3.2 only applies to Tele Atlas licensed content. That's streetmaps, rather than aerial photos.
The legalese is a little impenetrable so I'm not quite sure what it's actually allowing or preventing the US government from doing, but it looks like they're just making sure that the US government accepts that this can't be made public or reproduced without permission of Tele Atlas.
A half century old London Routemaster bus manages 4mpg (UK gallon), so that would get better per passenger mileage than you suggest if it only had an average of 7 passengers. It can carry 64 seated passengers. Modern buses manage 6mpg and a lot of them have more room for more passengers.
Yup. My company finds this very useful. We use a binary only version of a modified Linux kernel, taking advantage of the clause in the GPL that says that you don't have to accept the licence since you haven't signed it.
No, really I was just being facetious. Before I was pointing out (slightly pedantically) thta if you really want one you can purchse a supersonic aircraft, and didn;t mean to suggest that this was in any way a sensble purchase.
And this is the sort of rigid, inflexible thinking that got him into trouble.
They have a right to access their network. He does not. Thus both have an obligation to take reasonable steps to ensure that they can access the network and that he cannot. Providing the passwords is reasonable. Providing fingers is not.
What does interstate commerce have to do with anything?
It is something that is in the purview of the US government. It is something that relates to the internet. We're talking about government regulation of the internet.
And where do you get this "point"?
It seemed obvious from reading the comment that this is an example of a law that affects private property as well as public property to illustrate that laws may do this.
Oh, perhaps you read the rest of my post.
The rest of it I agree with. I just thought it was a silly analogy.
Wikileaks only posts leaks. The leaks have already happened. Someone, somewhere in the organisation has decided that it's worth risking their job and their liberty over to get this information out, and since they have access to classified information, they must realise that by providing it to wikileaks, everyone will have access to it.
So what would happen if wikileaks didn't exist? Would the leakers simply not leak, or would they leak to the media? Or to the countries that the US is at war with? Do they leak because they get a thrill of being the whistleblower, oblivious to the dangers? I think it's much more important to understand the motives than to try to close down a website.
A proper analogy would be if you charged visitors to your house for access to your bathroom.
How is this a "proper" analogy? It's something that nobody would consider doing so there are no regulations in effect. Nor would it be something under the purview of the federal government since it's clearly not interstate commerce (unlike the internet).
The point is that the government can and do make laws that affect behaviour in private property without breaching the fifth amendment.
I wonder what kind of job requires you to practice music, horticulture and computer science at the same time. And can keep you occupied for nearly 25 years.
Totally agree. I've worked on some of the most sophisticated areas of technology. The main technology I use are computers (obviously), compilers, pen and paper, and email. Oh, and instant coffee. Nothing that wouldn't have been in use 15 years ago.
Accurate stats aren't available but estimates put IE (all version) at between 43% and 63% of users.
So I'm not sure if I agree with your or not. That sort of share does mean you're obliged to consider Microsoft as some sort of alternative standard if you're a web developer, even if it doesn't mean that everyone else is forced to implement Microsoft's bugs.
He has no right to "control" his creation. Why should he? I don't have any inherent right to use it either but I don't see any moral reason why I shouldn't.
Copyright allows him a monopoly in order to encourage him to create it and publish it in the first place. Since he is not providing the societal benefit, why should I put myself out for him? Copyright is an artificial social construct. It is designed for the benefit of society. US copyright is even explicit in this as a justification. Society doesn't benefit from people hoarding their creations.
I'm not "taking" anything from anyone. That would imply loss. Even the usual argument about loss of a potential sale doesn't apply.
It seems like just because something isn't physical (has no marginal cost), people argue that a creator's rights don't apply.
Sounds about right. I suspect the actual situation may be slightly more nuanced than that, but on the whole that's pretty much what I think.
Google's informal motto is "don't be evil", not "do no evil".
There's a subtle difference there in that the former still allows a little leeway as long as the balance is ultimately non-evil whereas the latter does not.
Slashdot Mirror
3.2 only applies to Tele Atlas licensed content. That's streetmaps, rather than aerial photos.
The legalese is a little impenetrable so I'm not quite sure what it's actually allowing or preventing the US government from doing, but it looks like they're just making sure that the US government accepts that this can't be made public or reproduced without permission of Tele Atlas.
I can't see how this is a good idea or safe. But it sure is awesome.
It's a good idea because it has huge capacity, causes minimal extra congestion, and the infrastructure is no more expensive than a tram system.
As for safety, it doesn't seem substantially less safe than a double decker bus, and certainly safer than several dozen cars.
No - it's a ground level rail system. The elevated part is the cabin of the bus.
A half century old London Routemaster bus manages 4mpg (UK gallon), so that would get better per passenger mileage than you suggest if it only had an average of 7 passengers. It can carry 64 seated passengers. Modern buses manage 6mpg and a lot of them have more room for more passengers.
Yup. My company finds this very useful. We use a binary only version of a modified Linux kernel, taking advantage of the clause in the GPL that says that you don't have to accept the licence since you haven't signed it.
That can still be copyright infringement. A movie adaption of a book needs permission from the rights holders, and this is the same sort of thing.
Well, I have a 6 figure hourly rate, don't you?
No, really I was just being facetious. Before I was pointing out (slightly pedantically) thta if you really want one you can purchse a supersonic aircraft, and didn;t mean to suggest that this was in any way a sensble purchase.
They got upset with me for doing my job after I was fired as well.
Now, I was an executioner for the State of Texas, but I don't see how that makes a difference.
And this is the sort of rigid, inflexible thinking that got him into trouble.
They have a right to access their network. He does not. Thus both have an obligation to take reasonable steps to ensure that they can access the network and that he cannot. Providing the passwords is reasonable. Providing fingers is not.
No, they just licensed the trademark from Namco. Much easier all round.
Depends how much your time is worth.
What does interstate commerce have to do with anything?
It is something that is in the purview of the US government. It is something that relates to the internet. We're talking about government regulation of the internet.
And where do you get this "point"?
It seemed obvious from reading the comment that this is an example of a law that affects private property as well as public property to illustrate that laws may do this.
Oh, perhaps you read the rest of my post.
The rest of it I agree with. I just thought it was a silly analogy.
Can't you buy a slightly used Russian ex-military aircraft? Assuming you have enough cash that is.
Wikileaks only posts leaks. The leaks have already happened. Someone, somewhere in the organisation has decided that it's worth risking their job and their liberty over to get this information out, and since they have access to classified information, they must realise that by providing it to wikileaks, everyone will have access to it.
So what would happen if wikileaks didn't exist? Would the leakers simply not leak, or would they leak to the media? Or to the countries that the US is at war with? Do they leak because they get a thrill of being the whistleblower, oblivious to the dangers? I think it's much more important to understand the motives than to try to close down a website.
A proper analogy would be if you charged visitors to your house for access to your bathroom.
How is this a "proper" analogy? It's something that nobody would consider doing so there are no regulations in effect. Nor would it be something under the purview of the federal government since it's clearly not interstate commerce (unlike the internet).
The point is that the government can and do make laws that affect behaviour in private property without breaching the fifth amendment.
Except they're not trying to make an iPad, but something much cheaper, and India pays comparable salaries to China.
I wonder what kind of job requires you to practice music, horticulture and computer science at the same time. And can keep you occupied for nearly 25 years.
Tech guy for The Wurzels.
Totally agree. I've worked on some of the most sophisticated areas of technology. The main technology I use are computers (obviously), compilers, pen and paper, and email. Oh, and instant coffee. Nothing that wouldn't have been in use 15 years ago.
Oh, screw that. My gran's getting a full suit of mech-armour.
Accurate stats aren't available but estimates put IE (all version) at between 43% and 63% of users.
So I'm not sure if I agree with your or not. That sort of share does mean you're obliged to consider Microsoft as some sort of alternative standard if you're a web developer, even if it doesn't mean that everyone else is forced to implement Microsoft's bugs.
IE8 is a standard. Microsoft making it pretty much makes it so.
What's so bad about IE 8? I've not used it much but it seems quite usable.
He has no right to "control" his creation. Why should he? I don't have any inherent right to use it either but I don't see any moral reason why I shouldn't.
Copyright allows him a monopoly in order to encourage him to create it and publish it in the first place. Since he is not providing the societal benefit, why should I put myself out for him? Copyright is an artificial social construct. It is designed for the benefit of society. US copyright is even explicit in this as a justification. Society doesn't benefit from people hoarding their creations.
I'm not "taking" anything from anyone. That would imply loss. Even the usual argument about loss of a potential sale doesn't apply. It seems like just because something isn't physical (has no marginal cost), people argue that a creator's rights don't apply.
Sounds about right. I suspect the actual situation may be slightly more nuanced than that, but on the whole that's pretty much what I think.
Google's informal motto is "don't be evil", not "do no evil".
There's a subtle difference there in that the former still allows a little leeway as long as the balance is ultimately non-evil whereas the latter does not.
Yes.
Much like if you lose your phone you need to buy a new phone.