Helloooooo! Pretty much the entire point of the GPL is to create a sort of "anti-copyright" as a protest/foil for what is considered an unjust copyright system. If copyright goes away, the GPL is no longer necessary because we've won!
Farm subsidies are one thing, they keep the price of bread low
Actually, they do the opposite. By either buying up wheat and destroying it or giving it away outside the market, or paying farmers to NOT grow wheat, they keep the supply down. Farm subsidies are designed to ensure that the farmers* that DO still sell wheat are able to get a fair** price for it.
* corporations that have bought up all the family farms, that is
** fair defined as "we like the prices wheat went for back when farming was hard, 100 years ago; now that technology allows us to grow 10x the wheat with the same effort, we think we should be making 10x the money, market be damned"
look at modern china, where 50 years of hardcore communist rhetoric has created... drum roll... the most social darwinistic model of capitalism on this planet right now.
Given that most of the corporate bigwigs in china are high ranking military officers and government officials, I'd say China is simply run of the mill fascism rather than sink-or-swim capitalism. You don't get that diamond encrusted bathroom unless you're tight pals with powers-that-be.
If a copyright term is "fixed" at some number, then that number can be changed relatively easily, extending copyright terms (an amendment to the law). That is the problem. Is the copyright term is, instead, a dynamic value relative to the success of the work, then increasing copyright terms with specific works in mind becomes a more difficult exercise because the whole law has to be changed.
Errr.... how is it significantly easier to change the numbers in a law that says:
"...for a term of 14 years with an option to extend an additional 14 years..."
than it is to change the numbers in a law that says:
"...for a term of 5 years plus 1 year for every 10 million copies sold..."?
why should a person, or their family, or their estate, or a company just have their copyright rights whipped away from them?
Because the very premise of copyright is that publicly performed/released works are by their very nature in the public domain. Before copyright, the notion that the teller of a story or singer of a song in any way "owned" that story or song would have been considered ludicrous. The notion of copyright came about after duplication technology (i.e. paper) existed and widespread distribution by means other than personal memorization became possible. Copyright (in its current incarnation at least) is premised upon the notion that, by granting to the author a limited time artificial monopoly on the reproduction and public performance of his works, authors would be encouraged to produce more works, thereby enriching the public domain. When copyright terms are extended to outlandish lengths, such that much of modern culture is still under copyright, the entire point of granting those copyrights in the first place is subverted. Why should they have those rights "whipped away from them"? Because those rights only exist exist at the pleasure of the public!
if i invent a recipe for rhubarb crumble that tastes perticularly delicious and sell it at my restaurant
Your understanding of intellectual property law is abysmal. You can't claim copyright on making a recipe. You could publish the recipe and use copyright to prevent others from publishing that recipe, but you'd have no legal right to prevent others from following that recipe. The way recipes are protected is through trade secret. Not patents, or copyrights, or trademarks; no, you actually have to hide the recipe. Unfortunately, ignorance of the basic premises of copyright are all too common. You sound like those two german dudes who devised an interface cable to hook up a Commodore 64 to a PC and claim that reproducers of the cable must mention their names because they copyrighted the cable under the GPL-- yes, there are people on USENET arguing that one can copyright a particular way of soldering a 6-pin DIN connecter to a male DB-25!
Again i repeat - NOT all social contracts are beneficial and rightful.
So? No one said they were. Unless you're going to actually provide an argument against the specific social contract upon which copyright law is based, you're just engaging in the logical fallacy of Hasty Generalization.
Maybe I'm wrong about what "premeditated" means exactly, but I was under the impression that you actually need to plan in advance for that. What if an opportunity presents itself? (If wishing someone dead in advance qualifies, however, then I guess I did mean premeditated.)
Premeditated doesn't mean proof of "planning" is required. Essentially all that's necessary is to show that the perpetrator had enough time to think about his actions and go ahead with them anyway. Grabbing a lamp and braining your wife in the middle of an argument is second degree. Walking out to the car, getting your shotgun out of the trunk, loading it, then going back inside and shooting your wife; that starts wandering into "premeditated" territory. Making plans, telling others you intend to kill someone, and "laying in wait" are only evidence of premeditation, not requirements.
The site has a photo of two kids in flea market knockoff BDUs. One is wearing set of, probably broken, VR goggles and the other has $7.99 Tasco folding binoculars around his neck.
Not to mention the kneeling kid is wearing BLACK combat boots with his (10 years out of current issue) chocolate chip desert camo... And neither of them is wearing an appropriate BDU shirt, they're just standing around in their brown undershirts... Nor are they wearing headgear of any sort... Nor do they have anything resembling military gear of any kind at all.
It's obvious that they wanted to create a "simulated use" shot but don't even have access to proper uniforms and equipment beyond what they use to play paintball with their friends.
Somehow I get the feeling these people are not going to impress anyone in US military procurement enough to get much more than laughed at.
Indeed, when I could put together a reasonable facsimile of a current issue uniform with full TA-50 gear in less than a week for under $200, it says a lot about their level of sophistication. They seriously would have been better off not trying to look like soldiers, but just wearing decent "outdoorsman" style clothes. Likewise, their web site screaming "THIS PAGE CONTAINS INFORMATION PROPRIETARY TO VERATECH AERO" really hammers home their amateur status. What sort of information are they talking about? Is it patented? Copyrighted? Trade secret? Reminds me of one guy who has this (actually very smart) idea for modularizing military gear, housing, supplies, and equipment using standard ISO shipping containers, but all over his web site he calls them BATTLEBOXES(TM). He's neither manufacturing nor selling these things, yet he thinks protecting the NAME he came up with is worthwhile? People have a really poor understanding of intellectual property law. Another one is two german dudes who keep insisting that the design for a Commodre 64-to-PC interface cable they came up with is copyrighted under the GPL and that anyone selling a cable functioning on the same principles is required to include their names in the literature. That right, they're claiming COPYRIGHT on a particular way of wiring a 6-pin DIN connector to a DB-25!
All anti-air weapons come with radars these days, you're not going to hit a UAV with an AK-47 no matter how good of a shot you are.
Incorrect. As my sibling poster noted, man-portable SAMs are strictly eyeball acquisition, passive IR seek*. Engage you brain for a moment and consider how much electricity a regular old microwave oven needs-- 700 watts, at least. Well, a search radar system would require more electrical power than that, not to mention it would also be larger and quite a bit heavier. The SA-8 Gecko is about the smallest radar guided SAM system you'll find, and it weighs 9000kg, has six wheels, and moves about by means of a diesel engine. I guarantee "terrorists in caves" aren't hiding a single one of these or anything like it.
* The SA-16 GIMLET uses a combined "two color" IR and UV seeker, but is little more than a minor evolutionary dead end designed to overcome flares. Higher definition image-based IR techniques have proven more effective.
Everyone always says the new guy sucks. It's not a spoiler at all.
You can say that again. Any time anyone changes anything anywhere, the most vocal minority is the crabby-pants children who don't like anything to ever be different saying "eh, the old one was much better". Now, that's not to say they're not sometimes right (e.g. "celery in me pocket" 5th Dr and "Question marks on me sweater" 7th), but in this case they're just showing their inability to deal with change. Tennant is as good as Eccleston, but he's different.
Or "Identity theft" or "Cable theft". They should be "Identity infringement" and "cable infringement". I hate it when something that doesn't hurt anyone is made to look bad.
No, the colloquialisms "identity theft" and "cable theft" are more appropriately described in proper legal terminology as fraud and larceny. But nice attempt at satiric obtuseness, moron. Too bad it was only outright obtuse. Better luck next time.
The current guy is fucking awful though. I mean the show is pretty shit, but his annoying pouting makes it unbearable.
Bah! He's just fine. Not the same as Eccleston by any means, but perfectly good in his own right. By the time I finished watching the second season last week (in all its widescreen XviD compressed glory-- good ol' P2P), I felt like he was the Doctor. If I had to rate them, I'd definitely put him up there in the second rank, under Tom Baker of course. He's certainly not anywhere near as awful as the "Look I've Got Celery In My Pocket" 5th Doctor, or the daft "My Umbrella Has A Question Mark On, As Does My Sweater Vest" 7th Doctor.
This means that the state has the obligation to provide this service for free (i.e. paid for fully from general taxation), and to provide it in a safe environment.
Don't be daft. "Safe environment" doesn't extend to mitigating every single special-needs child's specific susceptibility. IS a school required to provide a separate sterile tunnel system between classes and a bubble desk in each room for a single child with Severe Combined Immunodeficiency? Not a fucking chance.
I know a kid that has a peanut allergy, to the point where ingesting one would mean certain death for him. Close contact with peanuts or anything containing peanut products can result in severe anaphylactic shock, which requires immediate treatment. Even being in the same room as such products can produce a reaction. His school would be downright negligent if it did anything less than ban peanuts.
Some might say his parents would be negligent sending him unsupervised to a place containing peanuts. I'd say that the rights of 300 children being able to enjoy a peanut butter sandwich for lunch easily outweigh the desire to create an artificially peanut-free environment for one single special-needs kid. Parents getting the school to ban peanut products is not taking their child's severe handicap seriously. It's an attempt to shift responsibility elsewhere at others' expense. This kind of "think of the (really 'my') children" attitude is ludicrous.
It works for my digital camera (composite video out) why not your cellphone.
Because if you've got a device capable of displaying composite video, 99 times out of 100 it's a TV set with ESPN available. The point of the portable device is that you can watch it where a TV isn't.
You do realize they did that and verizon was what arose out of the ashes?? Verizon is the eventual merger of at least a dozen "baby bells"
No, Verizon is simply the merger of Bell Atlantic and GTE. You're thinking of AT&T (formerly SBC, originally Southwestern Bell) which gobbled up Pacific Bell and Nevada Bell, SNET, Ameritech, and the empty husk of AT&T.
Not that I outright reject your accusations, but other than blocking ports 80 and 25 do you have any reference for your claims?
That's not enough? That right there is an indication that FiOS is just another asynchronous, open wide and swallow, "customers==consumers", "we talk- you listen" broadband offering.
Well, yeah, but that was when the best weapons were muskets and civilians could (and did) have enough to make overthrowing a government practical. Now, with all sorts of weapons like tanks and missles and fighter planes, it's impossible for civilians to take on the government one on one. Even if the second admendment included tanks and stuff, only the richest could afford them, so I guess the poor and middle class would just have to choose some rich person to give their support, and that really doesn't sound like a revolution.
We've heard that argument a hundred times before, and it's just as silly now as it's ever been. How do you put down a popular insurgency with missiles and fighter planes? Tanks have some limited utility, but for the most part the only way to deal with armed rebels living in and among "the people" is foot troops on the ground-- witness Iraq circa NOW. Furthermore, this argument also automatically assumes that the military is a mindless slave of the government, which isn't really the case. The kind of folks who would actively oppose the government in large numbers with force of arms are exactly the sort of people who you would likewise find in large numbers in the military itself. If it came down to it, you'd find large portions of the military itself joining "the other side". Really, in order for an armed insurrection to take hold, you just need enough people involved to overcome the police forces. Police are the ones indoctrinated with an "us vs. them" attitude towards the general population. This is where the 2nd Amendment really makes the difference. An unarmed populace is very easily cowed by a few cops in riot gear. This is what galls me about the "legitimate sporting purpose" nonsense bandied about by various would-be gun regulation proponents. The purpose of the armed population ensured by the 2nd isn't about hunting, target shooting, or any other "sport". It's about the people having a check against government tyranny, and tyranny is administered by relatively lightly armed civilian agencies like police forces, not the 1st Armored Division rolling around the city in M1A1 tanks.
1) If you use only 2 of the images and change the angles, each eye could be getting a different image. Instant 3D. Nice.
Ugh. Not really nice. For 3D to work you need two images. There is a dividing line in space between the two images. In order for each eye to see a different image, that dividing line must fall between your eyes. You now have only an inch or so of allowable lateral head movement. I challenge you so sit at your desk without moving your head more than an inch left or right for any significant amount of time.
"No, I'm just so disillusioned by society that I don't think anything is done honestly anymore."
Assuming you're right, that means you're probably lying since you're part of society. Assuming you're wrong, means you're mistaken. Thus, your opinion kind of defines itself as irrelevant, huh?
Nice attempt to paint his comment as like unto Epimenides' Paradox, but it fails in that "honesty" and "truthfulness" are not the same thing. All lies are dishonest, but not all dishonesty is wholly untruthful. Further, Epimenides' Paradox is just a philosophical exercise. It very obviously doesn't apply in real life. Liars tell the truth all the time-- you just don't know when.
There aren't enough "Redundant" modpoints in the world to shut you all up. Just stop yelling Dupe, would you? I think it was pretty obvious from second one.
If you want to read about the 500 mile capacitor car, go back to the first posting of the article. Dupe postings are for complaining about the idiot slashdot editors.
I'm going to go out on a limb here, and suggest that's what the 5 minute at recharging stations are for. Probably running 440 or 480 directly off the power lines?
Even at 480v that's in the neighborhood of 2000 amps for 5 minutes. A copper cable that can handle 2000A is HUGE.
But to be fair, is it just me or have they been doing a lot better lately? Certainly I've noticed fewer, and I've appreciated it.
I know it's more fun to bitch about people, but you ought to hand out some kudos every once in a while too. We could do with a bit more of that on the Intarweb.
Doing the bare minimum at your job is not a praiseable accomplishment. The reward for not being lousy at your job should be continued employment.
Put a capacitor in your home and charge it up at night. Transfer the power to your car in five minutes from your trickle charge capacitor.
Although this still doesn't address the safety issues.
There's no safe way to transfer 90kwH of electricity in 5 minutes without enormous expense. If you "split it down the middle" you're still looking at over 1000 volts at 1000 amps, which means a copper cable the size of your arm carrying voltage that'll jump out through an insulation fault and KILL you if the humidity is high.
Slashdot Mirror
* corporations that have bought up all the family farms, that is
** fair defined as "we like the prices wheat went for back when farming was hard, 100 years ago; now that technology allows us to grow 10x the wheat with the same effort, we think we should be making 10x the money, market be damned"
"...for a term of 14 years with an option to extend an additional 14 years..."
than it is to change the numbers in a law that says:
"...for a term of 5 years plus 1 year for every 10 million copies sold..."?
Your understanding of intellectual property law is abysmal. You can't claim copyright on making a recipe. You could publish the recipe and use copyright to prevent others from publishing that recipe, but you'd have no legal right to prevent others from following that recipe. The way recipes are protected is through trade secret. Not patents, or copyrights, or trademarks; no, you actually have to hide the recipe. Unfortunately, ignorance of the basic premises of copyright are all too common. You sound like those two german dudes who devised an interface cable to hook up a Commodore 64 to a PC and claim that reproducers of the cable must mention their names because they copyrighted the cable under the GPL-- yes, there are people on USENET arguing that one can copyright a particular way of soldering a 6-pin DIN connecter to a male DB-25!
It's obvious that they wanted to create a "simulated use" shot but don't even have access to proper uniforms and equipment beyond what they use to play paintball with their friends. Indeed, when I could put together a reasonable facsimile of a current issue uniform with full TA-50 gear in less than a week for under $200, it says a lot about their level of sophistication. They seriously would have been better off not trying to look like soldiers, but just wearing decent "outdoorsman" style clothes. Likewise, their web site screaming "THIS PAGE CONTAINS INFORMATION PROPRIETARY TO VERATECH AERO" really hammers home their amateur status. What sort of information are they talking about? Is it patented? Copyrighted? Trade secret? Reminds me of one guy who has this (actually very smart) idea for modularizing military gear, housing, supplies, and equipment using standard ISO shipping containers, but all over his web site he calls them BATTLEBOXES(TM). He's neither manufacturing nor selling these things, yet he thinks protecting the NAME he came up with is worthwhile? People have a really poor understanding of intellectual property law. Another one is two german dudes who keep insisting that the design for a Commodre 64-to-PC interface cable they came up with is copyrighted under the GPL and that anyone selling a cable functioning on the same principles is required to include their names in the literature. That right, they're claiming COPYRIGHT on a particular way of wiring a 6-pin DIN connector to a DB-25!
* The SA-16 GIMLET uses a combined "two color" IR and UV seeker, but is little more than a minor evolutionary dead end designed to overcome flares. Higher definition image-based IR techniques have proven more effective.