I'd say it depends on whether it's part of the intended gameplay.
As an analogy, if you shoot at me with a paintball gun on the street, I can demand compensation for my clothes you damaged with your colour. If you do the same during a paintball game I take part in, I can't -- after all, if I didn't want those clothes coloured, I shouldn't have worn them at the paintball game.
IANAL however.
Stealing a base in baseball has an obvious monetary value... should not be too hard to figure out on a league average basis how much a players annual salary changes both for stealing a base and for being a good base-man and pitcher and not getting a base stolen.
Another great example is intercepting a pass in american football (or I suppose, in real football)
If I shoot you with a paintball gun to distract you while you're trying to steal a base, is that a criminal matter, or a civil matter, or a gameplay matter?
It's IMHO definitely not just a gameplay matter because the baseball rules don't include paintball guns (however there may be gameplay matters involved as in what effect it has on the scoring of the game, or if the game is considered valid in that case) and being shot with a paintball gun has effects on me and my clothes beyond those to be expected when playing baseball. Whether it's a civil or a criminal matter, I don't know, I'd guess civil.
The difference between real property (objects) and intellectual "property" (information) is that physical objects cannot be used by arbitrary people at the same time. Therefore it is of vital importance to have rules telling who has the right to use which object at which time. The concept of property is one, very successful, way to do this. However, intellectual "property" does not share this characteristic. There's nothing stopping some person in China to listen to the very same song you currently listen to at the very same time. Nor is there something stopping some African to use the very same idea to make things as you do. That is, unlike physical objects, information has no intrinsic restrictions on use which need to be regulated.
In your example, if someone takes the book you are currently reading in, you cannot continue reading this specific book. On the other hand he cannot read that very book unless he has it. Thus your interests of reading that specific book conflict, and therefore there have to be rules which tell who has the right to have that book. However, no such restrictions hold for the text in the book. If you can read the text in your book, he can still read another copy of the same text in another copy of the book.
The property concept is made for things with naturally exclusive use, which is why you need exclusive rights for their use. The intellectual property concept tries to use basically the same rules for something which doesn't have the natural property of exclusive use.
And no, the concepts are not the same just because both are legal constructs. Otherwise you could say that capital punishment and community service are the same because they are both punishments.
I'd say it depends on whether it's part of the intended gameplay.
As an analogy, if you shoot at me with a paintball gun on the street, I can demand compensation for my clothes you damaged with your colour. If you do the same during a paintball game I take part in, I can't -- after all, if I didn't want those clothes coloured, I shouldn't have worn them at the paintball game.
According to the example given, I'd also have to conclude that land is not real property either. After all, I cannot just take my land and put it elsewhere.
If you can't pay back your house loan, they'll take and sell your house. If you can't pay back your auto loan,, they'll take and sell your car. What will they take and sell if you can't pay back your student's loan?
It doesn't matter whether the camera was trustworthy if you can't proof that the picture it allegedly took that way wasn't actually manipulated afterwards. Unlike with analog cameras, you don't have a physical negative as proof.
Maybe we could have cameras which digitally sign their pictures. Then at least faking an original picture would involve reverse-engineering the camera's private key, which is not something most people can do.
Price dumping is when you charge less externally than you do internally, i.e. the new US-produced whatever video DVD costs $10 in the US and $1 in China (the same thing, not a knockoff!).
No, price dumping is if you charge less than it costs you to produce and deliver the product. Thus the $1 DVD in China is only dumping if producing it and getting it to China costs more than $1.
You are assuming that the carpenter has bought the tool himself.
Maybe he is helping someone (in a situation where he didn't anticipate it, so he doesn't have his own tools with him) and therefore uses someone else's tool. Which happens to be bad.
Or maybe he is in a situation where the only tools he can buy are bad tools. And having a bad tool most often beats having no tool at all.
As soon as TPM is a government-mandated requirement on every computer, using TPM as a "superdongle" doesn't cause any additional direct cost for the customer of programs doing so.
So an app on the iPad can't present any number of arithmetic problems and give a child feedback on right and wrong answers right away?
Can't better. Now better than what (or more likely, who) is left open. Presumably better than a teacher. And I'm pretty sure that's right. The problem is that we cannot give every child his own teacher, and therefore the teacher will need to share his attention to many children. And with this situation, I'm not convinced that the combination of teacher and computer (it doesn't need to be an iPad) wouldn't work better than a teacher alone.
Now if you try to replace the teacher with the computer...
If the refueling process is automated, I don't see why it shouldn't be also used for unmanned missions. That of course assumes that sending fuel up separately is cheaper than sending fuel up together with e.g. a satellite or a space probe which will use it (possibly by using cheaper rockets because the fuel is much less expensive that a satellite, and therefore losing a single tank is not as bad as losing a satellite as long as those losses are not too frequent).
More importantly, water has a much higher density than air (10 meters of water give the same pressure as the whole atmosphere!) and therefore gives a much larger lift. Which means much heavier constructions still get sufficient lift to swim.
Well, it ended because someone found out what it is for and why it is there. Therefore it was replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable.
Be sure to tell them that the gaming industry is the worst possible CS career path. Expected 100 hour work weeks for peanuts, and usually not working on fun stuff either. And that testing isn't fun either because it doesn't mean you're playing the game for fun, but instead trying to break it.
If his hammer breaks when trying to hammer in a normal nail, he most certainly will.
Spoken like someone who's never actually used a hammer. Hammers don't break during normal use unless you've damaged them by doing something they weren't intended to do.
I'm pretty sure you can make a hammer which breaks easily. The reason why you don't see such hammers is that you wouldn't be able to sell many of them before everyone knew they are shit and avoided them like the plague.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd say it depends on whether it's part of the intended gameplay.
As an analogy, if you shoot at me with a paintball gun on the street, I can demand compensation for my clothes you damaged with your colour. If you do the same during a paintball game I take part in, I can't -- after all, if I didn't want those clothes coloured, I shouldn't have worn them at the paintball game.
IANAL however.
Stealing a base in baseball has an obvious monetary value... should not be too hard to figure out on a league average basis how much a players annual salary changes both for stealing a base and for being a good base-man and pitcher and not getting a base stolen.
Another great example is intercepting a pass in american football (or I suppose, in real football)
If I shoot you with a paintball gun to distract you while you're trying to steal a base, is that a criminal matter, or a civil matter, or a gameplay matter?
It's IMHO definitely not just a gameplay matter because the baseball rules don't include paintball guns (however there may be gameplay matters involved as in what effect it has on the scoring of the game, or if the game is considered valid in that case) and being shot with a paintball gun has effects on me and my clothes beyond those to be expected when playing baseball. Whether it's a civil or a criminal matter, I don't know, I'd guess civil.
The difference between real property (objects) and intellectual "property" (information) is that physical objects cannot be used by arbitrary people at the same time. Therefore it is of vital importance to have rules telling who has the right to use which object at which time. The concept of property is one, very successful, way to do this. However, intellectual "property" does not share this characteristic. There's nothing stopping some person in China to listen to the very same song you currently listen to at the very same time. Nor is there something stopping some African to use the very same idea to make things as you do. That is, unlike physical objects, information has no intrinsic restrictions on use which need to be regulated.
In your example, if someone takes the book you are currently reading in, you cannot continue reading this specific book. On the other hand he cannot read that very book unless he has it. Thus your interests of reading that specific book conflict, and therefore there have to be rules which tell who has the right to have that book. However, no such restrictions hold for the text in the book. If you can read the text in your book, he can still read another copy of the same text in another copy of the book.
The property concept is made for things with naturally exclusive use, which is why you need exclusive rights for their use. The intellectual property concept tries to use basically the same rules for something which doesn't have the natural property of exclusive use.
And no, the concepts are not the same just because both are legal constructs. Otherwise you could say that capital punishment and community service are the same because they are both punishments.
I'd say it depends on whether it's part of the intended gameplay.
As an analogy, if you shoot at me with a paintball gun on the street, I can demand compensation for my clothes you damaged with your colour. If you do the same during a paintball game I take part in, I can't -- after all, if I didn't want those clothes coloured, I shouldn't have worn them at the paintball game.
IANAL however.
According to the example given, I'd also have to conclude that land is not real property either. After all, I cannot just take my land and put it elsewhere.
If you can't pay back your house loan, they'll take and sell your house. If you can't pay back your auto loan,, they'll take and sell your car. What will they take and sell if you can't pay back your student's loan?
Of course an easy way to avoid that would be to gradually lower the loans instead of cutting them off immediately.
The lessons obviously didn't include the correct plural of "degree". :-)
Just wait until genetic kits get widespread :-)
Not always, no.
It doesn't matter whether the camera was trustworthy if you can't proof that the picture it allegedly took that way wasn't actually manipulated afterwards. Unlike with analog cameras, you don't have a physical negative as proof.
Maybe we could have cameras which digitally sign their pictures. Then at least faking an original picture would involve reverse-engineering the camera's private key, which is not something most people can do.
Typical case of Whoosh on Slashdot.
OTOH they might use virtual furniture to hide problematic things (like wet spots on the wall) behind them.
No, price dumping is if you charge less than it costs you to produce and deliver the product. Thus the $1 DVD in China is only dumping if producing it and getting it to China costs more than $1.
You are assuming that the carpenter has bought the tool himself.
Maybe he is helping someone (in a situation where he didn't anticipate it, so he doesn't have his own tools with him) and therefore uses someone else's tool. Which happens to be bad.
Or maybe he is in a situation where the only tools he can buy are bad tools. And having a bad tool most often beats having no tool at all.
As soon as TPM is a government-mandated requirement on every computer, using TPM as a "superdongle" doesn't cause any additional direct cost for the customer of programs doing so.
Are there copyable idiots, too? :-)
Can't better. Now better than what (or more likely, who) is left open. Presumably better than a teacher. And I'm pretty sure that's right. The problem is that we cannot give every child his own teacher, and therefore the teacher will need to share his attention to many children. And with this situation, I'm not convinced that the combination of teacher and computer (it doesn't need to be an iPad) wouldn't work better than a teacher alone.
Now if you try to replace the teacher with the computer ...
If the refueling process is automated, I don't see why it shouldn't be also used for unmanned missions. That of course assumes that sending fuel up separately is cheaper than sending fuel up together with e.g. a satellite or a space probe which will use it (possibly by using cheaper rockets because the fuel is much less expensive that a satellite, and therefore losing a single tank is not as bad as losing a satellite as long as those losses are not too frequent).
How long will you still get TVs which accept PAL/NTSC signals?
You can't trap vacuum because vacuum is not a substance but rather the absence of substance.
More importantly, water has a much higher density than air (10 meters of water give the same pressure as the whole atmosphere!) and therefore gives a much larger lift. Which means much heavier constructions still get sufficient lift to swim.
What part of "businesses" did you not understand?
I don't think any business would be so stupid to put its communication on facebook or twitter.
Well, it ended because someone found out what it is for and why it is there. Therefore it was replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable.
So half of the square meters will be hit by it?
Be sure to tell them that the gaming industry is the worst possible CS career path. Expected 100 hour work weeks for peanuts, and usually not working on fun stuff either. And that testing isn't fun either because it doesn't mean you're playing the game for fun, but instead trying to break it.
Some people are trying to break things for fun.
If his hammer breaks when trying to hammer in a normal nail, he most certainly will.
Spoken like someone who's never actually used a hammer. Hammers don't break during normal use unless you've damaged them by doing something they weren't intended to do.
I'm pretty sure you can make a hammer which breaks easily. The reason why you don't see such hammers is that you wouldn't be able to sell many of them before everyone knew they are shit and avoided them like the plague.
I believe the word you were trying to use was Vigilante.
Damn the AutoCorrect!
A good carpenter never blames his tools.
If his hammer breaks when trying to hammer in a normal nail, he most certainly will.