Man, oh Man, It now appears every time I sneakernetted I violated this patent...where do I pay up? Still scouring for other ways I'm in violation of this patent...
Hmm... seems that the part where I saved files from the internet onto a PC-FAT12 formatted diskette from the library's Macintoshes violates the device-independent capabilities of their patents.
If they mean "worldwide", then "globalness" is not a property of a server, but of the relationship between a server and a world...Whoah, Every single MMOG is in violation of this patent in two senses of the world global!
I was about to say:
The Republicans would only have to pass new laws saying the old laws "legalizing" abortion are void. The thing is that all Republicans aren't against abortion.
While the second half of that statement is true, I decided to see what Wikipedia has to say about the case.
Turns out that Roe v Wade didn't decide that a woman has a constitutional right to an abortion, but it did decide that laws on the books at the time on abortion were in violation of a woman's right to privacy. My position was inaccurate and I need to do some reading to establish a new one.
Other people assume one of several things. First, that if their position is wrong, the other person's position must be right.
I acknowledge that at this point, I lack sufficient information to tell, but I'm not going to fall into the second stance of some which is to maintain their rightness at all cost. I don't believe I must always be right, but I do believe that I should in all cases try to become right.
I keep thinking we should all form what might be called "open source holding companies" for the sole purpose of gathering enough stock in a company to force them to open source their code by slim majority vote. Once their source is open, the shares can slowly be sold off to buy the next company to force the code open. Sure, there are flaws in the proposal as stated here, some might say huge gaping ones, but the point is to get a few ideas out there.
Some of his early stuff seemed pretty good. I was less informed then though. However, his latest stuff has been poor. I suspect it may be some form of senility or something. From my perspective, things seem to have started going downhill once he lost the Silicon Spin show on TechTV.
I've taken 3 years of High School German and can't say I've learned the language. I've studied Japanese on my own for many more years and even bought software to help. Can't say I've learned that language either, though I watch subbed anime as well. I have mostly learned hiragana and katakana, though I sometimes get letters mixed up. The show, Bobobo's use of printed characters is helpful though.
The whole point of moderating is to make posts visible at various viewing level filters. When a post is visible at a viewing level where the user would prefer not see it, it's a problem. Furthermore, based on extended viewing settings, all replies to a level 5 post may become visible when viewing at the level 5 filter.
Most abortions are legal in the US. Row vs. Wade just said that it was the Federal government's job and not the State's job to decide whether or not it was legal or not. The Federal government has passed laws saying that it is legal in most cases where the fetus can't survive outside the womb.
Sounds to me that there should be something better than imake and autotools. Something that can be easily applied to any digital project, not just codebases. Something that makes it easy for a person to have their own personal fork that keeps track of what files in the original tree the changed files are based off of and can notify the person of changes to the original project's files, so that improvements can quickly be assimilated across all forks. Anybody else have their laundry list?
You seem to have an abbeviated view of history. As I have indicated elsewhere, analog copies are inexact, making analog backups an issue. Also you appear to be unaware of or have forgotten Macrovision which was in effect before copying was widespread. I have seen some VCR's have issues playing back Macrovision VHS tapes. How's that for trampling on fair use?
First, you are making an unwarranted assumption that DRM is targeted at preventing just the infringment of the time extended copyright, and not targeted at curtailing what you would consider "fair use".
Second, you're ignoring the material that would be public domain under the reasonable copyright, but is locked up in vaults, so isn't making it into the P2P channels.
You are also ignoring the fact that something has to make up for the lack of derivative works of the copyrighted materials that would be in the public domain.
Lastly, you're ignoring the fact that the penalty for infringing on new copyrights is the same as old copyrights, and that newly copyrighted material is on copy-consistent digital media, and that old content is on degrading, copy-degradtion, media. I'm not asking you to condone the efforts of the P2P networks, just to abandon your current, flawed stance. There's plenty of smoke and mirrors on all sides here, but your stance is one of clarity on the users of the DMCA's side.
But the absurd copyright increases came first. All copyright infringements from that point forward has to be viewed in light of that. Furthermore, since DRM is the tool of those who benefit from the copyright increase, the same motivations for the copyright increase has to be examined for applicability to DRM. In that light, your assertion that "You can't really blame the media industry for fighting back" which is dependent on the the concept that DRM is just fighting back, fails to hold water. Furthermore your assertion "large numbers of selfish people decided they were above the law" caused copyright to cease to be effective also fails to hold water, since by your own admission the copyright increases were absurd.
...the lawbreakers are driving all the paranoid media industry bigwigs away from that model
If they are really lawbreakers then they will held responsible to the law. If the law is wrong, then they aren't lawbreakers, and they won't. Without this basis to evaluate the law, laws make no sense. This is the reason prohibition was revoked.
Property is a relationship that naturally arises between human beings and material things. Property and enforceable property rights make possible economic calculation, a wider and more productive division of labor, and therefore increasing levels of prosperity. Civilization is inconceivable in the absence of private property. Any encroachment on property results in loss of freedom and prosperity.
Therefore, if there is loss of freedom and prosperity, it follows that property has been infringed upon. The only question that matters is whose property it actually is.
Material is defined as follows:
1. The tangible substance that goes into the makeup of a physical object
2. Information (data or ideas or observations) that can be used or reworked into a finished form
Sure you can, on the approved devices. It's not the fault of the copyright holders that you get yourself into this situations. Next you'll be complaining that you can't play a CD on a record player. Since you aren't one of the aforementioned 'selfish people' you should be able to appreciate this. While you aren't "Anonymous Brave Guy", you posted to the thread where his assertions apply, so this applys to you. 'Selfish people' are the people who want a 'fair use' that the copyright holder don't believe in. That is, if you accept the 'in large numbers' arguement.
Used to be that old people had real complaints, like walking to school uphill both ways. Now the best they can do is complain about carrying a calculator keyboard around and turning the light back on upon re-entering a room in which the other occupant prefers the light off.
Clothing that causes recording devices to perceive the content management signal. If enough people wear it to be an inconvieniece to recorders, perhaps the lawmakers will reconsider...Yeah, one can hope.
I agree with the other assessment that you've misapplied trademark law to the concept of patents, but I'd like to point out that even trademark law goes too far. What if I'd like to decorate clothes with a swish? Nike'd get upset. I'm not trying to make people think my clothes are Nike's and wouldn't put the swish decoration in places where it could only be interpreted as a mark of trade and not a decoration, but trademark law goes too far. Same as if I wanted to decorate a shirt with two yellow half circles over a red box.
You know, the story where the robot was programmed wit a variation on the 3 directives where it would obey a rule unless it caused the robot harm, so it would go into the harmful zone, the cause robot harm rule would trigger, it would back out, the follow rule condition would reassert itself, and so on until the people got back into radio contact and told the robot that this mission needed to be done or the people would die.
The manufacturer does not want the price to float.
That's not true for all manufacturers, and in fact they would be better off if they did want the price to float, for reasons I've stated above and in other threads of this slashdot story. Same thing goes for consumers.
Cars and SUVs do cost what people are willing to pay, but how do people justify to themselves what they are willing to pay? Why, they take into consideration the existence of the parts, labor, taxes, etc, factor.
Slashdot Mirror
Man, oh Man, It now appears every time I sneakernetted I violated this patent...where do I pay up? Still scouring for other ways I'm in violation of this patent...
Hmm... seems that the part where I saved files from the internet onto a PC-FAT12 formatted diskette from the library's Macintoshes violates the device-independent capabilities of their patents.
I'm hosed... Yeah, right!
If they mean "worldwide", then "globalness" is not a property of a server, but of the relationship between a server and a world...Whoah, Every single MMOG is in violation of this patent in two senses of the world global!
I was about to say:
The Republicans would only have to pass new laws saying the old laws "legalizing" abortion are void. The thing is that all Republicans aren't against abortion.
While the second half of that statement is true, I decided to see what Wikipedia has to say about the case.
Turns out that Roe v Wade didn't decide that a woman has a constitutional right to an abortion, but it did decide that laws on the books at the time on abortion were in violation of a woman's right to privacy. My position was inaccurate and I need to do some reading to establish a new one.
Other people assume one of several things. First, that if their position is wrong, the other person's position must be right.
I acknowledge that at this point, I lack sufficient information to tell, but I'm not going to fall into the second stance of some which is to maintain their rightness at all cost. I don't believe I must always be right, but I do believe that I should in all cases try to become right.
I keep thinking we should all form what might be called "open source holding companies" for the sole purpose of gathering enough stock in a company to force them to open source their code by slim majority vote. Once their source is open, the shares can slowly be sold off to buy the next company to force the code open. Sure, there are flaws in the proposal as stated here, some might say huge gaping ones, but the point is to get a few ideas out there.
Some of his early stuff seemed pretty good. I was less informed then though. However, his latest stuff has been poor. I suspect it may be some form of senility or something. From my perspective, things seem to have started going downhill once he lost the Silicon Spin show on TechTV.
I've taken 3 years of High School German and can't say I've learned the language. I've studied Japanese on my own for many more years and even bought software to help. Can't say I've learned that language either, though I watch subbed anime as well. I have mostly learned hiragana and katakana, though I sometimes get letters mixed up. The show, Bobobo's use of printed characters is helpful though.
What's up with that?
= %22don't+say+the+p+word%22+%22max+headroom
Max Headroom: And, and, remember folks: Don't say the P word.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q
The whole point of moderating is to make posts visible at various viewing level filters. When a post is visible at a viewing level where the user would prefer not see it, it's a problem. Furthermore, based on extended viewing settings, all replies to a level 5 post may become visible when viewing at the level 5 filter.
Most abortions are legal in the US. Row vs. Wade just said that it was the Federal government's job and not the State's job to decide whether or not it was legal or not. The Federal government has passed laws saying that it is legal in most cases where the fetus can't survive outside the womb.
The Intel archetechture has a swap instruction, or rather XCHG
I wrote it in response to another sig that said people who use ^ instead of ** are clearly BASIC Programmers...as if that's a bad thing.
The autotools are hard enough to learn
Sounds to me that there should be something better than imake and autotools. Something that can be easily applied to any digital project, not just codebases. Something that makes it easy for a person to have their own personal fork that keeps track of what files in the original tree the changed files are based off of and can notify the person of changes to the original project's files, so that improvements can quickly be assimilated across all forks. Anybody else have their laundry list?
You seem to have an abbeviated view of history. As I have indicated elsewhere, analog copies are inexact, making analog backups an issue. Also you appear to be unaware of or have forgotten Macrovision which was in effect before copying was widespread. I have seen some VCR's have issues playing back Macrovision VHS tapes. How's that for trampling on fair use?
First, you are making an unwarranted assumption that DRM is targeted at preventing just the infringment of the time extended copyright, and not targeted at curtailing what you would consider "fair use".
Second, you're ignoring the material that would be public domain under the reasonable copyright, but is locked up in vaults, so isn't making it into the P2P channels.
You are also ignoring the fact that something has to make up for the lack of derivative works of the copyrighted materials that would be in the public domain.
Lastly, you're ignoring the fact that the penalty for infringing on new copyrights is the same as old copyrights, and that newly copyrighted material is on copy-consistent digital media, and that old content is on degrading, copy-degradtion, media. I'm not asking you to condone the efforts of the P2P networks, just to abandon your current, flawed stance. There's plenty of smoke and mirrors on all sides here, but your stance is one of clarity on the users of the DMCA's side.
But the absurd copyright increases came first. All copyright infringements from that point forward has to be viewed in light of that. Furthermore, since DRM is the tool of those who benefit from the copyright increase, the same motivations for the copyright increase has to be examined for applicability to DRM. In that light, your assertion that "You can't really blame the media industry for fighting back" which is dependent on the the concept that DRM is just fighting back, fails to hold water. Furthermore your assertion "large numbers of selfish people decided they were above the law" caused copyright to cease to be effective also fails to hold water, since by your own admission the copyright increases were absurd.
...the lawbreakers are driving all the paranoid media industry bigwigs away from that model
If they are really lawbreakers then they will held responsible to the law. If the law is wrong, then they aren't lawbreakers, and they won't. Without this basis to evaluate the law, laws make no sense. This is the reason prohibition was revoked.
Property is a relationship that naturally arises between human beings and material things. Property and enforceable property rights make possible economic calculation, a wider and more productive division of labor, and therefore increasing levels of prosperity. Civilization is inconceivable in the absence of private property. Any encroachment on property results in loss of freedom and prosperity.
Therefore, if there is loss of freedom and prosperity, it follows that property has been infringed upon. The only question that matters is whose property it actually is.
Material is defined as follows:
1. The tangible substance that goes into the makeup of a physical object
2. Information (data or ideas or observations) that can be used or reworked into a finished form
Sure you can, on the approved devices. It's not the fault of the copyright holders that you get yourself into this situations. Next you'll be complaining that you can't play a CD on a record player. Since you aren't one of the aforementioned 'selfish people' you should be able to appreciate this. While you aren't "Anonymous Brave Guy", you posted to the thread where his assertions apply, so this applys to you. 'Selfish people' are the people who want a 'fair use' that the copyright holder don't believe in. That is, if you accept the 'in large numbers' arguement.
They use more bandwidth than text. On a dial-up connection it's really noticable, but when you are constantly downloading, every bit helps.
Used to be that old people had real complaints, like walking to school uphill both ways. Now the best they can do is complain about carrying a calculator keyboard around and turning the light back on upon re-entering a room in which the other occupant prefers the light off.
Clothing that causes recording devices to perceive the content management signal. If enough people wear it to be an inconvieniece to recorders, perhaps the lawmakers will reconsider...Yeah, one can hope.
I agree with the other assessment that you've misapplied trademark law to the concept of patents, but I'd like to point out that even trademark law goes too far. What if I'd like to decorate clothes with a swish? Nike'd get upset. I'm not trying to make people think my clothes are Nike's and wouldn't put the swish decoration in places where it could only be interpreted as a mark of trade and not a decoration, but trademark law goes too far. Same as if I wanted to decorate a shirt with two yellow half circles over a red box.
You know, the story where the robot was programmed wit a variation on the 3 directives where it would obey a rule unless it caused the robot harm, so it would go into the harmful zone, the cause robot harm rule would trigger, it would back out, the follow rule condition would reassert itself, and so on until the people got back into radio contact and told the robot that this mission needed to be done or the people would die.
The manufacturer does not want the price to float.
That's not true for all manufacturers, and in fact they would be better off if they did want the price to float, for reasons I've stated above and in other threads of this slashdot story. Same thing goes for consumers.
"What is the justification for server CALs?" is just another way of saying "Why do people choose to subsidize?"
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy illustrates neatly the problem of not understanding the question.
Cars and SUVs do cost what people are willing to pay, but how do people justify to themselves what they are willing to pay? Why, they take into consideration the existence of the parts, labor, taxes, etc, factor.