Maybe. But there are still impracticalities and uncertainties. I could keep coming up with them and you could keep coming up with answers, but that will go on forever.
Just to be clear, I don't think there's anything wrong with your ideas. I just think that there are always going to be areas of uncertainty where different people might disagree. This is a problem with any legal framework.
The other factor here is that IP law as is tends to be a little more protective than you or I believe it should be. The supreme court will ideally rule on the law as written. Unless this is unconstitutional, it's not going to be changed, nor should it be. That's the job of Congress.
For storage sizes they're defined based on powers of two, which overrides the SI definition because more specific rules always override more general ones.
Which rules? Where is a kilobyte defined as 1024 bytes by any organisation with any influence?
And why base it on powers of two? It's illogical. The only time you're forced into a power of two is in the address space available to a CPU.
It's in two layers! Layer one is a factual summary about a barman finding a lost Google prototype. Layer two is a veiled rant about companies overreacting when their trade secrets may be compromised.
There are still all sorts of difficulties. What if I import from a company in a country that has no IP protection? What about other possible ways to end run IP protection?
What about consumer rights? Trademarks help protect those as well. Perhaps the American product is known and recognised for its quality and the European one isn't. A purchases buys the imported one thinking it has the same high quality standards that he expects, and it falls to pieces after a few days.
Cool, but really the point is that we shouldn't have to use technological means just to protect our inherent rights. I'd like to take photos without being hassled rather than be hassled and then sue.
If you are referring to storage sizes in relation to computers, be it RAM, disk sizes, etc., it is correct to express them in powers of 2.
No it's not. It's sometimes convenient to do so, especially for RAM, but the prefixes used are defined by the SI and recognised by a large number of international organisations including the IEEE.
Yes, marketing people find this useful. But it's also recognised as correct by many engineers. It's actually quite useful. Using a certain type of modulation, a 1KHz signal can transfer 1 kilobit in 1 second, and this will take 8 second to transfer 1 kilobyte of data. Why does it make any sense to worry about binary addressing here?
This is primarily about tort and contract law. Here's how I understand it.
Suppose a designer designs branded hats, and the trademark brand becomes popular. The designer doesn't really want to deal with manufacturing or marketing so sells the rights to manufacture and sell them in Europe to a company called London Fashions. and the rights to manufacture and sell them in the US to a company called New York Designs. Each has a contract that allows them to sell only in their respective territory.
If London Fashions starts selling the branded hats in the US, New York Designs might well be upset about this and sue London Fashions for violating their exclusive rights. IP law varies between countries over what's allowed, and varies between types of IP, so I may be wrong here but generally speaking copyright law will back up this position.
If I go to Europe, buy the designer hat and bring it to the US, this is, of course, perfectly legal. I'm not violating anyone's right.
So, what if another company buys from London Fashions and they import them to the US? Can New York Designs sue them for violating their exclusive rights? If no, what if this intermediate company is a subsidiary of London Fashions? What if they then hire a third company? If yes, then can a private individual buy a hat in Europe and resell it in the US? What if he buys lots of hats and makes a considerable profit from doing so?
Seems to me that this is about where the line is drawn.
It's about being manufactured and sold outside the US. Whether a product licensed and sold in another country needs explicit permission to be resold in the US. Once it is legally sold in the US, first sale rights apply to the purchaser.
They have had their broadcast licence revoked.. This was not for being critical of the UK though. It was for violating the rights of privacy and fairness.
It only applied to the broadcast licence. Press TV's website is not blocked.
Thank you, cyberspittle, for volunteering to have your salary equaled out with the world average in your field.
A developer in China or India would love this to happen, and would probably see it as fair that they get the same pay for the same work. Perhaps adjusted for local cost of living, but that would still result in an increase for most of Asia, and a decrease for the US.
So the question is, why are they wrong? Is it really right that your salary is related to where you were born?
It seems a bit of an odd request to me. I think it would to a lot of employers, including ones that have beautiful code.
Perhaps you don't want to work for them, but if you're limiting yourself to companies with nice legacy code, and aren't protective of their propriety information, then you're reducing your employment options quite considerably.
The worst code I've ever worked with was from a startup. Unless you join the startup right at the beginning you still end up having to work with what's there and you don't have any opportunity to rewrite it.
Trouble is, a lot of startups are formed by intelligent people without a lot of industry experience. They see a clever idea and fall in love with it. This means that to use the code, you have to understand exactly how and why certain design decisions were made.
Not sure why legacy code is such a problem though. If it works and works well, why replace it? And if it doesn't work, it should have already been replaced.
Sometimes customer requirements change. It may be a simple request that in good code requires changing a single configuration value, and in bad code requires changing several hardcoded values, and extensive testing because of comples requirements.
The thing is, you're not the prosecution, and neither are the defence. They have no idea where the prosecution is going to go so they have to be prepared..
The prosecution is probably going to be painting Martin as a living saint who would never harm anyone or anything, to pour doubt on Zimmerman's defence that he was attacked. If the tweets indicate violent behaviour then that will invalidate that line of argument.
That's just one thing that might happen. The defence team will have put together a lot of prosecution scenarios. It's not hard to imagine some of them will depend on the nature of the victim.
It's the way the system works. It's how it's designed. If a fact is relevant, then it's admissible. The defence is arguing that this is relevant. Given that he's going to be locked away from society for a very long time and have his life ruined, I don't think it's too much to ask to be absolutely sure that his actions were totally unjustified.
It's important that all relevant facts are disclosed. The court is meant to consider these facts impartially. If the court can't be impartial, and we need to hide factual information from the jury, then we have bigger problems than this specific decision.
You think he's guilty. That's fair enough. So do I. The court is acting on the presumption that he's innocent, and that's how it should be.
Ideally they should form some sort of union or trade group like the American Publishers did, and the movie and record industries already have. They don't already have such a body in place though, so they can't use their collective bargaining. Essentially this is the prisoners' dilemma with multiple players. It's in their interests as a group to prevent Google from indexing them without paying because Google needs content, and they control a specific chunk of that content. It's in their interests as individuals to be indexed by Google.
The government is getting involved to keep the newspapers in line more than to force Google
Google is making money from indexing their sites. The newspapers believe that without them, Google will be substantially less competitive, and so feel they can extort Google for a cut if the money it makes from their information.
Perhaps they're wrong, so Google can stop indexing the newspapers. If, however, indexing French newspapers is considered an important requirement for web users, and their rivals offer that functionality, then Google will suffer and their rival will benefit.
This is just a pissing match between media giants.
They did have an alternative though. They used oil. Oil binds to grease and dirt. It doesn't wash off like soap does because it doesn't bind with water but it can be scraped off with a strigil. No idea how effective this actually would be. Would be interesting to put this to the test.
Well, this would be Roman era, so it's one of the cleaner civilisations of history. You'd have access to useful things such as baths, and not be seen as odd for washing regularly
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe. But there are still impracticalities and uncertainties. I could keep coming up with them and you could keep coming up with answers, but that will go on forever.
Just to be clear, I don't think there's anything wrong with your ideas. I just think that there are always going to be areas of uncertainty where different people might disagree. This is a problem with any legal framework.
The other factor here is that IP law as is tends to be a little more protective than you or I believe it should be. The supreme court will ideally rule on the law as written. Unless this is unconstitutional, it's not going to be changed, nor should it be. That's the job of Congress.
Which rules? Where is a kilobyte defined as 1024 bytes by any organisation with any influence?
And why base it on powers of two? It's illogical. The only time you're forced into a power of two is in the address space available to a CPU.
It's in two layers! Layer one is a factual summary about a barman finding a lost Google prototype. Layer two is a veiled rant about companies overreacting when their trade secrets may be compromised.
There are still all sorts of difficulties. What if I import from a company in a country that has no IP protection? What about other possible ways to end run IP protection?
What about consumer rights? Trademarks help protect those as well. Perhaps the American product is known and recognised for its quality and the European one isn't. A purchases buys the imported one thinking it has the same high quality standards that he expects, and it falls to pieces after a few days.
No. It's to preserve the right to bear arms.
Anything else is speculation.
Cool, but really the point is that we shouldn't have to use technological means just to protect our inherent rights. I'd like to take photos without being hassled rather than be hassled and then sue.
And if they say "Delete the fucking photo's asshole, because I just said so"?
People very rarely answer questions they don't know the answer to with a yes or a no.
No it's not. It's sometimes convenient to do so, especially for RAM, but the prefixes used are defined by the SI and recognised by a large number of international organisations including the IEEE.
Yes, marketing people find this useful. But it's also recognised as correct by many engineers. It's actually quite useful. Using a certain type of modulation, a 1KHz signal can transfer 1 kilobit in 1 second, and this will take 8 second to transfer 1 kilobyte of data. Why does it make any sense to worry about binary addressing here?
This is primarily about tort and contract law. Here's how I understand it.
Suppose a designer designs branded hats, and the trademark brand becomes popular. The designer doesn't really want to deal with manufacturing or marketing so sells the rights to manufacture and sell them in Europe to a company called London Fashions. and the rights to manufacture and sell them in the US to a company called New York Designs. Each has a contract that allows them to sell only in their respective territory.
If London Fashions starts selling the branded hats in the US, New York Designs might well be upset about this and sue London Fashions for violating their exclusive rights. IP law varies between countries over what's allowed, and varies between types of IP, so I may be wrong here but generally speaking copyright law will back up this position.
If I go to Europe, buy the designer hat and bring it to the US, this is, of course, perfectly legal. I'm not violating anyone's right.
So, what if another company buys from London Fashions and they import them to the US? Can New York Designs sue them for violating their exclusive rights? If no, what if this intermediate company is a subsidiary of London Fashions? What if they then hire a third company? If yes, then can a private individual buy a hat in Europe and resell it in the US? What if he buys lots of hats and makes a considerable profit from doing so?
Seems to me that this is about where the line is drawn.
It's about being manufactured and sold outside the US. Whether a product licensed and sold in another country needs explicit permission to be resold in the US. Once it is legally sold in the US, first sale rights apply to the purchaser.
They have had their broadcast licence revoked.. This was not for being critical of the UK though. It was for violating the rights of privacy and fairness.
It only applied to the broadcast licence. Press TV's website is not blocked.
A developer in China or India would love this to happen, and would probably see it as fair that they get the same pay for the same work. Perhaps adjusted for local cost of living, but that would still result in an increase for most of Asia, and a decrease for the US.
So the question is, why are they wrong? Is it really right that your salary is related to where you were born?
A 1920x1280 monitor displays 960x640 perfectly well.
But the window manager is superior to the app. It can ignore hints.
The curious incident of the Dog in the Night time by Mark Haddon. It may be a little lightweight, but there's some entertaining maths in there.
"No."
It seems a bit of an odd request to me. I think it would to a lot of employers, including ones that have beautiful code.
Perhaps you don't want to work for them, but if you're limiting yourself to companies with nice legacy code, and aren't protective of their propriety information, then you're reducing your employment options quite considerably.
Pretty certain the subtitles are available on my (Belgian) cable box. Just uses the standard subtitle mechanism of the STB from the menu.
Trouble is, a lot of startups are formed by intelligent people without a lot of industry experience. They see a clever idea and fall in love with it. This means that to use the code, you have to understand exactly how and why certain design decisions were made.
Sometimes customer requirements change. It may be a simple request that in good code requires changing a single configuration value, and in bad code requires changing several hardcoded values, and extensive testing because of comples requirements.
Who gives a damn who or what I sound like? Doesn't mean I agree with them. That's called an ad hominem.
I quite like the idea of a legal system that takes account of all the evidence before declaring someone guilty.
The thing is, you're not the prosecution, and neither are the defence. They have no idea where the prosecution is going to go so they have to be prepared..
The prosecution is probably going to be painting Martin as a living saint who would never harm anyone or anything, to pour doubt on Zimmerman's defence that he was attacked. If the tweets indicate violent behaviour then that will invalidate that line of argument.
That's just one thing that might happen. The defence team will have put together a lot of prosecution scenarios. It's not hard to imagine some of them will depend on the nature of the victim.
It's the way the system works. It's how it's designed. If a fact is relevant, then it's admissible. The defence is arguing that this is relevant. Given that he's going to be locked away from society for a very long time and have his life ruined, I don't think it's too much to ask to be absolutely sure that his actions were totally unjustified.
It's important that all relevant facts are disclosed. The court is meant to consider these facts impartially. If the court can't be impartial, and we need to hide factual information from the jury, then we have bigger problems than this specific decision.
You think he's guilty. That's fair enough. So do I. The court is acting on the presumption that he's innocent, and that's how it should be.
Ideally they should form some sort of union or trade group like the American Publishers did, and the movie and record industries already have. They don't already have such a body in place though, so they can't use their collective bargaining. Essentially this is the prisoners' dilemma with multiple players. It's in their interests as a group to prevent Google from indexing them without paying because Google needs content, and they control a specific chunk of that content. It's in their interests as individuals to be indexed by Google.
The government is getting involved to keep the newspapers in line more than to force Google
Google is making money from indexing their sites. The newspapers believe that without them, Google will be substantially less competitive, and so feel they can extort Google for a cut if the money it makes from their information.
Perhaps they're wrong, so Google can stop indexing the newspapers. If, however, indexing French newspapers is considered an important requirement for web users, and their rivals offer that functionality, then Google will suffer and their rival will benefit.
This is just a pissing match between media giants.
They did have an alternative though. They used oil. Oil binds to grease and dirt. It doesn't wash off like soap does because it doesn't bind with water but it can be scraped off with a strigil. No idea how effective this actually would be. Would be interesting to put this to the test.
Well, this would be Roman era, so it's one of the cleaner civilisations of history. You'd have access to useful things such as baths, and not be seen as odd for washing regularly