If you enable people to make illegal copies of their copyright material, and to find more people to make illegal copies from, and you make money from it, how is that not stealing?
The prosecutor can be more distinctive about the term he wants to use, but since the money you collected belongs to the copyright holders, it doesn't matter that you invented the machine that made you that money.
And my point stands. The idea that stifling crime is stifling innovation therefore it shouldn't be a crime is a canard.
You can't expect a document where everything is redacted to be taken seriously.
Yes you can. As long as it's not literally everything.
But I can't expect an organizaton that pretends to be fighting tyranny and human rights abuses to be taken seriously when it acts in such a way to cause mass murder and torture.
Which is why I protested the American government's actions in rendition and torture following 9/11, torture in the Iraq war, etc.
And why I protest Wikileaks' hasty and careless releasing of information that can be used by the tyrants to identify people who have given information to the tyrants' enemies.
I can't take Wikileaks seriously if it's more interested in publicity and ego gratification than in keeping good people from dying.
While wikileaks was anonymizing its sources, it wasn't anonymizing anyone else in the documents who deserved not to be revealed.
That simple failure to apply the same standard to strangers as it does to its resources makes wikileaks incompetent to be the conduit for such information.
You claim that WL hasn't acted like a "normal charitable organisation". I'm sorry? What? They are an organisation trying to change the way governments (of all flavours) deal with their citizenry
Depends what you look at. One table in the Energy in the United States article in Wikipedia, Consumption Summary, simply says 1% of electricity is produced by oil But if you add up all the % of annual production from petroleum sources in another table in the same page, Electrical Production in the United States for 2006, you get over 2%.
It's still not much. But that second table actually says we're underutilizing our oil-burning plant capacity, and could be generating twice that much electricity from oil.
I've seen two other articles saying the "you're holding it wrong" problem had been fixed in the Verizon phones. I thought the/. headline was just another submission mistake. Guess not...
The Internet is a right. Finland made it a legal right. The UN says it's a human right. French courts have ruled it's a fundamental right. The US told Egypt it's a right. 80% of Earthers polled say it's a right.
Cutting off people's communications to dull their abilty to wage politics is one of those things no government should have the right to do. And that means that the internet is a right.
Now, since the internet requires infrastructure, there's some question as to how it gets built out to you, but that's logistics, not law. Nobody said the "free" in "freedom" meant "gratis". Once you have access to it, the government can't arbitrarily take that away. That's what rights are.
Remember, Hollywood is the land of hype. It makes itself look more profitable and important than it is, because that helps it sell itself and its products.
The entire annual gross revenue of movies from the MPAA member studios (about $10 billion) is only a little bigger than Google's annual profit (about $7 billion).
I'll say that again: Google's PROFIT is almost as big as Hollywood's REVENUE.
Now, that doesn't include TV, home-video, and merchandising. But it should indicate that Google has a lot more say in how a head-to-head fight would go.
Think of it this way. If Hollywood decided to start a software company and search engine and ad reseller and hire away Google's talent to do it, how would it do? And if Google decided to start a movie studio and hire away Hollywood's talent to do it, how would it do? Google's people are all salaried and sinecured. Hollywood's are a ravenous band of nomadic, mercenary contractors who go to the highest bidder without any concern for loyalty or decorum. And, once you've got the talent in place, good movies make themselves better without corporate involvement, since they make money by pulling in small but distinct segments of the overall market. But a Google-alike has to be able to please the entire planet all at once, something no Hollywood suit has ever accomplished and never will.
Google would win, and end up owning both industries.
Um...stay amused. Your characterization of me couldn't be more wrong (hint: my work is on-orbit right now). It's got nothing to do with sci-fi, and everything to do with sci-ence.
JAXA's solar-sail thing was spectacular. This, spectacular #fail.
The other ideas in TFA (attaching a drag balloon to a satellite to increase the rate at which its orbit decays, and using a self-propelled satellite with detachable butterfly nets to snag individual objects and deorbit them) actually make more physical sense, but still come out #fail. The balloon is susceptible to pinholes from other space-junk (and it's everywhere), and the satellite would have to be one huge propulsion tank to make more than a few orbital changes, and with 200 nets it would be chasing fiddling small junk, and just sounds super expensive for what it's after.
One big net with no smarts just doesn't make any sense at all if you know how space works.
That or all future games are going to have online-connection necessary DRM.
Angry Birds does this. I don't think it's intentional, but if you don't have a working connection, parts of it* don't load. At least, the first time.
(In particular, they implemented the xmas portion of Angry Birds Seasons as a sort of advent calendar, where you got each sublevel on a different day; if you didn't have your Internet on (and I don't because when you go Airplane mode it can't load ads and you don't see them), you didn't get the level.)
I see no reason for any game maker not to rely on a working internet connection any more.
There's also the fact that nets don't work on a velocity basis. They work by acceleration. That is, the net moves at one velocity, the water moves at another, and the fish, when it contacts the net, is now stuck between two forces acting on it in opposite directions. It's being accelerated by water drag, and held in place by the net.
This space-net would have to be "sticky" in order to keep anything it captures in contact with it. So either it folds up around it, which means game-over for catching anything else, or it has some exotic means of latching onto randomly-sized and -shaped things.
Plus, again, if it has no propulsion system, then after it hits the first object it will have an unknown orbit. Inelastic collision of a rigid object and a floppy object will give you a wide range of resultant velocities.
The more I look at this idea, the more I think it's the result of the Japanese version of April Fool's Day. Unlike that day when they all go out and worship the giant penis effigies. That's totally legit.
Life has many meanings. Cells are alive. People are alive. People are made of cells. So are you still alive when your brain and heart have been destroyted but your toenails are still growing?
So if a virus, which needs you to "live", isn't alive when it's in you, are the cells that produce your toenails ever alive?
Slashdot Mirror
It's only an accurate simulation if 3/4ths of the robot kids are delivered 9 months after a surprise announcement that the recipient was getting one.
If you enable people to make illegal copies of their copyright material, and to find more people to make illegal copies from, and you make money from it, how is that not stealing?
The prosecutor can be more distinctive about the term he wants to use, but since the money you collected belongs to the copyright holders, it doesn't matter that you invented the machine that made you that money.
And my point stands. The idea that stifling crime is stifling innovation therefore it shouldn't be a crime is a canard.
You can't expect a document where everything is redacted to be taken seriously.
Yes you can. As long as it's not literally everything.
But I can't expect an organizaton that pretends to be fighting tyranny and human rights abuses to be taken seriously when it acts in such a way to cause mass murder and torture.
Which is why I protested the American government's actions in rendition and torture following 9/11, torture in the Iraq war, etc.
And why I protest Wikileaks' hasty and careless releasing of information that can be used by the tyrants to identify people who have given information to the tyrants' enemies.
I can't take Wikileaks seriously if it's more interested in publicity and ego gratification than in keeping good people from dying.
TFA is built on the premise that crime would pay if there weren't patents on the crime methods.
Napster? Really?
Napster wasn't hit with a patent suit for its method of stealing music. It was busted up because it was stealing music.
I couldn't read the rest after it started with that. Someone tell me if it redeemed itself.
1300 Wikileaks employees were killed?
http://www.anorak.co.uk/267106/politicians/wikileaks-killed-1300-people-and-counting.html
This guy says that the bank info is not all that impressive or important.
Doubtful it's worth a hanging. Maybe an egging during a G8 summit. Maybe.
While wikileaks was anonymizing its sources, it wasn't anonymizing anyone else in the documents who deserved not to be revealed.
That simple failure to apply the same standard to strangers as it does to its resources makes wikileaks incompetent to be the conduit for such information.
You claim that WL hasn't acted like a "normal charitable organisation". I'm sorry? What? They are an organisation trying to change the way governments (of all flavours) deal with their citizenry
They're trying to act like a government.
Then have no face. Anonymous never seems to need to reorganize. Only Assange's little band of troublemakers does.
Yes. It's likely both.
Depends what you look at. One table in the Energy in the United States article in Wikipedia, Consumption Summary, simply says 1% of electricity is produced by oil But if you add up all the % of annual production from petroleum sources in another table in the same page, Electrical Production in the United States for 2006, you get over 2%.
It's still not much. But that second table actually says we're underutilizing our oil-burning plant capacity, and could be generating twice that much electricity from oil.
So you're saying they should get into making movies anyway.
I've seen two other articles saying the "you're holding it wrong" problem had been fixed in the Verizon phones. I thought the /. headline was just another submission mistake. Guess not...
The Internet is a right. Finland made it a legal right. The UN says it's a human right. French courts have ruled it's a fundamental right. The US told Egypt it's a right. 80% of Earthers polled say it's a right.
Cutting off people's communications to dull their abilty to wage politics is one of those things no government should have the right to do. And that means that the internet is a right.
Now, since the internet requires infrastructure, there's some question as to how it gets built out to you, but that's logistics, not law. Nobody said the "free" in "freedom" meant "gratis". Once you have access to it, the government can't arbitrarily take that away. That's what rights are.
Microsoft is unable to compete with Google. You think those guys have a chance?
Actually, I knew that, and forgot.
So were the cells that make your toenails ever really alive?
Google is several times larger than Hollywood.
Remember, Hollywood is the land of hype. It makes itself look more profitable and important than it is, because that helps it sell itself and its products.
The entire annual gross revenue of movies from the MPAA member studios (about $10 billion) is only a little bigger than Google's annual profit (about $7 billion).
I'll say that again: Google's PROFIT is almost as big as Hollywood's REVENUE.
Now, that doesn't include TV, home-video, and merchandising. But it should indicate that Google has a lot more say in how a head-to-head fight would go.
Think of it this way. If Hollywood decided to start a software company and search engine and ad reseller and hire away Google's talent to do it, how would it do? And if Google decided to start a movie studio and hire away Hollywood's talent to do it, how would it do? Google's people are all salaried and sinecured. Hollywood's are a ravenous band of nomadic, mercenary contractors who go to the highest bidder without any concern for loyalty or decorum. And, once you've got the talent in place, good movies make themselves better without corporate involvement, since they make money by pulling in small but distinct segments of the overall market. But a Google-alike has to be able to please the entire planet all at once, something no Hollywood suit has ever accomplished and never will.
Google would win, and end up owning both industries.
I was going to make the joke "Who's MPAA? Google search turns up nothing."
Then I could say "Bing doesn't have anything either. WTF?"
But it's just too easy.
Um...stay amused. Your characterization of me couldn't be more wrong (hint: my work is on-orbit right now). It's got nothing to do with sci-fi, and everything to do with sci-ence.
JAXA's solar-sail thing was spectacular. This, spectacular #fail.
The other ideas in TFA (attaching a drag balloon to a satellite to increase the rate at which its orbit decays, and using a self-propelled satellite with detachable butterfly nets to snag individual objects and deorbit them) actually make more physical sense, but still come out #fail. The balloon is susceptible to pinholes from other space-junk (and it's everywhere), and the satellite would have to be one huge propulsion tank to make more than a few orbital changes, and with 200 nets it would be chasing fiddling small junk, and just sounds super expensive for what it's after.
One big net with no smarts just doesn't make any sense at all if you know how space works.
That would be silly, but in reality, it doesn't matter if Sony publishes the key. If you use it to steal their product, they can pwn you IRL.
Twitter's pretty unreal.
That or all future games are going to have online-connection necessary DRM.
Angry Birds does this. I don't think it's intentional, but if you don't have a working connection, parts of it* don't load. At least, the first time.
(In particular, they implemented the xmas portion of Angry Birds Seasons as a sort of advent calendar, where you got each sublevel on a different day; if you didn't have your Internet on (and I don't because when you go Airplane mode it can't load ads and you don't see them), you didn't get the level.)
I see no reason for any game maker not to rely on a working internet connection any more.
There's also the fact that nets don't work on a velocity basis. They work by acceleration. That is, the net moves at one velocity, the water moves at another, and the fish, when it contacts the net, is now stuck between two forces acting on it in opposite directions. It's being accelerated by water drag, and held in place by the net.
This space-net would have to be "sticky" in order to keep anything it captures in contact with it. So either it folds up around it, which means game-over for catching anything else, or it has some exotic means of latching onto randomly-sized and -shaped things.
Plus, again, if it has no propulsion system, then after it hits the first object it will have an unknown orbit. Inelastic collision of a rigid object and a floppy object will give you a wide range of resultant velocities.
The more I look at this idea, the more I think it's the result of the Japanese version of April Fool's Day. Unlike that day when they all go out and worship the giant penis effigies. That's totally legit.
Same way they didn't think of all the space junk they were leaving up there, yes.
Life has many meanings. Cells are alive. People are alive. People are made of cells. So are you still alive when your brain and heart have been destroyted but your toenails are still growing?
So if a virus, which needs you to "live", isn't alive when it's in you, are the cells that produce your toenails ever alive?