No, I agree there. Ultimately you're replacing one government with another. I think you;re end up with something approximating a plutocracy (i.e. money rules), which appeals to a certain type that sees itself as capable of making a lot of money.
Pirates are seen as a problem by most governments. More so than people skirting tax laws. I suppose the US government would grudgingly deal with your band of scurvy pirates. At least there's a great enough risk that they would as to make it an adequate deterrent.
Does seems a little reprehensible that they'd be taking advantage of US protection and services while paying taxes in some tax haven though.
I think they didn't even consider starting mobile networks until the richer countries were going digital. When you're building from scratch, it makes sense to use newer technology. It may even be cheaper.
The thing is though, we're not really the customers. The customers are the companies that advertise on Google. If Google demands they do something then the other companies have to fall in line.
The wording in the DMCA says something about "primary purpose" or something along those lines. Of course the primary purpose is a little difficult to establish. People won't always state what the primary purpose is, especially if their goal is illicit, so this is left to a "reasonable man" test.
Still, I think VLC can quite reasonably be considered a DVD player, and transcoding is a minor function that it does in addition to its primary purpose. Actually DeCSS was created for much the same reason, but it wasn't so clear cut and the creators didn't manage to convince the court that this was the intent.
A 20 minute break every 2 hours is seen as a good idea anyway. As long as there are enough charging points along the route that you can get close to the full 2 hours.
Surely the main reason was simply that the British had a habit of commandeering houses, and quartering troops there. This was cited as an explicit grievance in the Declaration of Independence.
It does only specify soldiers. If the framers had meant to include all government agents, they would have said so. Police aren't soldiers by any stretch of the definition, nor is a server farm a "house". While it does indicate an assumption of a right to privacy, O'Douglas was simply using it as context for his decision.
Is it still though? DVD was released in 1995. That was 17 years ago. There are likely very few patents remaining.
The rest I pretty much agree with. There are all sorts of other sorts of IP protection that still protects DVD.
I do wonder about VLC. It is a little different from DeCSS in that VLC is clearly a DVD player. DeCSS produced an actual copy. I could see a court ruling differently in this case.
The FBI isn't a person though. It's an organisation that doesn't have any emotion. Nor should it. An idealised criminal investigation Bureau should be completely dispassionate.
The thing is, what coders wanted most of all was for people to use their code. They felt that under the GPL they'd also encourage other people to share. Instead it put people off using their code.
Other licences still don't allow people to close the existing code. Only the changes. Many companies who want to hang on to a few of their proprietary modifications of code are still often happy to give back something to the community so a more liberal licence will actually encourage more development.
There are already plenty of laws that can be applied to employers who want to do this. Computer security laws, tortuous interference with contract both would seem to apply.
Even more that makes it remarkably dangerous for the employer if they see something that makes the employee a protected group.
Facebook are willing to sue. They don't want people to do this either. It devalues their service (even if the users are the "product", they still need to provide something of value to attract users). There's no need for an explicit law. By the time this makes it through to become actual law, it will be pointless.
Not sure about film. From games development experience, we found that 60fps felt a lot more responsive than 30fps.
I suspect that people couldn't look at something and say "yup that's 48fps", but show them one and then the other, they may well agree that the 48fps is smoother.
Not everyone spends their time learning languages. It's actually not all that interesting. Personally, I know a lot about AI, physics simulations, computer vision, optimisation, threading, signal processing and GUI development. Most of this has been done in C++ with a bit of assembler.
Most people learn to do things related to the area they're already involved in. This usually means doing more things with the same language.
So, you invite the person into your office and tell them they're fired.
It's more a matter of basic human decency. They're still people. They're still your employees. Most people will interpret this as a complete lack of respect, and many of them will look for a company that treats them as human beings rather than machines and an email address.
Another meaningless metric. How fast it's growing has absolutely nothing to do with what it is actually capable of doing,
No, but doesn't a rapidly growing sci-tech base suggest that the culture isn't harming their development?
or with how many decades it is still being set back by the fact that people working in that sector live in a police state that doesn't allow scientists to engage with their peers around the world.
But surely if it's the fastest growing, it isn't being set back!
And if you hadn't noticed, the rest of the world (not counting totalitarians like China) is busy clamping down ever harder on anyone that does business with Iran
But being friendly with China is useful in itself. Close ties with Brazil and Turkey may not be as directly useful, but these countries aren't seen as threatening by the US or Europe, which gives them indirect access to their science and technology.
The entities with whom they have direct relations are infamous for human rights violations,
I know they are. But that's another matter entirely. I'm not defending Iran. Just pointing out that it would be unwise to underestimate their science and technology.
When you refer to a place as a backwater, you're talking about its people. The culture.
When I'm talking about whether a place has the technology to do something, I'm clearly using backwater in a metaphorical context. i.e. a technological backwater.
Where are you getting all this from? Fox news? The US government? Iran has the fastest developing science and technology base in the world. China and Russia are a lot more tolerant of Iran than the US, and Iran has close ties with other countries who in turn have close ties with the rest of the world. A lot of this is being invested in social improvements such as agriculture and medicine. Iran is 19th in the world in medical research spending.
Just because all you here is a bit of sabre rattling from the Iranian government, this doesn't mean that's all they do. Most Iranians don't give a damn about the west as long as they're left alone.
What argument? I'm just pointing things out. You know, facts and whatnot.
Yeah, but I was pointing out that Iran is actually not too shabby from a technology point of view.
I make no comment on whether it's particularly progressive socially. You don't need to be socially progressive to produce remote controlled military drones. Given that I was talking about building remote control military drones, and the fact that Iran would seem to have the technology to produce such drones, your rant about the religious fanaticism doesn't add anything to the conversation.
I guess I'm just a little disappointed. When I saw two replies, I was hoping someone might either agree and add something, or disagree and start a discussion on the relative strengths of Iranian science. Instead I get a reply telling everyone that a totalitarian theocracy is a totalitarian theocracy. It doesn't really add anything new.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was president of Iran by the time Obama became president of the US. Much more hostile towards the US. The argument no longer applies.
Why do you say that? Iran's been investing a lot in science and tech over the last decade or two. They're ranked 15th in nanotech, and are pretty capable in robotics.
Iran isn't a backwater. They have a robotics industry and a space program. Maybe not as sophisticated as Japan, and the US, but pilotless drones aren't designed with cutting edge technology. I don't see why this would be outside Iran's current capabilities.
Still, I think this is behaviour I'd rather discourage.
Even if the victims deserved to lose, these guys didn't deserve to gain anything, and so while I probably wouldn't let this worry me too much if I was a victim, I can't say it worries me too much that they *are* going to be punished either.
A friend of mine received an email that said something along the lines of "If you haven't seen out advertising in and around London, where have you been!?"
Since her answer was "Glasgow" she felt the question was a little unfair.
Slashdot Mirror
No, I agree there. Ultimately you're replacing one government with another. I think you;re end up with something approximating a plutocracy (i.e. money rules), which appeals to a certain type that sees itself as capable of making a lot of money.
Pirates are seen as a problem by most governments. More so than people skirting tax laws. I suppose the US government would grudgingly deal with your band of scurvy pirates. At least there's a great enough risk that they would as to make it an adequate deterrent.
Does seems a little reprehensible that they'd be taking advantage of US protection and services while paying taxes in some tax haven though.
I think they didn't even consider starting mobile networks until the richer countries were going digital. When you're building from scratch, it makes sense to use newer technology. It may even be cheaper.
The thing is though, we're not really the customers. The customers are the companies that advertise on Google. If Google demands they do something then the other companies have to fall in line.
The wording in the DMCA says something about "primary purpose" or something along those lines. Of course the primary purpose is a little difficult to establish. People won't always state what the primary purpose is, especially if their goal is illicit, so this is left to a "reasonable man" test.
Still, I think VLC can quite reasonably be considered a DVD player, and transcoding is a minor function that it does in addition to its primary purpose. Actually DeCSS was created for much the same reason, but it wasn't so clear cut and the creators didn't manage to convince the court that this was the intent.
A 20 minute break every 2 hours is seen as a good idea anyway. As long as there are enough charging points along the route that you can get close to the full 2 hours.
Maybe they'll simply change the socket for different countries. Require an adapter for the few people who do take their car to another continent.
Surely the main reason was simply that the British had a habit of commandeering houses, and quartering troops there. This was cited as an explicit grievance in the Declaration of Independence.
It does only specify soldiers. If the framers had meant to include all government agents, they would have said so. Police aren't soldiers by any stretch of the definition, nor is a server farm a "house". While it does indicate an assumption of a right to privacy, O'Douglas was simply using it as context for his decision.
Is it still though? DVD was released in 1995. That was 17 years ago. There are likely very few patents remaining.
The rest I pretty much agree with. There are all sorts of other sorts of IP protection that still protects DVD.
I do wonder about VLC. It is a little different from DeCSS in that VLC is clearly a DVD player. DeCSS produced an actual copy. I could see a court ruling differently in this case.
The FBI isn't a person though. It's an organisation that doesn't have any emotion. Nor should it. An idealised criminal investigation Bureau should be completely dispassionate.
The thing is, what coders wanted most of all was for people to use their code. They felt that under the GPL they'd also encourage other people to share. Instead it put people off using their code.
Other licences still don't allow people to close the existing code. Only the changes. Many companies who want to hang on to a few of their proprietary modifications of code are still often happy to give back something to the community so a more liberal licence will actually encourage more development.
There are already plenty of laws that can be applied to employers who want to do this. Computer security laws, tortuous interference with contract both would seem to apply.
Even more that makes it remarkably dangerous for the employer if they see something that makes the employee a protected group.
Facebook are willing to sue. They don't want people to do this either. It devalues their service (even if the users are the "product", they still need to provide something of value to attract users). There's no need for an explicit law. By the time this makes it through to become actual law, it will be pointless.
Not sure about film. From games development experience, we found that 60fps felt a lot more responsive than 30fps.
I suspect that people couldn't look at something and say "yup that's 48fps", but show them one and then the other, they may well agree that the 48fps is smoother.
Not everyone spends their time learning languages. It's actually not all that interesting. Personally, I know a lot about AI, physics simulations, computer vision, optimisation, threading, signal processing and GUI development. Most of this has been done in C++ with a bit of assembler.
Most people learn to do things related to the area they're already involved in. This usually means doing more things with the same language.
So, you invite the person into your office and tell them they're fired.
It's more a matter of basic human decency. They're still people. They're still your employees. Most people will interpret this as a complete lack of respect, and many of them will look for a company that treats them as human beings rather than machines and an email address.
No, but doesn't a rapidly growing sci-tech base suggest that the culture isn't harming their development?
But surely if it's the fastest growing, it isn't being set back!
But being friendly with China is useful in itself. Close ties with Brazil and Turkey may not be as directly useful, but these countries aren't seen as threatening by the US or Europe, which gives them indirect access to their science and technology.
I know they are. But that's another matter entirely. I'm not defending Iran. Just pointing out that it would be unwise to underestimate their science and technology.
Didn't know a lot of kids with BBC Micros. The 48K Sinclair Spectrum and the Commodore 64 were the popular ones.
Although you might be right about the real programmers using the BBC. It had a better basic, with inline assembler.
When you refer to a place as a backwater, you're talking about its people. The culture.
When I'm talking about whether a place has the technology to do something, I'm clearly using backwater in a metaphorical context. i.e. a technological backwater.
Where are you getting all this from? Fox news? The US government? Iran has the fastest developing science and technology base in the world. China and Russia are a lot more tolerant of Iran than the US, and Iran has close ties with other countries who in turn have close ties with the rest of the world. A lot of this is being invested in social improvements such as agriculture and medicine. Iran is 19th in the world in medical research spending.
Just because all you here is a bit of sabre rattling from the Iranian government, this doesn't mean that's all they do. Most Iranians don't give a damn about the west as long as they're left alone.
Also, don't these things require a satellite network for flight control?
Iran does have rockets capable of putting satellites in orbit.
What argument? I'm just pointing things out. You know, facts and whatnot.
Yeah, but I was pointing out that Iran is actually not too shabby from a technology point of view.
I make no comment on whether it's particularly progressive socially. You don't need to be socially progressive to produce remote controlled military drones. Given that I was talking about building remote control military drones, and the fact that Iran would seem to have the technology to produce such drones, your rant about the religious fanaticism doesn't add anything to the conversation.
I guess I'm just a little disappointed. When I saw two replies, I was hoping someone might either agree and add something, or disagree and start a discussion on the relative strengths of Iranian science. Instead I get a reply telling everyone that a totalitarian theocracy is a totalitarian theocracy. It doesn't really add anything new.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was president of Iran by the time Obama became president of the US. Much more hostile towards the US. The argument no longer applies.
Why do you say that? Iran's been investing a lot in science and tech over the last decade or two. They're ranked 15th in nanotech, and are pretty capable in robotics.
Iran isn't a backwater. They have a robotics industry and a space program. Maybe not as sophisticated as Japan, and the US, but pilotless drones aren't designed with cutting edge technology. I don't see why this would be outside Iran's current capabilities.
Still, I think this is behaviour I'd rather discourage.
Even if the victims deserved to lose, these guys didn't deserve to gain anything, and so while I probably wouldn't let this worry me too much if I was a victim, I can't say it worries me too much that they *are* going to be punished either.
A friend of mine received an email that said something along the lines of "If you haven't seen out advertising in and around London, where have you been!?"
Since her answer was "Glasgow" she felt the question was a little unfair.