Re:And this is the same for copyrights.
on
Patents That Kill
·
· Score: 1
Finally, everyone remember radio? Radio was invented way before it was it actually became reality. Why? Because everyone had patents on different parts of the radio and they didn't want to collaborate. I hear it wasn't until around WWI that the government stepped in to be able to use it for the military.
IIRC something similar happened with aviation. It goes back rather further than that. Patents had a big influence on the first road vehicles at the beginning of the 19th century.
Notice that most of these weren't fingerprint scanners or retinal scanners-- they were stuff like gait monitors, or even more bizarre stuff, like listening to your heartbeat. So, if you twist your ankle--or even buy a new pair of shoes-- you're out of luck.
Other clothing changes could affect gait. As could anything else you are carrying both in pockets or in your hands.
Taking pseudoephedrine for a cold? Ooops, your heartrate is different. You're locked out.
Plenty of other things can affect your heart rate, no drugs required.
Funny thing about (good) science - It doesn't simply dismiss new ideas simply because they disagree with existing theories.
Nor dogmatically cling to "theories" in the face of evidence that they are at least incomplete.
Oh, but for the first time in human history we have it right?
Such an assumption does, unfortunatly, happen fairly frequently.
Typically with at least one logical fallacy involved.
Hence you end up with poor, junk even actual pseudo-science passed of as being good "science".
As a sysadmin, running the current version -1 is the safe bet for most businesses. The problem is that few businesses have an upgrade path, policy or methodology so you end up being current version -2 or -3 because no-one is willing to sign off on an upgrade.
Its not that we dont want to upgrade, its that management dont want any disruption to anything.
Possibly also the managment does not want to spend the money on testing to ensure that any disruption is minimised. Especially when one "upgrade" can require all sorts of consequential changes. Be they upgrading something else or changing obscure settings to maintain the status quo.
So they refuse to allow upgrades until eventually the manufacturer forces the issue (and sometimes not even then). As for running out of date versions of Java (or anything else) it's always due to one legacy application that relies on that version and that version only. Its always a critical application that was written by some rock star developer a few years ago and since that developer left a few years ago no-one know how it works or how to upgrade it to function with a more current version of Java.
They may not even be an inhouse developer. Though if they are an external vendor you might be left to guess that that is the most likely possibility. Or they no longer "support" your version, but their latest version requires you to make a major migration, but is very different from the current version anyway.
From my experience so far, IE11 with default settings renders far more like Firefox/Safari than any prior version of IE. A lot of the brokenness probably comes down to web apps detecting IE, then serving content designed for old, broken IE. When new, standards-compliant IE becomes more widespread, people can just remove the code for supporting bad old IE altogether.
Or they could fix the broken version detection code, so that it only does that with actually "broken" versions of IE.
Don't want your ISP looking at your emails? Encrypt your emails.
Probably best avoid using their webmail option.
Don't have the ability to understand how to encrypt your emails and want someone to manage it for you because technology is all so hard but you still want to use it? Suck it up and learn, or pay someone to do it for you and stop whining about your own ignorance.
Of course with the latter option you may find out that you have gained little or no security... There's also the problem that you can't do much about emails people send to you.
That Israel has been manipulating public opinion through its control of the media is obvious at this stage.
Zionist propaganda has probably been influencing the media for at least a century. It, no doubt, played it's part in the creation of Israel in 1948.
Look how far from the discussion is the fact that this whole conflict started with an escalation over the murdered teenagers. Murders that, to this day, have not been investigated.
There dosn't appear to be any obvious connection between these murders and Gaza either.
What do most Americans know about the background to the Israel Palestinian conflict, which has been going for 67 years?
That's as long as it could have gone on for. Considering Israel didn't exist prior to 1948. Though Zionist terrorist groups appear to have been active since the 1920's
To replicate an experiment, you take the description of the conditions, tasks, environment, fixed independent and dependent variables, analytical method and results provided by the original experimenter in the (peer-reviewed) paper they published.
If you can show the same results, with the same statistical significance, then it's reasonable to assume that the experiment shows a valid scientific phenomenon.
If you can't then one of the two experiments got it wrong and more work is needed.
Actually it would be at least one of the two "got it wrong".
I once read a study that claimed that porn makes people have a callous attitude towards women. To 'prove' this, they asked college students how long rapists should be sent to prison. Then, they showed those students some porn videos. Afterwards, they asked the same question, and some of them supported reduced sentences for rapists. The arbitrary, subjective conclusion they came to in the face of the subjective data they gathered using biased methods was that porn makes people callous towards women.
Did they have a control group who were shown other videos for the same length of time? Were there any cases of the subjects increasing thei sentence length on the second round of questioning? Was it clear to everyone exactly what the definition of "rape" being used was?
For example, try extrapolating behavior from 2 billion young men to older women. You can have huge sample sizes and yet still have sample bias simply because you've excluded an important category (such as the people you actually wanted to study).
Even if you try hard for a "representative sample" you can still have a problem where you lack a "box" to "tick" for something which turns out to be important.
I think that too many "studies" set out to prove a hypothesis instead of test a hypothesis. The drive to prove something puts bias into the study and skews the outcome. No one wants to be proven wrong. This is especially important when the measurements are subjective as in many psychology studies.
But hardly confined to "psychology". Possibly even not confined to "soft" sciences. Since attempts at falsification can easily turn out to be very politically incorrect.
With our Military starved for funds, our schools in shambles, and our infrastructure crumbling, I can think of no better use for Federal tax dollars then to ensure that some corporation makes a profit.
Their biggest loss will be the revenue lost from all the people that will get to see ahead of time what a turd this will be - BEFORE the Hollywood Bullshit Mega-Hype Machine has a chance to launch the hypnotic media assault that will try to trick the masses into thinking it's a good movie.
With the irony being that tame reviewers and those who nominate for industry awards are often able to see the thing in advance anyway.
Make it 10 times the retail cost of the copyright infringed item plus court costs and call it a day. But the person sueing has to prove that you're the one that infringed copyright. Not just a blind IP address.
Of course for something which isn't released the "retail cost" is zero. With the "plus court costs" bit probably not being applicable with vexatious litigation either.
a) a book downloaded million times even before it's out would also be sold in millions of copies because it is clearly a most wanted book;
That would also be a good thing if you were a new or relativly unknown author. Since for these people the biggest problem can be getting their books published in the first place. Something which "self publishing" can help with. Though in such a situation you don't know how many of those people would have bought the book. You can't even know if it would have been so popular as a free ebook in the Amazon Kindle store.
Or maybe someone should tell you that if they spend millions of dollars on something it is their right to sit on it as long as they want to.
The question isn't if they have the right to do so. It's if doing so is a sensible way to go about making money from movies. Which is ostensivly what Liongate is doing.Where rights may come into it is that courts in places such as Canada take a very dim view of suing for copyright infringement in relation to products which arn't "on sale" in the first place.
I'll LMAO when the reveal comes that the leaked copy turns out to have little, if anything, to do with the actual movie they release.
Alternativly maybe someone should just tell them that "sitting on" a completed movie might not be the most sensible of business models in the first place.
Auto theft is primarily driven by economics, the demand for parts, rather than a desire to have the vehicle intact.
It's possible for a vehicle to be worth more as parts than as a complete vehicle. As well as being less tracable in that form. Keeping a vehicle largely intact would probably require it to be given the identity of a scrapped one. So that would also tend to make popular models more likely to be stolen.
Slashdot Mirror
Finally, everyone remember radio? Radio was invented way before it was it actually became reality. Why? Because everyone had patents on different parts of the radio and they didn't want to collaborate. I hear it wasn't until around WWI that the government stepped in to be able to use it for the military.
IIRC something similar happened with aviation.
It goes back rather further than that. Patents had a big influence on the first road vehicles at the beginning of the 19th century.
Notice that most of these weren't fingerprint scanners or retinal scanners-- they were stuff like gait monitors, or even more bizarre stuff, like listening to your heartbeat. So, if you twist your ankle--or even buy a new pair of shoes-- you're out of luck.
Other clothing changes could affect gait. As could anything else you are carrying both in pockets or in your hands.
Taking pseudoephedrine for a cold? Ooops, your heartrate is different. You're locked out.
Plenty of other things can affect your heart rate, no drugs required.
Or it is alarmism.
That appears to come as standard with environmentalism.
Could threaten zooplankton doesn't mean it will or is likely to.
It also dosn't rule out the possibility of some benefit either.
Take every news story with some skepticism.
That is unlikely to be PC.
I've been pointing out that the current rash of cryptocurrencies have excessive reliance on trust for the past year.
Something which is rather ironic given that trust is an important issue with cryptography.
I always hear managers and programmers say, "We'll just automate it!"
The word "just" can cover a multitude of sins.
Funny thing about (good) science - It doesn't simply dismiss new ideas simply because they disagree with existing theories.
Nor dogmatically cling to "theories" in the face of evidence that they are at least incomplete.
Oh, but for the first time in human history we have it right?
Such an assumption does, unfortunatly, happen fairly frequently. Typically with at least one logical fallacy involved. Hence you end up with poor, junk even actual pseudo-science passed of as being good "science".
As a sysadmin, running the current version -1 is the safe bet for most businesses. The problem is that few businesses have an upgrade path, policy or methodology so you end up being current version -2 or -3 because no-one is willing to sign off on an upgrade.
Its not that we dont want to upgrade, its that management dont want any disruption to anything.
Possibly also the managment does not want to spend the money on testing to ensure that any disruption is minimised. Especially when one "upgrade" can require all sorts of consequential changes. Be they upgrading something else or changing obscure settings to maintain the status quo.
So they refuse to allow upgrades until eventually the manufacturer forces the issue (and sometimes not even then). As for running out of date versions of Java (or anything else) it's always due to one legacy application that relies on that version and that version only. Its always a critical application that was written by some rock star developer a few years ago and since that developer left a few years ago no-one know how it works or how to upgrade it to function with a more current version of Java.
They may not even be an inhouse developer. Though if they are an external vendor you might be left to guess that that is the most likely possibility. Or they no longer "support" your version, but their latest version requires you to make a major migration, but is very different from the current version anyway.
From my experience so far, IE11 with default settings renders far more like Firefox/Safari than any prior version of IE. A lot of the brokenness probably comes down to web apps detecting IE, then serving content designed for old, broken IE. When new, standards-compliant IE becomes more widespread, people can just remove the code for supporting bad old IE altogether.
Or they could fix the broken version detection code, so that it only does that with actually "broken" versions of IE.
If you can make IE work that is - today it doesn't even work well with M$ services.
Using IE8 or IE9 often appears to be an effective workaround here. For some reason webmail appears especially troublesome with IE10 and IE11.
Yeah ... except that your spy van in your target's parking lot housing the high speed camera and its zooming lens will be obvious.
Why should a high speed camera look any different from a regular one?
Don't want your ISP looking at your emails? Encrypt your emails.
Probably best avoid using their webmail option.
Don't have the ability to understand how to encrypt your emails and want someone to manage it for you because technology is all so hard but you still want to use it? Suck it up and learn, or pay someone to do it for you and stop whining about your own ignorance.
Of course with the latter option you may find out that you have gained little or no security...
There's also the problem that you can't do much about emails people send to you.
That Israel has been manipulating public opinion through its control of the media is obvious at this stage.
Zionist propaganda has probably been influencing the media for at least a century. It, no doubt, played it's part in the creation of Israel in 1948.
Look how far from the discussion is the fact that this whole conflict started with an escalation over the murdered teenagers. Murders that, to this day, have not been investigated.
There dosn't appear to be any obvious connection between these murders and Gaza either.
What do most Americans know about the background to the Israel Palestinian conflict, which has been going for 67 years?
That's as long as it could have gone on for. Considering Israel didn't exist prior to 1948. Though Zionist terrorist groups appear to have been active since the 1920's
To replicate an experiment, you take the description of the conditions, tasks, environment, fixed independent and dependent variables, analytical method and results provided by the original experimenter in the (peer-reviewed) paper they published. If you can show the same results, with the same statistical significance, then it's reasonable to assume that the experiment shows a valid scientific phenomenon.
If you can't then one of the two experiments got it wrong and more work is needed.
Actually it would be at least one of the two "got it wrong".
I once read a study that claimed that porn makes people have a callous attitude towards women. To 'prove' this, they asked college students how long rapists should be sent to prison. Then, they showed those students some porn videos. Afterwards, they asked the same question, and some of them supported reduced sentences for rapists. The arbitrary, subjective conclusion they came to in the face of the subjective data they gathered using biased methods was that porn makes people callous towards women.
Did they have a control group who were shown other videos for the same length of time? Were there any cases of the subjects increasing thei sentence length on the second round of questioning? Was it clear to everyone exactly what the definition of "rape" being used was?
For example, try extrapolating behavior from 2 billion young men to older women. You can have huge sample sizes and yet still have sample bias simply because you've excluded an important category (such as the people you actually wanted to study).
Even if you try hard for a "representative sample" you can still have a problem where you lack a "box" to "tick" for something which turns out to be important.
I think that too many "studies" set out to prove a hypothesis instead of test a hypothesis. The drive to prove something puts bias into the study and skews the outcome. No one wants to be proven wrong. This is especially important when the measurements are subjective as in many psychology studies.
But hardly confined to "psychology". Possibly even not confined to "soft" sciences. Since attempts at falsification can easily turn out to be very politically incorrect.
With our Military starved for funds, our schools in shambles, and our infrastructure crumbling, I can think of no better use for Federal tax dollars then to ensure that some corporation makes a profit.
How much tax does said corporation pay anyway?
Their biggest loss will be the revenue lost from all the people that will get to see ahead of time what a turd this will be - BEFORE the Hollywood Bullshit Mega-Hype Machine has a chance to launch the hypnotic media assault that will try to trick the masses into thinking it's a good movie.
With the irony being that tame reviewers and those who nominate for industry awards are often able to see the thing in advance anyway.
Make it 10 times the retail cost of the copyright infringed item plus court costs and call it a day. But the person sueing has to prove that you're the one that infringed copyright. Not just a blind IP address.
Of course for something which isn't released the "retail cost" is zero. With the "plus court costs" bit probably not being applicable with vexatious litigation either.
a) a book downloaded million times even before it's out would also be sold in millions of copies because it is clearly a most wanted book;
That would also be a good thing if you were a new or relativly unknown author. Since for these people the biggest problem can be getting their books published in the first place. Something which "self publishing" can help with.
Though in such a situation you don't know how many of those people would have bought the book. You can't even know if it would have been so popular as a free ebook in the Amazon Kindle store.
Or maybe someone should tell you that if they spend millions of dollars on something it is their right to sit on it as long as they want to.
The question isn't if they have the right to do so. It's if doing so is a sensible way to go about making money from movies. Which is ostensivly what Liongate is doing.Where rights may come into it is that courts in places such as Canada take a very dim view of suing for copyright infringement in relation to products which arn't "on sale" in the first place.
I'll LMAO when the reveal comes that the leaked copy turns out to have little, if anything, to do with the actual movie they release.
Alternativly maybe someone should just tell them that "sitting on" a completed movie might not be the most sensible of business models in the first place.
Auto theft is primarily driven by economics, the demand for parts, rather than a desire to have the vehicle intact.
It's possible for a vehicle to be worth more as parts than as a complete vehicle. As well as being less tracable in that form.
Keeping a vehicle largely intact would probably require it to be given the identity of a scrapped one. So that would also tend to make popular models more likely to be stolen.
Doctors don't call plasma "blood" just because it's a common mislabeling.
On the other hand plenty appear quite happy to call lipoproteins "cholesterol". Which is more or less exactly the same kind of mislabeling.