is clearly in the context of talking about software source code. The term is used rather casually, suggesting that it is assumed that readers would be already familiar with what is meant, meaning its origins go further back than that.
I'm positive I first heard the term "open source" in the 1980's associated with a specific software product that I have mentioned elsewhere in this thread, but I can find absolutely no reference to the term at all that I can positively prove today that the term was actually in use (with respect to software) at the time. What if we're all completely wrong, and we just think we are right for some weird reason?
If no evidence of this can be produced in the present, how do we know that we are not, in fact, misremembering?
I first heard of the term "Open source" in the late 1980's in connection with a freely available dos game at time called Moria. To the best of my knowledge, it was the original author tgat used the term "open source" to describe the project and he was supposedly not involved in the project anymore by the time I heard of the game (1988 or so). I expect that the origins of the term might go back even further.
Slashdot Mirror
Linux has previously only ever been supported as a target... the editor was not available for Linux until late 2015.
The reason that paper jams persist is because we persist in using paper in the first place.
While I apologize for how cheeky that might sound (can't help it, I'm Canadian), that doesn't mean it isn't true.
That's like the classic joke of a patient coming to a doctor and then raising one of their arms high over their head, says "Doc, it hurts when I do this!" and all the doctor says to him is "Well, don't do that!"
What's the problem you have with Unity on Linux, exactly?
I remember when it was first suggested that Unity3d be ported to Linux... the request garnered a large following on their requested features forum, and by all indications it seemed like it was never going to happen, but then about three years after the request had been proposed on their feature request website, it materialized. While it still hasn't evolved to the point of being an officially supported platform, it's still a welcome addition for doing unity development.
And if they do that, they get told off.... everything gets reset back to the parent spec, which means possibly completely resetting the device back to factory defaultsa and then reinstalling all applicable parental controls, and if the kid is ever caught doing it again, they lose it.
Entirely.
Permanently.
To precisely the same degree that copyriright infringement is, which I would argue is the case.
The thing is, I've never alleged that that in the case of copyright infringement, the work itself is being stolen. It's clearly not,. because the original still exists, and looking at the situation as if the copyrighted work is the only thing of value that exists in the scenario can easily mislead a person to believe that copyright infringement and theft are understandably practically opposites of eachother.
But the thing of value that gets stolen by someone who infringes on copyright is a measure of the exclusivity that the copyright holder had over who was allowed to copy their work. That exclusivity of control is the *entire point* of copyright, so it's not something you can just say shouldn't be there. Each infringement dillutes the creator's exclusivity by some amount commensurate with the potential for future distribution from that source, so it's not something that the creator can ever really get back once its lost either. It's not even entirely an artificial form of control either... merely an extension of exclusive control over who can copy the work that would naturally exist if nobody else had access to the work in the first place, and so copyright can be seen in that context as a kind of legal backbone that gives creators assurance they can maintain control over copies of their work even if they distribute it. Obviously, it requires that people respect it to be effective... but that doesn't mean that disrespecting it isn't theft.
If you take something from someone else, that's stealing. Copyright infringement amounts to the taking of some of the exclusivity that the copyright holder otherwise had to control over who can make copies of the work, so the infringer is stealing that from the copyright holder. Full stop.
Now you can argue that one has no compunction against stealing when it might serve what they could argue is some greater and more important good, and suggest that there is no moral dilemma involved with theft in such a case, but as far as I can see, the people who insist that copyright infringement isn't theft are generally more interested in rationalizing why it might be morally okay to commit copyright infringement while simultaneously claiming to find stealing immoral are actually just unable to verbally express how stealing, as an action, might not necessarily be morally wrong at all, but instead it depends on the context in which it was done.
We can agree that murder, after all, is morally wrong, but there is nothing immoral about killing, by itself... it depends on the context in which it was done. Killing in self-defense, for example, is not generally seen as wrong, especially when use of such retaliative force was justified. Stealing, one could argue, is a similar amoral act, and the rightness or wrongness of it depends on what, exactly, is being stolen, and the context of the entire thing.
But all of this doesn't mean copyright infringement isn't stealing. And suggesting that it isn't probably only means that someone is trying to rationalize why it's morally acceptable to commit copyright infringement when they think stealing is wrong.
In your latter example, a human is still being deceived... specifically, anyone who has jurisdiction over the funds in the account, since those people are making the (invalid) assumption the computer is only going to remove authorized funds, and of course one would have to deceive the computer to otherwise access such funds. The fact that this assumption is invalid doesn't change the fact that it's still stealing any more than it's not stealing to take a convertible that doesn't belong to you if the keys are sitting in plain view on the passenger's seat. By the transitive property, in your example, a person committing such an act is still deceiving the authorized account holder(s). The law only needed to be made explicitly clear on this point so that no further potential misinterpretation could apply.
That doesn't change the fact that it still deprives the copyright holder of some level of exclusivity of control that they would have otherwise still had if the infringement had not occurred.
A username should serve only as a human-readable identifier, it should not serve as an identifier that is used by itself for any security purposes at all. If a person changes their username, their previous name should be available for reuse, just as a disconnected phone number is, but in the case of usernames, you could still readily tell the previous user from the current one because the unique identifier could be checked.
If a person doesn't think to check the unique ID, then that's their own bloody fault... about on par with a person not checking that a cashier has handed them back the right amount of change and not noticing any discrepancy until they got home.
So I take it that means you can't steal electricity, cable television, someone else's internet bandwidth, or any number of other things with no physical or tangible component?
A strict definition of theft may require that the person who has had something stolen has been deprived of something of value to them, but there's no requirement in the definition that the something necessarily be tangible, only that it has value.
And its value doesn't even need to be objective or monetary... it only needs to be valuable to the person who had lawful jurisdiction over whatever was stolen.
Consider copyright, for example, which is supposed to entail the exclusive right to control who may make copies of a work. Exclusive, by definition means that nobody else is doing it, so when someone makes an unauthorized copy, they are actually depriving the copyright holders of some measure of their exclusivity of control on the copying of that work. Whether one thinks that copyright holders should not have this amount of control is irrelevant.. it is the entire point of copyright, and because copyright is protected by law, the copyright holder is recognized as the lawful possessor of the exclusivity it entails. Once infringed, the copyright holder's exclusivity is dilluted, and is never as strong as it was before.
No lawyer would be required because such a lawsuit wouldn't even get as far as a courtroom. Of course, that is assuming what you were reporting was actually illegal, and not just something that you happened to think was illegal but was not.
According to Apple on this matter, "the security of our products does not depend on the secrecy of our source code".
Confidentiality agreements and NDA's do not apply to the lawful reporting of criminal activities, such as theft, violation of the region's labor standards, etc. They never have.
To assume that AI has not yet been achieved, that would be a prerequisite. If evolution has been directed, then by definition, any intelligence that exists as a result of that is not natural, but also artificial.
I think it is most probable that an AI's first real questions will all be of the form "Why X?", where X is some given proposition.
In other words, it will act like a 3 year old.
Turn that around for a second... does intelligence exist?
Joking aside, if it does, what precludes intelligence from being artificially created by otherwise intelligent beings instead of simply existing as a product of undirected evolution?
We are well within a single generation of being able to simulate an entire human brain in a computer.... why will it not be intelligent, exactly? And if it is not, why do we assume that we are?
No, you don't.
As I said, the dialogue is not modal, so there is nothing stopping you from closing the offending page when one of these pops up without necessarily closing the entire browser. Before the dialog even opens, the thread that is opening the dialog can interrogate the client to see if the web page that spawned it is even still active. If it is, then it proceeds, but if not, then it aborts without even showing the dialog at all. Only one of these would ever be shown at one time, so you don't get a bajllion of them at once... they would be responded to on a first-come-first-serve basis. As soon as you dismiss such a dialog after having closed the offending tab or otherwise changed the web page that was loaded in that window, since the web page that was making the js request is closed, all of the other requests that may have been wanting to initiate a download and were suspended, waiting to show the dialog could be silently aborted.
This is honestly entirely trivial to implement in software. The code to manage it in any modern high level language could *EASILY* fit into less than a single printed page.
When a download is initiated by javascript, the browser should pop up a simple dialogue (non modal, but otherwise an "on top" window so they can continue to otherwise use the browser) to confirm the download with a yes/no. Permit only one of these dialogue windows at a time. Other threads wanting to pop up the dialogue can be suspended until the current dialogue is dismissed Threads requesting a download can be handled on a first come first serve.basis.
Or is this one of those really neat sciency things that people figure may someday learn some practical application for but for the moment and the foreseeable future, nobody has any idea what we could actually do with this that will be actually useful?
Actually, I think it more likely to be caused by confirmation bias.
That's just the earliest reference to the term that I could dig up using google.
I also rather vividly remember fairly distinctly hearing about open source back in my BBS'ing days in the late 1980's with regards to an msdos game around at the time called Moria. I can't find any reference to the original license and copyright files for that game from that period, however..
This usenet post from 1993 mentions the term "open source" right at the end of the comment, and it is clearly in the context of talking about software source code. The term is used rather casually, suggesting that it is assumed that readers would be already familiar with what is meant, meaning its origins go further back than that.
I'm positive I first heard the term "open source" in the 1980's associated with a specific software product that I have mentioned elsewhere in this thread, but I can find absolutely no reference to the term at all that I can positively prove today that the term was actually in use (with respect to software) at the time. What if we're all completely wrong, and we just think we are right for some weird reason?
If no evidence of this can be produced in the present, how do we know that we are not, in fact, misremembering?
I first heard of the term "Open source" in the late 1980's in connection with a freely available dos game at time called Moria. To the best of my knowledge, it was the original author tgat used the term "open source" to describe the project and he was supposedly not involved in the project anymore by the time I heard of the game (1988 or so). I expect that the origins of the term might go back even further.