A large oil company spends $1 Billion developing software that takes existing geological maps and analyzes it in a novel way. This robot is so effective at what it does that they patent it to ensure they protect their investment.
For argument's sake, tell me the difference between these two scenarios:
The difference is, nobody spends $1 billion developing a basic software algorithm. It's telling that the example you are trying to use to justify software patents is fictional.
Why is the exact same act, under the same circumstances, but over a slightly different transmission medium subject to stiffer penalties?
Because some mediums make it easier to commit the crime than others, some mediums result in greater harm to victims, and some mediums result in more victims being affected.
You have a stiffer penalty for soliciting minors via the internet because it's easier to solicit a minor on the computer than it is to walk up to them and solicit them when they leave school. Because the internet makes soliciting minors much easier, you want stiffer penalties to discourage criminals from using the new, easier method.
A corallary would be armed robbery. If you steal $20 by going into a convenience store and pulling $20 out of the register when the clerk isn't looking, that's not nearly as bad as walking in with a gun and demanding and taking the $20. The end result is the same - the convenience store is short $20 - but the penalties are very different, and for very good reason.
2) There is no documented evidence of votes for republicans going to democrats.
This is in Broward county. You can't find evidence of republican votes switching to democratic ones if everyone is voting democratic in the first place.
Same difference. People do only watch 10-20 channels - but they don't all watch the *SAME* 10-20 channels. So if you limitted the number of channels available to 10, then everyone would be watching the same 10 channels, and there would be enough money for each channel that commercials wouldn't be necessary.
You're saying that people could pay alacarte for 10 channels and it would cost more. You'd end up with the same 10 channels either way, those being the channels people were actually willing to pay $3-$4 per month each for.
Indeed, the promise of satellite/cable channels was that because you were paying for the subscription to see them, you wouldn't have to see commercials.
And that promise has been met - for channels where the programming and audience justifies it, like HBO. The thing is, when that promise was made, nobody envisioned 200 niche cable channels. There isn't enough subcriber revenue to pay for all those when the audience gets spread around like that, and commercials make up the difference.
You could have commercial-free cable TV, if you were willing to accept that your cable TV lineup consisted of 10 channels total. But that's not what most people want, and the market has adjusted accordingly.
... since you don't know which bar codes are valid for the flight you want to get on, even if you're the first person to get on the flight, your barcode won't scan as valid and you'll be stopped there.
Nope, parody is fair use. And it's trademark, not copyright. Learn the difference...
The presentation, color, and layout of the boarding pass is covered under copyright.
Parody MAY be fair use. That's a matter to be decided in court, but it's unlikely the court would hold that this use would fall under a parody fair use exception. We're not talking about a political cartoon here, we're talking about a document used in trade. The whole point of trademarks is to prevent people from obscuring the source of goods and services, and the whole point of this program is to obscure the source of the service.
I bet you have spelling errors in your replies correcting others' spelling too, don't you?
Security research is a good thing, and the self-printed boarding passes really are a joke
There's nothing wrong with them, if you understand what their purpose is.
Why have boarding passes at all? Why not just let people use their tickets to board the plane?
Boarding passes exist so that the airline has some indication that you intend to use the ticket you bought a month ago to board a flight today. By checking in, whether it be at the counter or online, the airline knows that less than 24 hours prior to the flight, you intend to board the flight.
Other than that, there's nothing a boarding pass does that a ticket won't do.
Hell, the airline could just let you board based on the name on your driver's license. The only reason they don't is because they can 'read' the bar code on your boarding pass easier than they can read your name from your license, match your name to a name on the passenger list, and mark you off the list.
Now, I'm not exactly sure if you can check bags. If you have to go to the counter before security, they ask for your ID. But if you can avoid that (and you can now, as far as I know), you can fly on a fake identity.
Any well funded terrorist will have a fake ID to match their fake credit card to check in their bag. It's not like airline personnell have the means to tell a real ID from a good fake one.
It does create a slight loophole. Let's say I'm on the no-fly list. If I try to enter the terminal on a boarding pass with a different name and no ID, I'll get more thurough screening. This would let me print a fake boarding pass with my name and enter the terminal using ID, then fly on the real boarding pass with the fake name.
Also, if I am flagged for extra screening, it allows me to avoid it - I just note that the "extra screening" code has been noted on my boarding pass, then use my trusty fake boarding pass without the flag written on it to get through security without the extra screening.
So this does illustrate that a lot of the 'security measures' (no fly lists, random extra screening) are, indeed, security theater - you don't have to do any of them if you don't want to.
But that's not to say checking ID's is pointless. People don't understand the REAL (undocumented) reason that your ID is checked at the security line.
It USED to be, many years ago, that ANYBODY could go into the terminal, whether they were going to fly or not. Of course, everyone has to be screened, even if you're not flying, which uses resources.
Checking ID's reduces the number of people going through security. That's it. It's not designed to keep any particular person out (since you don't have to show ID anyway), it just means that less people are likely to go through security who are not actually flying. This reduces the number of people that need to be screened, and thus reduces the amount of money that needs to be spent on equipment and screeners.
At worst, all this website does is make it easier for people to fly on tickets that are not their own, which is a profit concern for the airlines, not a security concern for the traveler.
Just because the armchair QBs kept going on about the legal trouble(s) google was going to end up in
That's not what the armchair QB's kept going on about. That YouTube isn't liable for posting the infringing content doesn't change the fact that SOMEONE is liable for posting the infringing content. When the content owners start sending subpeonas to YouTube for the IPs of the people posting the content and then the ISP's of those users to get names and addresses and file those RIAA-style $150,000-per-download lawsuits, then people stop posting content to YouTube, and with a lot of YouTube's content gone, YouTube's value decreases substantially.
Think about it. Those 'hey' clip girls are liable for TRILLIONS* in damages!
*TRILLIONS computed using RIAA math. 1 song * 10 million downloads * $300,000 = $3 billion. Your results may vary.
If someone hosts a website of songs, and I go to that website and I download them, then the RIAA may very well come after me.
So if I go to a website with videos, and I download those, what's the difference?
What if I watch a video which includes a song? Am I just as guilty of infringement as if I had downloaded the song only?
Actually, there is a difference, in one case you keep a copy of the material locally and in YouTube's case you don't. But if you download a video from YouTube to your hard drive that has a song on it, I can't see how you're any less guilty of infringement than if you had just downloaded the song alone.
There's a difference between ruling class and ruling race. Ruling classes tend to be a small percentage of the population. Ruling races can be the majority of the population.
And the caste system in India has been chugging along for thousands of years...
Slashdot Mirror
But I am engaged, so you can all laugh at me.
You didn't wire the money to Russia via Western Union, did you? That's totally a scam.
Newsflash: Large software project takes a long time.
Did it occur to anyone that maybe, just maybe, a software project of this magnitude just takes this long to complete?
What's to say it should take less time? Management schedule? Isn't that wrong by definition?
It isn't in orbit and never will be unless the volcano it is bolted to erupts.
The plan is that the volcano erupts, launching the telescope over the border and into the United States. Beats swimming the Rio or digging a tunnel.
A large oil company spends $1 Billion developing software that takes existing geological maps and analyzes it in a novel way. This robot is so effective at what it does that they patent it to ensure they protect their investment.
For argument's sake, tell me the difference between these two scenarios:
The difference is, nobody spends $1 billion developing a basic software algorithm. It's telling that the example you are trying to use to justify software patents is fictional.
Why is the exact same act, under the same circumstances, but over a slightly different transmission medium subject to stiffer penalties?
Because some mediums make it easier to commit the crime than others, some mediums result in greater harm to victims, and some mediums result in more victims being affected.
You have a stiffer penalty for soliciting minors via the internet because it's easier to solicit a minor on the computer than it is to walk up to them and solicit them when they leave school. Because the internet makes soliciting minors much easier, you want stiffer penalties to discourage criminals from using the new, easier method.
A corallary would be armed robbery. If you steal $20 by going into a convenience store and pulling $20 out of the register when the clerk isn't looking, that's not nearly as bad as walking in with a gun and demanding and taking the $20. The end result is the same - the convenience store is short $20 - but the penalties are very different, and for very good reason.
Second, they repeatedly warned him before tasing him each time. That's definitely NOT going "apeshit" on the guy.
"Get whiter or I'll shoot!"
And what does it do if they're male?
It fingers them.
If you are located in Houston, please feel free to drop by my apartment to receive your free beer and backrub-by-nerdloving-chick. :)
Interesting.. how many chins do you have?
People have been voting republicrat for decades. It hasn't worked yet. Why would I want to throw my vote away by voting for republicrats again?
2) There is no documented evidence of votes for republicans going to democrats.
This is in Broward county. You can't find evidence of republican votes switching to democratic ones if everyone is voting democratic in the first place.
Same difference. People do only watch 10-20 channels - but they don't all watch the *SAME* 10-20 channels. So if you limitted the number of channels available to 10, then everyone would be watching the same 10 channels, and there would be enough money for each channel that commercials wouldn't be necessary.
You're saying that people could pay alacarte for 10 channels and it would cost more. You'd end up with the same 10 channels either way, those being the channels people were actually willing to pay $3-$4 per month each for.
That has to be an editorial mistake.
No, that's a feature.
Indeed, the promise of satellite/cable channels was that because you were paying for the subscription to see them, you wouldn't have to see commercials.
And that promise has been met - for channels where the programming and audience justifies it, like HBO. The thing is, when that promise was made, nobody envisioned 200 niche cable channels. There isn't enough subcriber revenue to pay for all those when the audience gets spread around like that, and commercials make up the difference.
You could have commercial-free cable TV, if you were willing to accept that your cable TV lineup consisted of 10 channels total. But that's not what most people want, and the market has adjusted accordingly.
... since you don't know which bar codes are valid for the flight you want to get on, even if you're the first person to get on the flight, your barcode won't scan as valid and you'll be stopped there.
Nope, parody is fair use. And it's trademark, not copyright. Learn the difference...
The presentation, color, and layout of the boarding pass is covered under copyright.
Parody MAY be fair use. That's a matter to be decided in court, but it's unlikely the court would hold that this use would fall under a parody fair use exception. We're not talking about a political cartoon here, we're talking about a document used in trade. The whole point of trademarks is to prevent people from obscuring the source of goods and services, and the whole point of this program is to obscure the source of the service.
I bet you have spelling errors in your replies correcting others' spelling too, don't you?
...Security researcher calls for arrest of congressman?
Maybe not this one, but I'm sure one of the other 434 of them have done something.
Security research is a good thing, and the self-printed boarding passes really are a joke
There's nothing wrong with them, if you understand what their purpose is.
Why have boarding passes at all? Why not just let people use their tickets to board the plane?
Boarding passes exist so that the airline has some indication that you intend to use the ticket you bought a month ago to board a flight today. By checking in, whether it be at the counter or online, the airline knows that less than 24 hours prior to the flight, you intend to board the flight.
Other than that, there's nothing a boarding pass does that a ticket won't do.
Hell, the airline could just let you board based on the name on your driver's license. The only reason they don't is because they can 'read' the bar code on your boarding pass easier than they can read your name from your license, match your name to a name on the passenger list, and mark you off the list.
Now, I'm not exactly sure if you can check bags. If you have to go to the counter before security, they ask for your ID. But if you can avoid that (and you can now, as far as I know), you can fly on a fake identity.
Any well funded terrorist will have a fake ID to match their fake credit card to check in their bag. It's not like airline personnell have the means to tell a real ID from a good fake one.
No, you can be prosecuted for attempting to pass these off as real, but not just printing them
But you could be civilly sued for violating NWA's trademark and copyright.
It does create a slight loophole. Let's say I'm on the no-fly list. If I try to enter the terminal on a boarding pass with a different name and no ID, I'll get more thurough screening. This would let me print a fake boarding pass with my name and enter the terminal using ID, then fly on the real boarding pass with the fake name.
Also, if I am flagged for extra screening, it allows me to avoid it - I just note that the "extra screening" code has been noted on my boarding pass, then use my trusty fake boarding pass without the flag written on it to get through security without the extra screening.
So this does illustrate that a lot of the 'security measures' (no fly lists, random extra screening) are, indeed, security theater - you don't have to do any of them if you don't want to.
But that's not to say checking ID's is pointless. People don't understand the REAL (undocumented) reason that your ID is checked at the security line.
It USED to be, many years ago, that ANYBODY could go into the terminal, whether they were going to fly or not. Of course, everyone has to be screened, even if you're not flying, which uses resources.
Checking ID's reduces the number of people going through security. That's it. It's not designed to keep any particular person out (since you don't have to show ID anyway), it just means that less people are likely to go through security who are not actually flying. This reduces the number of people that need to be screened, and thus reduces the amount of money that needs to be spent on equipment and screeners.
At worst, all this website does is make it easier for people to fly on tickets that are not their own, which is a profit concern for the airlines, not a security concern for the traveler.
Just because the armchair QBs kept going on about the legal trouble(s) google was going to end up in
That's not what the armchair QB's kept going on about. That YouTube isn't liable for posting the infringing content doesn't change the fact that SOMEONE is liable for posting the infringing content. When the content owners start sending subpeonas to YouTube for the IPs of the people posting the content and then the ISP's of those users to get names and addresses and file those RIAA-style $150,000-per-download lawsuits, then people stop posting content to YouTube, and with a lot of YouTube's content gone, YouTube's value decreases substantially.
Think about it. Those 'hey' clip girls are liable for TRILLIONS* in damages!
*TRILLIONS computed using RIAA math. 1 song * 10 million downloads * $300,000 = $3 billion. Your results may vary.
If someone hosts a website of songs, and I go to that website and I download them, then the RIAA may very well come after me.
So if I go to a website with videos, and I download those, what's the difference?
What if I watch a video which includes a song? Am I just as guilty of infringement as if I had downloaded the song only?
Actually, there is a difference, in one case you keep a copy of the material locally and in YouTube's case you don't. But if you download a video from YouTube to your hard drive that has a song on it, I can't see how you're any less guilty of infringement than if you had just downloaded the song alone.
Exactly and starting censorshop is a slippery slope - where do you stop?
Uhm... at the bottom of the slope?
Does it even qualify as news if it's that old?
No, but it's Sunday - Sunday is 'Olds for Nerds'.
There's a difference between ruling class and ruling race. Ruling classes tend to be a small percentage of the population. Ruling races can be the majority of the population.
And the caste system in India has been chugging along for thousands of years...