No that's not correct. Copyright covers the physical expression of an idea. You can't copyright something you just say. You have to write it down in some form or fashion for copyright to apply.
I don't care what something is written in as long as in some form that a human can process it. The source code is what should be released when something goes out of copyright, not the final compiled machine language binary.
In the case you mention, the source code is a trade secret, and the compiled code is copyrighted. The compiled code is made available to the public.
I like copyrights and patents for the exact reason that they do allow innovations to be made public and not kept secret forever.
You do realize these two statements are in direct opposition to each other? The INNOVATION is in the source code, not the end result. Yet you would gladly have that never see the light of day while claiming you like it seeing the light of day?
My point is the 'software' is never made available. Only the binary executables which aren't useful 95 years from now.
Something that is 'active' and requires outside input shouldn't be copyrighted, because the contract that grants them copyright protection REQUIRES that the public get access to that original content at some point. When it's binary executables, the public never gets their end of the bargain.
Intellectual Property != Physical Property. Full Stop.
IP can be duplicated without cost or effort. Physical stuff had resources go into it. Me telling someone the secret ingredient to Coca-Cola does not deprive Coca-Cola of anything. Me giving someone a case of coke deprives whoever had that case before I gave it to them.
IP law is a socialist concept. It's called controls on group behavior. Much like a wild horse (the free market), you get more done when you put reigns and a saddle on it (regulation and gov't in general).
Socialism is the benefit for the greater good - capitalism is everyone for themselves. IP law specifically does stuff for the greater good at the expense of the greater good for a 'short' term. It's the entire point of it.
Copyright shouldn't exist for SOFTWARE in the first place. (Yes not patents either).
The entire purpose of Copyright is to benefit society by adding more creation to the public domain. By granting short term monopoly to the creator they are incentivised to create. The deal is a 2 way street, they get protection for 'a while' and then we get the content free and clear afterwards.
The problem is that the game is never actually released to the public. Because the code is never made available, except in a few rare cases. So the 'contract' with the public that gave them copyright is now violated because we don't get ever get the content into the public domain. How about games that require activation servers? How in the hell will you get to play the game in 75 years when said servers are long since dead?
This is exacerbated by the rapid pace of technology. Yes Mario Brothers is still copyrighted, but short of emulation you simply can't actually play it anymore even if it was free.
There needs to be a repository where software code gets placed so that when it's copyright is expired it gets released to the public. Or something like that so we actually get the creators to honor their end of the deal.
Congress can pass anything it damn well feels like and also why generally you can't challenge a law in court until it's 'harmed' you.
Legal doesn't mean morally right, just that's what the 'law' says, and the law clearly does say they can do this crap. Or at least that's what they tell us it says since until very very recently they haven't even let their interpretation of the law be public.
We have the same opinion of their constitutionality but until SCOTUS rules on them, they are the law and are what defines 'legal' in this country.
Sadly, no it isn't illegal anymore. It should, however, be ruled unconstitutional once we manage to pry a case up to a competent SCOTUS (and I'm not sure we have one currently).
The 'evil capitalists' aren't the small businessman made good. They are the massive international conglomerates that buy laws that prevent others from competing against them - and end up paying nothing in taxes on top of it.
Imagine developing a combustion engine while you haven't even worked out a process to drill or refine oil for the engine.
You mean like Mr. Diesel did with his engine? It was demoed running on peanut oil in 1901 I think.
Hydrogen is the most plentiful element in the universe. Using the state transition of water/electrolysis to store and release energy means that we have a completely renewable source of hydrogen. 'Using' the fuel simply puts it back into the feedstock state.
Couple that with the fact that more energy hits the earth as sunlight in an 'hour' than we currently use across the entire planet in an entire year and you have all the energy you need to split water into hydrogen.
There's a difference. Those organisms 'evolved', though the normal process of chance selection. We're actively changing ourselves which isn't chance selection.
It also depends, apparently, on the deals your utility has struck with suppliers. I.e. the article talks about how RG&E agreed to buy power from the plant through 2014 at a fixed rate. So regardless of market forces, in this case, the price is fixed at least until then.
What you want to use ecologically horrific batteries everywhere?
Because batteries are recyclable? Look at lead-acid batteries and lead content in the environment. We solved that problem by recycling them and now the bulk of the material used in new lead-acid batteries comes from the old ones.
Every job has different requirements and we'll need to use multiple fuels for the different jobs. Gasoline has many good qualities and we should use it (if we can make it like this) for those. But I highly doubt we can make enough to completely replace the current demand.
The Diesel Engine was demoed at a French Expo in 1900 to run on peanut oil. Bio-diesel lets us use diesel engines where they are useful. Gasoline and oil based fuels are bad not because they are oil based, but because they release CO2 from 30 million years ago into the environment today without removing any.
If you can make that fuel today to meet demand, then there is no change in the CO2 levels as everything you release was recently taken out. Zero-sum game and it's good.
Or this becomes just one of many fuels we can use - tailored the specific job requirements. We don't *need* gasoline for daily trips around town. It is needed for things like military and other things where you don't have a corner station to fill up with.
Assuming this can scale to even 5%, that's a huge amount to put towards things that do actually need the energy density and quick refuel times.
Uh, 'fossil' fuels are bad. As would anything that takes something from 30 million years ago and dumps it into a current environment. It's not sustainable and is having undesired side effects.
Diesel is bad too - when produced from oil from fossils.
If we can make gasoline via green methods? Absofucking great. And while I highly doubt this is scalable to current demands, but if it can produce even a small fraction we're better off. Uses that do require the energy density and quick refuel time of hydrocarbon fuel (like the military or even perhaps long haul transport) can use this, while the rest of the population uses more 'modern' renewable fuels.
Slashdot Mirror
or they *could* just have you report the miles driven via your ODOMETER and call it done.
uh, legal 'handgun' perhaps, but not rifles no?
And then you pay cash for everything. Good luck with that on big ticket items like cars or houses.
If you're a bank you want to know whether the person in front of you, a. is the person they say and b. will likely pay back the loan.
What would you do about someone who repeatedly defaults on loans? Or better yet how would you know they did if you weren't tracking them?
Copyright covers ideas, not implementations
No that's not correct. Copyright covers the physical expression of an idea. You can't copyright something you just say. You have to write it down in some form or fashion for copyright to apply.
I don't care what something is written in as long as in some form that a human can process it. The source code is what should be released when something goes out of copyright, not the final compiled machine language binary.
In the case you mention, the source code is a trade secret, and the compiled code is copyrighted. The compiled code is made available to the public.
I like copyrights and patents for the exact reason that they do allow innovations to be made public and not kept secret forever.
You do realize these two statements are in direct opposition to each other? The INNOVATION is in the source code, not the end result. Yet you would gladly have that never see the light of day while claiming you like it seeing the light of day?
My point is the 'software' is never made available. Only the binary executables which aren't useful 95 years from now.
Something that is 'active' and requires outside input shouldn't be copyrighted, because the contract that grants them copyright protection REQUIRES that the public get access to that original content at some point. When it's binary executables, the public never gets their end of the bargain.
Intellectual Property != Physical Property. Full Stop.
IP can be duplicated without cost or effort. Physical stuff had resources go into it. Me telling someone the secret ingredient to Coca-Cola does not deprive Coca-Cola of anything. Me giving someone a case of coke deprives whoever had that case before I gave it to them.
IP law is a socialist concept. It's called controls on group behavior. Much like a wild horse (the free market), you get more done when you put reigns and a saddle on it (regulation and gov't in general).
Socialism is the benefit for the greater good - capitalism is everyone for themselves. IP law specifically does stuff for the greater good at the expense of the greater good for a 'short' term. It's the entire point of it.
Copyright shouldn't exist for SOFTWARE in the first place. (Yes not patents either).
The entire purpose of Copyright is to benefit society by adding more creation to the public domain. By granting short term monopoly to the creator they are incentivised to create. The deal is a 2 way street, they get protection for 'a while' and then we get the content free and clear afterwards.
The problem is that the game is never actually released to the public. Because the code is never made available, except in a few rare cases. So the 'contract' with the public that gave them copyright is now violated because we don't get ever get the content into the public domain. How about games that require activation servers? How in the hell will you get to play the game in 75 years when said servers are long since dead?
This is exacerbated by the rapid pace of technology. Yes Mario Brothers is still copyrighted, but short of emulation you simply can't actually play it anymore even if it was free.
There needs to be a repository where software code gets placed so that when it's copyright is expired it gets released to the public. Or something like that so we actually get the creators to honor their end of the deal.
you could potentially change consumer mindsets from 'Do I really need to buy this thing?' to 'I want to buy this thing.'
Phones people use every day and get jollies from doing so. Thermostat's? The entire point of the Nest is you DON'T use it much, it figures it out.
'their' api. That's the problem. A 'standard' is not something you control and can change because you want to change it.
Fascism will come wrapped in a flag and carrying a Bible. ~ Sinclair Lewis 1935
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -- James Madison
patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels. - Samuel Johnson
let me know if any of those seem to describe the current US political climate...
Congress can pass anything it damn well feels like and also why generally you can't challenge a law in court until it's 'harmed' you.
Legal doesn't mean morally right, just that's what the 'law' says, and the law clearly does say they can do this crap. Or at least that's what they tell us it says since until very very recently they haven't even let their interpretation of the law be public.
We have the same opinion of their constitutionality but until SCOTUS rules on them, they are the law and are what defines 'legal' in this country.
Sadly, no it isn't illegal anymore. It should, however, be ruled unconstitutional once we manage to pry a case up to a competent SCOTUS (and I'm not sure we have one currently).
The 'evil capitalists' aren't the small businessman made good. They are the massive international conglomerates that buy laws that prevent others from competing against them - and end up paying nothing in taxes on top of it.
Solar provides all the electricity you'll ever need. Use it to split water to get hydrogen and poof, now solar works 'at night' too.
Imagine developing a combustion engine while you haven't even worked out a process to drill or refine oil for the engine.
You mean like Mr. Diesel did with his engine? It was demoed running on peanut oil in 1901 I think.
Hydrogen is the most plentiful element in the universe. Using the state transition of water/electrolysis to store and release energy means that we have a completely renewable source of hydrogen. 'Using' the fuel simply puts it back into the feedstock state.
Couple that with the fact that more energy hits the earth as sunlight in an 'hour' than we currently use across the entire planet in an entire year and you have all the energy you need to split water into hydrogen.
I was thinking that mostly the name 'AquaFAIRY' was going to be their undoing myself...
There's a difference. Those organisms 'evolved', though the normal process of chance selection. We're actively changing ourselves which isn't chance selection.
It also depends, apparently, on the deals your utility has struck with suppliers. I.e. the article talks about how RG&E agreed to buy power from the plant through 2014 at a fixed rate. So regardless of market forces, in this case, the price is fixed at least until then.
Sigh.
What you want to use ecologically horrific batteries everywhere?
Because batteries are recyclable? Look at lead-acid batteries and lead content in the environment. We solved that problem by recycling them and now the bulk of the material used in new lead-acid batteries comes from the old ones.
Every job has different requirements and we'll need to use multiple fuels for the different jobs. Gasoline has many good qualities and we should use it (if we can make it like this) for those. But I highly doubt we can make enough to completely replace the current demand.
The Diesel Engine was demoed at a French Expo in 1900 to run on peanut oil. Bio-diesel lets us use diesel engines where they are useful. Gasoline and oil based fuels are bad not because they are oil based, but because they release CO2 from 30 million years ago into the environment today without removing any.
If you can make that fuel today to meet demand, then there is no change in the CO2 levels as everything you release was recently taken out. Zero-sum game and it's good.
Or this becomes just one of many fuels we can use - tailored the specific job requirements. We don't *need* gasoline for daily trips around town. It is needed for things like military and other things where you don't have a corner station to fill up with.
Assuming this can scale to even 5%, that's a huge amount to put towards things that do actually need the energy density and quick refuel times.
Uh, 'fossil' fuels are bad. As would anything that takes something from 30 million years ago and dumps it into a current environment. It's not sustainable and is having undesired side effects.
Diesel is bad too - when produced from oil from fossils.
If we can make gasoline via green methods? Absofucking great. And while I highly doubt this is scalable to current demands, but if it can produce even a small fraction we're better off. Uses that do require the energy density and quick refuel time of hydrocarbon fuel (like the military or even perhaps long haul transport) can use this, while the rest of the population uses more 'modern' renewable fuels.
At the moment, the economy, running on fossil carbon fuels, acts like any other carbon based life form.
No it doesn't. Every carbon based life form consumes/releases carbon from their current environment, not one from 30 million years ago.