Makes me think he could also dump the ASIC, something even in the heyday of DTV hacking, was never accomplished. You can't dump an ASIC--- that's the very reason they exist in this application. It's not code, it's an Application Specific Integrated Circuit. It's essentially an unknown array of logic gates. The best you can do it try to reverse engineer it, and short of an electron microscope, you probably couldn't.
Well, it's "copyrighted", not "copywritten", which isn't even a word. (Grammar nazi -1) 1. if anything that's spelling nazi behavior
2. it's not a misspelling so much as it is a telltale sign that the writer doesn't know enough about the fundamental concept of copyright to use the right root words, much less offer an informed opinion on the subject. Therefore, it's not nazi behavior to point it out as it demonstrates the posters ignorance of the subject at hand.
I love teachers and have several as close friends. and the union is a horrible monstrosity....[etc..etc..etc] I neither agree nor disagree with you, but the moment people see that kind of ridiculous logic used then all credibility is lost. Let me give you an example.. "I love americans, many of my close friends are americans, but america is a horrible monstrosity [etc..etc..etc]" What a load of twat. My mother is a math teacher for the Los Angeles Unified School District. Ask her her opinion of UTLA. Bring a lunch, it'll take a while. There's nothing illogical about having a positive opinion of teachers and a negative opinion of how their union operates. You are apparently one of those idealist dolts who insists that "the teachers are the union", when anyone who's ever dealt with the reality of behemoth union leadership knows that the rank and file are largely powerless. They have the power to vote yea or nay on contracts, but what good is that when the guys running the union never present a decent contract? Run for union leadership and change that? Sure! I'll do it in the spare 6 hours a day I spend sleeping! Never mind that you won't get anywhere in the organization unless you're a back-room deal maker and a back scratcher--- at which point you're just as bad as the last guy.
No sir, it is clearly you who is peddling "a load of twat"--- whatever the fuck that's supposed to mean, you illiterate tard.
It's been several generations since the last influx of extremely bright and educated scientists (and philosophers) from conquered lands. Well that's kind of a separate issue. You only get scientists if you fight a technologically advanced belligerent. WW2 was essentially the final war to wrap up the last bits of old-timey colonialism. After that, there was nothing to do but fight proxy wars in backwater countries because direct war between the REAL enemies (USSR/USA) was too dangerous. Now that the big first-world enemies are quasi-friendly, we've switched to pursuing the Tenth Crusade: cracking down on a bunch of middle eastern equivalents of illiterate hicks hopped up on crackpot religion. That's just not gonna get us much intellectual return.
The Patent Act of 1790 wasn't the genesis of all patent law. Patents were available prior to that under the former government. You know, when it was still the British colonies in America?
Interesting that Mine Mine Mine is as applicable to the person downloading an artist's work without paying as the reverse. No, given that all artists work with raw materials drawn from our common culture, it's really a case of "Ours, Ours, Ours".
That "temporary protection" is a fundamental individual right. I would love to hear under what philosophical premise you claim the automatic right to prevent others from saying (or singing!) something simply by virtue of you having uttered it first. This violates the first basic premise of natural rights, that the exercise thereof should not infringe upon free exercise of others their rights.
As for the "to promote the useful arts", that the US constitution uses for justification is the same statement that the previous poster stated. It says that the result of your work does not belong to you but that you are working for the public good. Your existence is justified by serfdom to society. In the bad old days, you wouldn't be able to make a living at all if your sole "profession" was telling stories, or simply thinking of a better plow blade shape. The fact that "the public"--- via its proxy, congress--- has deigned to grant you a means of making such endeavors profitable is a favor granted with the understanding that by all logic such information has no market value in and of itself once it passes into common knowledge.
Is because I am an unapologetic defender of individual rights or because I advocate the use of reason instead the use of force? I'm really curious as you probably represent a larger group here on slashdot. My original post was modded down to -1p (Flamebait) from its 2p starting position, so I'm guessing you are not alone and it tends to happen every time I speak my political views here.
So, is it the defense individual rights that offends you or the defense of voluntary trade?
I think it is probably the ridiculous insistence that you have the natural right to dictate what others say or do based simply upon the fact that you said or did it first. You're like the classic overeducated idiot Marxist who continuously insists that all work adds value. Your insistence that you somehow own an idea by virtue of having worked hard to come up with it is ridiculous. You claim to champion reason over force, yet it is you that would have the government circumscribe the actions of others at gunpoint for your sole financial benefit; then you offer no logical reason why this should be the case. If you don't understand the basic premise of what rights are and then claim from your position of ignorance that your opponents are ignorant, yes, you will be modded down.
...it's a temporary monopoly designed as an incentive to contribute to the public knowledge space.
This is I believe the single most repulsive sentence I've read on slashdot. I can only hope that it is based on ignorance. Then I suspect you have not actually read what the US Constitution says about copyright and patents:
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries
Note that this is listed in the powers granted to the congress, not the bill of rights. Copyright and patents aren't rights, they are a bargain struck between the public and authors/inventors. We grant them a temporary monopoly, in exchange for which they disclose the details of their creation. It's pretty damn simple.
What you are saying is that you are only granted a limited right to your own work and ideas in order to work for the interest of others. Insomuch as you expect the government to show up with guns to keep others from duplicating your intangible work without license to do so, yes.
In short you are advocating something that can only be categorized as slavery. No one is forcing you to reveal your intellectual pursuits. You may keep them to yourself forever at no cost.
No, it is not whites forcing blacks to work doing manual labor for them. As repulsive as that was, this is even worse. What you are suggesting is the talentless and the incompetent making slaves out of the able and intelligent. While being condemned to be a slave because of your skin color is bad indeed being condemned to be a slave because of your virtues and your ability is much worse. Utter insanity. Again, you are free to keep your ideas to yourself if you wish them to remain your own. You can keep all those wonderful notions in perpetuity and take them to your grave. Unfortunately, you won't see a dime for them that way, so you'll have to come down with the rest of us rabble and get a job.
Copyrights and patents are defenders of individual rights - they embody your right to your own work and ideas and prevents others from expropriating them without your consent. Your work and ideas are built upon the work and ideas of thousands that came before you. They are artifacts of our common culture. To claim sole creatorship of what is merely the latest twist on an age-old story, or yet another variation of a blues riff in G, or a novel means of using a reciprocating press to stamp out paper shirt collars--- that's complete idiocy. Nobody owns information, and most certainly they don't simply by virtue of coming up with a novel arrangement of the same old shit.
If you don't like the conditions under which a product is sold, the solution is simple: don't buy it. If you don't like the conditions by which information is passed naturally from one person to another, don't sahre the information in the first place.
It is not yours and you do not have an automatic right to it or a right to dictate under which terms it should be sold. Beyond the limited bargain struck by the US Congress, you don't have the right to dictate under which terms your information should be propagated. Information is not the same as real property, no matter how many times you insist it is.
You can't steal it, but if you are able to make an exact replica of it while still leaving my car right where it is, please: be my guest!
If you have a nice car and were hoping that it has a good resale or trade-in value... whoops. That value is now zero, since everybody who would have wanted to buy one from you now has an exact replica or three.
Hoping for a good resale value in the face of evidence to the contrary seems rather foolish, doesn't it?
You do see why the auto maker might be upset about that arrangement, though, right? ...cue the judge's speech from Heinlein's story "Life-Line"...
"There has grown in the minds of certain groups in this country the idea that just because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with guaranteeing such a profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is supported by neither statute or common law. Neither corporations or individuals have the right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back."
It's fiction, not actual caselaw, but philosophically, it's dead on.
(Too bad Bono couldn't have gone skiing a year before his I.P.legislation screwed things up even worse.) Actually, he went skiing 9 months before the legislation was passed. It was named after him after he died as a PR move to cash in on nostalgia and his increased name recognition following his death. Made it easier to pass than naming it (say) "The Mickey Mouse Copyright Protection Act"
Or you're working in an industry (like pharmaceutical) where getting a new drug to market can, and often does, take 10 years (or more) of regulation and clinical trials. And you have to patent it before the trials begin. Fairly simple. On things that require FDA approval before they can be released, have the 5 year patent clock begin upon FDA approval or 10 years, whichever comes first.
Or you could have serious mass production issues with fine tolerances and the like, although you were able to build a working prototype (see the A380 or the Dreamliner for good examples of this). Being unable to mass produce a product profitably is irrelevant. All the more reason to get it out of their inept hands faster and let more capable folks at it.
So maybe there shouldn't be a blanket expiration time. 5 years, or 5 years from [the point of |10 years of trying for] regulatory approval for regulated things like meds.
IP should be limited by category - pharmaceuticals should be "from the end of regulatory intervention", for instance. Probably "5 years from the point of marketability", with the requirement that a functional sample be provided with application would do it. Unregulated things are clearly marketable by virtue of a working sample existing, and regulated things only wait to pass muster.
Hate to burst your bubble, but as a US citizen you DON'T have a right to own guns. Read The Constitution, again, in full...it states the terms in which one is allowed to bare arms, which clearly says only when defending the state within a militia. No, you should read the Federalist Papers, wherein Hamilton himself explains what the 2nd Amd means. The two clauses are related, but independent. The wording of the 2nd was crafted to satisfy two camps in the constitutional convention. The first, concerned with the feds usurping the states' rights to have a militia, and the second, concerned with individual's right to retain arms sufficient to overthrow a tyrannical government--- you know, like they just did, less than a decade earlier.
Ignorant fucks like you, who pretend knowledge of constitutional intent based solely on personal opinion, are the worst. Get a UID, or get a backbone and sign in, you spineless fucktard.
Think airline seats suck? Try webbing sling seats in a C141 (yes, I'm old) or other airlifter. Heh. Yeesh. Thanks for reminding me. For those who have never had the joy, behold. Imagine sitting like this, knees interlocked with the guy in front of you, for 18 hours, with your luggage on your lap! Nowadays those kids have it easy riding the C-17. I made sure to tell them that all the way to Kabul on my final deployment.
... violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Does everything have to be patriotic over there? Even your disability laws? Much of the early spearheading of the proposed act was done by disabled veterans groups. The patriotism/veteran angle is a large part of the reason it passed at all.
James Watt on one of his designs: "It is very defective." No, that was James Watt describing the hasty description of potential steam powered carriage applications for his steam engine patent, included only to keep others out of the steam engine business in any capacity.
Clearly you noticed that the original Watt "quote" was in sharp contrast to reality when you searched and found nothing, but then you didn't even fess up! No, you just took one of his quotes out of context. Quit putting false words in Watt's mouth!
Why isn't fiberglass insulation just as much of a problem as asbestos? Glass fibers in insulation are much larger. You can actually see them if you look closely with the naked eye, whereas asbestos fibers are microscopic.
And while we're at it: Is the level of risk from asbestos exaggerated? Yes. Reasonable caution is definitely warranted around asbestos, but treating it like they do, as if it were some deadly neurotoxin, is ridiculous. People freak out when they hear their kids' school has asbestos in the attic, but think nothing of driving down the freeway with the windows down, sucking in the asbestos from various brake pad and brake lining products...
extrapolation of homeowner risk from cancer rates observed in people who literally worked up to their knees in powdered asbestos would enormously overstate the problem. THis is exactly the problem. The "zero tolerance" approach to asbestos is as asinine as expelling a 3rd grade child for bringing a butterknife to school in her lunch bag because the school has a "zero tolerance" rule for weapons.
Container vs codec epic fail! .divx is both a container AND a codec, for what that's worth. At any rate, everyone knows what he means: why use Apple's shitty proprietary container when you can compress with [divx|xvid|other mpeg4 codec] into a generic container like.mpeg?
Perhaps I've been in the computer industry for far too long, but how could it possibly cost 1.4bn to essentially add access control and a bigger amplifier to existing tech ? They have to build the satellites. GPS satellites have to be replaced regularly. This is the contract to build the latest batch of replacements. Seriously, did you really think they were upgrading the existing hardware that's in LEO?
You put all this technology in your air crafts, your tanks, all your hummers, but when these precious badly defended satellites get knocked out the planes cant fly and tanks, ships and other operations are seriously impared. Seriously? You think we grunts don't know how to navigate with a paper map and compass? You think those planes just wandered around lost before GPS was fielded? Really, GPS is a convenience. All the shit still works without it.
Incorrect. From http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/jdam.htm
"Guidance is accomplished via the tight coupling of an accurate Global Positioning System (GPS) with a 3-axis Inertial Navigation System (INS). The Guidance Control Unit (GCU) provides accurate guidance in both GPS-aided INS modes of operation (13 meter (m) Circular Error Probable (CEP)) and INS-only modes of operation (30 m CEP). INS only is defined as GPS quality hand-off from the aircraft with GPS unavailable to the weapon (e.g. GPS jammed). In the event JDAM is unable to receive GPS signals after launch for any reason, jamming or otherwise, the INS will provide rate and acceleration measurements which the weapon software will develop into a navigation solution."
The military does not depend solely upon GPS for any navigational necessity. We had a half dozen GPS devices in my squad in Afghanistan, but we also had a map and compass and knew how to use them. It's like that all the way up to the B-2 Spirit: use GPS, but don't make it your only resource.
Why didn't they have NASA build it? NASA doesn't build anything it uses any more than the DoD builds anything it uses. The STS orbiter is made by Rockwell. The Saturn V system's stages were built by Boeing, North American, and Douglas. The Apollo modules, North American. The Lunar Module, Grumman.
NASA is not a manufacturer. See, government agencies that need [weapons|spacecraft|*] send out a list of specs and a request for bids. Contractors like Boeing, Northrop-Grumman, and so forth take those specs and create a product. The prototype products, with their associated price tags, are sent to [NASA|DoD|*] for evaluation, and the best product for their needs is chosen for production.
...the engineering team that actually created his legs? Geez. How many body parts can I have replaced before I cease to be a full-human athlete? I guess I could just have a brain wired up with an android and qualify?
I dont like where this is going years down the road. Who cares, really? Olympic sports, especially track and field, are already dominated by such niche "skill sets" that it's all started to lose any meaning. Athletic competition hearkens back to the early early days of man, when the guy with the most "street cred" was the one who was the baddest-ass hunter and/or warrior. The track and field events of the Olympic Games map onto what used to be essential survival skills. Back then, the dude who could track a herd of wildebeest for 3 days at a constant jog, then sprint up to the nearest one and throw a spear into it, then carry the heaviest chunk of animal protein back to the tribe--- he'd be worth his weight in gold, not just a gold medal.
Now they've split up what was once a meaningful metric into multiple categories, wherein each one is dominated by specialists devoting their entire lives to mastering what amounts to one stupid pet trick. That's not praiseworthy, that's fucking SICK! So really, who cares if a guy with spring-legs runs in the Olympics? How is a win by some natural-legged freak whose life has been devoted to building up a particular muscle set more "legitimate"? It's already a celebration of unnaturally developed abilities. Let the prosthetic-equipped freak run with the other freaks.
The next logical extension if this case is allowed to stand is that you can be prosecuted for putting down a book you are reading in a public place and not taking adequate care to secure it.
No, that's distinguishable because of the doctrine of first sale. Though if you failed to secure the book from someone walking up and copying it, his point is valid.
Slashdot Mirror
2. it's not a misspelling so much as it is a telltale sign that the writer doesn't know enough about the fundamental concept of copyright to use the right root words, much less offer an informed opinion on the subject. Therefore, it's not nazi behavior to point it out as it demonstrates the posters ignorance of the subject at hand.
No sir, it is clearly you who is peddling "a load of twat"--- whatever the fuck that's supposed to mean, you illiterate tard.
The Patent Act of 1790 wasn't the genesis of all patent law. Patents were available prior to that under the former government. You know, when it was still the British colonies in America?
So, is it the defense individual rights that offends you or the defense of voluntary trade?
I think it is probably the ridiculous insistence that you have the natural right to dictate what others say or do based simply upon the fact that you said or did it first. You're like the classic overeducated idiot Marxist who continuously insists that all work adds value. Your insistence that you somehow own an idea by virtue of having worked hard to come up with it is ridiculous. You claim to champion reason over force, yet it is you that would have the government circumscribe the actions of others at gunpoint for your sole financial benefit; then you offer no logical reason why this should be the case. If you don't understand the basic premise of what rights are and then claim from your position of ignorance that your opponents are ignorant, yes, you will be modded down.To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries
Note that this is listed in the powers granted to the congress, not the bill of rights. Copyright and patents aren't rights, they are a bargain struck between the public and authors/inventors. We grant them a temporary monopoly, in exchange for which they disclose the details of their creation. It's pretty damn simple. What you are saying is that you are only granted a limited right to your own work and ideas in order to work for the interest of others. Insomuch as you expect the government to show up with guns to keep others from duplicating your intangible work without license to do so, yes. In short you are advocating something that can only be categorized as slavery. No one is forcing you to reveal your intellectual pursuits. You may keep them to yourself forever at no cost. No, it is not whites forcing blacks to work doing manual labor for them. As repulsive as that was, this is even worse. What you are suggesting is the talentless and the incompetent making slaves out of the able and intelligent. While being condemned to be a slave because of your skin color is bad indeed being condemned to be a slave because of your virtues and your ability is much worse. Utter insanity. Again, you are free to keep your ideas to yourself if you wish them to remain your own. You can keep all those wonderful notions in perpetuity and take them to your grave. Unfortunately, you won't see a dime for them that way, so you'll have to come down with the rest of us rabble and get a job. Copyrights and patents are defenders of individual rights - they embody your right to your own work and ideas and prevents others from expropriating them without your consent. Your work and ideas are built upon the work and ideas of thousands that came before you. They are artifacts of our common culture. To claim sole creatorship of what is merely the latest twist on an age-old story, or yet another variation of a blues riff in G, or a novel means of using a reciprocating press to stamp out paper shirt collars--- that's complete idiocy. Nobody owns information, and most certainly they don't simply by virtue of coming up with a novel arrangement of the same old shit. If you don't like the conditions under which a product is sold, the solution is simple: don't buy it. If you don't like the conditions by which information is passed naturally from one person to another, don't sahre the information in the first place. It is not yours and you do not have an automatic right to it or a right to dictate under which terms it should be sold. Beyond the limited bargain struck by the US Congress, you don't have the right to dictate under which terms your information should be propagated. Information is not the same as real property, no matter how many times you insist it is.
If you have a nice car and were hoping that it has a good resale or trade-in value... whoops. That value is now zero, since everybody who would have wanted to buy one from you now has an exact replica or three.
Hoping for a good resale value in the face of evidence to the contrary seems rather foolish, doesn't it?"There has grown in the minds of certain groups in this country the idea that just because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with guaranteeing such a profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is supported by neither statute or common law. Neither corporations or individuals have the right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back."
It's fiction, not actual caselaw, but philosophically, it's dead on.
Or you could have serious mass production issues with fine tolerances and the like, although you were able to build a working prototype (see the A380 or the Dreamliner for good examples of this). Being unable to mass produce a product profitably is irrelevant. All the more reason to get it out of their inept hands faster and let more capable folks at it.
So maybe there shouldn't be a blanket expiration time. 5 years, or 5 years from [the point of |10 years of trying for] regulatory approval for regulated things like meds.
IP should be limited by category - pharmaceuticals should be "from the end of regulatory intervention", for instance. Probably "5 years from the point of marketability", with the requirement that a functional sample be provided with application would do it. Unregulated things are clearly marketable by virtue of a working sample existing, and regulated things only wait to pass muster.
Ignorant fucks like you, who pretend knowledge of constitutional intent based solely on personal opinion, are the worst. Get a UID, or get a backbone and sign in, you spineless fucktard.
... violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Does everything have to be patriotic over there? Even your disability laws? Much of the early spearheading of the proposed act was done by disabled veterans groups. The patriotism/veteran angle is a large part of the reason it passed at all.Clearly you noticed that the original Watt "quote" was in sharp contrast to reality when you searched and found nothing, but then you didn't even fess up! No, you just took one of his quotes out of context. Quit putting false words in Watt's mouth!
-Vengeful Steam Nerd!
Incorrect. From http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/jdam.htm
"Guidance is accomplished via the tight coupling of an accurate Global Positioning System (GPS) with a 3-axis Inertial Navigation System (INS). The Guidance Control Unit (GCU) provides accurate guidance in both GPS-aided INS modes of operation (13 meter (m) Circular Error Probable (CEP)) and INS-only modes of operation (30 m CEP). INS only is defined as GPS quality hand-off from the aircraft with GPS unavailable to the weapon (e.g. GPS jammed). In the event JDAM is unable to receive GPS signals after launch for any reason, jamming or otherwise, the INS will provide rate and acceleration measurements which the weapon software will develop into a navigation solution."
The military does not depend solely upon GPS for any navigational necessity. We had a half dozen GPS devices in my squad in Afghanistan, but we also had a map and compass and knew how to use them. It's like that all the way up to the B-2 Spirit: use GPS, but don't make it your only resource.
NASA is not a manufacturer. See, government agencies that need [weapons|spacecraft|*] send out a list of specs and a request for bids. Contractors like Boeing, Northrop-Grumman, and so forth take those specs and create a product. The prototype products, with their associated price tags, are sent to [NASA|DoD|*] for evaluation, and the best product for their needs is chosen for production.
...the engineering team that actually created his legs? Geez. How many body parts can I have replaced before I cease to be a full-human athlete? I guess I could just have a brain wired up with an android and qualify? I dont like where this is going years down the road. Who cares, really? Olympic sports, especially track and field, are already dominated by such niche "skill sets" that it's all started to lose any meaning. Athletic competition hearkens back to the early early days of man, when the guy with the most "street cred" was the one who was the baddest-ass hunter and/or warrior. The track and field events of the Olympic Games map onto what used to be essential survival skills. Back then, the dude who could track a herd of wildebeest for 3 days at a constant jog, then sprint up to the nearest one and throw a spear into it, then carry the heaviest chunk of animal protein back to the tribe--- he'd be worth his weight in gold, not just a gold medal. Now they've split up what was once a meaningful metric into multiple categories, wherein each one is dominated by specialists devoting their entire lives to mastering what amounts to one stupid pet trick. That's not praiseworthy, that's fucking SICK! So really, who cares if a guy with spring-legs runs in the Olympics? How is a win by some natural-legged freak whose life has been devoted to building up a particular muscle set more "legitimate"? It's already a celebration of unnaturally developed abilities. Let the prosthetic-equipped freak run with the other freaks.