It of course also wouldn't exactly encourage the heirs to publish anything that the author didn't publish before his death, when they couldn't make money with it. If the creator didn't get it together to publish their creative work during their lifetime and their family can't see any value in the work beyond money, maybe society doesn't need said creative work?
Ok, first off, take a look at this. How should the law follow nature in this situation?
Everyone would like to know that their children will be ok after they're gone.
If your copyrighted work is worth anything to society, then your children - and/or maybe their children - can benefit from that, for a start.
Which bothers you more, the idea of life being relatively hard for your children or the idea of strangers profiting from your work at your at your children's expense?
The aquisition or modification of gene function over time is measurable.
The accumulation of DNA modifications over time is measurable.
The aquisition of gene function due to alteration of DNA sequence is measurable.
The modification of gene function due to alteration of DNA sequence is measurable.
The modification of gene function due to transposable element insertions, and remobilizations, is measurable.
The alteration of gene function due to chromosomal rearrangements is measurable.
The generation of neo-centromeres is measurable.
That neo-centromeres are stability propagated over time is measurable.
Here in my part of Papua New Guinea, a Wal-Mart is approximately 0.5M udus.
Udu lives in the next village: he has a very flat head, therefore is an obvious unit of measurement.
What's more, since we switched to the Udu from the Boko (Boko got arthritis, so was shrinking), our real-estate market has thrived:-)
Spot on.
The researchers are claiming to have experimentally verified something that can be proven mathematically: traits that help a system to survive tend to survive in their own right.
One could argue that their results are biased: the nematode systems they studied had already learnt this by virtue of having survived since the beginning of time;-)
I agree with the spirit of your post.
As someone who works in web development with Java, I'd disagree with your rating of tech concepts, tho:
pointers: you should keep track of your references in Java;-)
memory management: check Internet for bug reports of memory leaks in major vendors' J2EE servers
stacks, linked lists: Java (now) has the useful Collections API built-in. You still need to understand data structures (and threading - and, since the WeakHashMap, memory management concepts) to use it properly. For example, data for a drop-down menu on a web page would probably come from a List type in the popular J2EE frameworks: the developer may find it more useful to build the list in a TreeSet and then "export" this to a List for use by the framework...
In fact, the non-existent latency due to virtualisation (JVM) means that you should code Java carefully in all the examples you mentioned!
My "conversion" course had many students who initially knew next to nothing about computers. We went from Java (Basics) to C++ (Algorithms and Data Structures), used C and shell commands in our Operating Systems course (I can't imagine how someone would be allowed to use Java to teach Operating Systems!). There was a big drop-out rate in initial stages; at the course's end, some of the "green" students were doing better all-round than the technophiles.
Actually, the supporters of the opposing parties in Kenya lived in relative harmony until these disputed elections happened. That illustrates the point I was trying to make! It seems, from what I see on the news, that a lot of the violence is tribal in origin (in which case political affiliation is more about localised survival strategies than a vision for the future of the nation;-)
Because "democracy" is the only "protected" way of achieving a goal, individuals and groups see the election process as a way of advancing their interests: instead of leading to better communication and understanding, "democracy" has led to polarisation. It might look like this polarisation is based on ideological or political differences but in individual cases we are likely to find that problems are local in origin.
It seems to me that a "big, simple" democratic model, as implemented in these countries, invites trouble because it offers so much: but in terms of power, rather than in terms of rights.
The US "two-horse" election style only works (i.e. doesn't lead to social breakdown) because both sides' supporters are reasonably sure that, on average, the supporters of the opposition are not bent on their destruction. In Kenya (or, if you think about it, many countries to which democracy has been exported), citizens do not have this luxury and large-scale elections can have a more polarising effect simply because citizens have more riding on the outcome, I think...
Please explain how science disproves God Science cannot disprove god, in the same way that it cannot prove god.
Science is based on the observation of the natural, god is supernatural.
The example did not have " god exists" and "god doesn't exist" baskets, it had "god did it" and "science can explain it" baskets.
In order to get into the "science can explain it" basket, a phenomenon must be described an some acceptable manner but, even more importantly, observations must be reproducable;-)
some religious groups feel that their beliefs about supernatural matters are on par or superior to knowledge about the physical world This is because so many members of these groups depend on these supernatural matters for their livelihood;-)
The reason we keep electing Presidents that seem to have such a connection to religion is 3.) "We" didn't elect them, voters with connections to religion did. Certain presidential candidates have tailored their campaigns to favour these voters because there are so many of them. Not only presidential candidates, but all kinds of political candidates frequently have some kind of connection to religeous interests.
I think that government has got a bit religeously "top-heavy" lately, with so many "fundie" candidates in positions of power that they think they have a mandate.
Hopefully, they'll be proved wrong at the next election...
I jumped at the chance to make a colourful point:-)
If we substitute "survived to reproduce" for "survived" in my earlier post, then I suppose we should substitute "chance mutations" for "chance mutation" and "chances of fate" for "chance of fate"?
Actually, it's "survive to reproduce and raise young, if necessary", isn't it? The "if necessary" being species-dependent, I suppose.
I'm not a biologist, I'm trying to find interesting ways of looking at the idea of survival. Nothing survives like survival:-)
If your ancestors had a lot of trouble with malaria You mean "If your ancestors' friends had a lot of trouble with malaria";-)
Your ancestors survived, either by chance mutation or chance of fate.
And shared the code, if the former;-)
the lawsuit has exactly 0 legs to stand on That's why the lawsuit exists: if it succeeds, DRM has some of the legal legs it needs.
What's the next show: DRM v The Patriot Act?;-)
The lawsuit is arguing that Apple DRM is the only DRM the iPods will decode; they won't decode Corporation X's scheme. If this is true (forgive me, I'm to lazy to check: this will be in the news again;-), it seems to me that the argument is flawed in that Apple can remove the monopoly situation simply by supporting Corporation X's DRM in the iTunes store?.
If they allow downloads in competitors' DRM formats - and honour licenses in these formats by supplying Apple-DRM'd (or DRM-free, if appropriate) versions of third-party licensed material free-of-charge - then they are not excluding any DRM vendor. Nor would they be penalising purchasers of iPods, who would be able to obtain an iPod version of a DRM-X file for free.
DRM exists to protect the rights of the copyright holder, not any third party. Apple would only need to support cross-licensing for media it is licensed to sell. If a DRM-X file is available DRM-free from iTunes due to a separately-negotiated licensing scheme with the publisher, then that's tough luck for the vendor of DRM-X: DRM-X will then serve only to lock the end-user to devices that support it, the very thing Apple is being accused of:-)
Apple supporting third-party DRM in their hardware would signify a loss of ground in their professed ambition to remove DRM from the download scene.
Slashdot Mirror
Are those $US?
I wonder what the copyright lifetime for the movie mentioned here will be? Hopefully less than the lifetime of the author ;-)
Sorry, I was trying to link to this.
Ok, first off, take a look at this. How should the law follow nature in this situation?
Everyone would like to know that their children will be ok after they're gone.
If your copyrighted work is worth anything to society, then your children - and/or maybe their children - can benefit from that, for a start.
Which bothers you more, the idea of life being relatively hard for your children or the idea of strangers profiting from your work at your at your children's expense?
I have no problem with that :-)
The Theory Of Evolution is a fact: we're talking about it, aren't we? :-)
Oh, that kind of fact
The aquisition or modification of gene function over time is measurable.
The accumulation of DNA modifications over time is measurable.
The aquisition of gene function due to alteration of DNA sequence is measurable.
The modification of gene function due to alteration of DNA sequence is measurable.
The modification of gene function due to transposable element insertions, and remobilizations, is measurable.
The alteration of gene function due to chromosomal rearrangements is measurable.
The generation of neo-centromeres is measurable.
That neo-centromeres are stability propagated over time is measurable.
What's evolution again?
Imagine if things had gone on for five years the way they were - who could afford to buy it then?
Anyway, if it were somehow categorised as a creative work - isn't self-parody a form of satire?
Here in my part of Papua New Guinea, a Wal-Mart is approximately 0.5M udus. :-)
Udu lives in the next village: he has a very flat head, therefore is an obvious unit of measurement.
What's more, since we switched to the Udu from the Boko (Boko got arthritis, so was shrinking), our real-estate market has thrived
Getting outta jail next month :-)
You missed the point: "There's no point in trying, something always gets you in the end" ;-)
Do I really have to spell it out for you?
Spot on. ;-)
The researchers are claiming to have experimentally verified something that can be proven mathematically: traits that help a system to survive tend to survive in their own right.
One could argue that their results are biased: the nematode systems they studied had already learnt this by virtue of having survived since the beginning of time
Great story :-)
As someone who works in web development with Java, I'd disagree with your rating of tech concepts, tho:
- pointers: you should keep track of your references in Java
;-)
- memory management: check Internet for bug reports of memory leaks in major vendors' J2EE servers
- stacks, linked lists: Java (now) has the useful Collections API built-in. You still need to understand data structures (and threading - and, since the WeakHashMap, memory management concepts) to use it properly. For example, data for a drop-down menu on a web page would probably come from a List type in the popular J2EE frameworks: the developer may find it more useful to build the list in a TreeSet and then "export" this to a List for use by the framework...
In fact, the non-existent latency due to virtualisation (JVM) means that you should code Java carefully in all the examples you mentioned!My "conversion" course had many students who initially knew next to nothing about computers. We went from Java (Basics) to C++ (Algorithms and Data Structures), used C and shell commands in our Operating Systems course (I can't imagine how someone would be allowed to use Java to teach Operating Systems!). There was a big drop-out rate in initial stages; at the course's end, some of the "green" students were doing better all-round than the technophiles.
Because "democracy" is the only "protected" way of achieving a goal, individuals and groups see the election process as a way of advancing their interests: instead of leading to better communication and understanding, "democracy" has led to polarisation. It might look like this polarisation is based on ideological or political differences but in individual cases we are likely to find that problems are local in origin.
It seems to me that a "big, simple" democratic model, as implemented in these countries, invites trouble because it offers so much: but in terms of power, rather than in terms of rights.
The US "two-horse" election style only works (i.e. doesn't lead to social breakdown) because both sides' supporters are reasonably sure that, on average, the supporters of the opposition are not bent on their destruction. In Kenya (or, if you think about it, many countries to which democracy has been exported), citizens do not have this luxury and large-scale elections can have a more polarising effect simply because citizens have more riding on the outcome, I think...
Science is based on the observation of the natural, god is supernatural.
The example did not have " god exists" and "god doesn't exist" baskets, it had "god did it" and "science can explain it" baskets.
In order to get into the "science can explain it" basket, a phenomenon must be described an some acceptable manner but, even more importantly, observations must be reproducable
Are you saying that a Christian's actions are dictated by dogma, not their personal sense of values?
I think that government has got a bit religeously "top-heavy" lately, with so many "fundie" candidates in positions of power that they think they have a mandate.
Hopefully, they'll be proved wrong at the next election...
I jumped at the chance to make a colourful point :-)
:-)
If we substitute "survived to reproduce" for "survived" in my earlier post, then I suppose we should substitute "chance mutations" for "chance mutation" and "chances of fate" for "chance of fate"?
Actually, it's "survive to reproduce and raise young, if necessary", isn't it? The "if necessary" being species-dependent, I suppose.
I'm not a biologist, I'm trying to find interesting ways of looking at the idea of survival. Nothing survives like survival
Your ancestors survived, either by chance mutation or chance of fate.
And shared the code, if the former
If they allow downloads in competitors' DRM formats - and honour licenses in these formats by supplying Apple-DRM'd (or DRM-free, if appropriate) versions of third-party licensed material free-of-charge - then they are not excluding any DRM vendor. Nor would they be penalising purchasers of iPods, who would be able to obtain an iPod version of a DRM-X file for free.
DRM exists to protect the rights of the copyright holder, not any third party. Apple would only need to support cross-licensing for media it is licensed to sell. If a DRM-X file is available DRM-free from iTunes due to a separately-negotiated licensing scheme with the publisher, then that's tough luck for the vendor of DRM-X: DRM-X will then serve only to lock the end-user to devices that support it, the very thing Apple is being accused of
Apple supporting third-party DRM in their hardware would signify a loss of ground in their professed ambition to remove DRM from the download scene.