All I'm saying is that in a situation where an infringer should be the one to do extra work to make sure they are not infringing, that it makes sense for the rights owner to bill the infringer for a comprehensive list of infringements.
So, in summary: Science/technology is more valuable than art to cash hungry universities.
This sucks. Why should science/technology students not benefit from our creativity in the same way as those in the humanities? It almost seems like a denial of the value of creative input in technological disciplines.
Well, I'm only guessing as to their motivations. It could be that they simply wish to avoid any future legal liabilities, or something else entirely. It does sound like a land-grab to me, though.
From a purely mercenary perspective, it's a lot easier to monetize a piece of useful software, or a new programming technique, that it is a student's work of art. And I agree: if the student does the work he or she should reap the benefits. As others have pointed out, depending upon the situation the school might have some claim, but demanding exclusive rights is a bit high-handed, I think.
With all the shiny reflective surfaces in Dubai, the entire city could be destroyed by the ricochets.
They call those "specular reflections" and yes, you could end up with a lot of blind citizens if someone cut loose with a high-powered laser. The human retina is extremely easily burned by even low levels of coherent light. The thought of a hundred kilowatt laser being used in the open in a heavily populated area is unnerving.
The original Geneva Convention banned a lot of weaponry (mustard gas, etc.) that would leave large numbers of mutilated or otherwise severely-handicapped people after a conflict ended. I have the feeling that high-powered laser systems may end up in a similar situation, for the same reason.
According to the page they have put up instead, the german company has been forbidden from forwarding to any site that contains the accusations against him. Not linking to the accusations, but any forwarding. Under that ruling, they definately couldn't forward to google.com either...
As an American who has been following the irrational behavior of our courts on Internet and technology-related issues, I must say that this indicates we have no monopoly on drain-bamaged judiciary.
The message at wikipedia.de explictly states "we're not allowed to link to de.wikipedia.org", hence anyone with half a brain can simply type the other address into the browser.
Well, if we assume that a significant number of German citizens have at least one intact frontal lobe, none of this really matters then does it.
And maybe that's why Europe and Asia has a long history of despotic strongmen. Order over freedom tends to get that for you.
Or maybe it's because Europe and Asia have a quite longer history than America...
You're both right, of course. You're trying to excuse Europe's long history of Empire-building and despotism by saying, "Well, they've just had a long history so it's happened more times." Well, that's true... but it also means the Europe has had more time to learn from its mistakes, and didn't. The GP is correct (as were our Founding Fathers.) If you try to impose order, an arbitrary will upon a population, you inevitably degrade the individual. Some consider that to be a worthwhile tradeoff: our Founders did not.
The longer a country's name is, the less likely it is to be true...
"United States of America" - hmm, I think you're on to something.
No, it's not the length of a country's name that matters at all. If you want to get a better idea of a particular nation's governmental system, look for the keywords "democratic" and "republic". The United States of America has neither of those words in its name... although it is both of them.
The difference is, I think, that a lot of valuable software comes out of student's work, and this outfit wants to set a precedent that they own such work. It'll be interesting, however this works out.
And military contractors looking forward to the next major cost overrun rather than shipping a working system.
This is such a generic canned response, it can be used to put down any conversation about weapons without delving into a particular system's details. You are failing the Turing Test, in other words...
Not at all. It's a perfectly legitimate comment. My father's old company built military electronics for the Navy and the USAF. His experience was that there was so much unaccountability, fraud and just plain waste that he was constantly amazed that our military works at all. The reality is that our society has paid far more than our military machine is worth. Yes, it's still the biggest one on the planet (even after our substantial post-Cold-War force reductions) but it's also hideously expensive.
I'm not putting down the weapon system itself: it sounds like it may be useful in certain contexts. I am saying that there's a high probability that it will ultimately cost us far more that it's worth.
I guess you haven't worked with lasers much. A 3 Watt CO2 laser will burn paper in less than a second or so. Light bulbs put out a lot of power. If you hold on to a light bulb that's on, your hand won't last very long.
Nevertheless, the destructive power is small compared to conventional weapons. The advantage here is accuracy.
Accuracy as well as time-on-target.
More to the point, the coherent light from a laser causes much higher peak temperatures than a simple collimated beam of the same average power. The issue, it seems to me, is going to be this: does the laser have a coherency length sufficient to deliver coherent light to the target? Otherwise it's just going to be a bright light.
And using Indians as astronauts will be cheaper too.:-)
Well, that's a deservedly +5 Funny, but it does bring up a valid point. NASA spent huge sums doing the best it could for safety. Russia, which also accomplished significant things in space, was less concerned about safety. How will India and China fare in this regard?
How much ya wanna bet the Army/Navy will weld a handle on the bloody contraption and call it portable?
At which point there will be a new Scwarzenegger movie where he carries two of the things and blasts anything that moves, all the while exclaiming, "You've just been lased!"
That would be a sign of weakness, and upon the first such exhibition the ravenous Slashdot hordes will descend upon him, leaving only his empty carcass behind.
My personal definition of creationist is much more simple. It is simply that "God created everything."
Let's recap: I said, If you believe that God created our reality, who is to say you're wrong: science has no interest in that question.
On the other hand, if you mean to say that belief trumps reason and real understanding, you have a problem.
I don't think you finished reading my original post, since I think I was pretty clear in my definition of "Creationist". I have no interest whatsoever in debating the existence (or otherwise) of God, nor do I particularly care who created the Universe. I also am not claiming that science knows everything... but it has determined a lot of things with a degree of accuracy and precision far in excess of anything any known religion can claim. Rational people understand that their is a potential for error in everything: the difference is that scientists attempt to quantify and account for that error, whereas people of faith simply believe that there is no error. Which approach is more likely to correctly answer any given question?
People that are constitutionally unable to accept basic facts, or data that is provably correct to a high degree of accuracy, are a problem for our society. It's not a simply matter of ignorance (mere education can fix that) but a certain inflexibility of mind.
They point to the idea that 6 billion years is not nearly enough time for earth to form
{cough} enough said. No need to carry on this particular farce.
Look, creationists can point to ideas all day (scientists call those hypotheses, at best, and have no illusions as to their validity) but in the end, such opinions are utterly worthless. Willful ignorance is still ignorance, no matter how you try to sugar-coat it.
I lump Creationists (yes, all of them) together with all the other groups exhibiting fundamentally irrational thought processes that have fallen by the wayside in the past century or so. Casualties of scientific advancement, nothing more, in spite of all their posturing and racial self-glorification. You can make all the fine distinctions that you wish, call me a redneck if it makes you happy. It matters not to me, and ultimately makes no difference. Reality is what it is, the Universe works a certain way, and science is (unfortunately for many belief systems) the only rock-solid method the human race has yet come up with for understanding and manipulating it. Religion had millenia to prove itself a viable method of explaining the true nature of our existence. It failed miserably, and is still failing.
After all those centuries (in spite of the best the world's religious leaders could do to prevent it) we finally have a systematic and effective pattern of thought, one that has taken us dramatically further in a tiny fraction of the time. Let me put it another way. Faith has its uses: explaining how and why everything works is not one of them.
If you believe that God created our reality, who is to say you're wrong: science has no interest in that question. On the other hand, if you mean to say that belief trumps reason and real understanding, you have a problem.
The good news is that it is entirely curable, with some effort.
Slashdot Mirror
All I'm saying is that in a situation where an infringer should be the one to do extra work to make sure they are not infringing, that it makes sense for the rights owner to bill the infringer for a comprehensive list of infringements.
Why?
So, in summary: Science/technology is more valuable than art to cash hungry universities.
This sucks. Why should science/technology students not benefit from our creativity in the same way as those in the humanities? It almost seems like a denial of the value of creative input in technological disciplines.
Well, I'm only guessing as to their motivations. It could be that they simply wish to avoid any future legal liabilities, or something else entirely. It does sound like a land-grab to me, though.
From a purely mercenary perspective, it's a lot easier to monetize a piece of useful software, or a new programming technique, that it is a student's work of art. And I agree: if the student does the work he or she should reap the benefits. As others have pointed out, depending upon the situation the school might have some claim, but demanding exclusive rights is a bit high-handed, I think.
With all the shiny reflective surfaces in Dubai, the entire city could be destroyed by the ricochets.
They call those "specular reflections" and yes, you could end up with a lot of blind citizens if someone cut loose with a high-powered laser. The human retina is extremely easily burned by even low levels of coherent light. The thought of a hundred kilowatt laser being used in the open in a heavily populated area is unnerving.
The original Geneva Convention banned a lot of weaponry (mustard gas, etc.) that would leave large numbers of mutilated or otherwise severely-handicapped people after a conflict ended. I have the feeling that high-powered laser systems may end up in a similar situation, for the same reason.
According to the page they have put up instead, the german company has been forbidden from forwarding to any site that contains the accusations against him. Not linking to the accusations, but any forwarding. Under that ruling, they definately couldn't forward to google.com either...
As an American who has been following the irrational behavior of our courts on Internet and technology-related issues, I must say that this indicates we have no monopoly on drain-bamaged judiciary.
The message at wikipedia.de explictly states "we're not allowed to link to de.wikipedia.org", hence anyone with half a brain can simply type the other address into the browser.
Well, if we assume that a significant number of German citizens have at least one intact frontal lobe, none of this really matters then does it.
As a nigger, I must say that you even mentioning the word "race" is offensive to me.
Go Speed Racer. Go Speed Racer. Go Speed Racer ... go!!!!
And maybe that's why Europe and Asia has a long history of despotic strongmen. Order over freedom tends to get that for you.
Or maybe it's because Europe and Asia have a quite longer history than America...
You're both right, of course. You're trying to excuse Europe's long history of Empire-building and despotism by saying, "Well, they've just had a long history so it's happened more times." Well, that's true ... but it also means the Europe has had more time to learn from its mistakes, and didn't. The GP is correct (as were our Founding Fathers.) If you try to impose order, an arbitrary will upon a population, you inevitably degrade the individual. Some consider that to be a worthwhile tradeoff: our Founders did not.
"United States of America" - hmm, I think you're on to something.
No, it's not the length of a country's name that matters at all. If you want to get a better idea of a particular nation's governmental system, look for the keywords "democratic" and "republic". The United States of America has neither of those words in its name ... although it is both of them.
The difference is, I think, that a lot of valuable software comes out of student's work, and this outfit wants to set a precedent that they own such work. It'll be interesting, however this works out.
This is such a generic canned response, it can be used to put down any conversation about weapons without delving into a particular system's details. You are failing the Turing Test, in other words...
Not at all. It's a perfectly legitimate comment. My father's old company built military electronics for the Navy and the USAF. His experience was that there was so much unaccountability, fraud and just plain waste that he was constantly amazed that our military works at all. The reality is that our society has paid far more than our military machine is worth. Yes, it's still the biggest one on the planet (even after our substantial post-Cold-War force reductions) but it's also hideously expensive. I'm not putting down the weapon system itself: it sounds like it may be useful in certain contexts. I am saying that there's a high probability that it will ultimately cost us far more that it's worth.
I guess you haven't worked with lasers much. A 3 Watt CO2 laser will burn paper in less than a second or so. Light bulbs put out a lot of power. If you hold on to a light bulb that's on, your hand won't last very long. Nevertheless, the destructive power is small compared to conventional weapons. The advantage here is accuracy.
Accuracy as well as time-on-target.
More to the point, the coherent light from a laser causes much higher peak temperatures than a simple collimated beam of the same average power. The issue, it seems to me, is going to be this: does the laser have a coherency length sufficient to deliver coherent light to the target? Otherwise it's just going to be a bright light.
You joke but it's developments like this that put Revelations in a new light (no pun intended).
The same light ... it's just more coherent.
Now, of course, they would need to be very precisely targeted and coordinated. Fortunately, we have GPS and powerful computers...
And military contractors looking forward to the next major cost overrun rather than shipping a working system.
For instance, a very typical American joke (ridiculing others) is not very funny and infact considered hurtful in places like India.
The majority of humor is at someone's expense. That's why it's funny. We're just a little more upfront about it.
Different strokes and all that.
since when did India become an US ally?
Since they became not an enemy. See how that works? To use GWB's logic, they're not against us ... so they must be with us!
And using Indians as astronauts will be cheaper too. :-)
Well, that's a deservedly +5 Funny, but it does bring up a valid point. NASA spent huge sums doing the best it could for safety. Russia, which also accomplished significant things in space, was less concerned about safety. How will India and China fare in this regard?
How much ya wanna bet the Army/Navy will weld a handle on the bloody contraption and call it portable?
At which point there will be a new Scwarzenegger movie where he carries two of the things and blasts anything that moves, all the while exclaiming, "You've just been lased!"
a sudden spike in sales of mirrors throughout the Middle East.
You are using English. Please learn the difference between loose and lose; they're, there, and their; your and you're.
You forgot "who's" and "whose".
What are you talking about? AMD aside, Intel and Microsoft have long had a "special" relationship. Whether that's proper or not is another issue.
Yes ... and there's even a colloquialism attached to that "partnership" ... Wintel.
You should really consider apologizing.
That would be a sign of weakness, and upon the first such exhibition the ravenous Slashdot hordes will descend upon him, leaving only his empty carcass behind.
My personal definition of creationist is much more simple. It is simply that "God created everything."
Let's recap: I said, If you believe that God created our reality, who is to say you're wrong: science has no interest in that question.
... but it has determined a lot of things with a degree of accuracy and precision far in excess of anything any known religion can claim. Rational people understand that their is a potential for error in everything: the difference is that scientists attempt to quantify and account for that error, whereas people of faith simply believe that there is no error. Which approach is more likely to correctly answer any given question?
On the other hand, if you mean to say that belief trumps reason and real understanding, you have a problem.
I don't think you finished reading my original post, since I think I was pretty clear in my definition of "Creationist". I have no interest whatsoever in debating the existence (or otherwise) of God, nor do I particularly care who created the Universe. I also am not claiming that science knows everything
People that are constitutionally unable to accept basic facts, or data that is provably correct to a high degree of accuracy, are a problem for our society. It's not a simply matter of ignorance (mere education can fix that) but a certain inflexibility of mind.
That condition is much harder to treat.
What's interesting here is that you and I both got Flamebait mods. Apparently, Creationism is alive and well, and living on Slashdot.
talk about being a total troll. keep your bigotry to yourself.
Nah ... Creationists are fair game here on Slashdot. Matter of fact, they're fair game, period.
Flamebait, am I? Read the comments below mods. You're in the minority.
Some creationists believe ...
Who cares?
They point to the idea that 6 billion years is not nearly enough time for earth to form
{cough} enough said. No need to carry on this particular farce.
Look, creationists can point to ideas all day (scientists call those hypotheses, at best, and have no illusions as to their validity) but in the end, such opinions are utterly worthless. Willful ignorance is still ignorance, no matter how you try to sugar-coat it.
I lump Creationists (yes, all of them) together with all the other groups exhibiting fundamentally irrational thought processes that have fallen by the wayside in the past century or so. Casualties of scientific advancement, nothing more, in spite of all their posturing and racial self-glorification. You can make all the fine distinctions that you wish, call me a redneck if it makes you happy. It matters not to me, and ultimately makes no difference. Reality is what it is, the Universe works a certain way, and science is (unfortunately for many belief systems) the only rock-solid method the human race has yet come up with for understanding and manipulating it. Religion had millenia to prove itself a viable method of explaining the true nature of our existence. It failed miserably, and is still failing.
After all those centuries (in spite of the best the world's religious leaders could do to prevent it) we finally have a systematic and effective pattern of thought, one that has taken us dramatically further in a tiny fraction of the time. Let me put it another way. Faith has its uses: explaining how and why everything works is not one of them.
If you believe that God created our reality, who is to say you're wrong: science has no interest in that question. On the other hand, if you mean to say that belief trumps reason and real understanding, you have a problem.
The good news is that it is entirely curable, with some effort.