For a start, rewrite the space treaty so governments are not responsible for everything their citizens launch into space. Next, hold the corporations responsible for their own mess. For every year they fail to deorbit their space junk (or boost it into a safe parking orbit) charge them a fine. If the fine is just twice as high as a terminator tether they'll soon take care of their space junk.
You know what they say about good intentions? Yeah. That's what I think of ndiswrapper. I wonder how many manufacturers have actually considered making a native Linux driver and then discovered that their windows drivers work just fine with ndiswrapper and havn't bothered. I wonder how many kernel hackers have sat down and started reverse engineering a windows driver and then given up after they discovered that it works just fine with ndiswrapper.
And why arn't they? Why do so many cops become cynical and lose sight of why they joined the police force in the first place? IMHO it's because they are called upon daily to enforce laws they don't believe are reasonable or all that important. Primarily, they spend so much of their time policing what people can and can't put into their own bodies.
Yes, correcting other people without contributing anything new is nitpicking. It's one of the primary reasons why people hate geeks.
Re:Question for the white house
on
Pluto Probe Launches
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Just because you're ignorant of major space exploration events doesn't mean the rest of the world is. Take an occasional read of something like The Space Review. Although there's much debate about the planned manned space architecture there's still plenty going on.
When we can do full quantum electromagnetic simulation of even a square micron of space in at least 1/100th of real time then we'll have no trouble figuring out this stuff works. Either that or three dimensional microscoping scanning technology (or a combination of both).
These are all parts of copyright law. Modifying a copyrighted work is an action that falls under copyright law. The fact that your government's copyright law says you are allowed to do it and my government's copyright law says you are not allowed to do it in no way negates the fact that the action is regulated under copyright law... which is what the person I was arguing with was claiming was not the case. Back in your box.
Yep, keep developing that high technology for my disabled countrymen, because sooner or later the technology will become common place and I'll finally be able to go get my retinas replaced. Why would I want to replace my healthy retinas with electronic ones? Well, for a start, I'm red/green color blind, and I don't think gene therapy is going to be available sooner than this stuff. Irrespective of that, when this technology is capable of delivering sharper images to my brain than the retinas I was born with what have I got to lose? Then there's the added benefit of interfacing my shiny new retinas with computer systems.
Maybe you're a big fuckin' moron who talks about things he doesn't understand. Go ask any lawyer whether you are legally allowed to patch software you are not the copyright owner of and they will tell you it is creating a derivative work which is not permitted by copyright law. Now shut your pie hole.
If you don't understand the issue please refrain from commenting.
The issue of web services that some have proposed the GPL v3 address involves the creation of derivative works of GPL applications. This clearly falls under copyright law as, even in the privacy of your own home, you do not have the legal right to modify software for your own use. Hell, you don't even have the legal right to run software in some regions as "copying into memory" is restricted by copyright law.
Except, ya know, that the license then goes on to say
As a special exception, the Complete Corresponding Source Code need not include a particular subunit if (a) the identical subunit is normally included as an adjunct in the distribution of either a major essential component (kernel, window system, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs or a compiler used to produce the executable or an object code interpreter used to run it, and (b) the subunit (aside from possible incidental extensions) serves only to enable use of the work with that system component or compiler or interpreter, or to implement a widely used or standard interface, the implementation of which requires no patent license not already generally available for software under this License.
Yeah, I didn't see that either. I thought this new "propagate" concept might include it but apparently not.
To "propagate" a work means doing anything with it that requires permission under applicable copyright law, other than executing it on a computer or making private modifications.
Seems concerns about web services have been ignored.
If you'd prefer a less futuristic example, consider how many people are dying in third world countries because of patent retraints on drug manufacturers.
as I've already said, Intellectual Property is not an accepted legal concept. It's a rejected philosophical concept. Rejected thousands of years ago no less! Copyright and patent laws exist to serve the public interest. If someone attempts to use these laws to acheive goals that are not in the public interest, like artificially inflate the value of their hardware, then we, the public, should refuse to protect their actions under these laws. I really don't think I can make my argument any simpler. Now if you want to continue living in a fantasy land where Intellectual Property is legally accepted concept, go right ahead, I'm sure you'll find you have lots of company.
One last time, why should Apple have the say? Why do we give them this power? You're obviously too dense to get it so I'll tell you: because it is in our interest to give them this power. When they start using this power in ways that are not in our interest we should take that power away from them.
Slashdot Mirror
For a start, rewrite the space treaty so governments are not responsible for everything their citizens launch into space. Next, hold the corporations responsible for their own mess. For every year they fail to deorbit their space junk (or boost it into a safe parking orbit) charge them a fine. If the fine is just twice as high as a terminator tether they'll soon take care of their space junk.
You know what they say about good intentions? Yeah. That's what I think of ndiswrapper. I wonder how many manufacturers have actually considered making a native Linux driver and then discovered that their windows drivers work just fine with ndiswrapper and havn't bothered. I wonder how many kernel hackers have sat down and started reverse engineering a windows driver and then given up after they discovered that it works just fine with ndiswrapper.
And why arn't they? Why do so many cops become cynical and lose sight of why they joined the police force in the first place? IMHO it's because they are called upon daily to enforce laws they don't believe are reasonable or all that important. Primarily, they spend so much of their time policing what people can and can't put into their own bodies.
Yes, correcting other people without contributing anything new is nitpicking. It's one of the primary reasons why people hate geeks.
Just because you're ignorant of major space exploration events doesn't mean the rest of the world is. Take an occasional read of something like The Space Review. Although there's much debate about the planned manned space architecture there's still plenty going on.
But they should.
Yeah, it's called nitpicking and it contributes nothing to the conversation.
No. This is a thread of conversation. If you can't even be bothered to read the entire thread, don't comment.
When we can do full quantum electromagnetic simulation of even a square micron of space in at least 1/100th of real time then we'll have no trouble figuring out this stuff works. Either that or three dimensional microscoping scanning technology (or a combination of both).
These are all parts of copyright law. Modifying a copyrighted work is an action that falls under copyright law. The fact that your government's copyright law says you are allowed to do it and my government's copyright law says you are not allowed to do it in no way negates the fact that the action is regulated under copyright law... which is what the person I was arguing with was claiming was not the case. Back in your box.
Maybe if you were to RTFA you'd see that "battery" was being used very loosely.
1. I'm not american. 2. The Nazis also went after the intellectuals. As they say, no-one likes a smart ass.
Actually, USians is Canadian slang, can you guess why?
Yep, keep developing that high technology for my disabled countrymen, because sooner or later the technology will become common place and I'll finally be able to go get my retinas replaced. Why would I want to replace my healthy retinas with electronic ones? Well, for a start, I'm red/green color blind, and I don't think gene therapy is going to be available sooner than this stuff. Irrespective of that, when this technology is capable of delivering sharper images to my brain than the retinas I was born with what have I got to lose? Then there's the added benefit of interfacing my shiny new retinas with computer systems.
And USians wonder why the rest of the world hates them.
Who were the first people to be arrested and killed by the Nazis? The intellectuals.
Yes, people want to copy. Unfortunately other people want to "get rich" by forcing people not to copy and the government helps them do it.
May I also remind you that not everyone lives in the US. We don't all have a fair use doctrine to hide behind :(
Maybe you're a big fuckin' moron who talks about things he doesn't understand. Go ask any lawyer whether you are legally allowed to patch software you are not the copyright owner of and they will tell you it is creating a derivative work which is not permitted by copyright law. Now shut your pie hole.
If you don't understand the issue please refrain from commenting.
The issue of web services that some have proposed the GPL v3 address involves the creation of derivative works of GPL applications. This clearly falls under copyright law as, even in the privacy of your own home, you do not have the legal right to modify software for your own use. Hell, you don't even have the legal right to run software in some regions as "copying into memory" is restricted by copyright law.
Except, ya know, that the license then goes on to say
As a special exception, the Complete Corresponding Source Code need
not include a particular subunit if (a) the identical subunit is
normally included as an adjunct in the distribution of either a major
essential component (kernel, window system, and so on) of the
operating system on which the executable runs or a compiler used to
produce the executable or an object code interpreter used to run it,
and (b) the subunit (aside from possible incidental extensions) serves
only to enable use of the work with that system component or compiler
or interpreter, or to implement a widely used or standard interface,
the implementation of which requires no patent license not already
generally available for software under this License.
Yeah, I didn't see that either. I thought this new "propagate" concept might include it but apparently not.
To "propagate" a work means doing anything with it that requires
permission under applicable copyright law, other than executing it on
a computer or making private modifications.
Seems concerns about web services have been ignored.
If you'd prefer a less futuristic example, consider how many people are dying in third world countries because of patent retraints on drug manufacturers.
as I've already said, Intellectual Property is not an accepted legal concept. It's a rejected philosophical concept. Rejected thousands of years ago no less! Copyright and patent laws exist to serve the public interest. If someone attempts to use these laws to acheive goals that are not in the public interest, like artificially inflate the value of their hardware, then we, the public, should refuse to protect their actions under these laws. I really don't think I can make my argument any simpler. Now if you want to continue living in a fantasy land where Intellectual Property is legally accepted concept, go right ahead, I'm sure you'll find you have lots of company.
One last time, why should Apple have the say? Why do we give them this power? You're obviously too dense to get it so I'll tell you: because it is in our interest to give them this power. When they start using this power in ways that are not in our interest we should take that power away from them.