How very odd. Do you have any rational basis for your claim that slavery is not right? Or are we just to take your word for it? And if we do take your word for it, do you think that it makes the leap of illogic in your last paragraph make any more sense?
Get a clue, my last post was exactly as logical, rational and reasoned as your post. If you have a problem with my statement, you have a problem with your own.
Re:I know, it's a feature.
on
Pet Bugs?
·
· Score: 1
Umm, maybe I'm missing somethine, but isn't that what "Nested" is for?
If you surrender the idea of an external, universal, and objective moral criteria, you lose all grounds to ever consider any action to be better than another.
There was a time when many in the United States believed that working for a salary was `right'. But it was not right, and no amount of belief to the contrary could make it right.
So you, who still sees this as `right', must therefor have no problems what so ever with people killing each other.
Yes, which is why you would be much more likely to evolve the resulting binaries, rather than trying to evolve it to match the output. I'm unclear if the one would be more or less legal than the other.
Finally, the perfect topic to post my theory under. Too bad I'm a day late, and no one will read it.
If using techniques to coax existing genetic codes closer to a known goal does not infringe on patents, why wouldn't the same be true of the computer version, source code?
Say I wanted to produce my own version of SAMBA. Wanting to do this the quickest and easiest way, I go read the MS patents on this technology. Once I know what I need to generate, I simply use a target genome (in this case, the compilation of code using MS's patents), then evolve a random bit sting to match it using Genetic Algorithms, or Simulated Annealing, or something equally effective and random. When done, toss out the target genome code, and what you have left is an executable that was not created using MS's patents. Or more obviously non-infringing, randomly create code that just happens to compile to the same thing.
And why don't we take this one step further, to Copyright? I can evolve a copy of a file or program without actually taking anything from that file, and using it in mine. So my file will be an independently and randomly created work, so I could not have carried out any unauthorized copying. Again, more so if the algorithm generated source code that reproduced the output of the program or compiled to the binary file itself.
I realize this could be quite time consuming (though I don't think generating just the binary file would be terribly bad), however once done a single time, the (essentially reverse-engineered) file generated could then be released to the public under any number of open licenses.
I know calling for a lawyer's opinion on/. is a no no, but I'd like to hear from anyone who has any knowledge about this issue.
The free market is driven by supply and demand. In the current market for music there is near infinite supply. I don't think you will argue that.
The free market also dictates that any items should be priced at the point where supply meets demand. With infinite supply, demand meets it at $0. You can argue this, but any introductory economics class should clear things up for you in this case.
We're talking about the economic reality of the current situation, not the current laws, not the morality. Economically, a copy of music has a value very close to $0 in the free market. Live with it.
We were not discussing "those who freeload" we were discussing those who "pirate" in the situations where they would never pay.
I agree that those who would pay, but withhold their cash because they can get it free are completely immoral, but that is not what our posts are about.
So you're saying that due to the "Golden Rule", it's clear cut that using other's IP is wrong?
I would have to say I'm not sure where you get this notion. If he feels that it's moral to download a CD he wouldn't buy, I see no reason to conclude that he wouldn't in fact, appreciate someone else downloading a CD he made, if that person wouldn't otherwise be able to enjoy it.
If there is 0% chance of A compensating B for B's existing work, then the only harm to B that A can do by using B's work, is psychological. In that B perceives themselves to be harmed, despite the lack of any negative consequences to the state of B's world.
In this situation, A's actions are moral. B's response may be illogical, and consider A's action's immoral, but this is an issue with B and not A's actions.
And in the real world, B rarely actually knows of A, or their use of B's work, and so there is NO effect on B from any specific A's actions.
Can you give me another example of an action which does not adversly affect anyone, and which has a likelyhood of positivly affecting someone, which is considered immoral in any culture?
The issue being discussed is whether they should have to SHARE the pair that you're paying them to provide telephone on, not whether they should allow someone else to use the other pairs.
I'm not sure if they are right in this, if you're paying them for a service, and they chose to go through a pair of wires, but not to use the wires to capacity, I don't see why they should not be made to allow other people access to the remainder, since they're getting paid to provide the service, not to tie up a pair of wires.
RRRR. Wrong. (Or at least, likely soon to be)
The proposed increase in this levy left the public discussion phase on the 8th of this month (I beleive), and will be decided on soon (yes, I'm too lazy to go find out exactly when). I would be surprized to see this increase shot down after the original levy was approved.
The new levy stipulates a $21/Gb levy on blank hard drives included in devices primarily used for music storage and use.
This amounts to $210 of tax on (often $200) 10Gb MP3 players. At least until they start including intro chimes on them from the factory.
The nice thing about this levy is that it gives us as citizens the right to copy any music for personal use without reimbursing the recording companies (or the artists, but they don't get much anyway). Just be careful that YOU make the copies you want to listen to (no, the owner of the original does not matter, and no, who's equipment you do the copy on does not matter) because if you're friend makes the copy, only HE is legally allowed to use it.
This actually (in my mind, but IANAL) confuses the MP3 issue a bit, because when I go online, and I request a download of the MP3, and the copy is made on my request, aren't I doing the copying, and as such don't I now have a right to use that copy?
I guess it comes down to "who" is doing the copying. I would agree the original copy is done using someone else's machine, but that isn't against the law.
Does anyone know what the actuall legal standpoint on this is?
Not having read the levy in it's entirety, I can not say whether or not the mediums we are permitted to copy onto are specified as only those with the levy or not, but I don't see it being too far from now that MP3 devices will connect to the 'net themselves. Until then, just use your 'net enabled PocketPC to write directly to a flash card (which will be covered under the new levy).
Why should my tax dollars be used to prevent me from punching you in the nose?
They:
a) Shouldn't, as you pointed out, it's a large waste of money since it's not going to happen.
b) Aren't. Name one bill or law that is the government is paying to support that prevents you from punching this person in the nose.
c) Would not want to do, since they would wish to encourage you to punch him in the nose for the sheer joy of watching you get the crap kicked out of you in retaliation.
This raises a very good point. The FBI and the DOJ should be very wary of biometrics. We all know there are thousands of people who's very lives depend on their anonymity and untrackability.
What happens to people in witness protection when they continue to use the same bank accounts and credit cards? I can assure you, they aren't good things. And we can expect equally bad things when they have to use biometrics.
Evolution IS chance, it's just that the ones lucky enough to get the good changes breed more.
The reason we are more sensitive to green is because there was something related to it that allowed our ancient ancestors to get laid more:) If this were not true, then there would be more people who were not more sensitive to it.
One of these likely advantages would be the ability to more easily distinguish between plants that would kill you, and those that are nutritious.
Of course, "related to" does not imply "caused by". It's equally possible (though I think much less likely) that predators found people without this mutation more tasty, and due to that, ate them all, leaving only the ones more sensitive to green alive to breed.
This has been brought up in other threads, but I would like the topic discussed again in light of this ruling:
In order to qualify for copyright, doesn't a work have to be considered free speach in some form?
Does this mean:
I can now burn and sell all the copies of Warcraft III I want?
BnetD can not be sued for stealing code since it isn't speach?
This has some rather HUGE implications that I would like examined!
For god's sake, do not mod this drivel up. The point's he's taking offence with are IN the letter we're talking about, and it is NOT saying that these things SHOULD be in the law, it is saying this is why MS's arguments are rather irrelevent.
Read the material first!
No, it appears that IE (at least in windows XP) relies on some other method, which can succesfully be changed using X-Setup.
On closer inspection, it appears to add/alter the following registry string to contain the full path of your chosen application:
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\View Source Editor\Editor Name
Well, considering that on my system, with very little customization, when I click view source, Wordpad comes up (I probably associated it with txt files), I would have to say I can not think of a single instance where notepad is needed.
I think the answer to that has been a resounding no. IIRC, we've had meteors fall that contained earth organisms still alive on them even after re-entry.
There have also been many simulated re-entries that also show bacteria can withstand huge impacts and heat well enough to contaminate the earth in the event of a meteor strike.
Slashdot Mirror
How very odd. Do you have any rational basis for your claim that slavery is not right? Or are we just to take your word for it? And if we do take your word for it, do you think that it makes the leap of illogic in your last paragraph make any more sense?
Get a clue, my last post was exactly as logical, rational and reasoned as your post. If you have a problem with my statement, you have a problem with your own.
Umm, maybe I'm missing somethine, but isn't that what "Nested" is for?
If you surrender the idea of an external, universal, and objective moral criteria, you lose all grounds to ever consider any action to be better than another.
There was a time when many in the United States believed that working for a salary was `right'. But it was not right, and no amount of belief to the contrary could make it right.
So you, who still sees this as `right', must therefor have no problems what so ever with people killing each other.
Yes, which is why you would be much more likely to evolve the resulting binaries, rather than trying to evolve it to match the output. I'm unclear if the one would be more or less legal than the other.
Finally, the perfect topic to post my theory under. Too bad I'm a day late, and no one will read it.
/. is a no no, but I'd like to hear from anyone who has any knowledge about this issue.
If using techniques to coax existing genetic codes closer to a known goal does not infringe on patents, why wouldn't the same be true of the computer version, source code?
Say I wanted to produce my own version of SAMBA. Wanting to do this the quickest and easiest way, I go read the MS patents on this technology. Once I know what I need to generate, I simply use a target genome (in this case, the compilation of code using MS's patents), then evolve a random bit sting to match it using Genetic Algorithms, or Simulated Annealing, or something equally effective and random. When done, toss out the target genome code, and what you have left is an executable that was not created using MS's patents. Or more obviously non-infringing, randomly create code that just happens to compile to the same thing.
And why don't we take this one step further, to Copyright? I can evolve a copy of a file or program without actually taking anything from that file, and using it in mine. So my file will be an independently and randomly created work, so I could not have carried out any unauthorized copying. Again, more so if the algorithm generated source code that reproduced the output of the program or compiled to the binary file itself.
I realize this could be quite time consuming (though I don't think generating just the binary file would be terribly bad), however once done a single time, the (essentially reverse-engineered) file generated could then be released to the public under any number of open licenses.
I know calling for a lawyer's opinion on
The free market is driven by supply and demand. In the current market for music there is near infinite supply. I don't think you will argue that.
The free market also dictates that any items should be priced at the point where supply meets demand. With infinite supply, demand meets it at $0. You can argue this, but any introductory economics class should clear things up for you in this case.
We're talking about the economic reality of the current situation, not the current laws, not the morality. Economically, a copy of music has a value very close to $0 in the free market. Live with it.
We were not discussing "those who freeload" we were discussing those who "pirate" in the situations where they would never pay.
I agree that those who would pay, but withhold their cash because they can get it free are completely immoral, but that is not what our posts are about.
lol, yea probably. Though I think most people would consider it more disrespectful than immoral.
Ok, so no more of this "piracy is stealing", rather we have "piracy is fucking a dead cat". I like it.
So you're saying that due to the "Golden Rule", it's clear cut that using other's IP is wrong?
I would have to say I'm not sure where you get this notion. If he feels that it's moral to download a CD he wouldn't buy, I see no reason to conclude that he wouldn't in fact, appreciate someone else downloading a CD he made, if that person wouldn't otherwise be able to enjoy it.
If there is 0% chance of A compensating B for B's existing work, then the only harm to B that A can do by using B's work, is psychological. In that B perceives themselves to be harmed, despite the lack of any negative consequences to the state of B's world.
In this situation, A's actions are moral. B's response may be illogical, and consider A's action's immoral, but this is an issue with B and not A's actions.
And in the real world, B rarely actually knows of A, or their use of B's work, and so there is NO effect on B from any specific A's actions.
Can you give me another example of an action which does not adversly affect anyone, and which has a likelyhood of positivly affecting someone, which is considered immoral in any culture?
With everyone espousing how good FireWire is (and I agree), there is one overwhelming reason why USB will continue overrun it in most applications:
It's limited.
This of course sounds like a bad thing. The thing you aren't taking into account is that limited == cheap.
FireWire has it's place, but to all you going on about how FireWire will replace USB on sheer technical superiority, you're wrong.
The issue being discussed is whether they should have to SHARE the pair that you're paying them to provide telephone on, not whether they should allow someone else to use the other pairs.
I'm not sure if they are right in this, if you're paying them for a service, and they chose to go through a pair of wires, but not to use the wires to capacity, I don't see why they should not be made to allow other people access to the remainder, since they're getting paid to provide the service, not to tie up a pair of wires.
RRRR. Wrong. (Or at least, likely soon to be) The proposed increase in this levy left the public discussion phase on the 8th of this month (I beleive), and will be decided on soon (yes, I'm too lazy to go find out exactly when). I would be surprized to see this increase shot down after the original levy was approved.
The new levy stipulates a $21/Gb levy on blank hard drives included in devices primarily used for music storage and use.
This amounts to $210 of tax on (often $200) 10Gb MP3 players. At least until they start including intro chimes on them from the factory.
The nice thing about this levy is that it gives us as citizens the right to copy any music for personal use without reimbursing the recording companies (or the artists, but they don't get much anyway). Just be careful that YOU make the copies you want to listen to (no, the owner of the original does not matter, and no, who's equipment you do the copy on does not matter) because if you're friend makes the copy, only HE is legally allowed to use it.
This actually (in my mind, but IANAL) confuses the MP3 issue a bit, because when I go online, and I request a download of the MP3, and the copy is made on my request, aren't I doing the copying, and as such don't I now have a right to use that copy?
I guess it comes down to "who" is doing the copying. I would agree the original copy is done using someone else's machine, but that isn't against the law.
Does anyone know what the actuall legal standpoint on this is?
Not having read the levy in it's entirety, I can not say whether or not the mediums we are permitted to copy onto are specified as only those with the levy or not, but I don't see it being too far from now that MP3 devices will connect to the 'net themselves. Until then, just use your 'net enabled PocketPC to write directly to a flash card (which will be covered under the new levy).
I suggest you read Atlas Shrugged
And I suggest you read more slashdot. Most especially the somewhat recent letter discussing why Open Source is the correct choice for public services.
Why should my tax dollars be used to prevent me from punching you in the nose?
They:
a) Shouldn't, as you pointed out, it's a large waste of money since it's not going to happen.
b) Aren't. Name one bill or law that is the government is paying to support that prevents you from punching this person in the nose.
c) Would not want to do, since they would wish to encourage you to punch him in the nose for the sheer joy of watching you get the crap kicked out of you in retaliation.
All in all, I agree 100%
This raises a very good point. The FBI and the DOJ should be very wary of biometrics. We all know there are thousands of people who's very lives depend on their anonymity and untrackability.
What happens to people in witness protection when they continue to use the same bank accounts and credit cards? I can assure you, they aren't good things. And we can expect equally bad things when they have to use biometrics.
Evolution IS chance, it's just that the ones lucky enough to get the good changes breed more.
:) If this were not true, then there would be more people who were not more sensitive to it.
The reason we are more sensitive to green is because there was something related to it that allowed our ancient ancestors to get laid more
One of these likely advantages would be the ability to more easily distinguish between plants that would kill you, and those that are nutritious.
Of course, "related to" does not imply "caused by". It's equally possible (though I think much less likely) that predators found people without this mutation more tasty, and due to that, ate them all, leaving only the ones more sensitive to green alive to breed.
Ok, this (or maybe it was a different ruling, same topic) says that (some?) video games are not protected speech. Correct?
As in, not protected by copyright, kind of unprotected speech?
As in, Code is protected, binaries (that don't convey a story?) aren't?
As in, MS Word can't be considered copyrightable?
Ok, I know this doesn't mention non-games, but isn't that a logical conclusion?
In order to qualify for copyright, doesn't a work have to be considered free speach in some form?
Does this mean:
I can now burn and sell all the copies of Warcraft III I want?
BnetD can not be sued for stealing code since it isn't speach?
This has some rather HUGE implications that I would like examined!
For god's sake, do not mod this drivel up. The point's he's taking offence with are IN the letter we're talking about, and it is NOT saying that these things SHOULD be in the law, it is saying this is why MS's arguments are rather irrelevent. Read the material first!
No, it appears that IE (at least in windows XP) relies on some other method, which can succesfully be changed using X-Setup. On closer inspection, it appears to add/alter the following registry string to contain the full path of your chosen application: HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\View Source Editor\Editor Name
Well, considering that on my system, with very little customization, when I click view source, Wordpad comes up (I probably associated it with txt files), I would have to say I can not think of a single instance where notepad is needed.
I think the answer to that has been a resounding no. IIRC, we've had meteors fall that contained earth organisms still alive on them even after re-entry. There have also been many simulated re-entries that also show bacteria can withstand huge impacts and heat well enough to contaminate the earth in the event of a meteor strike.