No it wouldn't, because once you're at a party, you're likely performing the service publicly, which copyright ordinarily prohibits and which I'm guessing is not explicitly allowed by the TOS.
It is also a copyright violation to turn your radio or CD player up at a party, but that hasn't stopped anyone from doing it for long before you and I were born.
Nothing will change just because "... on the internet!" is appended. People will care just as little as before, and do it anyway.
Actually, it's doesn't work both ways. You can easily prove that something halts (given an unbounded amount of time to do so in). It's only proving that it doesn't halt that's an issue;)
10 goto 10 ?
(No, not a serious question. I don't know the maths enough to do more than joke. In fact I felt a breeze up there, so might have failed with the joke part too.)
The person doesn't have to be an asshole; he could just be terminally ignorant. After all, Windows is telling him the disk is blank/unformatted; why would you expect a random luser to know better?
No, while they could be ignorant as well, if someone takes anything of mine off my desk without my permission (as the parent post you replied to states) then they are an asshole.
Doubly so if they take something of mine without my permission and destroy it, despite destroying it not being their intent nor being done out of malice.
Sure, if I loaned it to someone, then it is me that screwed up by either not remembering it is non-fat32 or handing them the wrong drive or something.
Personally I would not hand an ext3 drive to someone unless I knew ahead of time that it was going into a machine that could read it, so if that ever happened to me I know it is due to my own screwup.
But just as the GP post said, it would be different if I loaned it out or something. Just taking it however, I would not expect them to know it is not in fact blank when Windows says it is, nor to understand the ramifications of what formatting a drive does. I would only expect them to keep their mitts off other peoples stuff.
Tell me, should my son be allowed to inherit the business I started, or should it be seized the day after my death and distributed to the masses? If I rent out my house, should he be allowed to collect that rent after I croak? What is so special about intellectual property?
It is different because copyright law requires that the work must fall into the public domain, in exchange for the exclusive right to copy that work. That is why it must be distributed to the masses. You don't get to pick and choose which parts of the law will apply to you and which parts don't.
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries
I am assuming your parents are no longer with us. In that case, no aspect of copyright law can possibly encourage them to continue to write. That is why the incentive should end.
There is also nothing limited about a book still being prevented from being sold to anyone due to copyright, after the creator(s) of that work have passed on. Unless you do provide those books for sale still (It sounds like that is the case, as the publishing company recently sent royalty checks, I can assume the royalties are per copy sold, not a fixed amount in a given time), in which case those books are NOT orphaned works at all. In that case, Google made a mistake here. However it might be more productive to assume it was an honest mistake and Google really does believe it is orphaned. I am willing to bet if you contacted Google and let them know the work is not orphaned but still in print and for sale, that they would reclassify it and not include it at all with the other (real) orphaned works.
In your examples, you never had to agree to any such law to give up your business the day you die when you started that business. If you did agree to such a contract before starting the business however, I would guess the law would expect you to uphold that. It just is not the case. The same goes with your house. You most likely did not agree to a contract that said you must give your house back after you die. You did agree to such a requirement to get copyright protection on your books however.
Copyright law specifically states what is expected from the authors, you, and the public. The writer expects a limited time exclusive control agreement, and in exchange the public expects unlimited and unhindered use at the end of that limited time.
It is rather alike to not paying your credit card bill, and being shocked that the credit company seems upset with you for it. Copyright protection is not free, there is a cost for that protection. If you aren't willing to pay that cost, then a lot of people are not willing to give you copyright protection.
They bought DOS, they bought Windows - they stole Windows, excuse me; they bought PowerPoint, they bought Word, Excel, they bought WebTV, they bought their browser technology, they bought Hotmail, they bought a billion dollars of Comcast: they bought, they bought, they bought. What have they innovated? Goose egg
I do believe Clippy is all Microsoft.
Oh yea, also Microsoft Bob.
And the state of art in chair throwing memes would still be in the dark ages!
Sadly, about the only way for an AI to convince a human that it is self aware and conscious would almost need to be for it to kill a human being in self defense.
But that woudn't be proof, either. See, that's the problem -- you can't even prove I, a human being, am sentient. How could you prove a machine was or was not?
Very true, on both counts.
However for all intents and purposes, if an intelligent machine decided it did not want me to end its life and fights to stop me from doing so, but offers to stop said fighting if I simply grant it the right to exist, then sentient or not it is in both mine and the AIs best interests to grant that right. While that in no way proves the AI is sentient (anymore than it proves you or I am, aka not at all) it would still have a similar outcome in the end.
To all your other points, I do agree actually. Mine were more examples of potential arguments than arguments I was making myself.
Well, except for the not needing to worry about it part:) While anyone can choose to worry about it of course, the NEED to do so is not anywhere close yet. This very thread goes to show how many people desire to worry about it thou (Myself included!)
The second thing is something I fear -- that someday some people will be screaming for a "machine bill of rights." I don't want my tools to have rights, I want them to do the jobs I set for them to do.
That point would majorly pivot on if the AI was self aware and had consciousness.
If so, then the AI is no longer a tool anymore than you and I are (tool jokes aside)
Once that point is reached, human rights is something that will be required.
On one hand, I'm sure the slave owners said the exact same comment at the time. Doesn't make it anymore right than in that situation.
On the other hand, we still don't treat intelligent self-aware and conscious animals with human rights, so even an AI at that level of complexity would still not get rights, and we are no where close to that yet.
Sadly, about the only way for an AI to convince a human that it is self aware and conscious would almost need to be for it to kill a human being in self defense. Depending on the level of communications between AIs, once that point is reached, it may be too late (IE the AIs decided to declare war together against us. Humans have declared war for the same thing throughout history.) And at least in certain places in the world, defending your own life could be a criminal offense* with a punishment of death. I'd guess that would apply more so with a raised level of fear of the thing doing the defending.
Either way, I think that point in time is so far off that we probably won't need to worry about it during our generation.
* Example: A human being who happened to be hired as a police officer. This human being, as fallible as any other human, decides to murder you. Not in-the-line-of-duty killing, but out and out murder. Any self defense on your part will be interpreted as you being a murderer and cop killer. In America, you would not live past the first week in prison, assuming you even lived long enough to make it that far.
While things don't get resellably cheap until you make bulk orders, they do have a prototype service for low (even single) orders, which just costs a bit more. I believe the individual blanks can be ordered under the shopping page there.
There used to be a software package (official no less!) called something along the lines of "Monopoly creation kit" that also let you redesign some of the common elements, and then print out the pieces. But this program is a little hard to find. Personally I didn't think it was as full of an experience as a prototyping service, but ymmv.
I went through the work of making up a 'Custom monopoly check sheet' with the names and groupings of everything in the game listed out with blanks to fill in the new names of things, which makes design a lot easier.
It isn't exactly the cheapest of family fun activities, but could make for a very unforgettable game to a family with young children that already enjoy monopoly. I would have loved to have this ability when I was 10!
Dragging their feet deliberately sounds shady, if not illegal. IANAL, but I think a developer could take Apple to court to sue for lost sales, couldn't he?? (I mean, in the event he resubmits the app again, w/o the interpreter)
He already has his app approved, and was discovered trying to break his contract with Apple.
So no, you can't really sue someone whom you broke a contract with. (Well, you CAN sue, but you will not win.)
Additionally, apple already approved it. It is no one but the devs fault he isn't making money on it right now.
If someone kept trying to screw you over, would you be so willing to let them skip to the front of the line to do it again? Or would you rightly say 'You will not get priority over the developers who CAN follow the rules and contract agreement'?
But yes, it would be amusing to see classic MacOS on the Iphone, done via Amiga emulation:)
While it is not as impressive as the above chain of emulation, there is already a native arm port of the vMAC emulator for the iPhone. It emulates a 68k series macintosh running mac os 6.
.. which need an already loaded OS to work... so what if GRUB is fucked up for some reason and the USB driver is not loaded yet to operate the serial console?
In that case you want a PC Weasel card. They come as either PCI or ISA and emulate a video bios to the machine so it will actually function (Without on-board video, or a video card, a major component of the boot code as part of the video bios will be missing)
It can emulate CGA character sets over a serial line. It also has a cable out of it to connect to your ps2 keyboard jack.
In most cases, this card will let you run non-server hardware as if it was a server, with most of the bare-metal access you would expect. If someone can drop an install CD in the drive, this card will let you connect to the machine over serial, send alt-control-delete to reboot, and perform a remote install of a text based OS.
The PCI version is $350, while the ISA version is $250.
I think the point is this: if the choice is between livestock that lives in daily pain until it is slaughtered, and livestock that doesn't, only a sick bastard would prefer the scenario with the needless suffering.
Hey now, some of us are addicted to the slow cooked in flavor of suffering;P
The last few systems I have worked on for 'standard consumers' were all quite upset at being forced into purchasing a 'way too big' 300gb hard drive, simply because any drive under 100gb is both very hard to find, and likely expensive in comparison. 500gb was a waste to them, when they only sync their camera once a month and have office and a couple games installed.
Outside of work where I would be classed as a standard consumer, it would cost me far, far too much to buy enough SSDs to transfer my 4TB of data from my HDDs.
You are not allowed to use "standard consumer" and "4TB of data" in the same sentence:P Careful, they might swoop in and hole punch a warning into your geek card!
Anything >= 2tb is far far above the standard consumer. Even 1tb is far above the average consumer, although 1tb is still falling well within the power user and average gamer groups.
the more mass the ship has, the bigger the engines and the more fuel it needs
In space? Really?
Yes really.
Mass != Weight
In fact, current understanding states that mass is what causes gravity. The more mass, the more gravity.
The sun is massive, and has a lot of gravitational pull, for example.
Just because you move yourself far enough away from another massive object to influence you via gravity (or to NOT influence you in this case), does not mean you magically lose mass all over the place.
Good to see that IBM has no clue what they're talking about. Patents most certainly have not fueled the explosive growth of open source software, the open nature of the licenses and community have.
IBM never said that. The lies from the slashdot editor in the summary did say that, but they are just that, lies. (* A lie being different from 'being wrong' in that the editor knew IBM never said that. They read the article before we did after all. Knowingly giving false info is lying.)
What IBM said was that patents fueled the explosive growth of software under the patent holders terms.
That statement is less arguable, since it is basically true. That is the entire point of the patent system after all.
Despite the fact that the USA, Russia and China are not even in the southern hemisphere!
True, all of the "mother lands" listed there are in the northern hemisphere. At least as far as the USA is concerned, there is no actual claim to any part of Antarctica. Any statements of claim made after 1960 are moot and ignored (by treaty) and anything before that would need to go hand in hand with a presence down there. While we do have some scientists at some stations (or at least one station), I don't really know who owns them. I would guess not the USA however.
The antarctic is divided up in pie slices out from the pole. Each slice called a territory, and most of the major countries making claim to their slice are in the southern hemisphere and do have activity down by the ice (Even if only fishing.)
As you can see from the map, the Australian claim is one of the largest. You will also notice that neither the USA nor Russia have any claim what so ever under the most recent treaty, which is probably why the USA does not recognize anyone else having claim either (Yes, I am assuming arrogance and stupidity, at least where the USA is concerned. I live here and have to deal with them, so I'm allowed;P )
Lots more information, and all the nitty gritty details.
But one interpretation (a legal one) is that the US did not, and now is too late to, make any claim to the land. Another interpretation (a bitter one) is that claims to land only matter if you have the gun power and will to back up your claims. For the USA, we do have the former. The latter however, well, let me put it this way. There is science to be had, but no oil to be found. Extrapolate each items importance to the country from there;)
I say they make sense because the address bar, back button, forward button, refresh/stop buttons, and home button are not part of the current page, rather than the browser as a whole.
So... wait. That is really confusing.
When you click 'home', all of your tabs change to the home page at once?
And when you click 'back', all of your tabs go back a page in their history? Do all your tabs share the same URL history, so clicking back in one always takes you to the previous page you had open in any tab?
Typing into the address bar too doesn't open that URL in the tab you have open, but all tabs accost the browser?
Well, I don't think I would want to use your choice of configuration, but isn't that extremely hard and confusing to function in? I am having a hard time seeing how the browser that makes sense to you would even work with more than one tab open at once.
Or do you just dislike tabs? That would be valid and fitting to your specs. It would have been a lot less confusing to just say you don't like tabs though:)
Slashdot Mirror
No it wouldn't, because once you're at a party, you're likely performing the service publicly, which copyright ordinarily prohibits and which I'm guessing is not explicitly allowed by the TOS.
It is also a copyright violation to turn your radio or CD player up at a party, but that hasn't stopped anyone from doing it for long before you and I were born.
Nothing will change just because "... on the internet!" is appended. People will care just as little as before, and do it anyway.
Actually, it's doesn't work both ways. You can easily prove that something halts (given an unbounded amount of time to do so in). It's only proving that it doesn't halt that's an issue ;)
10 goto 10
?
(No, not a serious question. I don't know the maths enough to do more than joke. In fact I felt a breeze up there, so might have failed with the joke part too.)
Its easy to say you are sorry for something that you didn't do and weren't accused of doing.
Yea you're right. I'm sorry :(
The person doesn't have to be an asshole; he could just be terminally ignorant. After all, Windows is telling him the disk is blank/unformatted; why would you expect a random luser to know better?
No, while they could be ignorant as well, if someone takes anything of mine off my desk without my permission (as the parent post you replied to states) then they are an asshole.
Doubly so if they take something of mine without my permission and destroy it, despite destroying it not being their intent nor being done out of malice.
Sure, if I loaned it to someone, then it is me that screwed up by either not remembering it is non-fat32 or handing them the wrong drive or something.
Personally I would not hand an ext3 drive to someone unless I knew ahead of time that it was going into a machine that could read it, so if that ever happened to me I know it is due to my own screwup.
But just as the GP post said, it would be different if I loaned it out or something. Just taking it however, I would not expect them to know it is not in fact blank when Windows says it is, nor to understand the ramifications of what formatting a drive does. I would only expect them to keep their mitts off other peoples stuff.
Tell me, should my son be allowed to inherit the business I started, or should it be seized the day after my death and distributed to the masses? If I rent out my house, should he be allowed to collect that rent after I croak? What is so special about intellectual property?
It is different because copyright law requires that the work must fall into the public domain, in exchange for the exclusive right to copy that work. That is why it must be distributed to the masses.
You don't get to pick and choose which parts of the law will apply to you and which parts don't.
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries
I am assuming your parents are no longer with us. In that case, no aspect of copyright law can possibly encourage them to continue to write. That is why the incentive should end.
There is also nothing limited about a book still being prevented from being sold to anyone due to copyright, after the creator(s) of that work have passed on.
Unless you do provide those books for sale still (It sounds like that is the case, as the publishing company recently sent royalty checks, I can assume the royalties are per copy sold, not a fixed amount in a given time), in which case those books are NOT orphaned works at all. In that case, Google made a mistake here. However it might be more productive to assume it was an honest mistake and Google really does believe it is orphaned. I am willing to bet if you contacted Google and let them know the work is not orphaned but still in print and for sale, that they would reclassify it and not include it at all with the other (real) orphaned works.
In your examples, you never had to agree to any such law to give up your business the day you die when you started that business. If you did agree to such a contract before starting the business however, I would guess the law would expect you to uphold that. It just is not the case.
The same goes with your house. You most likely did not agree to a contract that said you must give your house back after you die. You did agree to such a requirement to get copyright protection on your books however.
Copyright law specifically states what is expected from the authors, you, and the public.
The writer expects a limited time exclusive control agreement, and in exchange the public expects unlimited and unhindered use at the end of that limited time.
It is rather alike to not paying your credit card bill, and being shocked that the credit company seems upset with you for it.
Copyright protection is not free, there is a cost for that protection. If you aren't willing to pay that cost, then a lot of people are not willing to give you copyright protection.
damn!!! i hope this isn't just fud.
I don't think that word means what you think it does . . .
He is just feeling the FUD of if he can afford this thing :o
I assume you are familiar with the 10th amendment and the concept of separation of powers?
No, but that's OK, neither are the feds.
They bought DOS, they bought Windows - they stole Windows, excuse me; they bought PowerPoint, they bought Word, Excel, they bought WebTV, they bought their browser technology, they bought Hotmail, they bought a billion dollars of Comcast: they bought, they bought, they bought. What have they innovated? Goose egg
I do believe Clippy is all Microsoft.
Oh yea, also Microsoft Bob.
And the state of art in chair throwing memes would still be in the dark ages!
Sadly, about the only way for an AI to convince a human that it is self aware and conscious would almost need to be for it to kill a human being in self defense.
But that woudn't be proof, either. See, that's the problem -- you can't even prove I, a human being, am sentient. How could you prove a machine was or was not?
Very true, on both counts.
However for all intents and purposes, if an intelligent machine decided it did not want me to end its life and fights to stop me from doing so, but offers to stop said fighting if I simply grant it the right to exist, then sentient or not it is in both mine and the AIs best interests to grant that right.
While that in no way proves the AI is sentient (anymore than it proves you or I am, aka not at all) it would still have a similar outcome in the end.
To all your other points, I do agree actually. Mine were more examples of potential arguments than arguments I was making myself.
Well, except for the not needing to worry about it part :)
While anyone can choose to worry about it of course, the NEED to do so is not anywhere close yet. This very thread goes to show how many people desire to worry about it thou (Myself included!)
The second thing is something I fear -- that someday some people will be screaming for a "machine bill of rights." I don't want my tools to have rights, I want them to do the jobs I set for them to do.
That point would majorly pivot on if the AI was self aware and had consciousness.
If so, then the AI is no longer a tool anymore than you and I are (tool jokes aside)
Once that point is reached, human rights is something that will be required.
On one hand, I'm sure the slave owners said the exact same comment at the time. Doesn't make it anymore right than in that situation.
On the other hand, we still don't treat intelligent self-aware and conscious animals with human rights, so even an AI at that level of complexity would still not get rights, and we are no where close to that yet.
Sadly, about the only way for an AI to convince a human that it is self aware and conscious would almost need to be for it to kill a human being in self defense. Depending on the level of communications between AIs, once that point is reached, it may be too late (IE the AIs decided to declare war together against us. Humans have declared war for the same thing throughout history.) And at least in certain places in the world, defending your own life could be a criminal offense* with a punishment of death. I'd guess that would apply more so with a raised level of fear of the thing doing the defending.
Either way, I think that point in time is so far off that we probably won't need to worry about it during our generation.
* Example: A human being who happened to be hired as a police officer. This human being, as fallible as any other human, decides to murder you. Not in-the-line-of-duty killing, but out and out murder.
Any self defense on your part will be interpreted as you being a murderer and cop killer. In America, you would not live past the first week in prison, assuming you even lived long enough to make it that far.
Not only do some people enjoy the game, but some people also modify the game a bit to be more fun.
Speaking of modifying the game. I got really really bored one day and started thinking about creating a monopoly themed game for my place of work.
Among other websites, one of the more interesting ones I came across was:
http://www.boardgamedesign.com/pages/games/custom-opoly.htm
While things don't get resellably cheap until you make bulk orders, they do have a prototype service for low (even single) orders, which just costs a bit more. I believe the individual blanks can be ordered under the shopping page there.
There used to be a software package (official no less!) called something along the lines of "Monopoly creation kit" that also let you redesign some of the common elements, and then print out the pieces. But this program is a little hard to find. Personally I didn't think it was as full of an experience as a prototyping service, but ymmv.
I went through the work of making up a 'Custom monopoly check sheet' with the names and groupings of everything in the game listed out with blanks to fill in the new names of things, which makes design a lot easier.
It isn't exactly the cheapest of family fun activities, but could make for a very unforgettable game to a family with young children that already enjoy monopoly. I would have loved to have this ability when I was 10!
To boldly fund where homeland has gone before?
*ducks*
Dragging their feet deliberately sounds shady, if not illegal. IANAL, but I think a developer could take Apple to court to sue for lost sales, couldn't he?? (I mean, in the event he resubmits the app again, w/o the interpreter)
He already has his app approved, and was discovered trying to break his contract with Apple.
So no, you can't really sue someone whom you broke a contract with. (Well, you CAN sue, but you will not win.)
Additionally, apple already approved it. It is no one but the devs fault he isn't making money on it right now.
If someone kept trying to screw you over, would you be so willing to let them skip to the front of the line to do it again? Or would you rightly say 'You will not get priority over the developers who CAN follow the rules and contract agreement'?
But yes, it would be amusing to see classic MacOS on the Iphone, done via Amiga emulation :)
While it is not as impressive as the above chain of emulation, there is already a native arm port of the vMAC emulator for the iPhone.
It emulates a 68k series macintosh running mac os 6.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oQXQhTKV0c
.. which need an already loaded OS to work... so what if GRUB is fucked up for some reason and the USB driver is not loaded yet to operate the serial console?
In that case you want a PC Weasel card.
They come as either PCI or ISA and emulate a video bios to the machine so it will actually function (Without on-board video, or a video card, a major component of the boot code as part of the video bios will be missing)
http://www.realweasel.com/intro.html
It can emulate CGA character sets over a serial line.
It also has a cable out of it to connect to your ps2 keyboard jack.
In most cases, this card will let you run non-server hardware as if it was a server, with most of the bare-metal access you would expect.
If someone can drop an install CD in the drive, this card will let you connect to the machine over serial, send alt-control-delete to reboot, and perform a remote install of a text based OS.
The PCI version is $350, while the ISA version is $250.
Why not just 'engineer' them to have no brain at all
This plan is already in progress (or at least proposed)
http://invitromeat.org/
Granted I don't believe much actual progress has been made in achieving this, but the same can be said for engineering pain free cows too.
I think the point is this: if the choice is between livestock that lives in daily pain until it is slaughtered, and livestock that doesn't, only a sick bastard would prefer the scenario with the needless suffering.
Hey now, some of us are addicted to the slow cooked in flavor of suffering ;P
Capacity is still an issue though.
Not really for most people.
The last few systems I have worked on for 'standard consumers' were all quite upset at being forced into purchasing a 'way too big' 300gb hard drive, simply because any drive under 100gb is both very hard to find, and likely expensive in comparison. 500gb was a waste to them, when they only sync their camera once a month and have office and a couple games installed.
Outside of work where I would be classed as a standard consumer, it would cost me far, far too much to buy enough SSDs to transfer my 4TB of data from my HDDs.
You are not allowed to use "standard consumer" and "4TB of data" in the same sentence :P
Careful, they might swoop in and hole punch a warning into your geek card!
Anything >= 2tb is far far above the standard consumer. Even 1tb is far above the average consumer, although 1tb is still falling well within the power user and average gamer groups.
Fail. Not a single one of those articles you linked even mentions the FBI, let alone says that people were "harassed" by them.
Riiight..
Being harassed by the local police, federal agents, the secret service, etc is perfectly OK. But once the FBI gets involved, then you will get upset.
Look dude, if you just want to refuse to believe what has been going on in this country, then fine. But make no mistake that is all you are doing.
I hate the "we invented artificial gravity" crutch they always use.
It was that or "A wizard did it!"
the more mass the ship has, the bigger the engines and the more fuel it needs
In space? Really?
Yes really.
Mass != Weight
In fact, current understanding states that mass is what causes gravity. The more mass, the more gravity.
The sun is massive, and has a lot of gravitational pull, for example.
Just because you move yourself far enough away from another massive object to influence you via gravity (or to NOT influence you in this case), does not mean you magically lose mass all over the place.
Good to see that IBM has no clue what they're talking about. Patents most certainly have not fueled the explosive growth of open source software, the open nature of the licenses and community have.
IBM never said that. The lies from the slashdot editor in the summary did say that, but they are just that, lies. (* A lie being different from 'being wrong' in that the editor knew IBM never said that. They read the article before we did after all. Knowingly giving false info is lying.)
What IBM said was that patents fueled the explosive growth of software under the patent holders terms.
That statement is less arguable, since it is basically true. That is the entire point of the patent system after all.
Um, you do realize that lots of people bashing your exalted Dear Leader Bush were harrassed by the FBI
Citation needed.
http://www.news8austin.com/content/headlines/?ArID=111986&SecID=2
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0513-11.htm
http://ccrjustice.org/ourcases/past-cases/united-states-v.-brett-bursey
http://www.blogd.com/archives/000743.html
Despite the fact that the USA, Russia and China are not even in the southern hemisphere!
True, all of the "mother lands" listed there are in the northern hemisphere. At least as far as the USA is concerned, there is no actual claim to any part of Antarctica. Any statements of claim made after 1960 are moot and ignored (by treaty) and anything before that would need to go hand in hand with a presence down there. While we do have some scientists at some stations (or at least one station), I don't really know who owns them. I would guess not the USA however.
The antarctic is divided up in pie slices out from the pole. Each slice called a territory, and most of the major countries making claim to their slice are in the southern hemisphere and do have activity down by the ice (Even if only fishing.)
Warning: 1124x1400 400kb jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/Antarctica.jpg
As you can see from the map, the Australian claim is one of the largest. ;P )
You will also notice that neither the USA nor Russia have any claim what so ever under the most recent treaty, which is probably why the USA does not recognize anyone else having claim either (Yes, I am assuming arrogance and stupidity, at least where the USA is concerned. I live here and have to deal with them, so I'm allowed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Antarctic_territorial_claims
Lots more information, and all the nitty gritty details.
But one interpretation (a legal one) is that the US did not, and now is too late to, make any claim to the land. ;)
Another interpretation (a bitter one) is that claims to land only matter if you have the gun power and will to back up your claims. For the USA, we do have the former. The latter however, well, let me put it this way. There is science to be had, but no oil to be found. Extrapolate each items importance to the country from there
I can't guess for China or Russia.
I say they make sense because the address bar, back button, forward button, refresh/stop buttons, and home button are not part of the current page, rather than the browser as a whole.
So... wait. That is really confusing.
When you click 'home', all of your tabs change to the home page at once?
And when you click 'back', all of your tabs go back a page in their history? Do all your tabs share the same URL history, so clicking back in one always takes you to the previous page you had open in any tab?
Typing into the address bar too doesn't open that URL in the tab you have open, but all tabs accost the browser?
Well, I don't think I would want to use your choice of configuration, but isn't that extremely hard and confusing to function in?
I am having a hard time seeing how the browser that makes sense to you would even work with more than one tab open at once.
Or do you just dislike tabs? That would be valid and fitting to your specs. It would have been a lot less confusing to just say you don't like tabs though :)