Well, firstly, copyrights cover works that are impossible for a second content creator to *accidentally* independently create. It's impossible for an independent film producer to accidentally re-create a virtually exact copy of, say, Avatar, and it's impossible for a second independent author to accidentally re-write a major novel. It's just impossible. This makes it much easier to verify and keep track of the actual creator of some copyrighted content - i.e. there cannot be meaningful (honest) conflicting claims from two separate authors honestly claiming to have independently written the same book. This is completely the opposite of patents, where actual, honest independent invention is not only incredibly common, it's actually to be expected and happens every day, all the time.
Second, patents are basically effecitvely a priori force-based restraints on using your mind. E.g. an independent software author must now, with every single step, wonder if they're violating patents. This is not true for copyrights --- it's impossible to independently rewrite large parts of someone else's source code --- when you program, as long as you are doing your own work, you do not have to sit and wonder "am I violating copyrights, am I violating copyrights". Likewise, if you want to write a book, and you just start writing using your mind, you do not have to worry "am I going to accidentally rewrite someone else's novel" -- you just write. But with patents, you are effectively required by law to avoid inventing or writing code lest you accidentally violate someone's patents.
Third, patents have become unreasonably impossible to implement. Not only are you bound by a priori restraints on using your mind to create --- i.e. you are required to continually search for existing patents every time you write a piece of code --- but there are so many thousands of patents (something like 40,000 software patents now in the US IIRC?) that it's actually impossible to even know if you're violating the patent, you need a team of patent lawyers continually searching and checking. This is NOT TRUE for copyright, where it's easy to know, because it's virtually impossible to accidentally violate in any meaningful way.
Finally, patents operate on a basis that violates 'innocent until proven guilty', a basic principle of a moral justice system. If a second inventor GENUINELY accidentally re-invents something, according to the patent system, he is automatically guilty even if he wasn't copying --- and no evidence of copying is required. In crime, evidence is usually required. With patents, no evidence is required - being 'first to file' is considered 'evidence', which is nonsense. Copyright, however, does not operate on an 'innocent until proven guilty'.. you need evidence in order to be considered guilty of copyright violation.
Actually, in most cases those 'grannies' are not the ones paying developer salaries. Which, thankfully, is why such ancient tech is actually being relatively rapidly phased out now.
Yes, you could, but you'd also be missing the entire fucking point here completely, which is that none of those other companies OPERATE ANYTHING REMOTELY LIKE FACEBOOK.
"Latin America" and "Africa" - that's pretty broad, we're talking probably a hundred countries with many vastly different systems - can you be more specific? Name a few specific countries where capitalism is like you describe, and we can discuss those in more detail.
On the other hand in a capitalist system, money is power.
Actually, no, it's not. Not at all. Jim Carrey for example is very, very rich - but he has absolutely zero power to set tanks or soldiers on you, no power to imprison you in a compound, he has no power to force you to work or live where he wants you to work or live, no power to even prevent you from accumulating wealth of your own... on the contrary, if he tried any of those things, he would be put in jail.
Sigh, sorry, "mainstream candidates" (lack of sleep). I'm no conspiracy theorist, but given all the other shit Zuckerberg continually pulls, and the bottom line is clear --- FB is not on 'your/our side', so to speak.
Not to sound conspiracy-theory-ish, but it doesn't strike me as that difficult to 'connect the dots'... some of the major investors, and the primary organizers and drivers behind their IPO (e.g. initially Goldman Sachs, later Morgan Stanley), are the same major financial companies that have quite plainly bought off Congress (and the biggest too-big-to-fails), the biggest campaign financers of all the mainstreaming candidates (including both Romney and Obama, and previous candidates), and have strong and direct connections with the Federal Reserve and to central banks and governments in many other major Western economies.
I know it's not a public server, but it works just like a public bar that's privately owned
Yes, just like a public bar but with a billion odd people, it can overhear every conversation and every information and keeps detailed histories thereof, runs algorithmic analysis on the aforementioned, and readily hands all your details to the authorities, but other than that, it's just like a private bar, I can't see any difference.
People aren't complaining because it's 'weird' or 'surprising' - they're complaining because it sucks being permanently monitored big-brother-style.
America is not actually capitalist, but there are reasons why any and every communist country is sheer hell compared to the US (and why you don't see people dying in droves trying to get into Cuba or North Korea).. do you really honestly think you have it that bad? The US has some very serious problems, yes, but I think you're being a bit hysterical.
But that's the thing about amazons robotics system, kiva: it depends on low cost, low capital individual robots than can easily be scaled up and down to meet demand much more than old style systems They also have an extremely broad product range, which also helps deal with downturns for specific product categories
Why do you sound just slightly too much like a product brochure?:)
But in seriousness, the reality is automation will become cheaper, and more and more of the supply and delivery chain will become automated... so what we are basically looking at then, is a future in which vast armies of robots deliver products right to the doors of humans at really low prices? Oh noes! That sounds like a dystopic hell.
OK, in seriousness-seriousness, the obvious concern is that as more and more becomes automated, consumers won't have jobs to pay for those goods. That's where the tax comes in, see... sign up for a welfare program, and buy products from Amazon with the income. Voila, Utopia.. ? Guess we're going to find out in the coming decades.
So we should give up fundamental principles of justice and due process because he is allegedly a scumbag? Then what is the point of believing in principles of justice at all? (E.g. due process, innocent until proven guilty, etc.)
Kim Dotdouche facilitated criminal activity, and he got what he deserve
In WWII, those who smuggled Jews out of Germany also "facilitated criminal activity". Something tells me you haven't quite pinned down the basis of the distinction between "legal" and "legitimate" yet.
It's not really 'sovereignty' that ought to be put first, per se --- it's universal principles of justice, like due process, and not conducting illegal home invasions (i.e. home invasion without a proper warrant, etc.) - regardless of who asks for them. Sovereignty is a bit of a red herring issue, in that it distracts from the more real underlying principles.
People are rooting for 'due process' (which he has been denied, and he has been the target of an illegal home invasion), and you are confusing rooting for justice, with rooting for the individual, an old but still common mistake.
If you or I conduct an illegal home invasion, we rightly get put in jail, so I'm wondering (/sarcasm) who will go to jail for this illegal home invasion. I'm guessing 'nobody' - what we are tired of is officials being above the law, i.e. we live by one set of laws, and they live above those laws.
I use FF on Windows, and honestly, it is extremely solid for me - it very seldom crashes (and when it does, it thankfully session-restores fine). And I regularly have literally hundreds of tabs open at a time, for weeks, months etc. Actually that's one of the reasons I keep coming back to Firefox - little things, like the 'don't load tab contents until you open the tab' become important when you have 500 tabs open.
Or he could just keep doing what he's doing, and you could go off yourself, asshole. If it works, then what business is it of yours dictating what he does, and if it doesn't, then he'll get a job anyway. Seriously, WTF is wrong with you?
Not to point out the obvious, but I believe his goal is not just 'getting as many users as possible', but actually 'paying the rent', having a 'roof over his head', etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, firstly, copyrights cover works that are impossible for a second content creator to *accidentally* independently create. It's impossible for an independent film producer to accidentally re-create a virtually exact copy of, say, Avatar, and it's impossible for a second independent author to accidentally re-write a major novel. It's just impossible. This makes it much easier to verify and keep track of the actual creator of some copyrighted content - i.e. there cannot be meaningful (honest) conflicting claims from two separate authors honestly claiming to have independently written the same book. This is completely the opposite of patents, where actual, honest independent invention is not only incredibly common, it's actually to be expected and happens every day, all the time.
Second, patents are basically effecitvely a priori force-based restraints on using your mind. E.g. an independent software author must now, with every single step, wonder if they're violating patents. This is not true for copyrights --- it's impossible to independently rewrite large parts of someone else's source code --- when you program, as long as you are doing your own work, you do not have to sit and wonder "am I violating copyrights, am I violating copyrights". Likewise, if you want to write a book, and you just start writing using your mind, you do not have to worry "am I going to accidentally rewrite someone else's novel" -- you just write. But with patents, you are effectively required by law to avoid inventing or writing code lest you accidentally violate someone's patents.
Third, patents have become unreasonably impossible to implement. Not only are you bound by a priori restraints on using your mind to create --- i.e. you are required to continually search for existing patents every time you write a piece of code --- but there are so many thousands of patents (something like 40,000 software patents now in the US IIRC?) that it's actually impossible to even know if you're violating the patent, you need a team of patent lawyers continually searching and checking. This is NOT TRUE for copyright, where it's easy to know, because it's virtually impossible to accidentally violate in any meaningful way.
Finally, patents operate on a basis that violates 'innocent until proven guilty', a basic principle of a moral justice system. If a second inventor GENUINELY accidentally re-invents something, according to the patent system, he is automatically guilty even if he wasn't copying --- and no evidence of copying is required. In crime, evidence is usually required. With patents, no evidence is required - being 'first to file' is considered 'evidence', which is nonsense. Copyright, however, does not operate on an 'innocent until proven guilty' .. you need evidence in order to be considered guilty of copyright violation.
This is a patent issue, not a copyright one .. patents are very different to (and far worse than) copyrights.
Actually, in most cases those 'grannies' are not the ones paying developer salaries. Which, thankfully, is why such ancient tech is actually being relatively rapidly phased out now.
I know I know! Because a lot of software developers are, in fact, idiots.
I mean, hello, helloooo?? Did you not comprehend what the whole topic of this entire slashdot thread is about? Stupid AC.
Yes, you could, but you'd also be missing the entire fucking point here completely, which is that none of those other companies OPERATE ANYTHING REMOTELY LIKE FACEBOOK.
"Latin America" and "Africa" - that's pretty broad, we're talking probably a hundred countries with many vastly different systems - can you be more specific? Name a few specific countries where capitalism is like you describe, and we can discuss those in more detail.
On the other hand in a capitalist system, money is power.
Actually, no, it's not. Not at all. Jim Carrey for example is very, very rich - but he has absolutely zero power to set tanks or soldiers on you, no power to imprison you in a compound, he has no power to force you to work or live where he wants you to work or live, no power to even prevent you from accumulating wealth of your own ... on the contrary, if he tried any of those things, he would be put in jail.
mainstreaming candidates
Sigh, sorry, "mainstream candidates" (lack of sleep). I'm no conspiracy theorist, but given all the other shit Zuckerberg continually pulls, and the bottom line is clear --- FB is not on 'your/our side', so to speak.
Not to sound conspiracy-theory-ish, but it doesn't strike me as that difficult to 'connect the dots' ... some of the major investors, and the primary organizers and drivers behind their IPO (e.g. initially Goldman Sachs, later Morgan Stanley), are the same major financial companies that have quite plainly bought off Congress (and the biggest too-big-to-fails), the biggest campaign financers of all the mainstreaming candidates (including both Romney and Obama, and previous candidates), and have strong and direct connections with the Federal Reserve and to central banks and governments in many other major Western economies.
I know it's not a public server, but it works just like a public bar that's privately owned
Yes, just like a public bar but with a billion odd people, it can overhear every conversation and every information and keeps detailed histories thereof, runs algorithmic analysis on the aforementioned, and readily hands all your details to the authorities, but other than that, it's just like a private bar, I can't see any difference.
People aren't complaining because it's 'weird' or 'surprising' - they're complaining because it sucks being permanently monitored big-brother-style.
I think you might have America and North Korea confused: How one man escaped from a North Korean prison camp
America is not actually capitalist, but there are reasons why any and every communist country is sheer hell compared to the US (and why you don't see people dying in droves trying to get into Cuba or North Korea) .. do you really honestly think you have it that bad? The US has some very serious problems, yes, but I think you're being a bit hysterical.
But that's the thing about amazons robotics system, kiva: it depends on low cost, low capital individual robots than can easily be scaled up and down to meet demand much more than old style systems They also have an extremely broad product range, which also helps deal with downturns for specific product categories
Why do you sound just slightly too much like a product brochure? :)
But in seriousness, the reality is automation will become cheaper, and more and more of the supply and delivery chain will become automated ... so what we are basically looking at then, is a future in which vast armies of robots deliver products right to the doors of humans at really low prices? Oh noes! That sounds like a dystopic hell.
OK, in seriousness-seriousness, the obvious concern is that as more and more becomes automated, consumers won't have jobs to pay for those goods. That's where the tax comes in, see ... sign up for a welfare program, and buy products from Amazon with the income. Voila, Utopia .. ? Guess we're going to find out in the coming decades.
The study review, acceptance and publication dates are:
01 September 2011
25 May 2012
11 July 2012
so I don't see how you can say this "old news"?
So we should give up fundamental principles of justice and due process because he is allegedly a scumbag? Then what is the point of believing in principles of justice at all? (E.g. due process, innocent until proven guilty, etc.)
Kim Dotdouche facilitated criminal activity, and he got what he deserve
In WWII, those who smuggled Jews out of Germany also "facilitated criminal activity". Something tells me you haven't quite pinned down the basis of the distinction between "legal" and "legitimate" yet.
It's not really 'sovereignty' that ought to be put first, per se --- it's universal principles of justice, like due process, and not conducting illegal home invasions (i.e. home invasion without a proper warrant, etc.) - regardless of who asks for them. Sovereignty is a bit of a red herring issue, in that it distracts from the more real underlying principles.
People are rooting for 'due process' (which he has been denied, and he has been the target of an illegal home invasion), and you are confusing rooting for justice, with rooting for the individual, an old but still common mistake.
If you or I conduct an illegal home invasion, we rightly get put in jail, so I'm wondering (/sarcasm) who will go to jail for this illegal home invasion. I'm guessing 'nobody' - what we are tired of is officials being above the law, i.e. we live by one set of laws, and they live above those laws.
James Horner .. ?
With FF I'm lucky if I get two days
I use FF on Windows, and honestly, it is extremely solid for me - it very seldom crashes (and when it does, it thankfully session-restores fine). And I regularly have literally hundreds of tabs open at a time, for weeks, months etc. Actually that's one of the reasons I keep coming back to Firefox - little things, like the 'don't load tab contents until you open the tab' become important when you have 500 tabs open.
Likewise, also restores my sessions just fine.
I continually try all the browsers, and somehow I still keep coming back to Firefox --- it's still the best browser.
Strawman much?
Or he could just keep doing what he's doing, and you could go off yourself, asshole. If it works, then what business is it of yours dictating what he does, and if it doesn't, then he'll get a job anyway. Seriously, WTF is wrong with you?
Not to point out the obvious, but I believe his goal is not just 'getting as many users as possible', but actually 'paying the rent', having a 'roof over his head', etc.
No, the problem is that they're wrong, regardless of 'who gets to decide'. It's morally wrong to impose the forced oppression of speech.
We didn't have this "Internet" thing when I grew up, most people didn't even have computers, and somehow we still got hold of porn.