I would answer your question but every time I try to read it I just get an error message. That is when I can see any replies on the thread at all. sorry.
To be honest it is kind of embarassing that I immediately thought- "I just saw something just like this on slashdot not long ago" to find out it was almost 2 years ago. I didn't look at the new article close enough to see if there were any big differences over the years. To be honest the articles are spooky similar. Hmmmmm.
Everybody keeps bringing this up- but I don't see it. Just show how you did get it. If you publish the boiling point of water and somebody says you stole it from their propietary database- bring in a backpack stove, a pot, water and a thermometer and prove them wrong. How can an accuser appeal that.
The biggest problem I would see is how you are going to ever prove someone could not possibly have collected the information on their own. Watermarking? Some propietary formating of the data itself? Maybe, as I've already mentioned, I'm naive. I just don't see the big deal.
I'm not proposing anything - just trying to understand the really strong reaction.
Using your example- those constants are out there because someone put the work into finding them and then put it out there. What if someone puts a lot of work and money into compiling some new numbers? Do they not get some control over what happens with that? I don't have a problem with them having a choice. In the case of this bill it would need to be a private individual or company since schools are exempt.
But lets say some evil company wont share. If the data is really important somebody else generates it independantly and publishes it in a format that is freely available.
I see a lot of responses that seem to imply - "I'll copyright a database of the Roman Alphabet and sue websters!" That has nothing to do with what I saw in this bill. The content itself is not copyrighted- the collection is.
In fact they seem to be extending protection that would be similar to what would exist for your physics text book. If you write it - a large portion of it would be information that you gathered from other sources. So why can't I xerox it and put my name on it? Because your work is protected- though I doubt little of it would be in any way original.
That sentence is thinking in terms of this bill being on the books. I know what you are saying and I understand your point- but just change it to copy instead of steal if the word bothers you.
I honestly have trouble seeing why- if some party goes to great lengths to collect some information - why they should not have control of the results of that effort. If it doesn't take a lot of effort- then it wont have much value since others will just duplicate the effort- rather than its results. I don't see the problem.
If a fact can be found in a trivial manner- I cannot imagine it turning into what you describe. You go into court, you demonstrate the trivial manner of arriving at the trivial fact- with no use of the source in contention and case closed.
Usually I'm in step for the most part around here- and it feels odd to be so 'out there' on my own. But I just don't see it. Maybe somebody will point it out in a manner that clicks in my mind- but so far nothing.
If you work to compile some data there should be some record of that work- and you can duplicate and quickly prove beyond a doubt that you did not copy some other source of data.
This is why I don't think it is such a big deal but maybe I'm just really naive.
How do you distinguish a list from a copy? And would not the burden of proof be on the accuser? Don't they need to provide some mechanism for making the case that it was 'their' data that was 'stolen'?
Sure you could copyright your database of the periodic table. But I can just go to the source you used- or some other source and make my own table database without using your data.
I'm not the smartest guy- so I really am looking for what the big problem is here. I just don't see it.
I don't see how this could be. Would the burden of proof not be on the owner of the database who says their material was stolen?
Don't all laws by definition have to be publicly published?
I struggle to see why if party A goes to the trouble and expense to collect and organize some information that they should be able to seek compensation for that effort- or you can go get it on your own.
Looking at the bill- it seems to me that it protects the actual collection effort not the data itself. If someone else wants to go out and collect the same information they can- they just can't steal your collection. I guess I'm missing why this is so bad.
First thing this made me think of is when the guy in Gibson's "Virtual Light" pisses off the hacker kids and they put his face on a guy in a nasty S&M kind of porno thing. That was a kind of out there idea in the '80s but it is getting more and more possible.
I would think the real kick in this would have less to do with getting your own face in a game and more to do with getting someone you don't like in a game. The machinama possibilities could be very, very interesting
You can't really do 'intense' jogging by definition. I guess you could ramp it up a bit with hand weights or something - but technically jogging is that kind of shuffling/not walking/not running thing that involves not getting the knees up much. If you want to see it in practice catch me at night jogging in my neighborhood. Once I'm in good enough shape to run I'll be less ashamed.
Running at 5 mph, weighing 150 lbs. gets you closer, and running at a good solid pace puts you well over 640.
I think they compare to jogging intentionally as many people are not aware of the difference between jogging and running.
Here is my issue with the exercise while you commute option: sweat. If you have facilities to shower when you get to work then it would be good. Of course this also depends on the commute being the correct length. Not too long, not too short.
But on a side note. You may burn more calories doing this dance thing than you do jogging- but not more than running. Jogging is o.k. if you are just getting started, but as your fitness level increases and you move to running- the benefits increase.
Good post. For anyone reading- they took out that platoon by pinning them down for a while, letting them have a single avenue of 'escape' that led them to a position that had already been sited in for heavy artillery earlier. BOOM! Hathcock and his partner did not shoot all of them.
Interestingly enough he did not have the most official sniper kills in viet nam. But Marine Sniper is a great read if you like this kind of stuff.
This is really late- so you'll probably never see it. But I do get it - you don't.
One of the most dangerous jobs in the world is working on the flight deck of an aircraft carrier. Flying military aircraft, working on a sub- these are all inherently dangerous activities.
I'd be curious to see a comparison on the rate of deaths in the military right now as opposed to a time of 'peace'.
Do they look the enemy in the eye? No. Are the guys in iraq leaving roadside bombs or launching RPGs looking anybody in the eye? That went out with swords. Hand to hand combat has not been common for a long time- way before cruise missiles.
I don't know what determines who is brave. A lot of guys who I think are brave would not characterize themselves that way. But you completely underestimate the difficulty in what the modern American military does. I think this is in part because they do it so well that people now take it for granted as routine. But if you talk to those involved you may find that very little of it is routine. That is true in actual combat or just in practice.
This might be interesting but it is false. It is not as easy as pushing a button. The ships/subs/planes that launch those missiles are manned by highly trained experts who practice constantly to try and do it right. They still make mistakes even with all that. Real war is nothing like any video game you will buy off the shelf today.
I used to think the same way - but I've changed my mind.
Are most people stupid sheep who will just do whatever they are told? I don't think so. It seems that way, I think when you try to 'look' at large groups of people as a whole. But when I get to know people personally I find that more are not-stupid than stupid. (proper credit - Mike came up w/ "not-stupid" and I've just stolen it - thanks RAH - And I do realize that he would disagree with me on this.)
I don't see any way to verify either position so I'm not trying to debate. Just throwing out there that I disagree with "most people are idiots" and think that it is a common misconception brought on by certain human tendencies to view things from a limited perspective. Which by the way is not stupid but rather understandable.
Slashdot Mirror
that whole sun rise, sun set thing must just tear you up. If someone says, "I'm going to go take a dump" does your blood just boil?
I would answer your question but every time I try to read it I just get an error message. That is when I can see any replies on the thread at all. sorry.
but here is the /. thread on this facility from March, 2002. http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/03/29/144922 8&mode=thread&tid=95
To be honest it is kind of embarassing that I immediately thought- "I just saw something just like this on slashdot not long ago" to find out it was almost 2 years ago. I didn't look at the new article close enough to see if there were any big differences over the years. To be honest the articles are spooky similar. Hmmmmm.
Everybody keeps bringing this up- but I don't see it. Just show how you did get it. If you publish the boiling point of water and somebody says you stole it from their propietary database- bring in a backpack stove, a pot, water and a thermometer and prove them wrong. How can an accuser appeal that.
The biggest problem I would see is how you are going to ever prove someone could not possibly have collected the information on their own. Watermarking? Some propietary formating of the data itself? Maybe, as I've already mentioned, I'm naive. I just don't see the big deal.
I'm not proposing anything - just trying to understand the really strong reaction.
Using your example- those constants are out there because someone put the work into finding them and then put it out there. What if someone puts a lot of work and money into compiling some new numbers? Do they not get some control over what happens with that? I don't have a problem with them having a choice. In the case of this bill it would need to be a private individual or company since schools are exempt.
But lets say some evil company wont share. If the data is really important somebody else generates it independantly and publishes it in a format that is freely available.
I see a lot of responses that seem to imply - "I'll copyright a database of the Roman Alphabet and sue websters!" That has nothing to do with what I saw in this bill. The content itself is not copyrighted- the collection is.
In fact they seem to be extending protection that would be similar to what would exist for your physics text book. If you write it - a large portion of it would be information that you gathered from other sources. So why can't I xerox it and put my name on it? Because your work is protected- though I doubt little of it would be in any way original.
You shouldn't have to prove you didn't copy- they would have to prove that you did. Just as difficult.
That sentence is thinking in terms of this bill being on the books. I know what you are saying and I understand your point- but just change it to copy instead of steal if the word bothers you.
I honestly have trouble seeing why- if some party goes to great lengths to collect some information - why they should not have control of the results of that effort. If it doesn't take a lot of effort- then it wont have much value since others will just duplicate the effort- rather than its results. I don't see the problem.
If a fact can be found in a trivial manner- I cannot imagine it turning into what you describe. You go into court, you demonstrate the trivial manner of arriving at the trivial fact- with no use of the source in contention and case closed.
Usually I'm in step for the most part around here- and it feels odd to be so 'out there' on my own. But I just don't see it. Maybe somebody will point it out in a manner that clicks in my mind- but so far nothing.
If you work to compile some data there should be some record of that work- and you can duplicate and quickly prove beyond a doubt that you did not copy some other source of data.
This is why I don't think it is such a big deal but maybe I'm just really naive.
How do you distinguish a list from a copy? And would not the burden of proof be on the accuser? Don't they need to provide some mechanism for making the case that it was 'their' data that was 'stolen'?
Sure you could copyright your database of the periodic table. But I can just go to the source you used- or some other source and make my own table database without using your data.
I'm not the smartest guy- so I really am looking for what the big problem is here. I just don't see it.
I don't see how this could be. Would the burden of proof not be on the owner of the database who says their material was stolen?
Don't all laws by definition have to be publicly published?
I struggle to see why if party A goes to the trouble and expense to collect and organize some information that they should be able to seek compensation for that effort- or you can go get it on your own.
Looking at the bill- it seems to me that it protects the actual collection effort not the data itself. If someone else wants to go out and collect the same information they can- they just can't steal your collection. I guess I'm missing why this is so bad.
First thing this made me think of is when the guy in Gibson's "Virtual Light" pisses off the hacker kids and they put his face on a guy in a nasty S&M kind of porno thing. That was a kind of out there idea in the '80s but it is getting more and more possible.
I would think the real kick in this would have less to do with getting your own face in a game and more to do with getting someone you don't like in a game. The machinama possibilities could be very, very interesting
It would make more sense - and lead, possibly, to some really interesting court cases.
You can't really do 'intense' jogging by definition. I guess you could ramp it up a bit with hand weights or something - but technically jogging is that kind of shuffling/not walking/not running thing that involves not getting the knees up much. If you want to see it in practice catch me at night jogging in my neighborhood. Once I'm in good enough shape to run I'll be less ashamed.
Running at 5 mph, weighing 150 lbs. gets you closer, and running at a good solid pace puts you well over 640.
I think they compare to jogging intentionally as many people are not aware of the difference between jogging and running.
Here is my issue with the exercise while you commute option: sweat. If you have facilities to shower when you get to work then it would be good. Of course this also depends on the commute being the correct length. Not too long, not too short.
But on a side note. You may burn more calories doing this dance thing than you do jogging- but not more than running. Jogging is o.k. if you are just getting started, but as your fitness level increases and you move to running- the benefits increase.
No you are not. this guy did too.
That's funny as hell. Don't let the lack of moderation get you to think otherwise.
if your post about /. posting something about Fark gets put up on the front page of Fark? And people start posting there about /.?
these Fark != news comments are getting submitted to Fark. If you all are lucky and make the front page we can have a little /. Fark love in.
Good post. For anyone reading- they took out that platoon by pinning them down for a while, letting them have a single avenue of 'escape' that led them to a position that had already been sited in for heavy artillery earlier. BOOM! Hathcock and his partner did not shoot all of them.
Interestingly enough he did not have the most official sniper kills in viet nam. But Marine Sniper is a great read if you like this kind of stuff.
This is really late- so you'll probably never see it. But I do get it - you don't.
One of the most dangerous jobs in the world is working on the flight deck of an aircraft carrier. Flying military aircraft, working on a sub- these are all inherently dangerous activities.
I'd be curious to see a comparison on the rate of deaths in the military right now as opposed to a time of 'peace'.
Do they look the enemy in the eye? No. Are the guys in iraq leaving roadside bombs or launching RPGs looking anybody in the eye? That went out with swords. Hand to hand combat has not been common for a long time- way before cruise missiles.
I don't know what determines who is brave. A lot of guys who I think are brave would not characterize themselves that way. But you completely underestimate the difficulty in what the modern American military does. I think this is in part because they do it so well that people now take it for granted as routine. But if you talk to those involved you may find that very little of it is routine. That is true in actual combat or just in practice.
This might be interesting but it is false. It is not as easy as pushing a button. The ships/subs/planes that launch those missiles are manned by highly trained experts who practice constantly to try and do it right. They still make mistakes even with all that. Real war is nothing like any video game you will buy off the shelf today.
.. that this thread would be slightly better than the similar thread on fark a day or two ago. sigh....
I used to think the same way - but I've changed my mind.
Are most people stupid sheep who will just do whatever they are told? I don't think so. It seems that way, I think when you try to 'look' at large groups of people as a whole. But when I get to know people personally I find that more are not-stupid than stupid. (proper credit - Mike came up w/ "not-stupid" and I've just stolen it - thanks RAH - And I do realize that he would disagree with me on this.)
I don't see any way to verify either position so I'm not trying to debate. Just throwing out there that I disagree with "most people are idiots" and think that it is a common misconception brought on by certain human tendencies to view things from a limited perspective. Which by the way is not stupid but rather understandable.
Condescending is just the right word for the style of this rant.
My favorite snippet:
and make up your own damn mind. That's why you have one.
Oh! That's what that thing is for! Thanks for letting me know.