Imagination is not enough to create a theory which fits in with all observations of the real world, from the expansion of the universe to the movements of galaxies to the chemical reactions of life. Science has always been trying to produce such a theory, but has so far failed. Religion has never even tried.
What the heck are you talking about? EVERY religion since the dawn of time has been trying to explain all observed phenomina. Just because classical religions failed doesn't mean that they didn't try.
More to the point: Science does not seek to get a grand theory that explains why the universe is the way it is. Science is simply the search for understanding of existance AS IT IS, and the application of that knowledge to practical uses. Trying to explain the existance and creation of these laws is not Science, and it's most certainly not physics - it's religion.
The strength of science is that it claims no ultimate unshakable truths, and it can and must adapt itself "to any and all data that might refute it". Hawking's work is at the theoretical end of physics, but, like all science, it is firmly anchored in the real world.
Bullocks. Science does claim at least one ultimate unshakable truth, and many so-called scientists claim another.
The first "ultimate truth" is that the world really is. If all that is were nothing more than a shared dream started by one person, all of science would be essentially meaningless. Reality is on its own, which is a view that science accepts as a basic tenet.
The second "ultimate truth" which is all too often claimed is that religions are wrong. Just as mankind relies on the reports of others about what really happens (for example, the war in Afghanistan, or the American revolution), to sumarilly dismiss the existance of the supernatural is to discard the testimony of many generations.
His theories accurately predicted the existence and behaviour of black holes before any had been found, just as the ancient Greeks used maths to accurately calculate the size of this planet thousands of years before we could observe it from the outside.
There's a big difference between dreaming up a concept and having your followers find something that they can label as it is, and extracting one piece of data from what you can observe.
IIRC, black holes haven't been proven--there merely have been phenomina extant in the universe that appear to fit the discription Hawkings provided. Heck, just here on/. there has have been 'black holes aren't what we think' stories.
One more point:
Those same Greeks badly miscalculated the distance to the Sun, but later scientists corrected their mistakes. Had they made a religion out of their calculations, I might now be sentenced to death for daring to contradict them.
What makes you think that punishing those that disagree with you is a defining characteristic of a religion? If you were to ask a modern-day holy man what should be done to heretics and nonbelievers, more often than not the answer would be "try and convince them of the truth." (The few that answer differently should be considered wackos, and treated as such.)
Heck, what makes you think that science *doesn't* punish those that disagree with it? How many scientists are on record as claiming religion and science are incompatible? What chance does someone who disbelieves their relgion have of being invited to Cambridge's prestige?
Heck, look at the punishment that my original post recieved for giving a negative opinion of Hawkings?;)
In other words, quantum gravity does make testable predictions in principle, but in practice the tests have not yet been feasible to perform.
Christianity's view of a God, Angels, and Heaven are all testable phenomina. But because these beings operate in a different world / actively seek to hide their existence, we cannot test them.
In principle, these claims are testable predicitons. But because all methods of doing so are unable return data, they're useless in practice.
I would quite strongly disagree with your post. Just because one is a scientist doesn't mean that one practices science all the time. For example, plenty of scientists are religious, but that doens't make religion a science, nor does it mean that the science that they do isn't scientific.
I think you're missing my point. Nothing about any religion clouds science--unless that religion is used to crowd out other religious models of creation. All religious models operate on a level that science cannot prove; to wit, it is impossible to form an experiment where a concious, active, all-knowing, and all-powerful being that wishes to remain a secret can be proven to exist.
If you take the observations of science and extend them into such religous territory--like, oh, assuming that the observed laws of physics were alwyas as such and then extending them backwards--you're creating a new religion.
I don't think it's wrong to do this--just that the people who do it should be treated as the founders of a new religion, and not scientists.
To see Hawkings science, read his peer reviewed journal articles.
First off, Hawking's theories have sod-all to do with "God's existance or nonexistance", as the man himself says; he states that if you choose to call phsics 'god' then what the hell, but it won't change anything. ("We could call order by the name of God, but it would be an impersonal God.")
If I choose to say "moderators are nothing more than random factors. We could choose to call them 'people', but they would be impersonal people." am I not saying implicity that they are *NOT* people?
God is more than physics. By saying "well, what we used to call God is just physics", we're really saying "God doesn't exist."
There is a (hypothetical, for now) theory which describes the universe as observed better than any other, and is mathematically sensible. You would surely agree that this is 'better science' than other less accurate theories.
No, I wouldn't. Until a thought is tested, it's just a fancy--like I said, *anyone* can make their pet theory fit all of the facts. Unless you test your theory with outcomes that could very well destroy it, you're not doing science--especially if you allow for any bias as to your theories's validity cloud you to the possiblity of more-complex results.
In science, parsimony is good. But in reality, what's simplest is *NOT* always what is true. To extend the simple observations of science past what is proven is not science; at first it's theory, but once you get into the creation of the universe (past events that cannot witnessed and leave no conclusive fossil record) you're talking about religion, not science.
Stephen Hawking spends his life trying to come up with a history of everything that makes sense to his mind. He purports that other universes exist, but that there is no way to prove their existance--and he even admits that there is no scientific way to prove these theories.
I say now that Hawking does not practice science, but rather the religion of science. Be he priest, prophet, or simple thelogian, he is no more a scientist than I am.
Any imaginative author or deluded "holy man" can define the universe and then find details and create a history that is logically consistent, and can adapt such a theory to any and all data that might refute it. I say that Hawking and his theories are no more scientific than religion, and the fact that his work inspires true, falsifiable science is nothing more than a happy coincidence.
If you do not agree with what I say, then please formulate a reply and refute me. Science--real science--is not bound by a chosen notion of God's existance or nonexistance and does not deal with things that cannot be tested in reality.
I say that Science says nothing that is not proven fact, and that to brand one ascetic dream "science" and another "religion" is a disservice to both and an obstruction to the search of Reality that real Science seeks.
All replies are welcome, and replies with answers are asked for.
In all seriousness, has anyone ever thought about the price of your average paperback? Ten years ago, you could buy a new paperback for $3-4. Today, that price has almost doubled. In many cases, it is the *exact same book*, just republished, that is now costing twice as much as it did a few years ago. Where is the justification in that? I doubt publishing costs have risen that much in the last decade. With an older book, the author was paid any "up-front" money a loooong time ago, so there's no advance to recover. The price has risen far faster than any inflation could account for. Seems like plain, simple greed to me...
Actually, publishing costs HAVE raised quite a bit. A not-too distant tax law case caused inventory to be taxed differently, thus making larger print runs (that last for more than one year) not profitable. And then there's inflation, paper, etc.
Oh, and about the crack on advances: Authors are paid in royalties, and any "advance" you hear about is simply the publisher loaning the author some cash against their future royalties so they can work on the book and not worry about things like food. While authors certainly want their advances paid by book sales, this doesn't really effect the price of the book--they get paid the same royalty if it's the inital print run or the last run before public domain.
surprising? no. Correct? Well, what about Yahoo! vs. France? And does that mean that next time I buy something at Amazon, I can sue them in a german court according to german consumer protection laws if I feel like it?
Only if you're a German Conusmer. If you live in Germany / German lands (like an embassy) or if Amazon ships to you from Germany (or ships to you in germany), then the laws might apply.
of course, americans being what they are (single-languaged, specifically) they don't understand what "quid pro quo" means and are perfectly happy to apply the argument only single-sided. (i.e. US jurisdiction everywhere, but not vice versa)
You're horribly misinformed. The basic principle of international jurisdiction is affect--Elcomsoft did something that affects America in a clear and direct fashion (selling us stuff.) We can bring them to trial for it.
If they don't like it, they can just stay away from the US, completely. I think there's a little island somewhere that would also like to stay completely away from the US.
And for the record--yes, the US gives quid pro quo to other nations. Remember the kid who got canned? The US military person who's in a Jappanese jail for rape? There are bunches and bunches of exchanges--both ways--that happen every day. We just don't hear about it because they're so boring.
but that the courts have let the IP cartels pick and cboose WHAT parts to enforce and what parts to ignore.
I know this is unrelated, but that has been my argument against Christianity all my life!! They routinely select parts of their Bible to ignore. Gay churches? Christians who eat bacon on their cheeseburgers? Hahaha... ignoring the stuff we don't like is a habit of U.S. Americans. Hey, I was born here... I see it every day.
You know, oddly enough, I can rebut and stay on-topic...
Dealing with the bible--it's a history book that contains the rules, not a rulebook. It's logically impossible to follow every command given therein. But, if you really want to know why Christians don't follow the Kosher laws, look at the Book of Acts.
(St. Peter was shown a vision of non-kosher food animals and told to eat. He didn't want to, but God essentially said "it's all right, do it.". Hence, Gentiles and Bacon Cheeseburgers became part of the religion.)
Getting back to the law. There are always parts that are enforced and parts that aren't. It's part of the balance between the right of the government to enforce the law, and the right of the individual to privacy / political speech / etc. Just like Blue Laws (laws proscribing "good" sex and prohibiting other kinds) are very rarey used, and just like speeding tickets and Conspiracy charges aren't enforced every time that the stated crime happens.
The fact that the RIAA prompted parts of the DMCA to be enforced and others overlooked says more about the rather split voice against them rather than any sinister ability of them. Were the positions reversed, the FSS would be leaning on the courts to ignore EULAs...
Eventually OpenOffice will outstrip StarOffice and there will no longer be any reason to pay for Star. Sun is just cannibalising it for a short term revenue stream, really.
Wow, open-source really is a movement! I mean, you share the same sureity of success that the Nazis, the Communists, the entire dot-com debacle, and any number of older american "social experiments" that went AWOL.
Seriously, if you want to change the world, YOU CAN'T TAKE IT FOR GRATNED! There are perfectly viable reasons for StarOffice to continue no matter how good OpenOffice gets. It doesn't matter if Open-Source / Free is better morally or for the home user; what matters is if you can sell the free version to the people who buy the for-sale version now.
I actually suspect that this kind of thing will become more common. Closed-source companies will create an open-source project with a different name, and then rebrand it and tweak it (and support it) with their well-known name. Why do people use Netscape 6 (at all) when Mozilla is "the same thing?" Because AOL says N6 is "good" and they don't have to worry about it.
Peace of mind is a great thing. Even though it's an illusion from most closed-source companies, people will still pay for this and this alone.
I thought disclosure of MS's agreement concerning OEM os'es were corporate secret (blabla fines and revocation of contract). How can Gateway testify if they are bound by NDA's associated to the OEM contract?
Contracts are enforced by the courts. (If MS breaks the contract illegally, Gateway goes to the courts to get them enforced. Same if Gateway breaks, and MS wants their contract-specified fine.)
Because of this, the courts can say "testify" and Gateway doesn't have a choice. Of course, MS can (and did) ask to have secret data (the exact pricing tree) hidden, and the courts can agree to keep it "off the public record", but it still can come out into the open.
I've got five or six PCs at work, installed with Win98 (1st edition, we're cheap) and working with IE 4, 5, and 6. In fact, IE 6 is the only part of Win98 that's still supported.
1) Big Content has never tried to go after the individuals, even though they have said they would do so if left with no other recourse. Doesn't their refusal to go after people who are actually doing the pirating (vs. attacking businesses whose otherwise legitimate tools enable it) constitute some sort of admission that the works are public domain? Like the rules that stipulate that if you don't defend your trademark, you lose it. Same for copyright, or is it different? If it's the same for copyright, then anything that's ever been traded P2P is now public domain and Big Content will just have to suck it up.
Copyright doesn't have to be enforced to be kept. You can take a copy of the novel I wrote, find a publisher, and get a deal to publish five years from now--and when I show up in four and a half years to get my money, the fact that I let it slide for four and a half years won't get you a darn thing. (well, maybe a forced 10% cut for working as my agent.)
[side note: if I *register* the copyright, I can wait until after you publish it, and then sue you for everything you made, plus more. If I don't register, I can't]
The reason that trademarks have to be defended is that they're renewable. It's the government giving force of law to "your name," and if you don't get up and defend this obviously artificial label they've got for you, they're not going to defend it either.
_____________________________________ I am writer, not a lawyer.
Remember -- common sense once held that the sun and the planets revolved in perfect circles around the earth. A few brave souls started questioning that, and everybody said, "dumb dumb dumb", with a dash of "die heretic" thrown in for good measure.
Odd, I never heard the "perfect circles" theory. Any moron who watches the skies can tell you that the planets don't.
Sure, the sun, moon, and stars do--but the planets? IIRC, they were named as such because they didn't travel as regularly as the other stars.
;) and it's as scientifically correct to use any point in the solar system as the "unmovable object" as any other. The sun just presents (by far) the simplest model.
You CAN copyright a "character." And there's a plausible legal argument that a complete RPG is a defendable "character."
The way you play an RPG (sit around, assume characters, et al) is open game. But the exact specifics?
Re:'The Economist' is guilty of wishful thinking
on
Andreesen "Grows Up"
·
· Score: 2
That's pretty arguable. I mean, name one major social change that has happened as a result of the Internet. Sure, we're communicating faster, but has it actually provided a clear social change? Not to say it never will, but so far there just hasn't been much.
Name one? Sure.
Two of my close personal friends have fallen in love over the 'net. And this was with people who they had almost *no* chance of meeting if not for the net. (I met the second friend after the first one had fallen for her.)
This is a distinct social change: the ability of people to meet new people that they would never have seen before, and strike a common bond despite geographic distances.
This is true. You can stick your head in the sand and pretend its not, but the evidence is all around. O.J. Simpson anyone?
The standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt." That means that, even if you THINK he did it, if you can see a reasonable situation where he DIDN'T do it, he walks. (Please note that he WAS guilty of the civil suit for wrongful death.)
On the other hand, why are we surprised? We have *intentionally* built a capitalist society. Many Americans will *proudly* tell you that they are capitalists.
I know just person who would say that they're a "capitalist", and that person's a dick. The rest of us use the word "American."
Americans aren't communists (communism is too open to corruption, as evidenced by history.) America is a socialist-capitalist state, with things like a stock market, antitrust laws, private property, a welfare system, etc. I work for a company that exists solely to nurture the non-selfish part of america, and they do rather well at that.
The *only* thing that money gets you in the legal system is better lawyers, who can raise precedents and theories that underpaid and overworked public defenders could never do. Every lawyer I've ever encountered has been a great example of exactly what a lawyer is supposed to be; even the one that was suing my wife and I for a million dollars (suit was dimissed, btw.)
Well, time for breakfast. My post is done, and it's time to leave slashdot for the day.;)
The German govertment would devenetly have l33t skizlz compared to the american one because of american being owned by the windows companey and not being abel to do anything a.out it.
Hardly.
A good friend of mine works for the DOE. He's the biggest Linux nut I know, and that's what they use.
I've worked in NY State gov't quite a few times, and the only MS there was the basic OS--NYSDEC used Wordperfect et al, and HESC used Windows to boot up the dummy terminals for their data entry.
And on top of all that--if the gov't really wanted to do something with MS's software and MS didn't kotow, the feds could just delcare eminent domain and that'd be the end of it.
What if you buy software, no license on the outside, and never install it.
Instead, you start poking around with the code that's on the disk.
How can a click-EULA apply then?
Honestly, I think it doesn't. If the stated activation of the license is the click, and you don't click, you aren't bound by the EULA.
OTOH, you are still bound by the DMCA and regular copyright laws... so as long as it's not encrypted and you're not doing anything that regular law would prohibit (multiple installations), you're fine.
Cross any one of those lines, and you're just as guilty as if you click "I agree" and then rail on you. The specifics of what you're guilty of are a moot point, though: unless you're a gross pirate, I can't imagine it being worth their time to tackle you in a case.
IANAL, just so you know. (As for the multiple EULA part... "I don't think so, as long as it's not a site license.")
Sure, you own the CD. But you are not allowed to make the derivitive work of the software on the CD that is commonly known as an "installation." In order to do that, you need to agree to the license.
Or, at least, I believe that's how the law works. IANAL, but it makes sense this way.
To continute your hypothetical example, it's just as if Ford patented a crucial part to the car that had to fit a certain way--no one else is allowed to make that part while the patent is valid, and so Ford can achieve their monopoly on car parts.
Or, to use an even less popular law: Ford encrypts the car's computer. They lease deconversion machines & software to auto mechanics, and as terms of the lease they need to display that they are "ford certiifed." Hence, you now cannot get your car serviced properly at any service station that is not "ford certified." If someone tries to, they are either doing poor work, or they're violating the DMCA.
(the above example works even better with a leased car, with service included at the dealership you bought the car from... and you aren't allowed to get it serviced anywhere else or you break the lease.)
P.P: I really hate car leases.:( Work o' the devil, I tell ya!
Likewise, the claim "The Universe is 6000 years old but was created with everything perfectly arranged to look like it was 15 billion years old" is not falsifiable: Any attempt to bolster the 15 Gyr estimate for the age of the Universe can be met with "But it was made to look like that!". Note that this doesn't mean the argument is logically impossible. It is conceivable that such a strange thing did indeed go on -- that God did play that sort of practical joke.
Very nice post, btw. Just one comment:
Backwards-projection of current scientific principles (historical evolution, archeology) aren't faslifiable, either. So, essentially:
It's as scientifically correct to say that we were descended from apes as to say that we were created by a Godlike being that's hiding itself from us. Neither one is falsifiable, and neither one has direct evidence of its truth.
To make it scientific, it has to be FALSEFIABLE. You don't go off with the creation "science"
Please falsify that I was born on 11/06/79. Or, better yet, falsify the theory of historical evolution but leave the observable principle of evolution intact.
Sorry. I get irked about "scientists" who follow the status quo with the frevor of a religious fanatic. ("God can't exist, it's not scientific!") No offense intended.
However, the rest of the referenced article was very well done. In a case of a real Free Energy device, it's be a fairly simple manner to put in a switch or two to capacitors that would keep the circuit running and thus cut off the batteries...
Slashdot Mirror
Imagination is not enough to create a theory which fits in with all observations of the real world, from the expansion of the universe to the movements of galaxies to the chemical reactions of life. Science has always been trying to produce such a theory, but has so far failed. Religion has never even tried.
/. there has have been 'black holes aren't what we think' stories.
;)
What the heck are you talking about? EVERY religion since the dawn of time has been trying to explain all observed phenomina. Just because classical religions failed doesn't mean that they didn't try.
More to the point: Science does not seek to get a grand theory that explains why the universe is the way it is. Science is simply the search for understanding of existance AS IT IS, and the application of that knowledge to practical uses. Trying to explain the existance and creation of these laws is not Science, and it's most certainly not physics - it's religion.
The strength of science is that it claims no ultimate unshakable truths, and it can and must adapt itself "to any and all data that might refute it". Hawking's work is at the theoretical end of physics, but, like all science, it is firmly anchored in the real world.
Bullocks. Science does claim at least one ultimate unshakable truth, and many so-called scientists claim another.
The first "ultimate truth" is that the world really is. If all that is were nothing more than a shared dream started by one person, all of science would be essentially meaningless. Reality is on its own, which is a view that science accepts as a basic tenet.
The second "ultimate truth" which is all too often claimed is that religions are wrong. Just as mankind relies on the reports of others about what really happens (for example, the war in Afghanistan, or the American revolution), to sumarilly dismiss the existance of the supernatural is to discard the testimony of many generations.
His theories accurately predicted the existence and behaviour of black holes before any had been found, just as the ancient Greeks used maths to accurately calculate the size of this planet thousands of years before we could observe it from the outside.
There's a big difference between dreaming up a concept and having your followers find something that they can label as it is, and extracting one piece of data from what you can observe.
IIRC, black holes haven't been proven--there merely have been phenomina extant in the universe that appear to fit the discription Hawkings provided. Heck, just here on
One more point:
Those same Greeks badly miscalculated the distance to the Sun, but later scientists corrected their mistakes. Had they made a religion out of their calculations, I might now be sentenced to death for daring to contradict them.
What makes you think that punishing those that disagree with you is a defining characteristic of a religion? If you were to ask a modern-day holy man what should be done to heretics and nonbelievers, more often than not the answer would be "try and convince them of the truth." (The few that answer differently should be considered wackos, and treated as such.)
Heck, what makes you think that science *doesn't* punish those that disagree with it? How many scientists are on record as claiming religion and science are incompatible? What chance does someone who disbelieves their relgion have of being invited to Cambridge's prestige?
Heck, look at the punishment that my original post recieved for giving a negative opinion of Hawkings?
In other words, quantum gravity does make testable predictions in principle, but in practice the tests have not yet been feasible to perform.
Christianity's view of a God, Angels, and Heaven are all testable phenomina. But because these beings operate in a different world / actively seek to hide their existence, we cannot test them.
In principle, these claims are testable predicitons. But because all methods of doing so are unable return data, they're useless in practice.
I would quite strongly disagree with your post. Just because one is a scientist doesn't mean that one practices science all the time. For example, plenty of scientists are religious, but that doens't make religion a science, nor does it mean that the science that they do isn't scientific.
I think you're missing my point. Nothing about any religion clouds science--unless that religion is used to crowd out other religious models of creation. All religious models operate on a level that science cannot prove; to wit, it is impossible to form an experiment where a concious, active, all-knowing, and all-powerful being that wishes to remain a secret can be proven to exist.
If you take the observations of science and extend them into such religous territory--like, oh, assuming that the observed laws of physics were alwyas as such and then extending them backwards--you're creating a new religion.
I don't think it's wrong to do this--just that the people who do it should be treated as the founders of a new religion, and not scientists.
To see Hawkings science, read his peer reviewed journal articles.
Can you provide a link?
First off, Hawking's theories have sod-all to do with "God's existance or nonexistance", as the man himself says; he states that if you choose to call phsics 'god' then what the hell, but it won't change anything. ("We could call order by the name of God, but it would be an impersonal God.")
If I choose to say "moderators are nothing more than random factors. We could choose to call them 'people', but they would be impersonal people." am I not saying implicity that they are *NOT* people?
God is more than physics. By saying "well, what we used to call God is just physics", we're really saying "God doesn't exist."
There is a (hypothetical, for now) theory which describes the universe as observed better than any other, and is mathematically sensible. You would surely agree that this is 'better science' than other less accurate theories.
No, I wouldn't. Until a thought is tested, it's just a fancy--like I said, *anyone* can make their pet theory fit all of the facts. Unless you test your theory with outcomes that could very well destroy it, you're not doing science--especially if you allow for any bias as to your theories's validity cloud you to the possiblity of more-complex results.
In science, parsimony is good. But in reality, what's simplest is *NOT* always what is true. To extend the simple observations of science past what is proven is not science; at first it's theory, but once you get into the creation of the universe (past events that cannot witnessed and leave no conclusive fossil record) you're talking about religion, not science.
Stephen Hawking spends his life trying to come up with a history of everything that makes sense to his mind. He purports that other universes exist, but that there is no way to prove their existance--and he even admits that there is no scientific way to prove these theories.
I say now that Hawking does not practice science, but rather the religion of science. Be he priest, prophet, or simple thelogian, he is no more a scientist than I am.
Any imaginative author or deluded "holy man" can define the universe and then find details and create a history that is logically consistent, and can adapt such a theory to any and all data that might refute it. I say that Hawking and his theories are no more scientific than religion, and the fact that his work inspires true, falsifiable science is nothing more than a happy coincidence.
If you do not agree with what I say, then please formulate a reply and refute me. Science--real science--is not bound by a chosen notion of God's existance or nonexistance and does not deal with things that cannot be tested in reality.
I say that Science says nothing that is not proven fact, and that to brand one ascetic dream "science" and another "religion" is a disservice to both and an obstruction to the search of Reality that real Science seeks.
All replies are welcome, and replies with answers are asked for.
In all seriousness, has anyone ever thought about the price of your average paperback? Ten years ago, you could buy a new paperback for $3-4. Today, that price has almost doubled. In many cases, it is the *exact same book*, just republished, that is now costing twice as much as it did a few years ago. Where is the justification in that? I doubt publishing costs have risen that much in the last decade. With an older book, the author was paid any "up-front" money a loooong time ago, so there's no advance to recover. The price has risen far faster than any inflation could account for. Seems like plain, simple greed to me...
Actually, publishing costs HAVE raised quite a bit. A not-too distant tax law case caused inventory to be taxed differently, thus making larger print runs (that last for more than one year) not profitable. And then there's inflation, paper, etc.
Oh, and about the crack on advances: Authors are paid in royalties, and any "advance" you hear about is simply the publisher loaning the author some cash against their future royalties so they can work on the book and not worry about things like food. While authors certainly want their advances paid by book sales, this doesn't really effect the price of the book--they get paid the same royalty if it's the inital print run or the last run before public domain.
surprising? no. Correct? Well, what about Yahoo! vs. France? And does that mean that next time I buy something at Amazon, I can sue them in a german court according to german consumer protection laws if I feel like it?
Only if you're a German Conusmer. If you live in Germany / German lands (like an embassy) or if Amazon ships to you from Germany (or ships to you in germany), then the laws might apply.
of course, americans being what they are (single-languaged, specifically) they don't understand what "quid pro quo" means and are perfectly happy to apply the argument only single-sided. (i.e. US jurisdiction everywhere, but not vice versa)
You're horribly misinformed. The basic principle of international jurisdiction is affect--Elcomsoft did something that affects America in a clear and direct fashion (selling us stuff.) We can bring them to trial for it.
If they don't like it, they can just stay away from the US, completely. I think there's a little island somewhere that would also like to stay completely away from the US.
And for the record--yes, the US gives quid pro quo to other nations. Remember the kid who got canned? The US military person who's in a Jappanese jail for rape? There are bunches and bunches of exchanges--both ways--that happen every day. We just don't hear about it because they're so boring.
but that the courts have let the IP cartels pick and cboose WHAT parts to enforce and what parts to ignore.
I know this is unrelated, but that has been my argument against Christianity all my life!! They routinely select parts of their Bible to ignore. Gay churches? Christians who eat bacon on their cheeseburgers? Hahaha... ignoring the stuff we don't like is a habit of U.S. Americans. Hey, I was born here... I see it every day.
You know, oddly enough, I can rebut and stay on-topic...
Dealing with the bible--it's a history book that contains the rules, not a rulebook. It's logically impossible to follow every command given therein. But, if you really want to know why Christians don't follow the Kosher laws, look at the Book of Acts.
(St. Peter was shown a vision of non-kosher food animals and told to eat. He didn't want to, but God essentially said "it's all right, do it.". Hence, Gentiles and Bacon Cheeseburgers became part of the religion.)
Getting back to the law. There are always parts that are enforced and parts that aren't. It's part of the balance between the right of the government to enforce the law, and the right of the individual to privacy / political speech / etc. Just like Blue Laws (laws proscribing "good" sex and prohibiting other kinds) are very rarey used, and just like speeding tickets and Conspiracy charges aren't enforced every time that the stated crime happens.
The fact that the RIAA prompted parts of the DMCA to be enforced and others overlooked says more about the rather split voice against them rather than any sinister ability of them. Were the positions reversed, the FSS would be leaning on the courts to ignore EULAs...
Eventually OpenOffice will outstrip StarOffice and there will no longer be any reason to pay for Star. Sun is just cannibalising it for a short term revenue stream, really.
Wow, open-source really is a movement! I mean, you share the same sureity of success that the Nazis, the Communists, the entire dot-com debacle, and any number of older american "social experiments" that went AWOL.
Seriously, if you want to change the world, YOU CAN'T TAKE IT FOR GRATNED! There are perfectly viable reasons for StarOffice to continue no matter how good OpenOffice gets. It doesn't matter if Open-Source / Free is better morally or for the home user; what matters is if you can sell the free version to the people who buy the for-sale version now.
I actually suspect that this kind of thing will become more common. Closed-source companies will create an open-source project with a different name, and then rebrand it and tweak it (and support it) with their well-known name. Why do people use Netscape 6 (at all) when Mozilla is "the same thing?" Because AOL says N6 is "good" and they don't have to worry about it.
Peace of mind is a great thing. Even though it's an illusion from most closed-source companies, people will still pay for this and this alone.
Hmmm... what can I say but:
"Look, another downside to integrating the web browswer into the OS."
:)
I thought disclosure of MS's agreement concerning OEM os'es were corporate secret (blabla fines and revocation of contract). How can Gateway testify if they are bound by NDA's associated to the OEM contract?
Contracts are enforced by the courts. (If MS breaks the contract illegally, Gateway goes to the courts to get them enforced. Same if Gateway breaks, and MS wants their contract-specified fine.)
Because of this, the courts can say "testify" and Gateway doesn't have a choice. Of course, MS can (and did) ask to have secret data (the exact pricing tree) hidden, and the courts can agree to keep it "off the public record", but it still can come out into the open.
IANAL, of course.
I've got five or six PCs at work, installed with Win98 (1st edition, we're cheap) and working with IE 4, 5, and 6. In fact, IE 6 is the only part of Win98 that's still supported.
1) Big Content has never tried to go after the individuals, even though they have said they would do so if left with no other recourse. Doesn't their refusal to go after people who are actually doing the pirating (vs. attacking businesses whose otherwise legitimate tools enable it) constitute some sort of admission that the works are public domain? Like the rules that stipulate that if you don't defend your trademark, you lose it. Same for copyright, or is it different? If it's the same for copyright, then anything that's ever been traded P2P is now public domain and Big Content will just have to suck it up.
Copyright doesn't have to be enforced to be kept. You can take a copy of the novel I wrote, find a publisher, and get a deal to publish five years from now--and when I show up in four and a half years to get my money, the fact that I let it slide for four and a half years won't get you a darn thing. (well, maybe a forced 10% cut for working as my agent.)
[side note: if I *register* the copyright, I can wait until after you publish it, and then sue you for everything you made, plus more. If I don't register, I can't]
The reason that trademarks have to be defended is that they're renewable. It's the government giving force of law to "your name," and if you don't get up and defend this obviously artificial label they've got for you, they're not going to defend it either.
_____________________________________
I am writer, not a lawyer.
It's a shame he's corrupt and doesn't care to do any practical enforcing, then.
;)
You've obviously never taken a trip to the deep south.
Ah. s'all right.
Remember -- common sense once held that the sun and the planets revolved in perfect circles around the earth. A few brave souls started questioning that, and everybody said, "dumb dumb dumb", with a dash of "die heretic" thrown in for good measure.
Odd, I never heard the "perfect circles" theory. Any moron who watches the skies can tell you that the planets don't.
Sure, the sun, moon, and stars do--but the planets? IIRC, they were named as such because they didn't travel as regularly as the other stars.
;) and it's as scientifically correct to use any point in the solar system as the "unmovable object" as any other. The sun just presents (by far) the simplest model.
You CAN copyright a "character." And there's a plausible legal argument that a complete RPG is a defendable "character."
The way you play an RPG (sit around, assume characters, et al) is open game. But the exact specifics?
That's pretty arguable. I mean, name one major social change that has happened as a result of the Internet. Sure, we're communicating faster, but has it actually provided a clear social change? Not to say it never will, but so far there just hasn't been much.
Name one? Sure.
Two of my close personal friends have fallen in love over the 'net. And this was with people who they had almost *no* chance of meeting if not for the net. (I met the second friend after the first one had fallen for her.)
This is a distinct social change: the ability of people to meet new people that they would never have seen before, and strike a common bond despite geographic distances.
This is true. You can stick your head in the sand and pretend its not, but the evidence is all around. O.J. Simpson anyone?
;)
The standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt." That means that, even if you THINK he did it, if you can see a reasonable situation where he DIDN'T do it, he walks. (Please note that he WAS guilty of the civil suit for wrongful death.)
On the other hand, why are we surprised? We have *intentionally* built a capitalist society. Many Americans will *proudly* tell you that they are capitalists.
I know just person who would say that they're a "capitalist", and that person's a dick. The rest of us use the word "American."
Americans aren't communists (communism is too open to corruption, as evidenced by history.) America is a socialist-capitalist state, with things like a stock market, antitrust laws, private property, a welfare system, etc. I work for a company that exists solely to nurture the non-selfish part of america, and they do rather well at that.
The *only* thing that money gets you in the legal system is better lawyers, who can raise precedents and theories that underpaid and overworked public defenders could never do. Every lawyer I've ever encountered has been a great example of exactly what a lawyer is supposed to be; even the one that was suing my wife and I for a million dollars (suit was dimissed, btw.)
Well, time for breakfast. My post is done, and it's time to leave slashdot for the day.
The German govertment would devenetly have l33t skizlz compared to the american one because of american being owned by the windows companey and not being abel to do anything a.out it.
Hardly.
A good friend of mine works for the DOE. He's the biggest Linux nut I know, and that's what they use.
I've worked in NY State gov't quite a few times, and the only MS there was the basic OS--NYSDEC used Wordperfect et al, and HESC used Windows to boot up the dummy terminals for their data entry.
And on top of all that--if the gov't really wanted to do something with MS's software and MS didn't kotow, the feds could just delcare eminent domain and that'd be the end of it.
What if you buy software, no license on the outside, and never install it.
Instead, you start poking around with the code that's on the disk.
How can a click-EULA apply then?
Honestly, I think it doesn't. If the stated activation of the license is the click, and you don't click, you aren't bound by the EULA.
OTOH, you are still bound by the DMCA and regular copyright laws... so as long as it's not encrypted and you're not doing anything that regular law would prohibit (multiple installations), you're fine.
Cross any one of those lines, and you're just as guilty as if you click "I agree" and then rail on you. The specifics of what you're guilty of are a moot point, though: unless you're a gross pirate, I can't imagine it being worth their time to tackle you in a case.
IANAL, just so you know. (As for the multiple EULA part... "I don't think so, as long as it's not a site license.")
Sure, you own the CD. But you are not allowed to make the derivitive work of the software on the CD that is commonly known as an "installation." In order to do that, you need to agree to the license.
:( Work o' the devil, I tell ya!
Or, at least, I believe that's how the law works. IANAL, but it makes sense this way.
To continute your hypothetical example, it's just as if Ford patented a crucial part to the car that had to fit a certain way--no one else is allowed to make that part while the patent is valid, and so Ford can achieve their monopoly on car parts.
Or, to use an even less popular law: Ford encrypts the car's computer. They lease deconversion machines & software to auto mechanics, and as terms of the lease they need to display that they are "ford certiifed." Hence, you now cannot get your car serviced properly at any service station that is not "ford certified." If someone tries to, they are either doing poor work, or they're violating the DMCA.
(the above example works even better with a leased car, with service included at the dealership you bought the car from... and you aren't allowed to get it serviced anywhere else or you break the lease.)
P.P: I really hate car leases.
Likewise, the claim "The Universe is 6000 years old but was created with everything perfectly arranged to look like it was 15 billion years old" is not falsifiable: Any attempt to bolster the 15 Gyr estimate for the age of the Universe can be met with "But it was made to look like that!". Note that this doesn't mean the argument is logically impossible. It is conceivable that such a strange thing did indeed go on -- that God did play that sort of practical joke.
Very nice post, btw. Just one comment:
Backwards-projection of current scientific principles (historical evolution, archeology) aren't faslifiable, either. So, essentially:
It's as scientifically correct to say that we were descended from apes as to say that we were created by a Godlike being that's hiding itself from us. Neither one is falsifiable, and neither one has direct evidence of its truth.
To make it scientific, it has to be FALSEFIABLE. You don't go off with the creation "science"
Please falsify that I was born on 11/06/79. Or, better yet, falsify the theory of historical evolution but leave the observable principle of evolution intact.
Sorry. I get irked about "scientists" who follow the status quo with the frevor of a religious fanatic. ("God can't exist, it's not scientific!") No offense intended.
However, the rest of the referenced article was very well done. In a case of a real Free Energy device, it's be a fairly simple manner to put in a switch or two to capacitors that would keep the circuit running and thus cut off the batteries...
yeah, I know. Big "if."