If they couldn't patent the atoms then the drug cures would be free for all,
Yes, and then drug companies would have no incentive to spend billions on R&D. The cost of developing a successful drug is extremely high. If the reward isn't higher, there's no longer any incentive (financially). Drug patents do expire and generic drug then hit the market almost immediately.
Yes, I read all three sources that were provided. Thanks for jumping to conclusion though.
Sure. Right now any work - even this post - is covered by copyright.
My question was: "Is it currently impossible to voluntarily move a copyrighted work into the public domain?" You seemed to prove that it is possible. Therefore, anyone who has a copyright near expiration (or not near, for that matter) could just move it into the public domain if they wish. If they do care about the copyright, they won't release it anyway.
If this law were to do any good, the fee would need to be much higher or the length much shorter. Otherwise they'll be nothing but forgotten garbage released into the public domain.
I'd like to see a Moore's law type progession of the fee, with it doubling every 18 months. Most of the value comes from the initial years anyway. I don't see how retaining ownership right 70 years after creation promotes new works.
Corporations can't afford to pay $1 for everything.
Sure they can.
Any corporation that has 100 copyrights can certainly afford $100.
Any corporation that has 1,000 copyrights can certainly afford $1,000.
Any corporation that has 1,000,000 copyrights can certainly afford $1,000,000.
I can't see any value at which a corporation couldn't afford $1 per copyright. Perhaps if it was $10,000/copyright or renewal was required every year (after the first 20 or so). In my opinion the only solution is to reduce the copyright length significantly.
Companies will automate the process so their copyrights will last as long as possible. It will only be the occasional person who forgets to renew. There's a six month grace period and the fee is one dollar so there's no reason why anyone wishing to renew can't.
I fail to see the point of this legislation. Is it currently impossible to voluntarily move a copyrighted work into the public domain?
Please examine the context in which I made that statement. My original suggestion was that resumes be stored for every candidate, not for every applicant. A candidate would be someone who received a phone screen or an actual interview. Basically they're someone who received some amount of real consideration.
I don't doubt that discrimination occurs, but I don't believe that storing all resumes would help to prove it. In fact, storing that many resumes would just increase the noise level. Also, as I pointed out, it's just too risky for someone to practice discrimination just to indulge their racist urges.
Yes, it's possible to determine race from a resume, but I simply stated that it's usually difficult to determine race given only a resume. Most cases of discrimination would come later in the selection process, not from someone in HR Googling every resume to see if that person might be a minority.
If a company saved the resumes of all candidates it would show who they were actually considered hiring. If a pool of 50 candidates consisted entirely of whites and Asians, then the company might choose to save the resumes of all applicants to prove that weren't discriminating.
Perhaps a company will choose to save all resumes, but they shouldn't be required to do so. This is especially true when you consider how poorly qualified some applicants are or how unreadable their resume may be.
As for racist dorks who intentionally avoid choosing minority candidates, I doubt this occurs very often. Even if the HR Director was racist, there's too great a risk of getting caught and it's usually difficult to determine race from a resume.
Well, if the storage cost is more than the fine then this is less of a problem than it may seem. Skip the storage and take the fine (if caught).
I can't imagine that the storage cost would ever be higher than the fine. Unless, of course, there isn't a fine, in which case the law has no real means of enforcement. The price of a 200GB drive less than $200. For the vast majority of companies that drive could hold every resume you receive in the next few decades. Paper resumes are more dificult to store but they can be scanned and stored digitally. This law is absurd but I don't see it harming businesses very much.
I can't think of any reason why this law should exist. A company should be free to do whatever they wish with the resumes they receive. If they want to store them forever, fine. If they want to delete/destroy them all upon receipt, fine.
The govenment shouldn't dictate in any way what companies do with resumes. If a company decides that six months is an adequate amount of time to store resumes, they shouldn't face penalties.
I could see some argument made for storing resumes of all candidates for one year. "Candidates" might be classified as all people who receive a phone screen or an actual face-to-face interview. This could be useful data in discrimination lawsuits, both for the plaintiff and the defending company. I see no sense in Intel having to store high school dropout Johnny Kantspell's resume if they decide he's not quite qualified for Director of R&D.
Maybe there's some great reason why resumes should be stored; I'd love to hear them if there are some. Otherwise, kill this law and let companies do what they want with resumes.
I agree. I realized that the world where Zion lives isn't real as soon as Agent Smith downloaded himself to it at the beginning.
Note: I was rather tired when I saw it last night, so forgive me if I'm way off. A few things:
- If you're referring the meeting when Agent Smith gave the note to Neo, I believe that was a virtual world, not "The" Matrix, but "A" Matrix.
- As for Neo stopping the Sentinel, I thought that they were actually stopped by an EPM from the ship that rescued them. I'm not so sure that the "real" world is another layer of the Matrix.
- Zion could have existed several times before. There's no reason why it had to be built in exactly the same location. In fact, given the size of the Earth, it would be highly unlikely they'd build anywhere near the previous Zions.
That why a new law that goes into effect on June 1, 2003 mandates that all legally blind persons turn in their paper US currency in exchange for coins.
What's wrong with using a pen to put a mark next to the name of the candidate you're voting for?
- "Lost" ballots, plus ballots that are actually lost by mistake
- Voters who mark more than one candidate
- Voters who don't mark any candidate. Perhaps someone forgets to mark their choice for Senator even though they intended. An automatic system could confirm that they wish to skip this section.
- Tallying errors due to the fact the ballots are being counted by humans.
With an electronic voting system, how can I check how it's working?
Testing, testing, and more testing. A huge number of rigorous tests.
Compared to many other projects, designing and implementing a secure, accurate voting machine isn't technically challenging. The challenge comes in proving that the voting machine is both secure and accurate.
This might be a good time to employ those crackers that have recently been discussed on Slashdot. Observe how they crack the system and eliminate that vulnerbility. Repeat this process until cracking the system is so difficult and detectable that it's no longer worth the risk.
To prove its accuracy, the machine would have to be tested not under every condition possible. The source code should be published so that geeks everywhere have a chance to spot possible exploits. Perhaps a bounty could be offered for finding them.
Once the source code goes "gold", binaries should be produced at multiple locations on multiple machines and then compared. This would prevent a rogue developer from introducing a backdoor at the last minute. If the binary is deemed to be untainted (by an independent group), a checksum should be generated and the file distributed to anyone who wants to examine it. Maybe even post it on the net.
This is about as transparent as the process can reasonably be. It's not as if the average person has a chance to examine the current voting machines today. Many places use machines whose actual workings are a mystery to them. I don't see why a more technologically advanced solution should make them worry more.
I glanced at the headline and thought it said "Apple Posts Earnings, Denies Bid for Universe". Then I realized I read it incorrectly, the article was about Apple, not Microsoft.
Genetic engineering will kill us, but then we'll clone ourselves. And everything will be fine, until genetic engineering kills us again, but then we'll cl.....
Slashdot Mirror
If they couldn't patent the atoms then the drug cures would be free for all,
Yes, and then drug companies would have no incentive to spend billions on R&D. The cost of developing a successful drug is extremely high. If the reward isn't higher, there's no longer any incentive (financially). Drug patents do expire and generic drug then hit the market almost immediately.
I wonder if the reason for delays on the FX card was that they'd renamed the burn-in application DukeNukemForeever.exe?
Damn, NVidia's going to be pissed. They delayed the launch of the FX cards and misspelled the file name.
Your write...that's the one grammer rule that always trips me up
Uh huh...write...I mean right
I improve my English through /.
Sweet Jesus! That's like improving your health through heroin.
Did you even read it? Didn't think so.
Yes, I read all three sources that were provided. Thanks for jumping to conclusion though.
Sure. Right now any work - even this post - is covered by copyright.
My question was: "Is it currently impossible to voluntarily move a copyrighted work into the public domain?" You seemed to prove that it is possible. Therefore, anyone who has a copyright near expiration (or not near, for that matter) could just move it into the public domain if they wish. If they do care about the copyright, they won't release it anyway.
If this law were to do any good, the fee would need to be much higher or the length much shorter. Otherwise they'll be nothing but forgotten garbage released into the public domain.
I'd like to see a Moore's law type progession of the fee, with it doubling every 18 months. Most of the value comes from the initial years anyway. I don't see how retaining ownership right 70 years after creation promotes new works.
Corporations can't afford to pay $1 for everything.
Sure they can.
Any corporation that has 100 copyrights can certainly afford $100.
Any corporation that has 1,000 copyrights can certainly afford $1,000.
Any corporation that has 1,000,000 copyrights can certainly afford $1,000,000.
I can't see any value at which a corporation couldn't afford $1 per copyright. Perhaps if it was $10,000/copyright or renewal was required every year (after the first 20 or so). In my opinion the only solution is to reduce the copyright length significantly.
Companies will automate the process so their copyrights will last as long as possible. It will only be the occasional person who forgets to renew. There's a six month grace period and the fee is one dollar so there's no reason why anyone wishing to renew can't.
I fail to see the point of this legislation. Is it currently impossible to voluntarily move a copyrighted work into the public domain?
It's actually a link to goatse.cx.
It's perfectly legal to post a DivX copy of a part of a DVD. That's called "Fair Use."
Where exactly can I find the law or statute that states that posting portions of copyrighted works is "perfectly legal"?
The RFID tag is part of the anti-counterfeiting measures. Bills without an RFID are counterfeit. Bills with a dead RFID are counterfeit.
So if a bill's RFID tag dies (not from my actions) then my bill is now counterfeit? Is the government implying that the failure rate is exactly 0%?
Please examine the context in which I made that statement. My original suggestion was that resumes be stored for every candidate, not for every applicant. A candidate would be someone who received a phone screen or an actual interview. Basically they're someone who received some amount of real consideration.
I don't doubt that discrimination occurs, but I don't believe that storing all resumes would help to prove it. In fact, storing that many resumes would just increase the noise level. Also, as I pointed out, it's just too risky for someone to practice discrimination just to indulge their racist urges.
Yes, it's possible to determine race from a resume, but I simply stated that it's usually difficult to determine race given only a resume. Most cases of discrimination would come later in the selection process, not from someone in HR Googling every resume to see if that person might be a minority.
If a company saved the resumes of all candidates it would show who they were actually considered hiring. If a pool of 50 candidates consisted entirely of whites and Asians, then the company might choose to save the resumes of all applicants to prove that weren't discriminating.
Perhaps a company will choose to save all resumes, but they shouldn't be required to do so. This is especially true when you consider how poorly qualified some applicants are or how unreadable their resume may be.
As for racist dorks who intentionally avoid choosing minority candidates, I doubt this occurs very often. Even if the HR Director was racist, there's too great a risk of getting caught and it's usually difficult to determine race from a resume.
Well, if the storage cost is more than the fine then this is less of a problem than it may seem. Skip the storage and take the fine (if caught).
I can't imagine that the storage cost would ever be higher than the fine. Unless, of course, there isn't a fine, in which case the law has no real means of enforcement. The price of a 200GB drive less than $200. For the vast majority of companies that drive could hold every resume you receive in the next few decades. Paper resumes are more dificult to store but they can be scanned and stored digitally. This law is absurd but I don't see it harming businesses very much.
I can't think of any reason why this law should exist. A company should be free to do whatever they wish with the resumes they receive. If they want to store them forever, fine. If they want to delete/destroy them all upon receipt, fine.
The govenment shouldn't dictate in any way what companies do with resumes. If a company decides that six months is an adequate amount of time to store resumes, they shouldn't face penalties.
I could see some argument made for storing resumes of all candidates for one year. "Candidates" might be classified as all people who receive a phone screen or an actual face-to-face interview. This could be useful data in discrimination lawsuits, both for the plaintiff and the defending company. I see no sense in Intel having to store high school dropout Johnny Kantspell's resume if they decide he's not quite qualified for Director of R&D.
Maybe there's some great reason why resumes should be stored; I'd love to hear them if there are some. Otherwise, kill this law and let companies do what they want with resumes.
1. Is this a fact???
3. Do this guy cares if that's truth????
Your English and math teachers must be so proud of you...
I agree. I realized that the world where Zion lives isn't real as soon as Agent Smith downloaded himself to it at the beginning.
Note: I was rather tired when I saw it last night, so forgive me if I'm way off. A few things:
- If you're referring the meeting when Agent Smith gave the note to Neo, I believe that was a virtual world, not "The" Matrix, but "A" Matrix.
- As for Neo stopping the Sentinel, I thought that they were actually stopped by an EPM from the ship that rescued them. I'm not so sure that the "real" world is another layer of the Matrix.
- Zion could have existed several times before. There's no reason why it had to be built in exactly the same location. In fact, given the size of the Earth, it would be highly unlikely they'd build anywhere near the previous Zions.
US currency is a bitch for blind people.
That why a new law that goes into effect on June 1, 2003 mandates that all legally blind persons turn in their paper US currency in exchange for coins.
Try loading the page while sufficiently baked, and you'll change your tune...
I just said "No!" you insensitive clod!
What's wrong with using a pen to put a mark next to the name of the candidate you're voting for?
- "Lost" ballots, plus ballots that are actually lost by mistake
- Voters who mark more than one candidate
- Voters who don't mark any candidate. Perhaps someone forgets to mark their choice for Senator even though they intended. An automatic system could confirm that they wish to skip this section.
- Tallying errors due to the fact the ballots are being counted by humans.
With an electronic voting system, how can I check how it's working?
Testing, testing, and more testing. A huge number of rigorous tests.
Compared to many other projects, designing and implementing a secure, accurate voting machine isn't technically challenging. The challenge comes in proving that the voting machine is both secure and accurate.
This might be a good time to employ those crackers that have recently been discussed on Slashdot. Observe how they crack the system and eliminate that vulnerbility. Repeat this process until cracking the system is so difficult and detectable that it's no longer worth the risk.
To prove its accuracy, the machine would have to be tested not under every condition possible. The source code should be published so that geeks everywhere have a chance to spot possible exploits. Perhaps a bounty could be offered for finding them.
Once the source code goes "gold", binaries should be produced at multiple locations on multiple machines and then compared. This would prevent a rogue developer from introducing a backdoor at the last minute. If the binary is deemed to be untainted (by an independent group), a checksum should be generated and the file distributed to anyone who wants to examine it. Maybe even post it on the net.
This is about as transparent as the process can reasonably be. It's not as if the average person has a chance to examine the current voting machines today. Many places use machines whose actual workings are a mystery to them. I don't see why a more technologically advanced solution should make them worry more.
I glanced at the headline and thought it said "Apple Posts Earnings, Denies Bid for Universe". Then I realized I read it incorrectly, the article was about Apple, not Microsoft.
.................ummmm..........WTF?
Genetic engineering will kill us, but then we'll clone ourselves. And everything will be fine, until genetic engineering kills us again, but then we'll cl.....