Well, he doesn't have power any longer, he's retired.
It sounds like he isn't familiar with, or just doesn't care about, how bad it has become. His view must be limited to his world of the courtroom, instead of everyone else out in the real world being extorted and/or shut down, stifling innovation before it even makes it into the courtroom.
But mostly, it sounds like he's trying to save face for a flawed system, because he's so invested in it, rather than being interested in solving the problem. Perhaps even deluding himself into thinking his legacy, his life, had meaning, for all the years of what he did on the bench were good, instead of really just perpetuating the problem.
It's not sensible at all, it's fantasy. In California, we already have added environmental taxes here, but we aren't giving up our cars. We just offset the tax by sacrificing spending in our home budgets somewhere else.
It also seems incredibly dangerous to create another market out of thin air, that Wall Street will exploit, and create new derivatives for, when you consider gambling with something as fundamental as energy markets has proven disastrous (e.g. Enron and CA electricity).
NASA should stop complaining about climate change, and take some of the rocket scientists who are out of work now, and begin the next Moonshot type program for something down here on earth for a change, and develop a new energy source, that actually solves the problem.
How would the employer feel if your project called for a LeftTrim method and you said sorry boss, can't do my job because this other project I worked on 5 years ago also used a LeftTrim method and I don't want to break the law, I don't even want to risk it?
Nonsense. Our past experience is what they hired us for. What we know, what we've learned, is an asset they're paying us for. No one could do their jobs if they couldn't leverage what they've learned in past for the future.
But more importantly, copyright covers the larger creative expression as a whole. A small utility method is like a musical note A. You can copyright a software program and you can copyright a song because they represent a larger creative expression, but it is absurd to say copyright covers a note or a beat or a small utility method.
Yes, you get to keep your memory, your experience. You get to keep what you learned. Because everything you have learned, is what your current and future employer benefits from. That's what they're paying you for. If I knew how to write a LeftTrim() 5 years ago, and I need to write a LeftTrim today, I'm going to leverage my gained experience to write it again.
Small utilitarian methods should not fall under copyright because they are not creative expressions on their own.
While I can see an entire program or file being given copyright which are creative in nature, it seems unreasonable that Sun/Oracle could own a copyright on a 9-line utilitarian rangeCheck function that could never be written the same way again by anyone including the original author. Was he supposed to name the variables something different? How is a programmer even supposed to remember what code they've written over the years? Chances are for a utility function, you would name things in your current convention and syntax for the language, leverage what you've learned over the years, and probably write it the exact same way.
Everywhere is saying the vote was supposed to happen tomorrow. I'm guessing Ron Paul was planning on returning to Washington from the campaign trail to vote on it tomorrow, and someone rushed it to the House floor early before the Internet caught wind of this and stopped it like SOPA. WTF.
I think suing should be a last resort, but our roads just seem to be falling apart. It's like an obstacle course now. Can you sue the city for negligence for not maintaining these roads? There are real and expensive damages to our cars every day.
And why do we see so many potholes in the city, but not on the highway? Is it because they dig up the city roads every other day? Is there a better street architecture solution that would allow cable maintenance without digging up the roads?
The main problem is the service provider isn't required to supply the pricing of your bill before you consume the service. The doctor didn't know, and there was no mechanism in place to provide this information like in every other retail environment. Even afterwards, the business office had no price breakdown of the labs line item.
We need a simple law, that simply says, all health care service providers must provide the patient the pricing detail before you consume the service and become legally responsible for paying it. At least for non-emergency care. And at least inform consumers of the costs beforehand. That information alone could start to change things.
There is no other industry I can think of that operates this way.
Exactly. Insurance disconnects market forces that would otherwise put downward pressure on price and consumption of services.
Here's a personal example:
During a recent visit to the dermatologist, he casually says he's sending me down to get some blood drawn to run some tests. The nurse takes my blood, and I go home. Three weeks later, I get the bill, for over $1,670 for the "labs." If I had known, that was how much they were going to charge, I would have never allowed them to draw my blood. And this is the problem.
They compel you to consume a service, without ever knowing the price before you as a consumer are allowed to make the purchasing decision. No ability to shop around, or incentive for competition on price. And you are legally obligated to owe the debt, before even knowing what it will cost you. They just send you the bill for whatever amount they want weeks later. Talk about a business model.
Too bad we don't have a Commander in Chief who thought, hmmm... let's strategically shift all that money we're spending on imprisoning Americans over plants, or feeling up old ladies and kids in wheel chairs, or waging useless wars, and put it towards things like I don't know, protecting our national infrastructure and coming up with an alternative to fossil fuels.
Oh wow, I thought they did broadcast. If they didn't broadcast, then he must have a pretty crappy lawyer to get convicted of essentially doing nothing. WTF?!
I disagree. This doesn't rise to criminality to me, it was his room too. He had the right to set up a webcam in his own room. The fact he broadcast it was wrong, but not put you in prison wrong. The biggest penalty he should have received was to be kicked out of school. We imprison far too many people, by pandering politicians passing stupid laws, making things crimes out of things that are not really crimes. Don't even get me started on criminalization over plants.
Thank you for your post! I've been sticking with 3.6 as well, when I went to 4 it crashed constantly. Knowing the current build is finally stable helps a lot. Time to give it a try.
Slashdot Mirror
Why do we pass so many laws restricting our freedom, when so many Americans have literally given their lives to provide it.
Well, he doesn't have power any longer, he's retired.
It sounds like he isn't familiar with, or just doesn't care about, how bad it has become. His view must be limited to his world of the courtroom, instead of everyone else out in the real world being extorted and/or shut down, stifling innovation before it even makes it into the courtroom.
But mostly, it sounds like he's trying to save face for a flawed system, because he's so invested in it, rather than being interested in solving the problem. Perhaps even deluding himself into thinking his legacy, his life, had meaning, for all the years of what he did on the bench were good, instead of really just perpetuating the problem.
It's not sensible at all, it's fantasy. In California, we already have added environmental taxes here, but we aren't giving up our cars. We just offset the tax by sacrificing spending in our home budgets somewhere else.
It also seems incredibly dangerous to create another market out of thin air, that Wall Street will exploit, and create new derivatives for, when you consider gambling with something as fundamental as energy markets has proven disastrous (e.g. Enron and CA electricity).
NASA should stop complaining about climate change, and take some of the rocket scientists who are out of work now, and begin the next Moonshot type program for something down here on earth for a change, and develop a new energy source, that actually solves the problem.
That hypothetical would be crazy, software development would grind to a halt.
We all stand on the shoulders of giants. Sometimes, even our own.
How would the employer feel if your project called for a LeftTrim method and you said sorry boss, can't do my job because this other project I worked on 5 years ago also used a LeftTrim method and I don't want to break the law, I don't even want to risk it?
Nonsense. Our past experience is what they hired us for. What we know, what we've learned, is an asset they're paying us for. No one could do their jobs if they couldn't leverage what they've learned in past for the future.
But more importantly, copyright covers the larger creative expression as a whole. A small utility method is like a musical note A. You can copyright a software program and you can copyright a song because they represent a larger creative expression, but it is absurd to say copyright covers a note or a beat or a small utility method.
Yes, you get to keep your memory, your experience. You get to keep what you learned. Because everything you have learned, is what your current and future employer benefits from. That's what they're paying you for. If I knew how to write a LeftTrim() 5 years ago, and I need to write a LeftTrim today, I'm going to leverage my gained experience to write it again.
Small utilitarian methods should not fall under copyright because they are not creative expressions on their own.
While I can see an entire program or file being given copyright which are creative in nature, it seems unreasonable that Sun/Oracle could own a copyright on a 9-line utilitarian rangeCheck function that could never be written the same way again by anyone including the original author. Was he supposed to name the variables something different? How is a programmer even supposed to remember what code they've written over the years? Chances are for a utility function, you would name things in your current convention and syntax for the language, leverage what you've learned over the years, and probably write it the exact same way.
WHAT THE WHAT?!
The original author wrote the same utility function twice for two different projects, and this is against the law? How is this even an issue?
I'm befuddled.
Well done, sir. Well done.
Everywhere is saying the vote was supposed to happen tomorrow. I'm guessing Ron Paul was planning on returning to Washington from the campaign trail to vote on it tomorrow, and someone rushed it to the House floor early before the Internet caught wind of this and stopped it like SOPA. WTF.
"votes"? This is an anomaly. You make it sound like it's a pattern for him. If anyone shows up more to vote against this stuff, it's him.
Well said. Innovation is more than an idea. It's the execution.
I think suing should be a last resort, but our roads just seem to be falling apart. It's like an obstacle course now. Can you sue the city for negligence for not maintaining these roads? There are real and expensive damages to our cars every day.
And why do we see so many potholes in the city, but not on the highway? Is it because they dig up the city roads every other day? Is there a better street architecture solution that would allow cable maintenance without digging up the roads?
The main problem is the service provider isn't required to supply the pricing of your bill before you consume the service. The doctor didn't know, and there was no mechanism in place to provide this information like in every other retail environment. Even afterwards, the business office had no price breakdown of the labs line item.
We need a simple law, that simply says, all health care service providers must provide the patient the pricing detail before you consume the service and become legally responsible for paying it. At least for non-emergency care. And at least inform consumers of the costs beforehand. That information alone could start to change things.
There is no other industry I can think of that operates this way.
Exactly. Insurance disconnects market forces that would otherwise put downward pressure on price and consumption of services.
Here's a personal example:
During a recent visit to the dermatologist, he casually says he's sending me down to get some blood drawn to run some tests. The nurse takes my blood, and I go home. Three weeks later, I get the bill, for over $1,670 for the "labs." If I had known, that was how much they were going to charge, I would have never allowed them to draw my blood. And this is the problem.
They compel you to consume a service, without ever knowing the price before you as a consumer are allowed to make the purchasing decision. No ability to shop around, or incentive for competition on price. And you are legally obligated to owe the debt, before even knowing what it will cost you. They just send you the bill for whatever amount they want weeks later. Talk about a business model.
Agree completely.
Market share.
Too bad we don't have a Commander in Chief who thought, hmmm... let's strategically shift all that money we're spending on imprisoning Americans over plants, or feeling up old ladies and kids in wheel chairs, or waging useless wars, and put it towards things like I don't know, protecting our national infrastructure and coming up with an alternative to fossil fuels.
Oh wow, I thought they did broadcast. If they didn't broadcast, then he must have a pretty crappy lawyer to get convicted of essentially doing nothing. WTF?!
I disagree. This doesn't rise to criminality to me, it was his room too. He had the right to set up a webcam in his own room. The fact he broadcast it was wrong, but not put you in prison wrong. The biggest penalty he should have received was to be kicked out of school. We imprison far too many people, by pandering politicians passing stupid laws, making things crimes out of things that are not really crimes. Don't even get me started on criminalization over plants.
Well, if they shut it down, they did it because the courts there started throwing the tickets out.
Exactly.
For what it's worth FF 3.6 has great HTML5 support as well, even better than IE 10 PP2 last time I worked with it.
Thank you for your post! I've been sticking with 3.6 as well, when I went to 4 it crashed constantly. Knowing the current build is finally stable helps a lot. Time to give it a try.