You evidently have an optical or neurological deficit that prevents you from modelling your surroundings in 3D as most of us do. I'm sorry for you. But you should trust that we are truthfully reporting that our experiential perspective is 3D. We have no motive for deceiving you. The only points on which you are correct are those related to the problems of representing 3D scenes in 2D, as in painting and doing 3D design on flat screens, and those arise because our natural perspective is 3D, not 2D, so we are forced to project that onto a plane, or interpret and manipulate 2D projections on a screen that are intended to represent 3D scenes.
Assuming you are not a troll, but merely have not bothered to think before writing, allow me to provoke you to exercise your grey matter.
If a group plan a bank robbery via Skype, would you say "Hands off our internet"? If someone blows up a building full of innocents by transmitting a code to an explosive device through a connection over the Internet, should that action be ignored because "We need a free Internet"?
The Internet is simply a communications medium. Like any other, it can be used to commit actual crimes. The problem here is not the state being able to govern acts committed using the Internet. The problem is the unjust copyright laws that outlaw what is no crime at all, and is in fact a boon to mankind: the mere copying of harmless and useful information, whether over the Internet or otherwise.
>Of course one interesting question is, how on Earth did they manage to pirate thepiratebay content, considering that they managed to get court orders for major ISP's to censor access to thepiratebay?
No; not interesting, and certainly not worth the breathless hyperbole.
The formal features you cite are not of themselves sufficient. Only if they are comprised of and used by individuals with a sense of proportion and fairness will there be justice. That's what this story is about.
You should look into how JSTOR actually operates, rather than parroting their PR. Being non-profit is entirely consistent with acting as gatekeepers to keep knowledge in the hands of privileged guild members. It's not about money.
But to be patentable, wouldn't the crank have to introduce some novel mechanism for achieving the functionality? Isn't the only thing possibly novel here just the non-mechanically different shape? That silly shape is purely ornamental, so isn't the most it deserves a design patent?
It's only fair to warn you that you are about to be mercilessly excoriated for imagining that the law is rational and treats ISPs as the common carriers as it does other natural common carriers.
Where did you get the idea that one would have to do something illegal to be abused by this policy? One need only be accused, and that without any objective, public standard of evidence or significant opportunity to rebut, and no penalty for reckless or even deliberately false accusations.
But in fact the particular warm body currently occupying the office of President is not a single point of failure. He is an easily replaceable politician whose life is of no more value than yours or mine. It amazed me, the turn the story took into this silly business of protecting His Highness.
Slashdot Mirror
Never attribute to incompetence what can more parsimoniously be explained by greed or malice.
You're new 'round here, aintcha?
You evidently have an optical or neurological deficit that prevents you from modelling your surroundings in 3D as most of us do. I'm sorry for you. But you should trust that we are truthfully reporting that our experiential perspective is 3D. We have no motive for deceiving you. The only points on which you are correct are those related to the problems of representing 3D scenes in 2D, as in painting and doing 3D design on flat screens, and those arise because our natural perspective is 3D, not 2D, so we are forced to project that onto a plane, or interpret and manipulate 2D projections on a screen that are intended to represent 3D scenes.
>These products contain defects in the design, warnings and instructions, which pose a substantial risk of injury and death to children and teenagers.
Too bad the state cannot be sued for libel.
Every era has its snake-oil salesmen and their marks. Sadly, in this case it will not be the customers who suffer, but their hapless students.
Your money? You're not serious!
This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.
John 3:19
Assuming you are not a troll, but merely have not bothered to think before writing, allow me to provoke you to exercise your grey matter.
If a group plan a bank robbery via Skype, would you say "Hands off our internet"? If someone blows up a building full of innocents by transmitting a code to an explosive device through a connection over the Internet, should that action be ignored because "We need a free Internet"?
The Internet is simply a communications medium. Like any other, it can be used to commit actual crimes. The problem here is not the state being able to govern acts committed using the Internet. The problem is the unjust copyright laws that outlaw what is no crime at all, and is in fact a boon to mankind: the mere copying of harmless and useful information, whether over the Internet or otherwise.
Well, aren't we fortunate to have Your Omniscience around to inform us that $125 is the right price for a monopolist to charge for an ISBN.
Indeed. What chutzpah!
> you'd still find yourself waiting several months or even years for that SSD to start dying on you
How comforting!
>Of course one interesting question is, how on Earth did they manage to pirate thepiratebay content, considering that they managed to get court orders for major ISP's to censor access to thepiratebay?
No; not interesting, and certainly not worth the breathless hyperbole.
The formal features you cite are not of themselves sufficient. Only if they are comprised of and used by individuals with a sense of proportion and fairness will there be justice. That's what this story is about.
To symbolset: my apologies for misreading you initially. Your comments are the most insightful and well-said here.
You should look into how JSTOR actually operates, rather than parroting their PR. Being non-profit is entirely consistent with acting as gatekeepers to keep knowledge in the hands of privileged guild members. It's not about money.
But to be patentable, wouldn't the crank have to introduce some novel mechanism for achieving the functionality? Isn't the only thing possibly novel here just the non-mechanically different shape? That silly shape is purely ornamental, so isn't the most it deserves a design patent?
It's only fair to warn you that you are about to be mercilessly excoriated for imagining that the law is rational and treats ISPs as the common carriers as it does other natural common carriers.
And you will never, ever use the internet without going to a library or a friend's house.
Where did you get the idea that one would have to do something illegal to be abused by this policy? One need only be accused, and that without any objective, public standard of evidence or significant opportunity to rebut, and no penalty for reckless or even deliberately false accusations.
It's about time someone with a three-digit IQ weighed in.
Hmm. Hadn't realized that there were quite that many lawyers in the US.
But I'm sure we'll now see a flood of posts from the clueless about how Toshiba "has to defend their patent or lose it".
The starting year of 1945 was cherry-picked for having the highest top marginal rate in US history.
But in fact the particular warm body currently occupying the office of President is not a single point of failure. He is an easily replaceable politician whose life is of no more value than yours or mine. It amazed me, the turn the story took into this silly business of protecting His Highness.
So the libertarian utopia might well turn out to be a nightmarish dystopia.