Few good law lecturers teach entirely from statute / case law; just as few good pastors teach entirely from the bible. You choose relevant examples, illustrate (sometimes exaggerate), highlight partial points, pull in commentary etc.
The issue isn't as much the source of the content, but the communication method that makes an effective teacher. It is always necessary when teaching to relate the content in a way your students / congregation can understand, relate to and apply.
Powerpoint slides can be a great tool, but they are just a tool, and sticking to one tool will never be an effective communication method
While the stated goal of copyright is to promote creativity, in practice copyright primarily creates a commercial system that has little practical relevance when applied to modern technology.
If the laws were actually intended to promote creativity, copyright systems wouldn't provide rights for Life + 70 years (AU).
We're very sorry we made a big mistake. We hear you have a lovely singing voice and we wish you good luck.
Which is lawyer-speak for "Our next target will be someone with a lot less public exposure, and much less ability to defend against our accusations in court."
Good point, but you aren't factoring in the costs of the legal battles seeking to invalidate any third party's later patents.
For the most part, litigation is cheaper and less risky if you can point to an awarded patent than if you need to go through all of the discover phases to show sufficient similarity to your concept (unless you are incredibly organised and keep all of your notes in one quickly accessible place). You also carry the risk of a court saying 'too obscure' on your publication - particularly when an international corp steals your idea and takes it multi jurisdictional.
This constitutional argument completely ignores the requirement that to gain patent protection, one must disclose a working embodiment of the invention - that is they must publish how their invention works. To exclude the public from exploiting a software invention by patent does not preclude the public from understanding how the invention works, talking about it, experimenting with the ideas or even ultimately deriving a new invention based on the original that is sufficiently novel.
...which means we should ban sysadmins from getting their own coffee, lest they see the passwords taped to the monitors.
not that being able to change the password could give a sysadmin access to your account.
...why can't we send a fuel canister over there before we send any manned craft
Just make sure you send it before the astronauts, or given the number of risks involved someone is likely to drop the fuel in the wrong way / place / inevitable explosion, destruction and doom.
That said, you are more likely to hear "Mars colony bombed - ET suspected" in the headlines, than anyone actually owning up to dropping enough hydrogen to for interplanetary travel on their heads.
You clearly haven't had to rent before... with housemates and speakers blaring at 2am.
Burning cds / dvds for your friends (in the literal sense) begins to sound like a good idea.
Slashdot Mirror
Few good law lecturers teach entirely from statute / case law; just as few good pastors teach entirely from the bible. You choose relevant examples, illustrate (sometimes exaggerate), highlight partial points, pull in commentary etc.
The issue isn't as much the source of the content, but the communication method that makes an effective teacher. It is always necessary when teaching to relate the content in a way your students / congregation can understand, relate to and apply.
Powerpoint slides can be a great tool, but they are just a tool, and sticking to one tool will never be an effective communication method
It is clearly a slow news day when Rupert Murdoch himself has to step up to make a headline.
... and they are harbouring terrorists (aside: or was that terrorising harbours?)
If that didn't persuade you ... they also have biological weapons.
Well it is very useful for Microsoft - they can now go after the Pirate Bay for Copyright Infringement. All hail the DMCA.
I can already picture the Microsoft Lawyers - "THEY STOLE MY COFEE". It will be quoted in legal textbooks for years!
While the stated goal of copyright is to promote creativity, in practice copyright primarily creates a commercial system that has little practical relevance when applied to modern technology.
If the laws were actually intended to promote creativity, copyright systems wouldn't provide rights for Life + 70 years (AU).
Isn't the whole issue here risk management? If a cyber threat exists, what is the response we can/ will take?
The ITU took the possibility of cyber-threats seriously enough to to form IMPACT - The International Multilateral Partnership Against Cyber-Terrorism.
I guess we didn't take Tom Clancy seriously enough.
The real question is how we assess Star Wars for historical accuracy.
A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away....
We're very sorry we made a big mistake. We hear you have a lovely singing voice and we wish you good luck.
Which is lawyer-speak for "Our next target will be someone with a lot less public exposure, and much less ability to defend against our accusations in court."
...or just much bigger pockets.
I'm not tone deaf - I just sing in a low bitrate!
Never let your schooling interfere with your education.
Care to volunteer for open brain surgery instead?
Good point, but you aren't factoring in the costs of the legal battles seeking to invalidate any third party's later patents. For the most part, litigation is cheaper and less risky if you can point to an awarded patent than if you need to go through all of the discover phases to show sufficient similarity to your concept (unless you are incredibly organised and keep all of your notes in one quickly accessible place). You also carry the risk of a court saying 'too obscure' on your publication - particularly when an international corp steals your idea and takes it multi jurisdictional.
This constitutional argument completely ignores the requirement that to gain patent protection, one must disclose a working embodiment of the invention - that is they must publish how their invention works. To exclude the public from exploiting a software invention by patent does not preclude the public from understanding how the invention works, talking about it, experimenting with the ideas or even ultimately deriving a new invention based on the original that is sufficiently novel.
... or more importantly, when searching judicial decisions when appointing a new judge.
After all, judges decide 'fairly', just some decide more fairly than others.
...which means we should ban sysadmins from getting their own coffee, lest they see the passwords taped to the monitors. not that being able to change the password could give a sysadmin access to your account.
The only ones who are my friends are those that I acknowledge as such.
Rejected :-(
better watch out - the Gaydar may read having no friends as 'paedophile'.
...why can't we send a fuel canister over there before we send any manned craft
Just make sure you send it before the astronauts, or given the number of risks involved someone is likely to drop the fuel in the wrong way / place / inevitable explosion, destruction and doom.
That said, you are more likely to hear "Mars colony bombed - ET suspected" in the headlines, than anyone actually owning up to dropping enough hydrogen to for interplanetary travel on their heads.
I knew it - Facebook is essential for study.
You clearly haven't had to rent before... with housemates and speakers blaring at 2am. Burning cds / dvds for your friends (in the literal sense) begins to sound like a good idea.
Human stupidity would beat a pure evil AI any day. Seriously - removing the safety labels would cull mankind faster than and computer could.