The elite are not, true. They have agents who will push for pre-profit payment and enough name recognition to get it. The other 97% of the cast is SOL.
At this point, 'brick' doesn't have a clear enough definition to assert that flatly. It ranges anywhere from "internal components melted to slag" to "I can't figure out how to turn it on because I forgot to charge it" depending on the understanding of the speaker.
On the other hand, a reversible disabling process doesn't seem like it would slow down thieves much, and an irreversible one makes life hard on the owner if it gets recovered... unless insurance pays out anyway, which doesn't seem unreasonable as long as if you get it back it becomes the insurance company's property to recycle as they wish. But for that the insurance company would have to want to.
Looking at the first few claims, it looks like they basically took the concept and then started shaving off little bits to keep it from _quite_ matching anything they knew about. Basically an attempt to patent "this thing everybody's doing but only the pieces that nobody's done yet". Unless there's some interesting stuff in the later claims, I'd seriously question it on obviousness.
Perhaps, but that wouldn't model the situation well. Even if you're the only shoveller, you still get your car out of the snowdrift. For that to be a net negative, you'd have to hurt yourself somehow in the process...
which would seem to model reality better than the alternative. Or are you asserting that the results of cooperation are inferior to the results of noncooperation at the small scale (individual to tribal size)?
That's pretty extreme all right. The only things I can think of at that level are asteroid strike and solar flare/nova, neither of which seem to be in the ballpark of things we can currently do anything about. If you're implying that we need to look at ways we could do something about it, I agree. But I suspect that's not what you meant.
In general, I agree. I will, however, offer up an anecdote of how my TV (bought at Sears) blew its power supply 4 weeks before the end of the extended warranty. After fixing, it served well for 4 more years. I consider that warranty to have paid off... but it's definitely a gamble with poor odds.
I'm perfectly fine with an individual or group seeking monetary compensation for misappropriation of material they own. What I dislike is
punishment that is disproportionate to the actual damage (I have a very hard time believing that $150,000 is a reasonable penalty for misappropriating a 99 cent 'product' with no monetary profit),
lack of due process and/or consideration of fair use,
attempts to make other parties do the copyright holder's job for them without the other party either agreeing to do the job or receiving compensation for the extra work, and
hypocritically attempting to use copyright law against enemies while not obeying it with regard to your suppliers.
technically true, but since it's a civil case with a "preponderance of the evidence" criteria, if the prosecution can identify that substantial similarity, the onus is then on the defense to refute it, and by then they're already in court. Cross-checking may be cheaper.
Until someone says "Surplus! We should spend that!"
Federal budget problems are like a leaky roof: "If it's raining, can't fix it. If it's not raining, it doesn't leak."
so you're suspecting that the majority of nonviolent criminals (let's go with shoplifting, since you seem to think that jaywalking isn't considered a crime) become violent criminals? Do you have anything to back up that belief?
The only reason I can think that they'd pull out is if the payments and the work needed to track what needs to be paid makes it unprofitable. At the point where Google can't make it profitable with their established and wide-scale infrastructure, I have doubts a smaller competitor will be able to make it profitable, and it may be that Germany will just be SOL.
I've read of places that put up the signs not because they know of a carcinogenic substance on the premises but because it's easier to put it up than to actually test. It's not like it's going to hurt business; everyone else has the signs too...
Interesting, but inconclusive. They link from cannabis smoke to DNA alteration and cell damage, but they do not show that it's the kind of DNA alteration/cell damage that links to cancer. It's essentially like saying "hard braking can cause wear on suspension components, some forms of suspension wear can make your struts come loose" and reading it as "hard braking will make your struts come loose".
The phrase "no fundamental experimental boundaries" is in contrast to (in the actual paper) "However, to date all implementations of this approach have suffered from various experimental restrictions." The summary (and the article it summarizes) take it slightly out of context.
Slashdot Mirror
The elite are not, true. They have agents who will push for pre-profit payment and enough name recognition to get it. The other 97% of the cast is SOL.
At this point, 'brick' doesn't have a clear enough definition to assert that flatly. It ranges anywhere from "internal components melted to slag" to "I can't figure out how to turn it on because I forgot to charge it" depending on the understanding of the speaker. On the other hand, a reversible disabling process doesn't seem like it would slow down thieves much, and an irreversible one makes life hard on the owner if it gets recovered... unless insurance pays out anyway, which doesn't seem unreasonable as long as if you get it back it becomes the insurance company's property to recycle as they wish. But for that the insurance company would have to want to.
Looking at the first few claims, it looks like they basically took the concept and then started shaving off little bits to keep it from _quite_ matching anything they knew about. Basically an attempt to patent "this thing everybody's doing but only the pieces that nobody's done yet". Unless there's some interesting stuff in the later claims, I'd seriously question it on obviousness.
And that's fine... if the claims are in fact spurious. Given our recent forays into "act first and make it legal later", I wouldn't trust us.
Perhaps, but that wouldn't model the situation well. Even if you're the only shoveller, you still get your car out of the snowdrift. For that to be a net negative, you'd have to hurt yourself somehow in the process...
which would seem to model reality better than the alternative. Or are you asserting that the results of cooperation are inferior to the results of noncooperation at the small scale (individual to tribal size)?
But would that override a motivation to see what happens without interference?
That's pretty extreme all right. The only things I can think of at that level are asteroid strike and solar flare/nova, neither of which seem to be in the ballpark of things we can currently do anything about. If you're implying that we need to look at ways we could do something about it, I agree. But I suspect that's not what you meant.
Humans aren't getting any stupider, so that will be a constant.
I love your optimism.
you know those 50 stores they're closing? Guess which ones?
In general, I agree. I will, however, offer up an anecdote of how my TV (bought at Sears) blew its power supply 4 weeks before the end of the extended warranty. After fixing, it served well for 4 more years. I consider that warranty to have paid off... but it's definitely a gamble with poor odds.
technically true, but since it's a civil case with a "preponderance of the evidence" criteria, if the prosecution can identify that substantial similarity, the onus is then on the defense to refute it, and by then they're already in court. Cross-checking may be cheaper.
Until someone says "Surplus! We should spend that!"
Federal budget problems are like a leaky roof: "If it's raining, can't fix it. If it's not raining, it doesn't leak."
The best part is you don't even have to take special action to get it to them. The hard part is retrieving it later...
"You know what we need? A giant battlestation. With a big laser. Yeah, that's the ticket."
so you're suspecting that the majority of nonviolent criminals (let's go with shoplifting, since you seem to think that jaywalking isn't considered a crime) become violent criminals? Do you have anything to back up that belief?
so you can harass people in a cost-effective, secure, and ergonomic fashion? :)
Hmmm. If this gets shot down, I think a ballot initiative may be in order.
The only reason I can think that they'd pull out is if the payments and the work needed to track what needs to be paid makes it unprofitable. At the point where Google can't make it profitable with their established and wide-scale infrastructure, I have doubts a smaller competitor will be able to make it profitable, and it may be that Germany will just be SOL.
I've read of places that put up the signs not because they know of a carcinogenic substance on the premises but because it's easier to put it up than to actually test. It's not like it's going to hurt business; everyone else has the signs too...
Interesting, but inconclusive. They link from cannabis smoke to DNA alteration and cell damage, but they do not show that it's the kind of DNA alteration/cell damage that links to cancer. It's essentially like saying "hard braking can cause wear on suspension components, some forms of suspension wear can make your struts come loose" and reading it as "hard braking will make your struts come loose".
Sure. Zero is very moderate.
The phrase "no fundamental experimental boundaries" is in contrast to (in the actual paper) "However, to date all implementations of this approach have suffered from various experimental restrictions." The summary (and the article it summarizes) take it slightly out of context.
Monument and the Jan Darzek books are fun reads, if not especially deep and artistic. Annoyingly hard to find, though...