>>> "Thats always something that has bugged me a little about religion [I'm atheist]. People prefer to be able to blame/pass the buck of onto something/somebody else rather than just say 'I don't know'. But then again, thats their choice)"
I prefer a logically consistent scientific explanation. But unfortunately my empirical data goes against that.
Also, what's your proof that a god does not exist. Why not agnostic??
Indulge me in a short story: when I was 10 years old I decided god didn't exist due to 'Natural Disasters'. Then I grew up and realised I didn't have that much evidence; I determined that agnosticism was the only scientific viewpoint.
Later I found faith in God through Jesus Christ, from a personal experience. But I still think agnosticism is the only _scientific_ position.
>>> "If Inteligent Design was something other then the belief in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God, then those proponents would be spouting out endless theories as to who that Inteligent Designer was/is. There would be groups solidly believing that Aliens did it. There would be groups solidly believing that Zeus did it. There would be groups solidly believing that the planet Earth is actually the Inteligent Designer. There would be groups that would be believing that a machine inteligence from another dimension broke into ours, or created our dimension and inteligently designed all of us."
These seem like possible first hypotheses. Not my belief but I don't see how you can _prove_ that the universe wasn't designed by transdimensional alien beings (a là Men In Black (the movie) at the end). Current physic-al theories breakdown at a temporally distant singularity after all.
As you imply ID != Literal [Christian|7-day] Creationism.
Also, many Christians believe evolution is the tool used by God. Similarly with the big bang and the creation of our universe.
I haven't seen sufficient evidence to weigh in with any one [particular] theory as yet, for either situation. But I do/believe/ in ID. I'd probably lean towards evolution from a running start.
My conviction comes partly from faith and _partly_ from analysis of things like arguments for irreducible complexity of bacterial flagella. Counter-arguments haven't yet convinced me as they tend to have statements such as "careful analysis shows that there are no major obstacles to gradual evolution of the flagellum" [http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html ]. The implication being: just because an intelligent being can find a possible route then it must have been followed by evolution.
And then, as we both agree, evolution may be Gods mechanism.
Simply to discount intelligent design is not scientific as theism transcends scientific reasoning. You can show an extremely high probabilty that evolution will not be falsified, but however much you protest that doesn't deny the possibility of an intelligent creator.
"Christian Science Monitor (hah, what an oxymoron)"
Hmm, yeah, all Christians are unscientific... like Isaac Newton, Planck and Faraday for starters (just off the top of my head).
I'll assume you're an atheist... isn't agnosticism the only really scientific viewpoint. Anything else requires faith. My personal faith experience is as real to me as any other sense data - that's why I believe. How about you?
Your analysis looks good. Sadly, it seems that it is not about being right and having the law on 'your side'.
Are you prepared to risk $n-million on your assertion?
That's why Adobe want to do some bargaining with Nikon first. Or maybe Adobe really do hold the keys on this one and just want to eek a little extra dough (ie get money) out of Nikon.
Either way, I still don't understand what's supposed to be so great about capitalism??!
bite my shiny metal copyright infringement!!
on
The Bender PC Case
·
· Score: 1
"Do you think the guys from the Futurama team saw this one"
Hope not, unless the author wants to be sued for copyright infringement!
Oh wait, I'm sure he OK-ed it with the copyright holder first before producing his derivative work and "using it to promote his website".
My experience is limited, but here in UK [at least until a couple of years ago] Uni's have very strict limits on student IPR (Intellectual Property Rights).
Dissertations, and often any IP produced by students in the course of their study belongs to the Uni (don't know how enforceable it is but I had to sign a waiver of rights as part of my matriculation process).
Do you have the relevant rights to GPL your software???!
I can't imagine that coupon promotion cost analysis is not open to reimplementation.
Perhaps the specifics of your project are in-house but I'd have thought that it was readily adaptable for other users. I'm not clear which side of the equation you're on [nor what the equation is] but coupons to promote sunday magazine sales and/or magazines sold on sundays with coupons in are not unique to a single company. If you widen the field to coupons in publications in general you're looking at a vast array of companies/groups.
So the answer to the original post is "our shareholders want oodles more money and so we don't give away our precious software". Nevermind the analysis of that statement....
I think that the creative process is a necessary part of both humour and art.
If one creates something and thinks it's art, then it is art. There is an intent involved.
Of course, you could argue that the creation of an image on your retina with a given intent was thus the creation of an artistic work.... and I probably wouldn't argue with that.
Other things just happen to be nice to look at or funny. I don't call this art / humour.
The feature I have been waiting for (and yes I realise it is open to abuse) is a human rating system.
Click the thumb up and the pagerank for that page on those terms is [slightly] increased. Probably up to a maximum proportion, so that pages that otherwise rank very low can't be pushed to the top of the rank. (Of course you'd have some user verification, probably a registration system that allows only a limited number of votes - tied in with an image recognition test, or similar)
Click the thumb down and the pagerank is similarly decreased (or the page is added to a list for intensive testing by some robot with better 'spam' detection algorithms). Also,it would be nice if the search were then re-loaded excluding pages matching that domain (say). Thus the normal search refinement mechanism is used to improve the search results.
Perhaps two different thumbs-up would be needed, one for major index ("hub") pages and one for informational pages.
Has anyone tried this sort of system... Google-gods, if you're listening... pretty-please:0)>
pbhj
PS: I'm sure you just thought of a mojor flaw in this system... please let me know.
I use checkinstall already... I understood from the howtos that there was alot to do on permissions and ensuring that things didn't get written to wrong locations and such like.
Whoever wrote the page at http://home.teleport.com/~stevena/scrabble/legal/i ssues.html seems to think that the quoted case shows that online gameplay should be allowed under US fair use laws (I don't think it would be allowed in UK law though).
The infringement of the trademark would be a problem though so a domain name change (howabout the letters of scrabble, scrabbled??) would appear to be in order.
Some info on the history of scrabble is at http://www.seniorcenterinc.org/programs/scrabble.s html.
This site is quite thorough on the history http://www.scrammble.com/historyscrabble.html.
It seems that Scrabble was actually invented in 1933 which could be a way around the patent and copyright issues... if you could find original documents and copy those instead of copying the later protected documents/works. Bit hard though!
If you look at sites like http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/training/Hirtle_P ublic_Domain.htm they suggest that it's possible that Scrabble is in fact in the public domain, you'd need to check the copyright renewal details. Otherwise it seems we have about 40 years to wait for Open Scrabble.
I'd ask for details of how it is protected. No patent numbers are given for the applications. I think you should be allowed to use any details in the 1948 patent (? various sites say it was copyrighted and/or patented 1st December 1948) in accordance with whatever copyright notice it carries. But IANAL nor a US IP Judge.
Peace.
PS: The TRADEMARK details are here http://assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/q?db=tm&s no=71570633 (original number is 524505).
My first switch (debit card, now called maestro) card had my photo on it. It was issued by the Royal Bank of Scotland in 1994. It was great. Only people who looked like me could use it... I was [and am] bearded... which cuts dramatically the number of crims that could use my card!
The thing is in about 1998 the RBoS stopped using photo-printed debit cards. None of the high street banks use this extremely simple method of deterring card fraud.
In fact, I would like a card with my photo printed on, with a copy stored digitally [either on the card or on a database] too for comparison. This seems a simple method of deterring elementary level criminals.
Whilst the photo couldn't be checked in a lot of independent stores (like my own) it could easily be integrated into the systems of most chain stores - particularly as they already have colour screens on their tills.
This list all updates including the packages sizes. I'm sure slapt-get does just about the same. Then you go through and say yes/no/all/quit to download and install packages as required.
The creation of packages for use by others seems to be something of a black art however. I've looked at the howtos a couple of times now (as I often find I can't get the very latest update of the obscure software I use a couple of days after release) but my eyes glaze over. I very rarely struggle to create and install the packages for myself - even doing minor amendments to make/config files and (very occassionally) alterations to code... so I don't think it's [just] because I'm an idiot - maybe I'm wrong:0)>
What I'd like is a slackware package builder that does it all for me so I can then install the package and distribute it for others. Oh, and a money tree wouldn't go a miss, along with a frictionless enviro-friendly engine... thanks!!
1) You might be infringing crown copyright (or equivalent in your jurisdiction) by doing this as you are creating a derivative work for which you do not hold rights!!
2) The reason it says "data storage means" (or whatever) rather than CDR is that it has been broadened. It becomes ridiculous to replace every "data storage means" token with something like "CDR, CDRW, DVDR, DVDRW, Tape, Memory Stick,..." and you're bound to miss something off your list. Similar wording like "fixing means" would be replaced by "glue, screws, pins, nails, clamps,...". I think it's easier to learn the generic wording.
Hope that this is a worthy "electronic communication means not limited to bulletin board postings providing aid or assistance by virtue of information therein held or otherwise". [transl: post that helps].
Perhaps you are thinking of "defensive publication"?
Patents are state licensed monopolies. A monopoly is offensive as it is used to attack others in the wallet if they try to exploit a technological innovation.
Defensive _publication_ is the firm establishment of prior art for a particular innovation to prevent another from getting a patent. Defensive publication leaves open the way for anyone to use the technology (with the proviso being that it can be established that no previous patent exists for that tech.).
The patent system can be used for defensive publication but this (usually, ie not in EU,US,UK, at least) doesn't require those presenting the matter for publication to get a patent. For example in the UK (GB patents) the submitted disclosure is made public long before a patent is granted and an applicant can just pull out at that stage if they only want a defensive publication.
There are also companies which specialise in defensive publication. Publication in journals is also used for this purpose.
Have you watched the BBC recently, every 10 mins or so there is a huge advert for the other 50 channels that the BBC has now started producing... unfortunately I can't afford a digital (digibox+aerial upgrade).
Then the upside is that you largely get films with no ad-breaks... but they don't even have a comfort break.
Also, have to agree with the respondents that question why the BBC is chasing commercially run programs (such as football) that are on free-to-air channels already! A waste of my TVlicense-tax.
You'd think... but moral is a vital element on warfare and giving away to the enemey that moral is low could prompt an in-opportune attack (is) there is such thing as an oppotune attack... hmm!?).
For a cunning adversary you'd also be supplying material that could be used in a fake kidnap or in an interrogation scenario.
Surely, as firefox is FOSS MS can't steal anything from it. The whole idea is to allow reuse, surely.
In fact MS could just rebadge Firefox, couldn't they.
Of course they'd have to break it a little first, where would we be if we could write pages without CSS hacks and with full PNG support and curvy borders...... and don't call me Shirely!:0)>
Slashdot Mirror
So shouldn't we at least mention such shortcomings of science?
>>> "Thats always something that has bugged me a little about religion [I'm atheist]. People prefer to be able to blame/pass the buck of onto something/somebody else rather than just say 'I don't know'. But then again, thats their choice)"
I prefer a logically consistent scientific explanation. But unfortunately my empirical data goes against that.
Also, what's your proof that a god does not exist. Why not agnostic??
Indulge me in a short story: when I was 10 years old I decided god didn't exist due to 'Natural Disasters'. Then I grew up and realised I didn't have that much evidence; I determined that agnosticism was the only scientific viewpoint.
Later I found faith in God through Jesus Christ, from a personal experience. But I still think agnosticism is the only _scientific_ position.
>>> "If Inteligent Design was something other then the belief in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God, then those proponents would be spouting out endless theories as to who that Inteligent Designer was/is. There would be groups solidly believing that Aliens did it. There would be groups solidly believing that Zeus did it. There would be groups solidly believing that the planet Earth is actually the Inteligent Designer. There would be groups that would be believing that a machine inteligence from another dimension broke into ours, or created our dimension and inteligently designed all of us."
These seem like possible first hypotheses. Not my belief but I don't see how you can _prove_ that the universe wasn't designed by transdimensional alien beings (a là Men In Black (the movie) at the end). Current physic-al theories breakdown at a temporally distant singularity after all.
As you imply ID != Literal [Christian|7-day] Creationism.
/believe/ in ID. I'd probably lean towards evolution from a running start.
Also, many Christians believe evolution is the tool used by God. Similarly with the big bang and the creation of our universe.
I haven't seen sufficient evidence to weigh in with any one [particular] theory as yet, for either situation. But I do
My conviction comes partly from faith and _partly_ from analysis of things like arguments for irreducible complexity of bacterial flagella. Counter-arguments haven't yet convinced me as they tend to have statements such as "careful analysis shows that there are no major obstacles to gradual evolution of the flagellum" [http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html ]. The implication being: just because an intelligent being can find a possible route then it must have been followed by evolution.
And then, as we both agree, evolution may be Gods mechanism.
Simply to discount intelligent design is not scientific as theism transcends scientific reasoning. You can show an extremely high probabilty that evolution will not be falsified, but however much you protest that doesn't deny the possibility of an intelligent creator.
Flame away!
"Christian Science Monitor (hah, what an oxymoron)"
... like Isaac Newton, Planck and Faraday for starters (just off the top of my head).
... isn't agnosticism the only really scientific viewpoint. Anything else requires faith. My personal faith experience is as real to me as any other sense data - that's why I believe. How about you?
Hmm, yeah, all Christians are unscientific
I'll assume you're an atheist
Your analysis looks good. Sadly, it seems that it is not about being right and having the law on 'your side'.
Are you prepared to risk $n-million on your assertion?
That's why Adobe want to do some bargaining with Nikon first. Or maybe Adobe really do hold the keys on this one and just want to eek a little extra dough (ie get money) out of Nikon.
Either way, I still don't understand what's supposed to be so great about capitalism??!
"Do you think the guys from the Futurama team saw this one"
Hope not, unless the author wants to be sued for copyright infringement!
Oh wait, I'm sure he OK-ed it with the copyright holder first before producing his derivative work and "using it to promote his website".
Copyright sucks!
Trust is something that is hard to earn and easy to lose.
I assume you lock the doors to your house/car/caravan/accomodation when you leave?
Isn't that just treating you neighbours as "untrusted criminals to try and prevent the 1% who are criminals and might steal your [stuff]"?!
It sucks, I know. I remember when we had to start locking our family car and our house. My dad had his wallet stolen from the car one night.
Now, I sometimes lock the house when I'm in it.
What a world!
My experience is limited, but here in UK [at least until a couple of years ago] Uni's have very strict limits on student IPR (Intellectual Property Rights).
Dissertations, and often any IP produced by students in the course of their study belongs to the Uni (don't know how enforceable it is but I had to sign a waiver of rights as part of my matriculation process).
Do you have the relevant rights to GPL your software???!
Yes, it sucks.
I can't imagine that coupon promotion cost analysis is not open to reimplementation.
....
Perhaps the specifics of your project are in-house but I'd have thought that it was readily adaptable for other users. I'm not clear which side of the equation you're on [nor what the equation is] but coupons to promote sunday magazine sales and/or magazines sold on sundays with coupons in are not unique to a single company. If you widen the field to coupons in publications in general you're looking at a vast array of companies/groups.
So the answer to the original post is "our shareholders want oodles more money and so we don't give away our precious software". Nevermind the analysis of that statement
They call it 'reason', where's the logic in that!
I think that the creative process is a necessary part of both humour and art.
.... and I probably wouldn't argue with that.
If one creates something and thinks it's art, then it is art. There is an intent involved.
Of course, you could argue that the creation of an image on your retina with a given intent was thus the creation of an artistic work
Other things just happen to be nice to look at or funny. I don't call this art / humour.
The feature I have been waiting for (and yes I realise it is open to abuse) is a human rating system.
... Google-gods, if you're listening ... pretty-please :0)>
... please let me know.
Click the thumb up and the pagerank for that page on those terms is [slightly] increased. Probably up to a maximum proportion, so that pages that otherwise rank very low can't be pushed to the top of the rank. (Of course you'd have some user verification, probably a registration system that allows only a limited number of votes - tied in with an image recognition test, or similar)
Click the thumb down and the pagerank is similarly decreased (or the page is added to a list for intensive testing by some robot with better 'spam' detection algorithms). Also,it would be nice if the search were then re-loaded excluding pages matching that domain (say). Thus the normal search refinement mechanism is used to improve the search results.
Perhaps two different thumbs-up would be needed, one for major index ("hub") pages and one for informational pages.
Has anyone tried this sort of system
pbhj
PS: I'm sure you just thought of a mojor flaw in this system
I use checkinstall already ... I understood from the howtos that there was alot to do on permissions and ensuring that things didn't get written to wrong locations and such like.
Cheers.
Whoever wrote the page at http://home.teleport.com/~stevena/scrabble/legal/i ssues.html seems to think that the quoted case shows that online gameplay should be allowed under US fair use laws (I don't think it would be allowed in UK law though).
s html.
... if you could find original documents and copy those instead of copying the later protected documents/works. Bit hard though!
P ublic_Domain.htm they suggest that it's possible that Scrabble is in fact in the public domain, you'd need to check the copyright renewal details. Otherwise it seems we have about 40 years to wait for Open Scrabble.
s no=71570633 (original number is 524505).
The infringement of the trademark would be a problem though so a domain name change (howabout the letters of scrabble, scrabbled??) would appear to be in order.
Some info on the history of scrabble is at http://www.seniorcenterinc.org/programs/scrabble.
This site is quite thorough on the history http://www.scrammble.com/historyscrabble.html.
It seems that Scrabble was actually invented in 1933 which could be a way around the patent and copyright issues
If you look at sites like http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/training/Hirtle_
I'd ask for details of how it is protected. No patent numbers are given for the applications. I think you should be allowed to use any details in the 1948 patent (? various sites say it was copyrighted and/or patented 1st December 1948) in accordance with whatever copyright notice it carries. But IANAL nor a US IP Judge.
Peace.
PS: The TRADEMARK details are here http://assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/q?db=tm&
My first switch (debit card, now called maestro) card had my photo on it. It was issued by the Royal Bank of Scotland in 1994. It was great. Only people who looked like me could use it ... I was [and am] bearded ... which cuts dramatically the number of crims that could use my card!
The thing is in about 1998 the RBoS stopped using photo-printed debit cards. None of the high street banks use this extremely simple method of deterring card fraud.
In fact, I would like a card with my photo printed on, with a copy stored digitally [either on the card or on a database] too for comparison. This seems a simple method of deterring elementary level criminals.
Whilst the photo couldn't be checked in a lot of independent stores (like my own) it could easily be integrated into the systems of most chain stores - particularly as they already have colour screens on their tills.
Why don't banks use photos??
"swaret --upgrade"
... so I don't think it's [just] because I'm an idiot - maybe I'm wrong :0)>
... thanks!!
This list all updates including the packages sizes. I'm sure slapt-get does just about the same. Then you go through and say yes/no/all/quit to download and install packages as required.
The creation of packages for use by others seems to be something of a black art however. I've looked at the howtos a couple of times now (as I often find I can't get the very latest update of the obscure software I use a couple of days after release) but my eyes glaze over. I very rarely struggle to create and install the packages for myself - even doing minor amendments to make/config files and (very occassionally) alterations to code
What I'd like is a slackware package builder that does it all for me so I can then install the package and distribute it for others. Oh, and a money tree wouldn't go a miss, along with a frictionless enviro-friendly engine
Any suggestions.
Two points:
..." and you're bound to miss something off your list. Similar wording like "fixing means" would be replaced by "glue, screws, pins, nails, clamps, ...". I think it's easier to learn the generic wording.
1) You might be infringing crown copyright (or equivalent in your jurisdiction) by doing this as you are creating a derivative work for which you do not hold rights!!
2) The reason it says "data storage means" (or whatever) rather than CDR is that it has been broadened. It becomes ridiculous to replace every "data storage means" token with something like "CDR, CDRW, DVDR, DVDRW, Tape, Memory Stick,
Hope that this is a worthy "electronic communication means not limited to bulletin board postings providing aid or assistance by virtue of information therein held or otherwise". [transl: post that helps].
pbhj
Perhaps you are thinking of "defensive publication"?
Patents are state licensed monopolies. A monopoly is offensive as it is used to attack others in the wallet if they try to exploit a technological innovation.
Defensive _publication_ is the firm establishment of prior art for a particular innovation to prevent another from getting a patent. Defensive publication leaves open the way for anyone to use the technology (with the proviso being that it can be established that no previous patent exists for that tech.).
The patent system can be used for defensive publication but this (usually, ie not in EU,US,UK, at least) doesn't require those presenting the matter for publication to get a patent. For example in the UK (GB patents) the submitted disclosure is made public long before a patent is granted and an applicant can just pull out at that stage if they only want a defensive publication.
There are also companies which specialise in defensive publication. Publication in journals is also used for this purpose.
FWIW.
[in order of your statements / queries]
Surely a little hyperbole is OK?
I heard it was a googleplex of channels, but I can't remember all their names.
Barely able to afford food at the moment.
Ad free???
... unfortunately I can't afford a digital (digibox+aerial upgrade).
... but they don't even have a comfort break.
Have you watched the BBC recently, every 10 mins or so there is a huge advert for the other 50 channels that the BBC has now started producing
Then the upside is that you largely get films with no ad-breaks
Also, have to agree with the respondents that question why the BBC is chasing commercially run programs (such as football) that are on free-to-air channels already! A waste of my TVlicense-tax.
So, you ask the web-designer to make the admin so simple that they won't be needed to administrate it ... and you wonder why they "can't" do that!?
You'd think ... but moral is a vital element on warfare and giving away to the enemey that moral is low could prompt an in-opportune attack (is) there is such thing as an oppotune attack ... hmm!?).
...
For a cunning adversary you'd also be supplying material that could be used in a fake kidnap or in an interrogation scenario.
Anyway
Isn't this exactly why this shouldn't be allowed, non-controlled open access communication lines cost lives (I expect) ...
Soldier boy: "Hi Mom, can't talk now we're about to launch a top secret raid on Mizp'hak - those Iraqi's won't know what hit them"
Iraqi General: "Don't call me Mom"
Surely, as firefox is FOSS MS can't steal anything from it. The whole idea is to allow reuse, surely.
... ... and don't call me Shirely! :0)>
In fact MS could just rebadge Firefox, couldn't they.
Of course they'd have to break it a little first, where would we be if we could write pages without CSS hacks and with full PNG support and curvy borders
thanks for an interesting thread :0)>