No, actually I think the how is much more relevant. Are you saying that if there's a good why, than the how (B61 vs GBU-57) is not important? Clearly the country and it's allies would disagree with you.
I think the operational phrase here is "if a sample could be taken". I'm assuming that since the military doesn't want folks to find out what the sequence is, they probably have their own secret strain of algae/moss/bamboo/whatever that's locked away in a lab somewhere. Swab it off the top of the bolt? I'm sure they thought of that.
According to this whitepaper, the DNA sequencing is "unequivocally uncopyable".
I've tried this pretty successfully in the past. The only problem is that it has trouble with CSS and some of the newer technologies sometimes. Not always that easy to work with.
Hmmm...interesting. I've never thought about it like that before. So, basically it says that the government will protect your ideas to encourage you to make them (and profit from them) in the short term so we can all benefit from them later.
He has to have a point, because Joost Smiers wrote a book? BTW, did you notice one of his other books is on sale on Amazon for $104.00 USD? I'll bet he has a copyright on that baby.
getting the copyright monopoly must provide something besides just effort, namely originality.
I think you really hit the nail on the head with this one - after all, it would be impossible by definition to copyright something that *wasn't* original. I also agree that effort is a de-coupled issue. The copyright doesn't care whether it was easy or hard for you to come up with your idea. But, whether outdated or not, it is the only means of protection an artist/scientist/whetver has at the current time.
It's also interesting (and somewhat ironic) in it's relation to the Mickey Mouse Copyright act. They have real chutzpah if you ask me. Thanks for the link - great refs.
What you're saying is true....but in your own words, "the purpose of copyrighting is to incentivize more creation." The entire purpose of copyrighting is to protect your intellectual property/ideas/designs in order to keep others from using them, right? Why would I want this type of protection? 1) to keep others from using it for financial gain (i.e., it would cut into my profit margin), and/or 2) to be recognized as the intellectual origin of the artifact.
If I were only interested in spreading knowledge for the benefit of mankind, I would just release my product into the wild without a copyright, as has been done numerous times. Take something like a free CSS template on the web - the terms of use are something like "just give us credit for creating this".
Hmmmm...well, not to mince words,but I said "expect", and you said "deserve" a profit. I don't know of any investors that think they *deserve* a profit. Investing, almost by definition, implies a level of risk and gambling. I definitely agree with your statement that people should be discouraged from expecting profits from unprofitable things. Kinda reminds me of the real-estate bubble fiasco we just went through.
True, but I was thinking more of the Reaper, which does have real time control and weapons systems. Which (according to wiki, it does have both autonomous and real time control, and of course can carry the Hellfire, Paveway, and JDAM missile systems. As far as data inputs for the systems, we've all seen the footage of the laser pointer guiding the LGMs to the target.
Let's not forget some of the bandwidth is taken up with real-time control of the aircraft. Other than video, there are a ton of sensors these things could carry, and I'm sure the weapons systems take up some bandwidth of their own.
From the tone of this thread, I doesn't sound like there are many artists involved in the discussion. It's not all about making $$ - yes, you want people to hear what you've made. BUT, an important (maybe the most important) aspect of being an artist is originality. I am an artist that happens to have a nice tech job, so it's not the end of the world if I don't get royalties. But I would be extremely upset if I found out someone had copied my idea and taken full credit for it. What makes you a worthwhile artist is what sets you aside from the crowd and makes you an original. That's why I want my material copyrighted.
Sooooo....isn't that the definition of an investment? Because you're expecting to get some profit? I think what you're proposing would simply discourage people from investing.
I think that is spot on. Add to that the available means for both recording (home computers) and distribution (the interwebs) saturating the musicspace, and I think you have a pretty decent explanation of the chaotic state of the music scene today.
Not a bad thought - but I think of it more like a speculative investment. You might be funding the next Facebook, or you might be funding ILoveClippy.com. But I think there's some risk management, as someone else pointed out.
Slashdot Mirror
There is an interesting article on the oldest trees in the world in this article. It also has a good picture of The Senator before the fire.
Hmmmm....I was wondering about that too. Maybe they used xtranormal to hide the identity of the speaker.
No, actually I think the how is much more relevant. Are you saying that if there's a good why, than the how (B61 vs GBU-57) is not important? Clearly the country and it's allies would disagree with you.
Yes, but I believe arranging the sequence is the trick. That's like saying you have a briefcase with 20 keys...
I think the operational phrase here is "if a sample could be taken". I'm assuming that since the military doesn't want folks to find out what the sequence is, they probably have their own secret strain of algae/moss/bamboo/whatever that's locked away in a lab somewhere. Swab it off the top of the bolt? I'm sure they thought of that.
According to this whitepaper, the DNA sequencing is "unequivocally uncopyable".
I've tried this pretty successfully in the past. The only problem is that it has trouble with CSS and some of the newer technologies sometimes. Not always that easy to work with.
You should definitely try Amaya
Hmmm...interesting. I've never thought about it like that before. So, basically it says that the government will protect your ideas to encourage you to make them (and profit from them) in the short term so we can all benefit from them later.
How is it for public interests (not being facetious, I'd really like to know)?
There is one - it's called (Mod +1 Insightful)
He has to have a point, because Joost Smiers wrote a book? BTW, did you notice one of his other books is on sale on Amazon for $104.00 USD? I'll bet he has a copyright on that baby.
BTW, ideas are explicitly NOT granted any sort of legal protection.
Really? Than what are intellectual property rights?
getting the copyright monopoly must provide something besides just effort, namely originality.
I think you really hit the nail on the head with this one - after all, it would be impossible by definition to copyright something that *wasn't* original. I also agree that effort is a de-coupled issue. The copyright doesn't care whether it was easy or hard for you to come up with your idea. But, whether outdated or not, it is the only means of protection an artist/scientist/whetver has at the current time.
It's also interesting (and somewhat ironic) in it's relation to the Mickey Mouse Copyright act. They have real chutzpah if you ask me. Thanks for the link - great refs.
What you're saying is true. ...but in your own words, "the purpose of copyrighting is to incentivize more creation." The entire purpose of copyrighting is to protect your intellectual property/ideas/designs in order to keep others from using them, right? Why would I want this type of protection? 1) to keep others from using it for financial gain (i.e., it would cut into my profit margin), and/or 2) to be recognized as the intellectual origin of the artifact.
If I were only interested in spreading knowledge for the benefit of mankind, I would just release my product into the wild without a copyright, as has been done numerous times. Take something like a free CSS template on the web - the terms of use are something like "just give us credit for creating this".
Hmmmm...well, not to mince words,but I said "expect", and you said "deserve" a profit. I don't know of any investors that think they *deserve* a profit. Investing, almost by definition, implies a level of risk and gambling. I definitely agree with your statement that people should be discouraged from expecting profits from unprofitable things. Kinda reminds me of the real-estate bubble fiasco we just went through.
True, but I was thinking more of the Reaper, which does have real time control and weapons systems. Which (according to wiki, it does have both autonomous and real time control, and of course can carry the Hellfire, Paveway, and JDAM missile systems. As far as data inputs for the systems, we've all seen the footage of the laser pointer guiding the LGMs to the target.
Let's not forget some of the bandwidth is taken up with real-time control of the aircraft. Other than video, there are a ton of sensors these things could carry, and I'm sure the weapons systems take up some bandwidth of their own.
From the tone of this thread, I doesn't sound like there are many artists involved in the discussion. It's not all about making $$ - yes, you want people to hear what you've made. BUT, an important (maybe the most important) aspect of being an artist is originality. I am an artist that happens to have a nice tech job, so it's not the end of the world if I don't get royalties. But I would be extremely upset if I found out someone had copied my idea and taken full credit for it. What makes you a worthwhile artist is what sets you aside from the crowd and makes you an original. That's why I want my material copyrighted.
Hmmmm...so now you're motivating me to make/copyright something so that it will be *less* successful so I can keep my copyright?
Sooooo....isn't that the definition of an investment? Because you're expecting to get some profit? I think what you're proposing would simply discourage people from investing.
I think that is spot on. Add to that the available means for both recording (home computers) and distribution (the interwebs) saturating the musicspace, and I think you have a pretty decent explanation of the chaotic state of the music scene today.
Not a bad thought - but I think of it more like a speculative investment. You might be funding the next Facebook, or you might be funding ILoveClippy.com. But I think there's some risk management, as someone else pointed out.
Hmmmm...this thread is definitely spinning it's wheels. I might have to take the drivers seat and steer us back on course.
Yeah, that's where the rubber meets the road