That doesn't protect them. Once the work goes into the public domain, you can probably take the original work and reproduce it verbatim even with the trademark character included. You probably can't make a NEW steamboat willie off-shoot with an identical character. You probably can make a steamboat willie off-shoot with a different "mouse" character (namely one that is missing the trademark 3-circle ears.)
It would really stretch the constitutionality of copyright to extend it further. The constitution only allows for the copyright to be "for a time". While technically speaking "for a time" vague enough to be anything, it does mean that the copyright period HAS TO END. Congress cannot keep extending it forever. If congress extends it again, then they would probably be in constitutional violation.
"The right way to think about cryptocurrency coins is as lottery tickets that pay off in a dystopian future where they are used in rogue and failed states, or perhaps in countries where citizens have already lost all semblance of privacy"
A dystopia future... where the government and major institutions have fallen... but the internet still works just fine enough to run a whole shadow economy.
That's so comically ridiculous. In such a situation of a failed state -of which we have several contemporary real-world examples to point to- the internet isn't reliable enough to operate the whole economy.
Rather, in such a situation, people resort back to the original form of currency, (No, not bartering. Sorry to burst your bubble) interpersonal debt. Interpersonal debt is the most efficient form of currency in a local market, and it's the economic system that was by far the most common in the world prior to the printing press and colonization (global colonization made debt management difficult, so the governments and corporations had to use a less efficient, on a local scale, system of managing payment for goods -ie, monetary payment.) We sure as hell ain't going to suddenly buy up magic internet money, when access to the internet will potentially be unreliable. That would make the whole economic system unreliable, and people will still need milk and eggs.
one question: what's the problem with an aging population?
Ok, there are lot's of problems. For example, if there are too many people withdrawing and not enough paying in, it bankrupts a national social security system. (Or any retirement system.) It also stresses other tax sources because older people tend to spend less and bring in less taxable revenue. It's important for a society to have a good mix of ages. Too much of any one demographic causes problems.
ok. and what's the problem with the migrants we're talking about?
Migrants have lots of problems. That's why they are migrants. They wouldn't be migrants if they didn't have problems they were trying to escape.
not to mention it will literally be the end of japan you genocidal piece of shit
Japan needs young people and families. Millions of young people and families need safe places to live and raise their children. There may be some synergy there.
The "trick" is to understand that it's all fake. It's just theater meant to scare the participant into telling the truth. So just relax and answer the questions.
Looking for VC funding. I am about to apply for a patent that for a software system that measures imperceptible changes in keystrokes as users are asked to type answers to questions that that then converted into probabilities that the answers are lies.
Of course the system is completely bogus and only returns random noise that is then interpreted however the technician feels like that day. But who the F cares. Money.
You are assuming the city was acting in good faith.
I'm a civil and environmental engineer. I write the plans all the time. They city had no reason to not know the rules. This isn't the first project they have done. The company had no reason to not know the rules. This might be the first job the company had tried, but I'm 100% certain that they hired people on staff that have done things before.
Right. The issue here is that they cheated in their planning and estimation. They took a super-huge project, and only evaluated a small portion of it and declared no significant impact.
You can't do that. They knew they couldn't do that. They got caught.
So, baby, here are our birth control options. 1) You take a pill everyday, at the same time everyday, that has some pretty hard initial side effects. 2) You give me a neck and shoulder massage everyday.
I'm good with 2 too. Glad we agree.
(Oh, yeah, I could wear a condom, but, you know, I'm allergic to latex.)
You "prove" it by doing an appropriate environmental impact study. You identify the receptors of impact, quantify the likely impact, and develop a plan to minimize that impact.
This isn't new. Almost every infrastructure project has to do it.
The waist is part of it. But you also have to consider traffic implications at the entrance and exits, groundwater impacts, impacts to the structures you will be driving underneath as well as future development impacts.
This is a big project. There is a lot to plan for. The point of the study is to demonstrate you have done the proper planning.
No, actually I don't believe you can just eye ball a multi billion dollar project and say there will be no impact. Prove it.
More correctly, it's not that they have an impact that is the question. It's WHAT their impact is going to be and how the infrastructure company is going to mitigate that impact. You have to prove that you can build this thing safely BEFORE you start digging.
It's called ethics. I know this is a new concept for most programmers reading this on/., but it's a thing civil guys have been dealing with for decades. It's not a new problem for us.
"Want to make astounding and unsubstantiated claims about scientific discoveries? Move your research to beautiful China, where you can get a government grant to publish basically whatever you want with almost no peer-review."
Slashdot Mirror
"Find out more... after this message from iRobot."
That doesn't protect them. Once the work goes into the public domain, you can probably take the original work and reproduce it verbatim even with the trademark character included. You probably can't make a NEW steamboat willie off-shoot with an identical character. You probably can make a steamboat willie off-shoot with a different "mouse" character (namely one that is missing the trademark 3-circle ears.)
It would really stretch the constitutionality of copyright to extend it further. The constitution only allows for the copyright to be "for a time". While technically speaking "for a time" vague enough to be anything, it does mean that the copyright period HAS TO END. Congress cannot keep extending it forever. If congress extends it again, then they would probably be in constitutional violation.
Also a little reported fact:
More than 50% of American blockchain developers are expected to die before the age 80. Clearly this field needs regulation.
"The right way to think about cryptocurrency coins is as lottery tickets that pay off in a dystopian future where they are used in rogue and failed states, or perhaps in countries where citizens have already lost all semblance of privacy"
A dystopia future... where the government and major institutions have fallen... but the internet still works just fine enough to run a whole shadow economy.
That's so comically ridiculous. In such a situation of a failed state -of which we have several contemporary real-world examples to point to- the internet isn't reliable enough to operate the whole economy.
Rather, in such a situation, people resort back to the original form of currency, (No, not bartering. Sorry to burst your bubble) interpersonal debt. Interpersonal debt is the most efficient form of currency in a local market, and it's the economic system that was by far the most common in the world prior to the printing press and colonization (global colonization made debt management difficult, so the governments and corporations had to use a less efficient, on a local scale, system of managing payment for goods -ie, monetary payment.) We sure as hell ain't going to suddenly buy up magic internet money, when access to the internet will potentially be unreliable. That would make the whole economic system unreliable, and people will still need milk and eggs.
I think Japan will be ok.
one question: what's the problem with an aging population?
Ok, there are lot's of problems. For example, if there are too many people withdrawing and not enough paying in, it bankrupts a national social security system. (Or any retirement system.) It also stresses other tax sources because older people tend to spend less and bring in less taxable revenue. It's important for a society to have a good mix of ages. Too much of any one demographic causes problems.
ok. and what's the problem with the migrants we're talking about?
Migrants have lots of problems. That's why they are migrants. They wouldn't be migrants if they didn't have problems they were trying to escape.
not to mention it will literally be the end of japan
you genocidal piece of shit
I'm kinda serious...
Japan needs young people and families. Millions of young people and families need safe places to live and raise their children. There may be some synergy there.
Do you know how much a pain it is when your g-g-grandfather moved to a new state and you don't know where he was born.
Geeze. For the sake of your own grandchildren. Stay put.
The "trick" is to understand that it's all fake. It's just theater meant to scare the participant into telling the truth. So just relax and answer the questions.
Looking for VC funding. I am about to apply for a patent that for a software system that measures imperceptible changes in keystrokes as users are asked to type answers to questions that that then converted into probabilities that the answers are lies.
Of course the system is completely bogus and only returns random noise that is then interpreted however the technician feels like that day. But who the F cares. Money.
Call me for more information on how to invest.
You are assuming the city was acting in good faith.
I'm a civil and environmental engineer. I write the plans all the time. They city had no reason to not know the rules. This isn't the first project they have done. The company had no reason to not know the rules. This might be the first job the company had tried, but I'm 100% certain that they hired people on staff that have done things before.
They cheated. They got caught.
Right. The issue here is that they cheated in their planning and estimation. They took a super-huge project, and only evaluated a small portion of it and declared no significant impact.
You can't do that.
They knew they couldn't do that.
They got caught.
So, baby, here are our birth control options.
1) You take a pill everyday, at the same time everyday, that has some pretty hard initial side effects.
2) You give me a neck and shoulder massage everyday.
I'm good with 2 too. Glad we agree.
(Oh, yeah, I could wear a condom, but, you know, I'm allergic to latex.)
You "prove" it by doing an appropriate environmental impact study.
You identify the receptors of impact, quantify the likely impact, and develop a plan to minimize that impact.
This isn't new. Almost every infrastructure project has to do it.
Elon has put on a few pounds.
I don't blame you.
The point is that a tunnel has a lot of potential environmental impacts that have to be studied and mitigated.
The waist is part of it. But you also have to consider traffic implications at the entrance and exits, groundwater impacts, impacts to the structures you will be driving underneath as well as future development impacts.
This is a big project. There is a lot to plan for. The point of the study is to demonstrate you have done the proper planning.
No, actually I don't believe you can just eye ball a multi billion dollar project and say there will be no impact. Prove it.
Maybe it does. Maybe it doesn't. That's the point of the environmental study.
Stupid.
Well, they do contribute more to the federal government's revenue than the bottom half of the states combined.
More correctly, it's not that they have an impact that is the question. It's WHAT their impact is going to be and how the infrastructure company is going to mitigate that impact. You have to prove that you can build this thing safely BEFORE you start digging.
It's called ethics. I know this is a new concept for most programmers reading this on /., but it's a thing civil guys have been dealing with for decades. It's not a new problem for us.
See here for an example:
http://www.hudsontunnelproject...
Always disrupting the disruptor's disruptions.
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
I guess we are at stage #2....
Moving rapidly toward #3.
"Want to make astounding and unsubstantiated claims about scientific discoveries? Move your research to beautiful China, where you can get a government grant to publish basically whatever you want with almost no peer-review."
Not necessarily. If you die and you leave behind a wife and kids, they can collect your SS.