The justification says "to promote the Progress of science and the Useful Arts". If I write a program with no source code available and distribute it, some people will enjoy it but eventually it will disappear. At the end humanity is no further ahead than it would be without the program. If I release the source, however, other people can use my source as a starting point, making it easier to make programs for everyone after me, permanently. The algorithms will eventually be outdated but people will release bigger and better programs based on my source and those will be used for that purpose. Thus, me releasing the source permanently furthers the progress of humanity.
An individual work is, in the long term, pointless. The fact that everyone after the work is released benefits is what matters.
BTW, my direct quote from the constitution takes precedence over whatever your secondary sources from that condescending "let me google that for you" page say.
I've used Visual Studio 2007. Yes, autocompleting variable names is awesome. Yes, vim and emacs are, aside from that, far more productive for code editing. Vim has context aware help too - it does syntax highlighting and matching bracket highlighting in dozens of different languages.
Radio commercials should only be regulated for false advertising, defamation, copyright infringement and stuff like that. "Causing serious offense to some listeners" is exactly the kind of speech that freedom of speech laws are intended to protect.
Why? I could understand if you're going to read the whole thing immediately and then go back to the internet, but most of the time flipping back and forth between the internet and the browser is what you're going to do a lot. Tabs are much easier to navigate than tabs + windows.
If you have a book, you can copy and modify the book, building on it and creating derivative works. If you have a program, you cannot do that without source code. The whole point of copyright is to encourage people to create works which can eventually be built upon. If that is impossible then copyright has no purpose.
So if you're browsing and you want to look at some online pdf document, you should download it, open up the download directory, find the file and then open it up? I prefer my one click in-browser approach, thank you very much.
But when they're not lying, cheating or stealing and they're merely offering a deal which you happen to find unacceptable, they aren't doing anything wrong.
This does need to be said. Basic rights and principles do, in fact, apply to the mundane. The right to show (and watch) a silly action flick is just as much freedom of speech as arguing against the government.
Given that US patents and copyrights are, as they stand, extreme and unreasonable, yes, expecting foreign countries to accede to them is not acceptable.
Who didn't read or think about the damn agreement here? US and Costa Rica have a free sugar trade agreement, with an "either party can leave at any time" clause (nothing wrong with that). The US decides to block sugar trade entirely unless Costa Rica implements some draconian IP policies. How is Costa Rica at fault?
You want to trade with the US you should play by US rules
Normally, I'm one of the staunchest supporters of "don't like the rules, don't interact with them". Here, however, the US is one of the largest buyers of sugar in the world. The US is in a position of economic power and it's bullying everyone else to maintain that position. Costa Rica is, thus, a victim of international antitrust.
For a threat to be illegal, it has to be directed at someone and, most importantly, it has to be a credible threat. Saying "im gonna kill u lol" on a forum is NOT illegal. A note written in blood expressing hatred for someone's ideas and suggesting a gruesome death with details is much more likely to be punishable.
And you didn't even address the point about multitouch being obvious beyond saying that the idea is ridiculous. Some patents, like multitouch, ARE overbroad and obvious. Once you have touch interfaces, touching two points at once is an obvious extension of that.
Patents are all about rewarding the first to come up with something and then punishing everyone else.
Ooh, Apple is building some next generation super-secret technology and even speaking about it will get you lawyered into oblivion. They're just artificially creating marketing hype.
The Apple tablet will feature a 9.5'' by 7.5'' display using a new version of E-Ink(TM) technology through which the tablet will display color while having the display consume no power unless something changes. There will be an integrated and optimized sleep mode which the tablet can fall into while maintaining a color picture, and this mode takes a mere 135 ms to get out of, so even applications like slideshows will use it. The processor has multiple power modes, allowing it to go between 500 MHz and 3.7 GHz depending on the task. Expected battery life, with all this, is 18-36 hours of average use. The screen will contain piezoelectric materials that can add a tactile layer to the onscreen keyboard. Professional typists have been found to be 80-90% as effective with this keyboard as with a traditional one, and thanks to ridges being put onto window edges and buttons blind people are seeing a GUI productivity increase of 300-400%.
What do you mean, that's all bullshit? Prove it! I'll be collecting my prize for now.
Slashdot Mirror
The justification says "to promote the Progress of science and the Useful Arts". If I write a program with no source code available and distribute it, some people will enjoy it but eventually it will disappear. At the end humanity is no further ahead than it would be without the program. If I release the source, however, other people can use my source as a starting point, making it easier to make programs for everyone after me, permanently. The algorithms will eventually be outdated but people will release bigger and better programs based on my source and those will be used for that purpose. Thus, me releasing the source permanently furthers the progress of humanity.
An individual work is, in the long term, pointless. The fact that everyone after the work is released benefits is what matters.
BTW, my direct quote from the constitution takes precedence over whatever your secondary sources from that condescending "let me google that for you" page say.
I've used Visual Studio 2007. Yes, autocompleting variable names is awesome. Yes, vim and emacs are, aside from that, far more productive for code editing. Vim has context aware help too - it does syntax highlighting and matching bracket highlighting in dozens of different languages.
Radio commercials should only be regulated for false advertising, defamation, copyright infringement and stuff like that. "Causing serious offense to some listeners" is exactly the kind of speech that freedom of speech laws are intended to protect.
Yeah, people hate it when they're forced to accept a large volume of insecure bloat just so some enterprise user can use his outdated applications.
Why? I could understand if you're going to read the whole thing immediately and then go back to the internet, but most of the time flipping back and forth between the internet and the browser is what you're going to do a lot. Tabs are much easier to navigate than tabs + windows.
If you have a book, you can copy and modify the book, building on it and creating derivative works. If you have a program, you cannot do that without source code. The whole point of copyright is to encourage people to create works which can eventually be built upon. If that is impossible then copyright has no purpose.
That's still a new window. In-browser PDFs are a new tab.
So if you're browsing and you want to look at some online pdf document, you should download it, open up the download directory, find the file and then open it up? I prefer my one click in-browser approach, thank you very much.
Pump it into bottles at 5000 KPa and sell it to scuba divers.
But when they're not lying, cheating or stealing and they're merely offering a deal which you happen to find unacceptable, they aren't doing anything wrong.
This does need to be said. Basic rights and principles do, in fact, apply to the mundane. The right to show (and watch) a silly action flick is just as much freedom of speech as arguing against the government.
They're kicking out IE. I would say the French are actually winning.
Yeah, the free software troll generator is still inferior to the proprietary solutions. Sorry about that.
I'm sorry, but this is abuse.
You want room 12A, just along the corridor.
Stupid git...
Your comments seem awfully... subversive.
Given that US patents and copyrights are, as they stand, extreme and unreasonable, yes, expecting foreign countries to accede to them is not acceptable.
And Firefox. And Chrome after that, with strong open source competition already in place. It's always good to bring new ideas into the fray.
Who didn't read or think about the damn agreement here? US and Costa Rica have a free sugar trade agreement, with an "either party can leave at any time" clause (nothing wrong with that). The US decides to block sugar trade entirely unless Costa Rica implements some draconian IP policies. How is Costa Rica at fault?
You want to trade with the US you should play by US rules
Normally, I'm one of the staunchest supporters of "don't like the rules, don't interact with them". Here, however, the US is one of the largest buyers of sugar in the world. The US is in a position of economic power and it's bullying everyone else to maintain that position. Costa Rica is, thus, a victim of international antitrust.
For a threat to be illegal, it has to be directed at someone and, most importantly, it has to be a credible threat. Saying "im gonna kill u lol" on a forum is NOT illegal. A note written in blood expressing hatred for someone's ideas and suggesting a gruesome death with details is much more likely to be punishable.
I would make a fake bomb threat in an airport, and then... just leave.
Millions of dollars wasted, millions of dollars more airport security theater implemented just because, and to top it off no actual bomb needed.
And you didn't even address the point about multitouch being obvious beyond saying that the idea is ridiculous. Some patents, like multitouch, ARE overbroad and obvious. Once you have touch interfaces, touching two points at once is an obvious extension of that.
Patents are all about rewarding the first to come up with something and then punishing everyone else.
Ooh, Apple is building some next generation super-secret technology and even speaking about it will get you lawyered into oblivion. They're just artificially creating marketing hype.
The Apple tablet will feature a 9.5'' by 7.5'' display using a new version of E-Ink(TM) technology through which the tablet will display color while having the display consume no power unless something changes. There will be an integrated and optimized sleep mode which the tablet can fall into while maintaining a color picture, and this mode takes a mere 135 ms to get out of, so even applications like slideshows will use it. The processor has multiple power modes, allowing it to go between 500 MHz and 3.7 GHz depending on the task. Expected battery life, with all this, is 18-36 hours of average use. The screen will contain piezoelectric materials that can add a tactile layer to the onscreen keyboard. Professional typists have been found to be 80-90% as effective with this keyboard as with a traditional one, and thanks to ridges being put onto window edges and buttons blind people are seeing a GUI productivity increase of 300-400%.
What do you mean, that's all bullshit? Prove it! I'll be collecting my prize for now.
And the 53.19% of the population that didn't vote for him? What do they deserve?
Iraq, Afghanistan, bailouts? The current NASA budget is very small compared to some of our other expenditures.