Not just borrowing elements, or arguably unintentional patent violations, which all companies do, but blatent end-to-end ripoffs like Evolution.
I rather think that having won the '
Look
and
Feel' lawsuit (Remember that? You must be an old geek too then!), they can't really sue - they created the precendent that allows Evolution to exist!
Incidentally, as I believe in education, all Americans please note: that is irony. Just having a shitty day is not irony;-)
What you say is clearly true. However, the BSG is only looking at the equation from one perspective, as their sole purpose is to encourage growth of BB in the UK. Personally, I refuse to accept their logic that BB uptake will be faster with DRM than without. There is no reason whatsoever to accept that that I can see, even if certain content providers won't play, that doesn't mean that BB uptake will be slower as there are plenty of other reasons to get BB.
Even if they are correct, they are effectively saying "Take-up will be faster (which we want), at the expense of comsumer choice (in which we are not interested)".
I'd fax my MP but the lazy shit (Dr Alan Whitehead) never answers his mail.
Even if they're not MR by default, a lot of stores will give you a photocopy sheet with the hack for the model you've chosen. You just have to ask. I did;-)
"Notwithstanding the possibility of a third party or several third parties having already done so without the knowledge of this contributor, First Post. This post comes with no warrantee whatsoever and read at the the reader's own risk, including, but not limited to, eye-strain, boredom, suicidal rage and scabies."
No sales of patents, but (say) a single, non-transferable licence for the duration of the protected period in your part of the world (two minutes, ten seconds in China!)?
As someone who used to think it was all a load of trash until I 'had' to be a case study for my g/f during her training, I can confirm that lots and lots of good stuff comes out of Massage, Indian Head Massage, all that sort of thing.
I usually find that I am much more productive afterward, but also much more relaxed. Double plus good!
You'd have to fake all the way up to the top, ie ward, doctor, everything.
...and the difficulty with that is...?
That sounds to me exactly like the correct thing to do. A completely correct fake hierarchy of information with no relations to the completely correct (we hope!) real hierarchy of information.
That way no-one should be looking at any of it and anyone who does is ipso facto in the wrong.
The difference is that many of us don't believe that this method of cashing in should be legal.
So you don't believe in patents at all? Or only non-transferable ones? Please elucidate?
I quite like the idea of non-transferrable patents, but think it's unfair cos an inventor is not necessarily a businessman, so why shouldn't he or she cash in by selling the rights?
As soon as a copyright or patent becomes just an asset on a balance sheet I have a problem with it.
This is unreasonable:
If I have a good idea and patent it and sell the IP to a patent-holder company, then I am simply cashing in on my good idea - on my innovation, if you prefer. That's the reward for innovation that you crave.
Certainly, the purchasing company is just a dealer in ideas, but what's wrong with that? Other people deal in other things without making them themselves (green-grocers, bookstores) but no-one complains. Just cos you can't see the inventor getting rewarded doesn't mean that some lawyer has nicked the IP and the inventor has got nothing!
I could see your point if we were discussing SCO trying to claim stuff that we don't think they own, but (a) that's a different matter and (b) sorry for mentioning SCO - I'm sick of hearing about them too.
Prolly the same bit as everyone else: What the hell does the G stand for once you've infinititely recursed...?!
Re:Sometimes /. readers make me wonder....
on
Psychotic Lab Mice
·
· Score: 1
How some stories can make past their rejection process....but anyways...
How some people can miss the point of an article so wildly... but anyway...
since this was done in the dark and the mouse didn't know that it was "stainless steel" bar, it was probably trying to escape...
They continued to do this activity for hour upon hour, day upon day, week upon week. While you might have a point for that one stereotypic behaviour trait, the same observation doesn't work for mouse back-flipping or running in circles.
The authors are not stupid, they are scientists, and they have considered whether or not that was escape activity and written about it in the article. Please try reading the whole thing before hitting 'post'.
That's certainly one way of doing it. The other is the above: to do it for them as a wake-up call - if they see the basic work done, chances are they will maintain (or advise on maintenance of) their future card's Linux drivers themselves.
I prefer this way, as the more code that is GPLed, the better IMHO.
that's like saying cholera is not bad as long as I don't catch it
Balls. [There's good logic for you;-)]
If you are a professional developer and you come across some neat free code that you decide to use, but you don't fully read and understand the license terms, then you are a total moron.
To continue your analogy, that's like saying "I decided to drink the water from the river, but no-one told me that I could catch cholera". Ah, bloody diddums.
WTF is going on when I can assault someone, sell drugs, or some such and get a lenient sentence (which means I'll be out in less than half the time sentenced for) but if I do anything computer related its some gawd-awful thing.
Simple mate: Hollywood people have more money than dead people (to influence politicians).
Doesn't mean that copying copyrighted works isn't illegal of course. The clue's in the two words that both begin 'copy';-)
Given what we hear about the internal state of the OS code, which I admit is gossip, I think the likelihood of MS porting the Windows kernel to other machines is pretty damn low, just on the work-for-return equation.
I'd say.Net was an attempt to destabilise Java, as Java kinda naturally leads to Unix.
Justin.
Re:The tongue of the savage foreign hordes
on
Does Google = God?
·
· Score: 1
A FOAF was visiting the states and a yank asked where he was from. He replied 'England'. The yank said 'New England or England, Europe?'. The FOAF said 'England, Europe'. The yank said 'Wow, your English is really good'!
The guy makes pretty damn clear it's an obvious blind. Play fair. I have mates who play games using special pointers - obviously it does happen.
Anyway, why shouldn't anyone crack/alter/smash/whatever something they have paid for as much as they damn well like? If MS are selling the X-Box at a loss it's their choice, not my problem! That's why they have made it hard to do, but it's still something I should be allowed to do.
Hell, only the US has a DMCA anyway: rest of the world just goes right ahead;-p',',',','
But, i could still be raided at 6am and have my computer confiscated and get a criminal record and loose everything just for downloading music. FFS ive never even intended to buy a CD, if i didnt download things i would only listen to the radio.
Too bloody right you could. You've copied recordings which belong to other people, haven't you?
To say 'I never even intended to buy a CD' is to say 'I've always stolen all the music I wanted'!
If the owners permit access to copyrighted works via the radio, that's their decision not yours. Your argument is tantamount to 'I don't want to buy a car, but I sometimes take cabs, so I should be allowed to steal any car I like, when I like'. I just *know* you'll argue 'but it's a copy, not the original', but I can't be arsed to argue that. You know you're stealing.
Why you got modded up 'interesting' instead of 'thief' is beyond me.
People here have claimed that the RIAA wants such things as making individual backups of personal CDs, and playing said backups on their computer illegal, and that is simply not true!
Isn't it? I've read the article too and while that isn't their stated aim, it's certainly the result of the DMCA, which is the RIAA's baby. On the last page of the article, the interviewee avoids the question altogether and suggests that not being able to make copies of your disks is somehow good for you!
Of home 'fair use copying, they say:
You should feel free to copy it onto other formats, such as.mp3, so that you can listen to it on your computer.
But if they will only sell you a copy-protected disk, which under the DMCA, it is illegal to crack, then how do you make your fair use copy? Answer: you can't. That's the problem with the RIAA and the DMCA.
I needn't even go into the massive lobbying for copyright extension so they can keep charging for stuff that should now be publicly owned; the heavy-handed threats; the pursuit of people who hadn't done anything; and finally their incredibly stupid assertion that their cartel keeping CD prices high has nothing to do with declining CD sales.
Where did you get that from? [I did read the story, did I miss something?] I assumed it was a treatment with RNA or siRNA to knock out the gene expression but leave the gene. If not, can you tell me what exactly is the 'construct' you describe?
I still don't understand that you're describing a change to the DNA here though, so I still don't see how it's to be considered GM.
Slashdot Mirror
I rather think that having won the ' Look and Feel' lawsuit (Remember that? You must be an old geek too then!), they can't really sue - they created the precendent that allows Evolution to exist!
Incidentally, as I believe in education, all Americans please note: that is irony. Just having a shitty day is not irony ;-)
J.
Even if they are correct, they are effectively saying "Take-up will be faster (which we want), at the expense of comsumer choice (in which we are not interested)".
I'd fax my MP but the lazy shit (Dr Alan Whitehead) never answers his mail.
J.
J.
"Notwithstanding the possibility of a third party or several third parties having already done so without the knowledge of this contributor, First Post. This post comes with no warrantee whatsoever and read at the the reader's own risk, including, but not limited to, eye-strain, boredom, suicidal rage and scabies."
J.
How is that different to selling it?
J.
So how about we completely automate everything, then just pay people to hang about and chat to you while you shop/browse/eat etc?
Fantastic - I can talk total bollocks for hours on end!
J.
I usually find that I am much more productive afterward, but also much more relaxed. Double plus good!
J.
That sounds to me exactly like the correct thing to do. A completely correct fake hierarchy of information with no relations to the completely correct (we hope!) real hierarchy of information.
That way no-one should be looking at any of it and anyone who does is ipso facto in the wrong.
J.
So you don't believe in patents at all? Or only non-transferable ones? Please elucidate?
I quite like the idea of non-transferrable patents, but think it's unfair cos an inventor is not necessarily a businessman, so why shouldn't he or she cash in by selling the rights?
J.
This is unreasonable:
If I have a good idea and patent it and sell the IP to a patent-holder company, then I am simply cashing in on my good idea - on my innovation, if you prefer. That's the reward for innovation that you crave.
Certainly, the purchasing company is just a dealer in ideas, but what's wrong with that? Other people deal in other things without making them themselves (green-grocers, bookstores) but no-one complains. Just cos you can't see the inventor getting rewarded doesn't mean that some lawyer has nicked the IP and the inventor has got nothing!
I could see your point if we were discussing SCO trying to claim stuff that we don't think they own, but (a) that's a different matter and (b) sorry for mentioning SCO - I'm sick of hearing about them too.
J.
Prolly the same bit as everyone else: What the hell does the G stand for once you've infinititely recursed...?!
How some people can miss the point of an article so wildly... but anyway...
since this was done in the dark and the mouse didn't know that it was "stainless steel" bar, it was probably trying to escape...
They continued to do this activity for hour upon hour, day upon day, week upon week. While you might have a point for that one stereotypic behaviour trait, the same observation doesn't work for mouse back-flipping or running in circles.
The authors are not stupid, they are scientists, and they have considered whether or not that was escape activity and written about it in the article. Please try reading the whole thing before hitting 'post'.
J.
J.
I prefer this way, as the more code that is GPLed, the better IMHO.
J.
Balls. [There's good logic for you ;-)]
If you are a professional developer and you come across some neat free code that you decide to use, but you don't fully read and understand the license terms, then you are a total moron.
To continue your analogy, that's like saying "I decided to drink the water from the river, but no-one told me that I could catch cholera". Ah, bloody diddums.
J.
Simple mate: Hollywood people have more money than dead people (to influence politicians).
Doesn't mean that copying copyrighted works isn't illegal of course. The clue's in the two words that both begin 'copy' ;-)
J.
What, better than making geek jokes? Are you mad? Perl-ease! ;-)
J.
I'd say .Net was an attempt to destabilise Java, as Java kinda naturally leads to Unix.
Justin.
A FOAF was visiting the states and a yank asked where he was from. He replied 'England'. The yank said 'New England or England, Europe?'. The FOAF said 'England, Europe'. The yank said 'Wow, your English is really good'!
J.
Anyway, why shouldn't anyone crack/alter/smash/whatever something they have paid for as much as they damn well like? If MS are selling the X-Box at a loss it's their choice, not my problem! That's why they have made it hard to do, but it's still something I should be allowed to do.
Hell, only the US has a DMCA anyway: rest of the world just goes right ahead ;-p',',',','
J.
Seconded. Does that answer your question? ;-)
J.
Too bloody right you could. You've copied recordings which belong to other people, haven't you?
To say 'I never even intended to buy a CD' is to say 'I've always stolen all the music I wanted'!
If the owners permit access to copyrighted works via the radio, that's their decision not yours. Your argument is tantamount to 'I don't want to buy a car, but I sometimes take cabs, so I should be allowed to steal any car I like, when I like'. I just *know* you'll argue 'but it's a copy, not the original', but I can't be arsed to argue that. You know you're stealing.
Why you got modded up 'interesting' instead of 'thief' is beyond me.
J.
Isn't it? I've read the article too and while that isn't their stated aim, it's certainly the result of the DMCA, which is the RIAA's baby. On the last page of the article, the interviewee avoids the question altogether and suggests that not being able to make copies of your disks is somehow good for you!
Of home 'fair use copying, they say:
You should feel free to copy it onto other formats, such as .mp3, so that you can listen to it on your computer.
But if they will only sell you a copy-protected disk, which under the DMCA, it is illegal to crack, then how do you make your fair use copy? Answer: you can't. That's the problem with the RIAA and the DMCA.
I needn't even go into the massive lobbying for copyright extension so they can keep charging for stuff that should now be publicly owned; the heavy-handed threats; the pursuit of people who hadn't done anything; and finally their incredibly stupid assertion that their cartel keeping CD prices high has nothing to do with declining CD sales.
J.
J.
I still don't understand that you're describing a change to the DNA here though, so I still don't see how it's to be considered GM.
J.