Not just an "interesting idea". That is how the business works. If all FOX wanted was a percentage at the box office, this is *exactly* what Fox would say - that they want it killed. Best way to maximize the settlement terms. SOP.
The question isn't "which is the better philosophy". Both licenses are simply tools. Choose which one works for you. Some programmers like what the GPL does for them, some prefer BSD.
Some BSD advocates like to claim the BSD license attracts better programmers.
Some GPL advocates like to claim the GPL license attracts more programmers.
The entirety of Mr. Chemisor's post is flamebait and can be safely ignored.
Why not just configure your p2p app to cap its own upload rate? Pretty much every single p2p app w/o exception has this option. Some dynamically cap their upload rate for you by periodically using ping (or measuring some other round trip time) to determine latency and continuously vary the cap until the ping stabilizes.
That "temporary protection" is a fundamental individual right. No, it is a privilege, one that may or may not be granted by the government. Monopolies are never fundamental rights, as they are almost universally destructive.
It happens to be that we acknowledge a temporary monopoly is odious, but we put up with it because we think it will provide a bogus "market" for a non-exclusive, zero marginal cost "product".
That it is temporary in the form that the government dictates how long you are the owner of your the product of your work is obscene. You lost me here. The fact that they are temporary is the only good thing about this type of monopoly.
I advocate the use of reason instead the use of force? I could easily argue the same. The monopolies constructed in the hopes of creating a fictional (albeit somewhat useful) market for ideas are enforced by threat of force. Reason would dictate that a zero marginal cost product should approach zero cost. Simply saying "I am being more logical than you" doesn't establish anything.
So, is it the defense individual rights that offends you or the defense of voluntary trade? What offends me right now are your sloppy efforts at strawman construction.
No. It is not equivalent. Moreover, that is exactly why patents are public information. In return for a temporary monopoly, you must publish the process, and make it available to the public. Similarly, the constitution provides authors (or their employers, in most cases) with a temporary exclusive right to distribute copies of the works. In return for that temporary protection, after the copyright expires, it goes into the public domain to promote the useful arts.
The "slavery" you fear is already embodied in the current (very) feudal system of lords and vassals, where the lords (employers) provides the vassals (authors) with infrastructure, and the vassals generate intellectual property wholly owned (in *perpetuity*) by the lords.
Almost all online multiplayer games (steam, wow, etc.) require payment. They are fairly hard to warez. Pretty much every single one of my gamer friends has paid for those games.
BTW the title of this post is an homage to your lukewarm troll. Enjoy!
Hey, Jack. I'm fairly certain the Hitler Youth would not approve of violence against the authorities. In fact, they would more likely be on the side of authority, decrying any subversive activities that advocate violence against a police state.
Ah yes, the usual Merkey meatpuppet suspects. Well, except for SlimVirgin, who proab went forum shopping for shortly before this response from her.
What's amusing about that is that right after proab forum shopped her but before SV responded in that thread, SV was busily updating WP:BLP to apply to the Merkey article (i.e. excluding trial documents).
For an organization that doesn't exist, WP:Cabal certainly is a group of very busy bees.
Oh, a lot of people feel the same way.. They're just too polite to use the same words I did. Most of the pages dealing with the whole situation have been courtesy blanked, to avoid being picked up by Google Spiders and the like.;) FWIW I was very impressed with your handling of the situation. In retrospect, I should have done much more observing, and a lot less commenting.
I know better now; I've forsworn the WP RPG entirely. Any edits I do are from anon-ips and are generally anti-vandalism or minor grammatical fixing.
For the sake of posterity (these things do tend to disappear quietly from WP quite often). Key points are in bold. They often occur right next to a statement saying the exact opposite. i.e. "treat everybody equal" but in the same breath "some people are more equal than others"
Dealing with Major Financial Contributors of the Foundation who Edit Wikipedia (by Jeff V. Merkey)
In general, major financial contributors who edit Wikipedia should be treated the same way and with the same level of courtesy as anyone else who edits Wikipedia and they should be required to follow the same rules. These rules also apply to admins, who, by ARBCOM precedence are expected to adhere to the highest standards of civility. Financial contributors to the Foundation contribute more than their time to the project. Some of them donate or invest in Wikipedia Projects each year many times the life savings of an ordinary person. Saying this does not matter is inaccurate and a breach of fiduciary duty owed to the Foundation by those who have been granted administrative or other privileges. It DOES matter. Not ony do these people donate their time, they pay for hosting costs, personnel costs, equipment, and other critical areas where the Foundation needs support, and not everyone is equal in this regard, their contributions are important as well. This does not entitle them to claim special treatment, but it does entitle them to the same high level of conduct and professional stewardship expected from any admin involved with the project. They should not be subjected to the same treatment the project reserves for troll or vandal accounts.
If you find yourself in a situation with a major contributor editing Wikipedia who is problematic, do not threaten them, argue with them, or debate with them about who is helping Wikipedia more -- from the Foundations point of view, both parties are contributors, and more so of a person donating both time and money. Some serious problems for the project may be created if an admin threatens, argues, or attempts to ban a major financial contributor from editing. These situations are best handled by more mature members of the community or of the Foundation, without ever resorting to threats or implied threats of action. It is said you cannot argue with a customer in a business setting and the same is true of a major financial contributor. Be polite. Ask polite questions about their concerns and try to listen to them, without loosing your temper. Some of the problems mishandling contributors are:
* The contributor may feel they are funding a usenet project or trolling site and discontinue support.
* The contributor may have significant contacts or influence in the public sector, and either intentionally or unintentionally influence other groups to withdraw support.
* The contributor may have business interests or projects the Foundation has time or financial investment into that the general community is unaware of, the you may damage or destroy months or years of important relationships with a thoughtless act.
* If a contributor is also in the same business space as the foundation, banning a Financial contributor or posting ban notices may interfere and harm not only their business enterprises, but the Foundation and Wikipedia Projects as a whole, with negative results for everyone involved.
If you have strong feelings about the editing of a major financial contributor, be polite, do not threaten them. Many of these people will take great offense at being threatened by admins or users since they may feel you are doing so on servers and equipment they purchased to support the project.
In summation, they should be treated the same way everyone else is treated who edits. With the same high level of civility and stewardship expected from an Admin when dealing with any editor or member of the project. And certainly not subjected to threatening language.
>I think maybe 100 people who read this website know about these circuits, and those that do wouldn't be commenting about them here.
For the record, i think there are far more than 100 that see the bullshit the big telcos have been up to - i have *personally* seen what they need for wiretaps, and i just work for a datacom equipment maker (NOT the telcos!). Sure, it doesn't involve those those dedicated circuits mentioned in the article in particular, but certainly involving the equipment required for *FULL* wiretap visibility. Its a complex problem and one that requires MANY people to know about it to implement it. The RFQ and RFCs hide what the equipment is for, but anybody with half a brain knows what is required to (non-intrusively) tap into the transport infrastructure and is perfectly capable of connecting the dots.
I, for one, am very glad that at least one of those 100(+) people have the decency to come out and talk about it. The fact that you are shocked and dismayed that somebody would talk about it makes me wonder about your character.
Slashdot Mirror
FoxNews agrees
Not just an "interesting idea". That is how the business works. If all FOX wanted was a percentage at the box office, this is *exactly* what Fox would say - that they want it killed. Best way to maximize the settlement terms. SOP.
And set the bios to ONLY boot off the CDROM
Maybe it's also that line-doubling DVD players can be had for less than a hundred dollars.
Ridiculous. Line-doubling DVD players have nowhere near the picture quality of real 1080p.
The reaction is because most consumers are watching their shiny HDTV monitors in SD because they are generally too stupid to connect them properly.
[quote]
[Monopolies] make no sense in the realm of Intellectual Property.
[/quote]
Copyrights, patents, and trademarks are statutory monopolies.
[Monopolies] make no sense in the realm of Intellectual Property.
Hey, dumbass - "Intellectual Property" *is* a government granted monopoly. It creates artificial scarcity where there is none.
clicky
So we don't go with this mimic-of-the-biologicalstuff
approach, at least for hydrogen. Dan Nocera
and Nate Lewis organized a Gordon Research Conference
on solar fuels in 2007 that assessed all the
inorganic, nonplatinum hydrogen catalysts around.
Three winners came out. One is a dimolybdenum
system that Dan DuBois at the Pacific Northwest
National Laboratory has worked on, and one is a
cobalt system that Vincent Artero and Marc Fontecave
at the Université Joseph Fourier in Grenoble,
France, developed. The third was originally developed
at Iowa State in the 1980s by Jim Espenson
[BS '58], was recently improved by Xile Hu when
he was a postdoc here at Caltech, and is now
being worked on in my lab by grad student Jillian
Dempsey. The DuBois molecule and the Caltech
one are both very good. They operate at very close
to the optimum voltage to make H2. This is a critical
feature, because if the system's voltage is more
than the optimum, the extra energy is wasted. And
if the voltage is insufficient, the reaction doesn't go
at all. But Dan's molecule contains sulfur, which
can be nasty, and ours is easier to make, so we
think the Caltech one looks like a real winner.
Bandwidth is not the same thing as picture quality.
Lossy compression bitrate is proportional to PQ/IQ for a given resolution. Period. For 1080p, anything below around 5Mbit looks terrible.
If you'll recall, in the graphic novel, Dr. Manhattan was told he wasn't blue enough for TV.
The question isn't "which is the better philosophy". Both licenses are simply tools. Choose which one works for you. Some programmers like what the GPL does for them, some prefer BSD.
Some BSD advocates like to claim the BSD license attracts better programmers.
Some GPL advocates like to claim the GPL license attracts more programmers.
The entirety of Mr. Chemisor's post is flamebait and can be safely ignored.
Zero. You can't make weapons grade nuclear material from yellowcake
Bah TF2 sucks. QWTF will always be the best.
Why not just configure your p2p app to cap its own upload rate? Pretty much every single p2p app w/o exception has this option. Some dynamically cap their upload rate for you by periodically using ping (or measuring some other round trip time) to determine latency and continuously vary the cap until the ping stabilizes.
It happens to be that we acknowledge a temporary monopoly is odious, but we put up with it because we think it will provide a bogus "market" for a non-exclusive, zero marginal cost "product". That it is temporary in the form that the government dictates how long you are the owner of your the product of your work is obscene. You lost me here. The fact that they are temporary is the only good thing about this type of monopoly. I advocate the use of reason instead the use of force? I could easily argue the same. The monopolies constructed in the hopes of creating a fictional (albeit somewhat useful) market for ideas are enforced by threat of force. Reason would dictate that a zero marginal cost product should approach zero cost. Simply saying "I am being more logical than you" doesn't establish anything. So, is it the defense individual rights that offends you or the defense of voluntary trade? What offends me right now are your sloppy efforts at strawman construction.
No. It is not equivalent. Moreover, that is exactly why patents are public information. In return for a temporary monopoly, you must publish the process, and make it available to the public. Similarly, the constitution provides authors (or their employers, in most cases) with a temporary exclusive right to distribute copies of the works. In return for that temporary protection, after the copyright expires, it goes into the public domain to promote the useful arts.
The "slavery" you fear is already embodied in the current (very) feudal system of lords and vassals, where the lords (employers) provides the vassals (authors) with infrastructure, and the vassals generate intellectual property wholly owned (in *perpetuity*) by the lords.
Your attitude is the *repulsive* one.
A temporary monopoly is not property
Almost all online multiplayer games (steam, wow, etc.) require payment. They are fairly hard to warez. Pretty much every single one of my gamer friends has paid for those games.
BTW the title of this post is an homage to your lukewarm troll. Enjoy!
Hey, Jack. I'm fairly certain the Hitler Youth would not approve of violence against the authorities. In fact, they would more likely be on the side of authority, decrying any subversive activities that advocate violence against a police state.
http://www.robweir.com/blog/2008/03/contra-durusau-part-1.html
Ah yes, the usual Merkey meatpuppet suspects. Well, except for SlimVirgin, who proab went forum shopping for shortly before this response from her.
What's amusing about that is that right after proab forum shopped her but before SV responded in that thread, SV was busily updating WP:BLP to apply to the Merkey article (i.e. excluding trial documents).
For an organization that doesn't exist, WP:Cabal certainly is a group of very busy bees.
I know better now; I've forsworn the WP RPG entirely. Any edits I do are from anon-ips and are generally anti-vandalism or minor grammatical fixing.
According to the WP:Cabal, only anti-Merkey SPAs feel this way
Look no further than this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_comment%2FJeffrey_Vernon_Merkey2&diff=133328226&oldid=133327935#Dealing_with_Major_Financial_Contributors_of_the_Foundation_who_Edit_Wikipedia
>I think maybe 100 people who read this website know about these circuits, and those that do wouldn't be commenting about them here.
For the record, i think there are far more than 100 that see the bullshit the big telcos have been up to - i have *personally* seen what they need for wiretaps, and i just work for a datacom equipment maker (NOT the telcos!). Sure, it doesn't involve those those dedicated circuits mentioned in the article in particular, but certainly involving the equipment required for *FULL* wiretap visibility. Its a complex problem and one that requires MANY people to know about it to implement it. The RFQ and RFCs hide what the equipment is for, but anybody with half a brain knows what is required to (non-intrusively) tap into the transport infrastructure and is perfectly capable of connecting the dots.
I, for one, am very glad that at least one of those 100(+) people have the decency to come out and talk about it. The fact that you are shocked and dismayed that somebody would talk about it makes me wonder about your character.