I'm not a law-talking guy myself, but I would think that winning the case and establishing a court precedent against using the DMCA to prohibit the publication of factual information would be pretty significant. Companies would be very immediately forced to think twice before twisting the law in such a manner again.
No. not really, but if you re-publish it and put it on your own web site, then yes, you are publishing someone else's information and violating copyright.
However, stating what was in the flyer - I can't imagine how that could be violating a copyright.
Exactly. If you're going to appeal to power gamers, then your game becomes set up so that only a power gamer can win the game, and anyone who wants to play casually just has to go find something else.
I think that creating a totally thin game client is not as easy as you think it is. In the case of a game like Everquest, with several hundred thousand subscribers, I would be more likely to use a word such as "impossible".
So what? Sony, so far hasn't gone after people for hacking or modifying software. They've simply made your mods not function correctly.
Let me ask you this: Do you believe that you have the right to make any modifications you want to software you own, but that Sony does NOT have the right to make modifications to software THEY own? Are you advocating rights for everyone, or only for you?
And yet, no one is forced to serve you. That is a freedom enjoyed by just about anyone. So if, for instance, I run a game server, and I believe you are a cheating bastard, I have every right to disallow you from playing there. I also have the right to protect data packets coming from and going to my server with whatever means I see fit, if I believes it keeps cheaters from being able to operate inappropriately on there.
What if I ran a restaurant with a dress code, and you came shabbily dressed, but instead of turning you away, I gave you a jacket and tie and allowed you inside? That would be Sony, allowing the cheaters to play, but without their cheating software. See? No one's rights have been infringed at all.
Since they are probably not actually doing these things, now is the perfect time for YOU to seize the opportunity to copyright these exciting innovations in music. What are you waiting for? Your money train is HERE!
You're right. From now on, all shows about the future should describe everything in the exact same, most plausible way. After all, who wants anything outlandish, odd, or creative to ever happen in anything? WE WANT ABSOLUTE REALISM IN OUR SCIENCE FICTION!!! oh wait...
Maybe I am missing something, but my cable modem ISP, Road Runner, is owned by Time Warner Cable. Does it seem odd to anyone else that I would be unable to browse content distributed by Road Runner's parent company over their own damn network?
If something about my statement is incorrect, please feel free to set me straight - I really am confused as to why TW would want to do that to their own customers, even if they are the same company as AOL now...
A lot of respected, brilliant people have expressed their belief in the divine; that some sort of hand created the universe and such. And yet, those same people never would have downplayed scientific fact the way you just did.
The article you point to is as severely flawed as every creationist "scientific" article I have ever read (and I have read many). Here is my paraphrase of a creationist rejection of evolution, taken right from your article:
"Since all of the facts about evolution are not yet known, and the theory is therefore not complete, we as creationists reject the entire theory of evolution as invalid".
A real scientist would never state the above, and yet creationist "scientists" throw it around all the time with little hesitation.
They then go on to quote Darwin:
"There is no doubt that both the historical and the causal aspects of the evolutionary process are far from completely known.... "
So, since Darwin, the originator of the theory, said that he didn't understand every tiny aspect of the theory, the entire thing is invalid, even considering all of the scientific research done since he's been dead? Wow, good thing creationists know what logic is.
Now, I'm reading their section on natural selection, and it makes no fucking sense at all. Do you really think that you need scientific training to understand the fact that species with a higher survivability rate gradually replace species with a lesser rate? Is this truly a difficult concept for the mind to grasp? Natural selection is a theory with such simplicity that even a child could understand it. Does it matter whether someone philosophises that it's circular because it indicates that "survivors survive"? No, this is absolutely irrelevant. As a thinking human being, the next question you would naturally want to ask yourself is, in nature, WHY DO CERTAIN SPECIES SURVIVE MORE THAN OTHERS? Could it be that the "fittest" do in fact have a much higher likelihood of survival. Yes. Refute it if you really don't understand how simple that is, but you'll be wrong.
And now that I'm entering rant mode, what exactly is so bad about such a well researched and well proven theory as natural selection that Christians would have such a tremendous problem with it? Not all Christians either, need I remind you. I went to a Catholic high school and was taught to use my brain, not follow a religious text to determine scientific fact. I have Christian friends who have no problem with natural selection, or even, (and I'm sure this will just HORRIFY you) the entire theory of evolution. Why is it that a small group of Christians, like you, will state this:
"We must not believe in evolution, because the theory is not yet understood in its entirety; as you can see, I can point out flaws a. here, b. here, and c. here. So therefore the entire theory is wrong. Now, let's get ready to attend Sunday Mass, where we will worship God. No, don't question God's existence. He is a fact!"
I don't believe scientific fact just because someone tells me to either, pal, but why don't you answer this - why do you believe every single word your Church tells you to believe, even if it instructs you to reject evidence which can be easily seen, is well documented, and very well understood (despite what the apologists have to say about it). I was a Catholic for 20 years - why is it that they never said anything about evolution being evil? Isn't it ironic that the Catholic Church is now the most advanced and intelligent of all of the Churches? I guess that Counter-Reformation did a good job after all.
Why don't YOU use your brain to decide what's right and wrong - maybe you should examine this very important point which really, to me, is the only point you need to know that proves that Creationists are completely full of shit:
It's true. Pick up any creationist paper. ANY. They prove by disproving, a logical impossibility in my opinion. Creationists, EVERY SINGLE ONE I have read, have always attempted to poke holes in modern science. Once they believe they have exposed an aspect of evolution or whatever they've taken issue with this week, they conclude that they have now proven that since science doesn't have a sufficient answer, the answer is that God did it.
You see what kind of voodoo volcano-worshipping archaic crap that argument is, right? Since you are wrong, I am automatically right? Am I to understand that the scientific method interferes with your dogma as well? Guess what, jacko, science does not know many important things, still. Does this prove that God exists? No way. Can we ever disprove the idea of God? Again, no. So, to most people with the capability to think (including ALL of the religious people I know), you can't use God as the basis for scientific arguments. God is an abstract concept - God has no real definition outside of what every faction believes about him. As I've stated, you can neither prove nor disprove God, so why do you think he is an acceptable substitute to evolution, about which many things have already been proven as fact, and about which other aspects have extremely well documented evidence supporting them? Answer: he is not.
One last thing - as I've said, a lot of people don't believe that evolution contradicts their faith. Because they've thought about it and not just followed the blind "logic" of their religious elders. Why don't you just say "God invented evolution" and then there's no way anyone could argue with you?
Sorry to post so late - hopefully someone will read this. Your post is not only completely not at all helpful in any way; it's also irrelevant, stupid, and useless. You come to a site devoted to scientists and technicians and tell them that instead of doing research, they should read a book of religious mythology? Are you completely insane?
No, I guess you're not - you're just a blinded zealot. Your post also makes you appear to be a simpleton. You should think about that before everyone you ever talk to gets the idea that you have nothing useful to contribute to anybody.
i SEE your POINT! You are ABSOLUTELY correct! And you DON'T sound like a complete IDIOT either!
And I REALLY LOVE the way you CAPITALIZE so many words to get your FANTASTICALLY GROOVY point across!
I DONT SEE HOW ANYONE CAN RESPOND PROPERLY TO THAT MUCH CAPITALIZATION! I mean, your letters are bigger than theirs! How can they possibly defeat the SHOUT MASTAH?!
Awesome. I knew you were the same guy, and your explanation made reading this stuff even better. Don't worry too much about whether humor is relevant. Taking people to task is something I myself find enjoyable, and reading someone else doing it is also quite entertaining. That's all that really matters.
Exactly - the private companies want to profit from government-funded research. If my tax dollars fund research, I want the results in the public domain, not sold by some company. They want you to pay twice for the same information!
Slashdot Mirror
Well, it's not. It was totally relevant to the parent comment.
I'm not a law-talking guy myself, but I would think that winning the case and establishing a court precedent against using the DMCA to prohibit the publication of factual information would be pretty significant. Companies would be very immediately forced to think twice before twisting the law in such a manner again.
No. not really, but if you re-publish it and put it on your own web site, then yes, you are publishing someone else's information and violating copyright.
However, stating what was in the flyer - I can't imagine how that could be violating a copyright.
You're right about idiots, but your comment lacks any meaning or actual relevance to its own context, and it fails to address any of my argument.
I'm generous, so I'll give it a D+. Thanks for playing.
within the rules of the game, if you have the right character class at a high enough level
But if you don't, and you use the powers of that class and level anyway, then aren't you in fact... a cheater?
Hint: Yes.
Exactly. If you're going to appeal to power gamers, then your game becomes set up so that only a power gamer can win the game, and anyone who wants to play casually just has to go find something else.
I think that creating a totally thin game client is not as easy as you think it is. In the case of a game like Everquest, with several hundred thousand subscribers, I would be more likely to use a word such as "impossible".
So what? Sony, so far hasn't gone after people for hacking or modifying software. They've simply made your mods not function correctly.
Let me ask you this: Do you believe that you have the right to make any modifications you want to software you own, but that Sony does NOT have the right to make modifications to software THEY own? Are you advocating rights for everyone, or only for you?
And yet, no one is forced to serve you. That is a freedom enjoyed by just about anyone. So if, for instance, I run a game server, and I believe you are a cheating bastard, I have every right to disallow you from playing there. I also have the right to protect data packets coming from and going to my server with whatever means I see fit, if I believes it keeps cheaters from being able to operate inappropriately on there.
What if I ran a restaurant with a dress code, and you came shabbily dressed, but instead of turning you away, I gave you a jacket and tie and allowed you inside? That would be Sony, allowing the cheaters to play, but without their cheating software. See? No one's rights have been infringed at all.
Since they are probably not actually doing these things, now is the perfect time for YOU to seize the opportunity to copyright these exciting innovations in music. What are you waiting for? Your money train is HERE!
You're right. From now on, all shows about the future should describe everything in the exact same, most plausible way. After all, who wants anything outlandish, odd, or creative to ever happen in anything? WE WANT ABSOLUTE REALISM IN OUR SCIENCE FICTION!!! oh wait...
But then they couldn't milk their success and stay on several years too long like the X-Files.
Maybe I am missing something, but my cable modem ISP, Road Runner, is owned by Time Warner Cable. Does it seem odd to anyone else that I would be unable to browse content distributed by Road Runner's parent company over their own damn network?
If something about my statement is incorrect, please feel free to set me straight - I really am confused as to why TW would want to do that to their own customers, even if they are the same company as AOL now...
That story was fucking awesome. Thanks.
I was new! I didn't know they meant a secure gateway!
A lot of respected, brilliant people have expressed their belief in the divine; that some sort of hand created the universe and such. And yet, those same people never would have downplayed scientific fact the way you just did.
The article you point to is as severely flawed as every creationist "scientific" article I have ever read (and I have read many). Here is my paraphrase of a creationist rejection of evolution, taken right from your article:
"Since all of the facts about evolution are not yet known, and the theory is therefore not complete, we as creationists reject the entire theory of evolution as invalid".
A real scientist would never state the above, and yet creationist "scientists" throw it around all the time with little hesitation.
They then go on to quote Darwin:
"There is no doubt that both the historical and the causal aspects of the evolutionary process are far from completely known.... "
So, since Darwin, the originator of the theory, said that he didn't understand every tiny aspect of the theory, the entire thing is invalid, even considering all of the scientific research done since he's been dead? Wow, good thing creationists know what logic is.
Now, I'm reading their section on natural selection, and it makes no fucking sense at all. Do you really think that you need scientific training to understand the fact that species with a higher survivability rate gradually replace species with a lesser rate? Is this truly a difficult concept for the mind to grasp? Natural selection is a theory with such simplicity that even a child could understand it. Does it matter whether someone philosophises that it's circular because it indicates that "survivors survive"? No, this is absolutely irrelevant. As a thinking human being, the next question you would naturally want to ask yourself is, in nature, WHY DO CERTAIN SPECIES SURVIVE MORE THAN OTHERS? Could it be that the "fittest" do in fact have a much higher likelihood of survival. Yes. Refute it if you really don't understand how simple that is, but you'll be wrong.
And now that I'm entering rant mode, what exactly is so bad about such a well researched and well proven theory as natural selection that Christians would have such a tremendous problem with it? Not all Christians either, need I remind you. I went to a Catholic high school and was taught to use my brain, not follow a religious text to determine scientific fact. I have Christian friends who have no problem with natural selection, or even, (and I'm sure this will just HORRIFY you) the entire theory of evolution. Why is it that a small group of Christians, like you, will state this:
"We must not believe in evolution, because the theory is not yet understood in its entirety; as you can see, I can point out flaws a. here, b. here, and c. here. So therefore the entire theory is wrong. Now, let's get ready to attend Sunday Mass, where we will worship God. No, don't question God's existence. He is a fact!"
I don't believe scientific fact just because someone tells me to either, pal, but why don't you answer this - why do you believe every single word your Church tells you to believe, even if it instructs you to reject evidence which can be easily seen, is well documented, and very well understood (despite what the apologists have to say about it). I was a Catholic for 20 years - why is it that they never said anything about evolution being evil? Isn't it ironic that the Catholic Church is now the most advanced and intelligent of all of the Churches? I guess that Counter-Reformation did a good job after all.
Why don't YOU use your brain to decide what's right and wrong - maybe you should examine this very important point which really, to me, is the only point you need to know that proves that Creationists are completely full of shit:
Scientists prove things.
Creationists disprove things.
It's true. Pick up any creationist paper. ANY. They prove by disproving, a logical impossibility in my opinion. Creationists, EVERY SINGLE ONE I have read, have always attempted to poke holes in modern science. Once they believe they have exposed an aspect of evolution or whatever they've taken issue with this week, they conclude that they have now proven that since science doesn't have a sufficient answer, the answer is that God did it.
You see what kind of voodoo volcano-worshipping archaic crap that argument is, right? Since you are wrong, I am automatically right? Am I to understand that the scientific method interferes with your dogma as well? Guess what, jacko, science does not know many important things, still. Does this prove that God exists? No way. Can we ever disprove the idea of God? Again, no. So, to most people with the capability to think (including ALL of the religious people I know), you can't use God as the basis for scientific arguments. God is an abstract concept - God has no real definition outside of what every faction believes about him. As I've stated, you can neither prove nor disprove God, so why do you think he is an acceptable substitute to evolution, about which many things have already been proven as fact, and about which other aspects have extremely well documented evidence supporting them? Answer: he is not.
One last thing - as I've said, a lot of people don't believe that evolution contradicts their faith. Because they've thought about it and not just followed the blind "logic" of their religious elders. Why don't you just say "God invented evolution" and then there's no way anyone could argue with you?
Did you read the rest of his posts? And his signature is -I'm not kidding- or something. You don't think he's serious?
Sorry to post so late - hopefully someone will read this. Your post is not only completely not at all helpful in any way; it's also irrelevant, stupid, and useless. You come to a site devoted to scientists and technicians and tell them that instead of doing research, they should read a book of religious mythology? Are you completely insane?
No, I guess you're not - you're just a blinded zealot. Your post also makes you appear to be a simpleton. You should think about that before everyone you ever talk to gets the idea that you have nothing useful to contribute to anybody.
i SEE your POINT! You are ABSOLUTELY correct! And you DON'T sound like a complete IDIOT either!
And I REALLY LOVE the way you CAPITALIZE so many words to get your FANTASTICALLY GROOVY point across!
I DONT SEE HOW ANYONE CAN RESPOND PROPERLY TO THAT MUCH CAPITALIZATION! I mean, your letters are bigger than theirs! How can they possibly defeat the SHOUT MASTAH?!
Back the rocket up to it... I'll get out and push. God damn... this thing is heavy! A little help? I think we're going to need to jump start it.
I'll remember you for being a sucker after you're gone.
I'd like to say something else here, but you already said exactly what I was thinking:
This comment is sad and mean, but one of the few truths in this world is that truth hurts.
Awesome. I knew you were the same guy, and your explanation made reading this stuff even better. Don't worry too much about whether humor is relevant. Taking people to task is something I myself find enjoyable, and reading someone else doing it is also quite entertaining. That's all that really matters.
Your comment makes no sense. But you probably knew that already.
Are any Republicans here going to try to defend this? There is no way that this is in the public's best interest.
Exactly - the private companies want to profit from government-funded research. If my tax dollars fund research, I want the results in the public domain, not sold by some company. They want you to pay twice for the same information!