As others have mentioned, there is no need for precedent because once the plaintiff actually started reading the laws, there wasn't much legal ambiguity
Except in general we do need the precedent to remind the litigious bastards that there exist perfectly valid cases of fair-use, and if you start making claims which ignore that, there are consequences.
So often people use this as a bullying tactic, and then settle before a court can rule.
We need more court rulings which reaffirm this, and serve to remind companies that they are under an obligation to understand the law before they make a claim.
So basically someone ginned up what they thought was a banking system only to discover they were grossly incompetent to run it and hadn't implemented anything resembling security?
Or did someone just manage to scam everyone out of bitcoins?
From the sounds of it someone just threw something together which was woefully insecure and allowed for a rather large scale theft.
Real banks have been at this for decades, and even they have problems. Trusting someone who just built one over the last year strikes me as a bad idea.
He had this idea that he was going to retire and then come back and support the system on contract rates. But apparently he pissed off so many people that when he retired they were glad to see him go, regardless of the state of the HMI.
LOL... if you plan for it, it doesn't work. But I've seen systems which have been added onto for 40+ years, which are business critical, and which exactly one person fully understands. And there's the very real possibility that if he dropped dead they'd be dead in the water at the first problem.
I'm certainly not saying it happens in all cases, but I've seen enough cases of it that I do worry.
I've seen several projects to replace aging software which was built in-house fail because at the end of the day the system is so tightly integrated and poorly understood that it's impossible to replace it without spending vast sums of money and disrupting almost every aspect of the business -- because everything else came later and tied into it.
Not long ago I had my car in to the dealer... and the girl at the service desk was telling me the ancient software running on a mainframe and with an IBM terminal emulator had been ancient software running on a mainframe and using actual IBM terminals when she entered the industry 15 years ago.
Sometimes, old stuff is both impossible to replace, and impossible to fully understand. And I bet if I knew actual stats on just how much software which is as old as I am is still in production use, that I would be both startled and un-surprised.
You know, my experience with older technology is you can often teach someone the high-level stuff, but when you get into the really low-level stuff there's invariably a zillion little things which come down to lore and things you've seen before and just know about them but which aren't written down.
I have yet to see any sufficiently old system which is fully documented, actually matches what the documentation says, and doesn't have a bunch of little 'quirks' which prevent the new guy from ever truly understanding it beyond the basics.
Not knowing that you need to jiggle the control rod 3 times and do a quarter turn to the left to operate it is likely the kind of thing which is going to end badly.
Which is precisely why I've known mainframe programmers who retired, started collecting their pension, and then started getting 5x their salary in consulting fees to keep it running for their previous employer. Because, try as they might, you just can't find someone who really grasps the entire system.
I can't tell you how many times in my professional career the answer to "why does this work like this?" has been followed up with "now that's a funny story" followed by a description of some bit of arcane knowledge which nobody else truly understands except the guy telling the story.
Well, your eyes are still at the same position in your head (even if crossed), your cheek bones haven't moved, the bridge of your nose and placement of your ears hasn't changed...
I seriously doubt your O-face makes a huge difference in facial recognition.
If you want to prevent someone from stealing your ideas, you need a patent.
With the caveat that you can only patent something which is a specific thing and implementation, and has to be (well, is supposed) to be a novel invention.
Patents do NOT apply to "a game in which you tap the screen to go up and down and pass through a maze".
There is nothing at all in that game which would (or should) qualify for a patent. Really, this is "side scroller" meets "Joust". It's essentially a game with a single button, and we've had those for decades.
It love your extreme specificity. "Up", "plentiful", "an amazing rate", "almost certain".
Drake himself never said the equation was intended to be used with any extreme specificity.
It's a thought experiment about the parameters, factors, and gross probabilities. Nobody was ever going to punch numbers into Drake's equation and come up with a probability of 87.625% and have that mean anything. The entire equation is intended to be a big huge thumb-and-squint for generating estimates and talking about it.
So, given its purpose and inherent vagueness, it's not intended to be a rigorously scientific calculation, but a back of the napkin calculation for talking about really broad probabilities.
But when your estimate on # of stars with planets goes from "a few" to "many" (or "most"), the whole equation correspondingly goes up.
Even with very small values for all of the terms... across the sheer number of stars in the galaxy, and the sheer number of galaxies in the universe... it becomes almost a statistical certainty that some form of life probably exists (or existed) on other than the rock we call home.
Just 25 years ago, there was a belief only a tiny fraction of stars would have planets. Now, we know that a much much higher fraction does... and if the current estimate is that there are 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars, a small increase in the percentage with planets skews the number of planets which could have life by rather quite a lot.
Perhaps you simply don't understand what Drake's equation actually is?
You can't copyright the mechanics of the game, which is why every successful game gets copied until there's 50 different versions of essentially the same thing.
In fact, I believe this is what Zynga based their business model on -- doing knock-offs of someone else's games.
You can copyright the specific images, but not the mechanics.
Hell, I've got one on my Android tablet called "Happy Poo Flap".
The estimates for how many stars have planets is now up considerably from when he initially postulated it, because back then it was thought only a small portion would have planets.
Now they seem to be quite plentiful.
Not 25 years ago, the notion of finding an exoplanet was still pretty cutting edge, and hadn't yet happened. Now we're adding them at an amazing rate.
Me, given the size of the universe and even what we've learned in the last 25 years... the likelihood that there exists somewhere life on another planet seems almost certain, even if we'll never know about it.
So you picked up one product out of a slew of products and decided to condemn an entire segment of the population for that one (potential) food source for being non-nutritious?
Nope, I've been a vegetarian for 14+ years, and based on extensive review of many vegan options, I've concluded some of it is complete garbage -- a lot of it is great and nutritious, but some of the things designed to stand in place for something else which relies no physical properties are pretty gross.
Specifically, in the case of the currently available egg-replacers, it isn't stuff I'd eat. It's corn starch and other garbage. No nutritional value whatsoever.
See, for many vegans, it's as much political as it is dietary... so as long as it's not an animal product they'll use it.
Which is why they'll buy shoes which are made from various petro-chemicals which are pretty nasty, but at least it's not an animal.
How the hell do you have an egg substitute with no protein?
From what I've been able to see, largely with starches.
There are vegan egg replacers, and I read the ingredients once and promptly concluded that vegans are willing to eat anything as long as it doesn't come from an animal.
I had been thinking it might be a healthy alternative to eggs, but the reality was it was just garbage that I wouldn't eat.
Also, psychologists will frown upon any research where the subjects do not know they are part of a research project.
I'm guessing it depends on the nature of the interaction.
Some guys sitting in a pub knocking back a few can be a talkative bunch, and if you're not inducing them to do anything and serving responsibly... then it's like Jane Goodall watching monkeys, isn't it?
Because I bet a good bar tender can tell you more about people than your average psychologist.;-)
Slashdot Mirror
Except in general we do need the precedent to remind the litigious bastards that there exist perfectly valid cases of fair-use, and if you start making claims which ignore that, there are consequences.
So often people use this as a bullying tactic, and then settle before a court can rule.
We need more court rulings which reaffirm this, and serve to remind companies that they are under an obligation to understand the law before they make a claim.
Or a firing squad.
So basically someone ginned up what they thought was a banking system only to discover they were grossly incompetent to run it and hadn't implemented anything resembling security?
Or did someone just manage to scam everyone out of bitcoins?
From the sounds of it someone just threw something together which was woefully insecure and allowed for a rather large scale theft.
Real banks have been at this for decades, and even they have problems. Trusting someone who just built one over the last year strikes me as a bad idea.
I sincerely hope so, I really do.
But my general lack of faith in humans still gives me pause for concern.
LOL ... if you plan for it, it doesn't work. But I've seen systems which have been added onto for 40+ years, which are business critical, and which exactly one person fully understands. And there's the very real possibility that if he dropped dead they'd be dead in the water at the first problem.
I'm certainly not saying it happens in all cases, but I've seen enough cases of it that I do worry.
I've seen several projects to replace aging software which was built in-house fail because at the end of the day the system is so tightly integrated and poorly understood that it's impossible to replace it without spending vast sums of money and disrupting almost every aspect of the business -- because everything else came later and tied into it.
Not long ago I had my car in to the dealer ... and the girl at the service desk was telling me the ancient software running on a mainframe and with an IBM terminal emulator had been ancient software running on a mainframe and using actual IBM terminals when she entered the industry 15 years ago.
Sometimes, old stuff is both impossible to replace, and impossible to fully understand. And I bet if I knew actual stats on just how much software which is as old as I am is still in production use, that I would be both startled and un-surprised.
You know, my experience with older technology is you can often teach someone the high-level stuff, but when you get into the really low-level stuff there's invariably a zillion little things which come down to lore and things you've seen before and just know about them but which aren't written down.
I have yet to see any sufficiently old system which is fully documented, actually matches what the documentation says, and doesn't have a bunch of little 'quirks' which prevent the new guy from ever truly understanding it beyond the basics.
Not knowing that you need to jiggle the control rod 3 times and do a quarter turn to the left to operate it is likely the kind of thing which is going to end badly.
Which is precisely why I've known mainframe programmers who retired, started collecting their pension, and then started getting 5x their salary in consulting fees to keep it running for their previous employer. Because, try as they might, you just can't find someone who really grasps the entire system.
I can't tell you how many times in my professional career the answer to "why does this work like this?" has been followed up with "now that's a funny story" followed by a description of some bit of arcane knowledge which nobody else truly understands except the guy telling the story.
And, in fairness, you can ask how the home country of The Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution could also be going down the same road.
This isn't limited to the Brits.
They've been treating it as a manual, instead of as a warning.
Guess it depends on which side of the pond you're on.
The left side is one, the right side is two for more or less the same thing.
Unless it's something else you're holding up.
Well, your eyes are still at the same position in your head (even if crossed), your cheek bones haven't moved, the bridge of your nose and placement of your ears hasn't changed ...
I seriously doubt your O-face makes a huge difference in facial recognition.
It did, however, create the new discipline of schmeckle recognition, which shows long-term promise in some areas.
How many fingers am I holding up now?
With the caveat that you can only patent something which is a specific thing and implementation, and has to be (well, is supposed) to be a novel invention.
Patents do NOT apply to "a game in which you tap the screen to go up and down and pass through a maze".
There is nothing at all in that game which would (or should) qualify for a patent. Really, this is "side scroller" meets "Joust". It's essentially a game with a single button, and we've had those for decades.
Drake himself never said the equation was intended to be used with any extreme specificity.
It's a thought experiment about the parameters, factors, and gross probabilities. Nobody was ever going to punch numbers into Drake's equation and come up with a probability of 87.625% and have that mean anything. The entire equation is intended to be a big huge thumb-and-squint for generating estimates and talking about it.
So, given its purpose and inherent vagueness, it's not intended to be a rigorously scientific calculation, but a back of the napkin calculation for talking about really broad probabilities.
But when your estimate on # of stars with planets goes from "a few" to "many" (or "most"), the whole equation correspondingly goes up.
Even with very small values for all of the terms ... across the sheer number of stars in the galaxy, and the sheer number of galaxies in the universe ... it becomes almost a statistical certainty that some form of life probably exists (or existed) on other than the rock we call home.
Just 25 years ago, there was a belief only a tiny fraction of stars would have planets. Now, we know that a much much higher fraction does ... and if the current estimate is that there are 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars, a small increase in the percentage with planets skews the number of planets which could have life by rather quite a lot.
Perhaps you simply don't understand what Drake's equation actually is?
I agree, but, I'm hard pressed to see how I'd have a hard time enduring $50k/day for work I've already done.
But, then, maybe I'm just a greedy selfish bastard. ;-)
You can't copyright the mechanics of the game, which is why every successful game gets copied until there's 50 different versions of essentially the same thing.
In fact, I believe this is what Zynga based their business model on -- doing knock-offs of someone else's games.
You can copyright the specific images, but not the mechanics.
Hell, I've got one on my Android tablet called "Happy Poo Flap".
Don't worry, Disney is working on that themselves ... the copyright extension was just the groundwork.
Now that they own Pixar and Marvel and who knows what else, they're proceeding as planned.
Soon, you may get your wish.
Up, hugely up.
The estimates for how many stars have planets is now up considerably from when he initially postulated it, because back then it was thought only a small portion would have planets.
Now they seem to be quite plentiful.
Not 25 years ago, the notion of finding an exoplanet was still pretty cutting edge, and hadn't yet happened. Now we're adding them at an amazing rate.
Me, given the size of the universe and even what we've learned in the last 25 years ... the likelihood that there exists somewhere life on another planet seems almost certain, even if we'll never know about it.
Nope, I've been a vegetarian for 14+ years, and based on extensive review of many vegan options, I've concluded some of it is complete garbage -- a lot of it is great and nutritious, but some of the things designed to stand in place for something else which relies no physical properties are pretty gross.
Specifically, in the case of the currently available egg-replacers, it isn't stuff I'd eat. It's corn starch and other garbage. No nutritional value whatsoever.
See, for many vegans, it's as much political as it is dietary ... so as long as it's not an animal product they'll use it.
Which is why they'll buy shoes which are made from various petro-chemicals which are pretty nasty, but at least it's not an animal.
Non-compete clauses in the contract which says they have to give all the money back is my guess.
If you're buying a company, you pretty much try to lock up the top people to ensure they can't say "piss on you, I'll just make it again".
When you sell the company, you also sell the IP -- and then they can pummel you for stealing 'their' idea.
So, now we can know which Olympians were hooking up?
Rule #34 bitches, rule #34.
By replacing them with more proprietary bits?
Sorry, but if you want goodwill, you need to make them non-proprietary, otherwise you've just shuffled things around.
From what I've been able to see, largely with starches.
There are vegan egg replacers, and I read the ingredients once and promptly concluded that vegans are willing to eat anything as long as it doesn't come from an animal.
I had been thinking it might be a healthy alternative to eggs, but the reality was it was just garbage that I wouldn't eat.
I'm guessing it depends on the nature of the interaction.
Some guys sitting in a pub knocking back a few can be a talkative bunch, and if you're not inducing them to do anything and serving responsibly ... then it's like Jane Goodall watching monkeys, isn't it?
Because I bet a good bar tender can tell you more about people than your average psychologist. ;-)
Nope, crashing and booming and action makes good space opera (Star Wars was space opera not sci-fi).
Exploring how technology affects our lives and what we do with it, that's sci-fi.