Does anybody do plumbing as a hobby?
I can hear it now: "I used to like installing PVC drainage pipes but now, well when I get home and find a leak under the sink it's just too much like work to get under there and fix it."
I used to like [building/modifying/hacking] telephone devices, but ever since I started working as a telecom technician, I haven't had the slightest desire to deal with that crap in my spare time.
If I can gather the same facts some other way, I'm entitled to that. I'm only forbidden from accessing your database and using it myself.
How do you propose to tell the difference? If it's a database of, say, US presidents and their cabinets, the lists will be identical. If you compiled such a list and I compiled an identical list myself, you could bring suit in civil court and, if you've got more [money/lawyers/time], I will be barred from using my list of facts. Bad.
I read the bill, and I'm in the news business, and I think it's very bad. The government does not belong in a role of defining what is, and what is not, a legitimate news organization. The freedom of speech and of the press belongs to all the people, not just to a select few, or to specific corporate entities.
Damn straight. Like they say, "freedom of the press" isn't about being allowed to sell newspapers; it's about each and every person being allowed to own and operate their own printing press without the content of their work being regulated.
from the permitted acts section: (a) INDEPENDENTLY GENERATED OR GATHERED INFORMATION- This Act shall not restrict any person from independently generating or gathering information obtained by means other than extracting it from a database generated, gathered, or maintained by another person and making that information available in commerce. so fear not, you'll still be able to get that cute girl's phone number once you learn her name.
Trouble is, there's no way to tell an indepentdently gathered list of facts from an identical list of facts copied in toto from someone else. If the information is published, then the "owner" of the database can claim any similar list was "stolen" whether it was or not, and only those who can afford to defend themselves in civil court will be able to use said list. Law like this will allow entities with deep pockets to take lists of facts and, perversely, reserve them for their own use by making them publicly visible. This is a bad thing.
Perhaps not, but my list of star positions and properties can be very valuable from a scientific viewpoint. I've spent a lot of time, effort, and yes, grant money making observations and compiling very precise catalogs which I can use to make discoveries. Should a competitor be allowed to take and use my data without permission?
Should a competitor be prohibitted from compiling such a list himself the same way you did, and instead be forced to buy licensing for the list from you? If your answer is "no, but only if he does the work himself", then how do you propose to tell the difference between a database of factual information copied from you and the exact same one compiled from available information? The fact that the two are identical is the reason why, historically, facts haven't been copytight-able.
Do you feel that any database you take the time to put together should have no protection whatseover?
How about a database of all US senators and their staff, going back to 1789? Not an easy one to build, but all putely factual record. Should anyone wanting to make a database of the same facts be forced to leave out some facts so as not to violate my copyright? Get real. The problem with copyrighting facts is that there is no way to tell if I copied a database from my competitor or if I gathered the facts myself, as either database will be identical. Permitting copyrights on facts is as absurd permitting patents on elements. I can't patent carbon, but I can patent a method of turning carbon into a nanotube beachball cannon. Likewise, one shouldn't be allowed to copyright a list of US presidents, but a song or a story based on such a list should be copyrightable. Fact-list copyrights will just encourage a "land grab" of fact lists (much like domain names) with people trying to secure the sole right of copying to crucial information.
When will the government stop this capitalism run amok?
This isn't capitalism run amok. It's legislation run amok. Corp's are buying law to give them monopoly power over information. Corp's buying off government isn't capitalism.
The point that everyone is missing, not helped at all by the article headline, is that this is about databases, not individual facts. Facts will still not be able to be copyrighted, just collections of them. Doesn't make the bill much better, but it's an important distinction.
The question is, at what point does a collection of facts become a database? Is a database containing only the names of all the US presidents copyrightable? How about one of thoracic surgeons in my town? My state? The whole country? Is the test going to be whether or not the database is generating someone an income? That would suck hard.
The answer is: If the engine is turning over, not knocking, not struggling, and isn't being damaged by the gasoline, it _should_ get about the same MPG wether it gets super-duper premium gas, or cheap-n-nasty economy gas.
Of course, that doesn't stop some underhanded gas stations putting crap in the fuel to bulk it up, but that will usually damage the engine. And, if I remember my dateline episodes correctly, such tactics were practiced by all sorts of gas dealers, high and low end.
I had a '67 Dodge Dart that ran BETTER on the crap-gas. I tested it repeatedly on different octanes from different stations. The stuff it liked best was the kerosene-added muck dispensed by no-name gas stations that buy from the russian mafia. It was a perverse and obstinant car in so many other ways, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
It's not perfect, but the Open Directory Project is a better Web directory.
Not sure I'd consider it better. A single site can monopolize the results. For example, if you search for "xyzzy", 80% of the results returned are from the same site (xyzzynews.com) and the "hits" are finding the search term in the URL (e.g. http://www.xyzzynews.com/xyzzy.1f.html##grc). Google, on the other hand, doesn't count URL matches as a "hit", and doesn't spew fifty hits for the same site. It did require me to specify english, though, because apparently "xyzzy" is very popular among the Japanese. To me, a strong aspect of being "better" is the engine's ability to give me results where my search term shows up on the page, rather than just in the URL; and, failing that, I'd like it if one site couldn't show up more than once as a hit so I can skip it.
What Yahoo is taking money for is spidering a site more often. That's it. End of story.
Not end of story. If you'd bothered to read to the end of the sentence in the article you would have noticed the following:
Yahoo will update its index of paying clients every two days, while it may update its listing of other sites once a month. And Yahoo will give paying clients detailed reports on when its users click on their sites
and will help those sites improve their listings.
So, Yahoo is going to help paying advertisers "optimize" their sites for better rankings (i.e. tell them how to skew results in their favor by giving the spider what it wants). This is, to me, the biggest part of the service. The re-spidering seems like a secondary bonus added to make the tweaking optimization easier.
It's not irrelevant. The fact that their software is not freely available gives them a competitive advantage. Suppose Google were to release all their software as open-source. Then, any would-be competitor would simply have to build and maintain a large infrastructure for delivering the services that Google does. Suddenly, Google is competing simply on its ability to build and maintain the service-delivery infrastructure. While they're apparently quite good at this, their edge here isn't nearly as significant as their edge in search algorithms.
It is irrelevant. The debate is over closed source versus open source. In either case, we're talking about the software actually being available. Google's software isn't available as either closed source binaries or as compilable source code. If Google released a closed source binary of their software, they would lose their advantage just the same. Open source vs. closed source is immaterial-- their advantage is that their competitors don't have any version of their software.
Electricity makes a bit more sense if you think of it as a service, like auto repair, but the same principles apply. If you're obtaining electricity without the provider's consent, it's probably through trespass, fraud, or similar unlawful means.
The best way to categorize electricity is as "work for hire". Electricity is quantifiable mathematically as "work", and wages for that work are set by the provider. Not paying your electric bill is basically not paying the electric company for doing work for your benefit.
They are billionaires because the Google search engine is NOT open-source, and because the engine is so well designed. Companies will pay them to advertise on their site. If the google engine had been open-source, there would be dozens, if not hundreds, of "google" searches available, drastically thinning the amount of money generated from advertising.
Google doesn't distribute their search software, so trying to apply the closed vs. open source argument is illogical. Google sells offers services, some of which are free, others of which cost money. Their software is limited to in-house use and is irrelevant to to the debate.
...``Intellectual property'' is also an unwise generalization. The term is a catch-all that lumps together several disparate legal systems, including copyright, patents, trademarks, and others, which have very little in common.
As I see it, the only thing they have in common as "intellectual property" is that they are all things that aren't property, but are treated by some as if they are.
It would be great to come up with some hard and fast rule that prevents this abuse, but I cant think of one. Perhaps some kind of patent lifespan restriction based on company net worth (to prevent a company with ample resources to develop a patented technology from just sitting on the idea).
Wouldn't work. Any big company with significant resources would have little trouble spinning off a subsidiary company with very little net worth whose entire purpose was to hold all the patents and license them and/or hammer competitors with lawsuits. And if you say "any company a big company has controlling interest in" as a caveat to get around this, you run into a catch-22 for small startups: their patents are gone if they get too much investment, but without investment their patents are useless....
Dude, I get modded up to 4 and 5 all the time, and none of my stuff is worth reading, so there's clearly a problem with that theory.
If what you say is true, I should mod your post up for being insightful. But if it's true, it should also be modded down. Damn, let's just drink the iocaine wine and get it over with...
Of course not all of us are "maestros with a musical instrument." Not all of us have practiced with a musical instrument. If you practice, you get good at something.
Reminds me of something my 7th-grade music teacher told us. He said "perfect pitch" is not as rare as we've been led to believe. There are thousands of people walking around with perfect or near-perfect pitch, but it's not really relevant if you don't know the names of the notes. More important than being able to ID notes be ear is the ability to play your instrument. Practice leverages talent; talent alone is worth nothing. Learn to play your instruments, you lazy slobs!
And, as someone who has had extensive experience with batteries, I agree. Never parallel battery cells unless you know how to design the necessary support electronics to prevent one discharging into the other (it can be done but it is complicated and there is always some voltage loss.)
Wouldn't a couple diodes do the trick?
Re:mainly because people are ignorant
on
Mars Rovers Update
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Yes, very nice theoretical data, but it doesn't take into account of sharpnel hitting the RTG.
Shrapnel propelled by an overpressure of 5300psi isn't going to hurt a a hardened unit than can take 19,600psi. The physics just aren't there.
Remember using similar statistical data the US military calculated that the M1 tank was invincible against RPG attacks, yet the Iraqis managed to destroy one in last the war.
I seriously doubt you are privy to the statistical data for either case you mention, and besides, what possible similarity could they have anyway? Nobody in the military ever declared the M-1 Abrams "invincible" to RPG hits. The one incident in Iraq to which you refer was a hit to the engine compartment that resulted in immobilization, not destruction. The only other incident involved a one-in-a-million lucky shot to the relatively thin armor of its armpit joint, the area above the tracks and beneath the deck. This area is covered by skirt armor and is so small that it can't be effectively aimed for, only hit by blind luck. Furthermore, it wasn't an conventional RPG-7 hit in that case-- it was some as-yet-undetermined warhead. Furthermore, in neither cas was the crew of either vehicle injured in any serious way. This is the entire point of the armor in the first place-- crew protection.
Don't forget that you have to pack all of this onto the rover and fold up the panels.
Implement one of these in each fixed panel, not in the panels as a whole.
Another minor problem: this mechanism must be located the width of the panel away from the edge of the panel, i.e. any closer and it wouldn't be able to peel the layer off completely. Imagine, if you will, such a panel sitting before you with the film on it. Grab a corner of the film and attempt to remove it by pulling in a straight line, without letting go, and without moving your hand beyond the edge of the panel. See the problem? The panels, being the largest objects on the rover, would then require some sort of extended outrigger device beyond the panels to hold the reel that pulls the wire. Not an effective solution.
Slashdot Mirror
I used to like [building/modifying/hacking] telephone devices, but ever since I started working as a telecom technician, I haven't had the slightest desire to deal with that crap in my spare time.
How do you propose to tell the difference? If it's a database of, say, US presidents and their cabinets, the lists will be identical. If you compiled such a list and I compiled an identical list myself, you could bring suit in civil court and, if you've got more [money/lawyers/time], I will be barred from using my list of facts. Bad.
Damn straight. Like they say, "freedom of the press" isn't about being allowed to sell newspapers; it's about each and every person being allowed to own and operate their own printing press without the content of their work being regulated.
Trouble is, there's no way to tell an indepentdently gathered list of facts from an identical list of facts copied in toto from someone else. If the information is published, then the "owner" of the database can claim any similar list was "stolen" whether it was or not, and only those who can afford to defend themselves in civil court will be able to use said list. Law like this will allow entities with deep pockets to take lists of facts and, perversely, reserve them for their own use by making them publicly visible. This is a bad thing.
Should a competitor be prohibitted from compiling such a list himself the same way you did, and instead be forced to buy licensing for the list from you? If your answer is "no, but only if he does the work himself", then how do you propose to tell the difference between a database of factual information copied from you and the exact same one compiled from available information? The fact that the two are identical is the reason why, historically, facts haven't been copytight-able.
How about a database of all US senators and their staff, going back to 1789? Not an easy one to build, but all putely factual record. Should anyone wanting to make a database of the same facts be forced to leave out some facts so as not to violate my copyright? Get real. The problem with copyrighting facts is that there is no way to tell if I copied a database from my competitor or if I gathered the facts myself, as either database will be identical. Permitting copyrights on facts is as absurd permitting patents on elements. I can't patent carbon, but I can patent a method of turning carbon into a nanotube beachball cannon. Likewise, one shouldn't be allowed to copyright a list of US presidents, but a song or a story based on such a list should be copyrightable. Fact-list copyrights will just encourage a "land grab" of fact lists (much like domain names) with people trying to secure the sole right of copying to crucial information.
This isn't capitalism run amok. It's legislation run amok. Corp's are buying law to give them monopoly power over information. Corp's buying off government isn't capitalism.
The question is, at what point does a collection of facts become a database? Is a database containing only the names of all the US presidents copyrightable? How about one of thoracic surgeons in my town? My state? The whole country? Is the test going to be whether or not the database is generating someone an income? That would suck hard.
I had a '67 Dodge Dart that ran BETTER on the crap-gas. I tested it repeatedly on different octanes from different stations. The stuff it liked best was the kerosene-added muck dispensed by no-name gas stations that buy from the russian mafia. It was a perverse and obstinant car in so many other ways, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
That is where you cross the line
I'd like to point out exactly where "that" is in the sentence:
myself and my compeptitors agree to keep the price of widgets artificially high.
Some people seem to be missing the part about there needing to be two parties in collusion.
Not sure I'd consider it better. A single site can monopolize the results. For example, if you search for "xyzzy", 80% of the results returned are from the same site (xyzzynews.com) and the "hits" are finding the search term in the URL (e.g. http://www.xyzzynews.com/xyzzy.1f.html##grc). Google, on the other hand, doesn't count URL matches as a "hit", and doesn't spew fifty hits for the same site. It did require me to specify english, though, because apparently "xyzzy" is very popular among the Japanese. To me, a strong aspect of being "better" is the engine's ability to give me results where my search term shows up on the page, rather than just in the URL; and, failing that, I'd like it if one site couldn't show up more than once as a hit so I can skip it.
Not end of story. If you'd bothered to read to the end of the sentence in the article you would have noticed the following:
So, Yahoo is going to help paying advertisers "optimize" their sites for better rankings (i.e. tell them how to skew results in their favor by giving the spider what it wants). This is, to me, the biggest part of the service. The re-spidering seems like a secondary bonus added to make the tweaking optimization easier.I'm guessing it's the same with Yahoo, except $$$ is part of the algorithm too.
If money is part of the algorithm at Yahoo, then it's specifically not the same.
Or worse, cranked-out truck driving paranoid freaks...
Jackson. Jefferson is on the two dollar bill.
It is irrelevant. The debate is over closed source versus open source. In either case, we're talking about the software actually being available. Google's software isn't available as either closed source binaries or as compilable source code. If Google released a closed source binary of their software, they would lose their advantage just the same. Open source vs. closed source is immaterial-- their advantage is that their competitors don't have any version of their software.
The best way to categorize electricity is as "work for hire". Electricity is quantifiable mathematically as "work", and wages for that work are set by the provider. Not paying your electric bill is basically not paying the electric company for doing work for your benefit.
Google doesn't distribute their search software, so trying to apply the closed vs. open source argument is illogical. Google sells offers services, some of which are free, others of which cost money. Their software is limited to in-house use and is irrelevant to to the debate.
As I see it, the only thing they have in common as "intellectual property" is that they are all things that aren't property, but are treated by some as if they are.
Wouldn't work. Any big company with significant resources would have little trouble spinning off a subsidiary company with very little net worth whose entire purpose was to hold all the patents and license them and/or hammer competitors with lawsuits. And if you say "any company a big company has controlling interest in" as a caveat to get around this, you run into a catch-22 for small startups: their patents are gone if they get too much investment, but without investment their patents are useless....
If what you say is true, I should mod your post up for being insightful. But if it's true, it should also be modded down. Damn, let's just drink the iocaine wine and get it over with...
Reminds me of something my 7th-grade music teacher told us. He said "perfect pitch" is not as rare as we've been led to believe. There are thousands of people walking around with perfect or near-perfect pitch, but it's not really relevant if you don't know the names of the notes. More important than being able to ID notes be ear is the ability to play your instrument. Practice leverages talent; talent alone is worth nothing. Learn to play your instruments, you lazy slobs!
Wouldn't a couple diodes do the trick?
Shrapnel propelled by an overpressure of 5300psi isn't going to hurt a a hardened unit than can take 19,600psi. The physics just aren't there.
Remember using similar statistical data the US military calculated that the M1 tank was invincible against RPG attacks, yet the Iraqis managed to destroy one in last the war.
I seriously doubt you are privy to the statistical data for either case you mention, and besides, what possible similarity could they have anyway? Nobody in the military ever declared the M-1 Abrams "invincible" to RPG hits. The one incident in Iraq to which you refer was a hit to the engine compartment that resulted in immobilization, not destruction. The only other incident involved a one-in-a-million lucky shot to the relatively thin armor of its armpit joint, the area above the tracks and beneath the deck. This area is covered by skirt armor and is so small that it can't be effectively aimed for, only hit by blind luck. Furthermore, it wasn't an conventional RPG-7 hit in that case-- it was some as-yet-undetermined warhead. Furthermore, in neither cas was the crew of either vehicle injured in any serious way. This is the entire point of the armor in the first place-- crew protection.
Implement one of these in each fixed panel, not in the panels as a whole.
Another minor problem: this mechanism must be located the width of the panel away from the edge of the panel, i.e. any closer and it wouldn't be able to peel the layer off completely. Imagine, if you will, such a panel sitting before you with the film on it. Grab a corner of the film and attempt to remove it by pulling in a straight line, without letting go, and without moving your hand beyond the edge of the panel. See the problem? The panels, being the largest objects on the rover, would then require some sort of extended outrigger device beyond the panels to hold the reel that pulls the wire. Not an effective solution.