'Chinese hackers' are almost always a scapegoat, and the US probably pays the Chinese state the lion's share of the budget for the state and state backed hackers.
Why are we arguing? We all know that everybody that posts on/. these days is paid to post on slashdot by someone with lots of money. Why else would you post on/.?
But in the case of DVD's, you'll actually spend orders of magnitude more time and effort pirating it than you would have spent simply sitting through the warning. I trust you realize what such a choice of actions makes you look like.
You aren't making an apples to apples comparison. You are comparing the amount of time it takes to acquire the illicit copy to sitting through the warning. However, DVDs don't magically appear in front of you. You have to go to a store to buy them, which includes travel time to a retail store, shopping, and going back, which takes a significant amount of time. In regards to effort, this will typically involve money, and that money is usually acquired as the result of a certain amount of labor.
A better comparison would be to the time it takes to open the file.
It's not hard to intimidate a 16 year old girl, even if you aren't an authority figure. Also, you can only expect her to be so insistent on BEING GROPED BY A COMPLETE STRANGER, which is how she would opt out of the scanner.
Opting in for those things will obviously make you suspicious, which means you'll probably be put on some watchlist. Eventually, it probably won't even be an option to opt-in, since only dirty criminals make that choice. The assholes that are against porn tend to be the kind of control freaks that thinks that they should have a say in every aspect of everyone's life, and to them, the internet is a great threat. There's not a damn thing wrong with kids watching porn, so the base argument is completely invalid.
They start by making you have to opt-in for porn, then the filter is expanded for child porn, terrorism, hate speech, extremism, copyright infringement, and whatever. It's foot in the door technique.
How about we quit being total jackasses on the international stage, so then we don't fuel any significant amounts of 'terrorist' action. I'd rather treat things at the root.
If the cops go to ask your friends (or foes) where to find you, and they willingly give up the information, there's nothing you can do about it
Yes, but those parties can also choose to NOT give up the information, and they really shouldn't. You shouldn't tell a cop what time of day it is unless there is a subpeona. Telcos not talking unless they have a subpeona is a perfectly fine policy.
Your post doesn't make sense. GPL scales with copyright to let copyright protect you from the copyright of downstream derivatives. If copyright is weak or gone, you don't get much protection, and you don't need much there. If it is strong, you get a lot of protection, and you need a lot of protection in such an environment.
I think the threat is that the internet will cease to be a big place outside of a handful of walled gardens, or at the very least, it's very difficult to engage in certain activities without a Facebook account.
Yes, it does. It would be very important for copyright on software, because it allows for clean room reverse engineering or independent authors solving the same problem in similar ways. If copyright worked the way you mistakenly think it does, then making compatible products would almost always be illegal. This kind of problem is one of the biggest things that is troubling about software patents, which don't allow for independent invention.
Canada's copyright law is most likely derived from British copyright, meaning that the historical purpose would be 'the advancement of learning' as set out in the Statute of Anne. Also, given how intent the US is at pushing its laws on other countries, the rest of the world ought to accept the handful of good elements it has.
Copyright provides for independent authorship, so if the database was truly compiled independently, it wouldn't be copyright infringement, even if Canada idiotically allows postcode databases to be copyrighted.
I would say that not having shitty results was the main issue, but not being a portal clusterfuck could be considered a technical merit as well. It meant their search service was better than other search services, as opposed to Microsoft being popular initially because IBM was behind them, and because after that, they leveraged their power to keep competition at bay.
Google's dominance in the search market is/was largely based upon technical merit. Also, Google has fairly limited lock-in to end users. You can switch to Bing, Yahoo, DuckDuckGo, etc., very easily if you so choose.
Yes, there is a 5-order-of-magnitude gap in our solar system, but there are other systems, and they may have celestial bodies that fall within that gap, so clearer terms might be useful.
It's reasonable that these characters were fluent in more than one language. What needs explaining is why the conversations don't take place in a single language, but it might be that they knew the languages well enough to understand them when spoken, but not enough to speak them. Given the anatomical differences, this could be quite plausible.
I'm not aware of any US government agencies that currently collects patent royalties, at least if you don't count universities as such. Government agencies having patents is completely illogical because they don't need patents. The reasoning behind patents is to provide economic incentives to further research that a free market wouldn't produce. If they are already funded by taxpayers, giving them a patent is double dipping. That's why I have problems with the way the Bayh-Dole act works.
You are correct about the Bayh-Dole act and it's effect, although it at least requires part of the funding come from the private entity, and it has a few theoretical strings attached that have no real bite in reality. It's a total crock of shit, and we should be fucking ashamed of ourselves for letting such an awful act pass. You should be ashamed of CSIRO for their behavior.
Australians benefit from research of the American government, and I'm not whining about you guys freeloading off of us because I'm not a whiny cunt (and because use of 'freeloading' arguments indicates that you're a dumbass most of the time). I'm proud of US government agencies when they invent useful technology, and being able to stroke my dick at other nationalities on the internet about what my country did is far more satisfying than getting you to pay us taxes with funny looking money.
Slashdot Mirror
I dunno, Arkham Asylum has notoriously horrible security. Pretty much any other such facility would be better.
'Chinese hackers' are almost always a scapegoat, and the US probably pays the Chinese state the lion's share of the budget for the state and state backed hackers.
Why are we arguing? We all know that everybody that posts on /. these days is paid to post on slashdot by someone with lots of money. Why else would you post on /.?
That makes no sense. Why would the Hollywood executives that shoveled this shit down our throats complain about this?
You aren't making an apples to apples comparison. You are comparing the amount of time it takes to acquire the illicit copy to sitting through the warning. However, DVDs don't magically appear in front of you. You have to go to a store to buy them, which includes travel time to a retail store, shopping, and going back, which takes a significant amount of time. In regards to effort, this will typically involve money, and that money is usually acquired as the result of a certain amount of labor.
A better comparison would be to the time it takes to open the file.
It's not hard to intimidate a 16 year old girl, even if you aren't an authority figure. Also, you can only expect her to be so insistent on BEING GROPED BY A COMPLETE STRANGER, which is how she would opt out of the scanner.
Why not just get rid of patents altogether, or at least software and business method patents?
Opting in for those things will obviously make you suspicious, which means you'll probably be put on some watchlist. Eventually, it probably won't even be an option to opt-in, since only dirty criminals make that choice. The assholes that are against porn tend to be the kind of control freaks that thinks that they should have a say in every aspect of everyone's life, and to them, the internet is a great threat. There's not a damn thing wrong with kids watching porn, so the base argument is completely invalid.
They start by making you have to opt-in for porn, then the filter is expanded for child porn, terrorism, hate speech, extremism, copyright infringement, and whatever. It's foot in the door technique.
How about we quit being total jackasses on the international stage, so then we don't fuel any significant amounts of 'terrorist' action. I'd rather treat things at the root.
Yes, but those parties can also choose to NOT give up the information, and they really shouldn't. You shouldn't tell a cop what time of day it is unless there is a subpeona. Telcos not talking unless they have a subpeona is a perfectly fine policy.
Your post doesn't make sense. GPL scales with copyright to let copyright protect you from the copyright of downstream derivatives. If copyright is weak or gone, you don't get much protection, and you don't need much there. If it is strong, you get a lot of protection, and you need a lot of protection in such an environment.
No, the license applies to derivative code, which is exactly how copyright always works, regardless of the license you use.
Anyway, GPL , BSDL, ASL, and MITL are all licenses that are both 'free' and 'open', so at least the summary is horribly misguided.
I think the threat is that the internet will cease to be a big place outside of a handful of walled gardens, or at the very least, it's very difficult to engage in certain activities without a Facebook account.
Yes, it does. It would be very important for copyright on software, because it allows for clean room reverse engineering or independent authors solving the same problem in similar ways. If copyright worked the way you mistakenly think it does, then making compatible products would almost always be illegal. This kind of problem is one of the biggest things that is troubling about software patents, which don't allow for independent invention.
Canada's copyright law is most likely derived from British copyright, meaning that the historical purpose would be 'the advancement of learning' as set out in the Statute of Anne. Also, given how intent the US is at pushing its laws on other countries, the rest of the world ought to accept the handful of good elements it has.
Copyright provides for independent authorship, so if the database was truly compiled independently, it wouldn't be copyright infringement, even if Canada idiotically allows postcode databases to be copyrighted.
I would say that not having shitty results was the main issue, but not being a portal clusterfuck could be considered a technical merit as well. It meant their search service was better than other search services, as opposed to Microsoft being popular initially because IBM was behind them, and because after that, they leveraged their power to keep competition at bay.
Google's dominance in the search market is/was largely based upon technical merit. Also, Google has fairly limited lock-in to end users. You can switch to Bing, Yahoo, DuckDuckGo, etc., very easily if you so choose.
Yes, there is a 5-order-of-magnitude gap in our solar system, but there are other systems, and they may have celestial bodies that fall within that gap, so clearer terms might be useful.
So we are going to 'liberate' one their planets? Count me in
They read the subtitles, duh.
It's reasonable that these characters were fluent in more than one language. What needs explaining is why the conversations don't take place in a single language, but it might be that they knew the languages well enough to understand them when spoken, but not enough to speak them. Given the anatomical differences, this could be quite plausible.
I'm not aware of any US government agencies that currently collects patent royalties, at least if you don't count universities as such. Government agencies having patents is completely illogical because they don't need patents. The reasoning behind patents is to provide economic incentives to further research that a free market wouldn't produce. If they are already funded by taxpayers, giving them a patent is double dipping. That's why I have problems with the way the Bayh-Dole act works.
You are correct about the Bayh-Dole act and it's effect, although it at least requires part of the funding come from the private entity, and it has a few theoretical strings attached that have no real bite in reality. It's a total crock of shit, and we should be fucking ashamed of ourselves for letting such an awful act pass. You should be ashamed of CSIRO for their behavior.
Australians benefit from research of the American government, and I'm not whining about you guys freeloading off of us because I'm not a whiny cunt (and because use of 'freeloading' arguments indicates that you're a dumbass most of the time). I'm proud of US government agencies when they invent useful technology, and being able to stroke my dick at other nationalities on the internet about what my country did is far more satisfying than getting you to pay us taxes with funny looking money.