Because you either buy the tethering capability from them or you illegally hack your own phone (yes, they have twisted the law to the point where it is illegal to modify your own possessions).
The problem with that logic is that the service providers collude (and all of them just knowing where their common interests sit and acting accordingly is collusion whether a meeting happens or not).
There is nothing wrong with offering the service on any contract terms they like as long as there are other terms to be had. If the service providers are going to collude to make every service essentially the same then they should lose the right to dictate any terms they like.
Since the carrier is aware of it and knows you are willing to pay more. Your perception of value affects demand, that in turn affects how much money they can get you pay for the service.
Prices aren't about how much it costs to provide the service, they are based on how much they can get someone to pay them for the service.
If you want to do GNS3 legally you are going to have to shell out some cash though. It uses actual cisco firmware. If you are in the peace corp in Kenya and don't care the firmware is easy to find online.
And what makes an invisible dragon an extraordinary claim? How is that different than say a color changing lizard or fire breathing beetle? What is the empirical metric used to define one as extraordinary and one as ordinary?
Why should the burden of proof be different? Either I can provide evidence of my claim or I cannot. Either that evidence proves what I claim or it does not. Shouldn't the claim and its evidence be evaluated on its own merit not filtered through the lens of subjective preconceived notions?
"Extraordinary claims cannot be treated on equal footing as an ordinary claim because taking extraordinary claims at face value can be far more dangerous."
That doesn't mean much without a metric for extraordinariness. Where would say an invisible dragon fall on the extraordinality scale and what instrument can I use to measure it?
The 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence' is nothing more than a way to dismiss claims and their evidence when they (or their consequences) fall too far from our comfort zones.
If I claim an invisible dragon in my garage the burden of proof is on me who claims the positive and not you who claims there is no dragon. In the same token I place the burden upon you to prove there is such a thing as an extraordinary claim, that such a thing is both observable and measurable and therefore scientifically valid, and once you've properly defined them to prove that 'taking extraordinary claims at face value can be far more dangerous'. I don't mean an example of such a claim mind but actual proof a relationship between being extraordinary and dangerous.
"Not at all. You repeat his/her mistake (hence my repeated assertion of the irrelevance of the evolution argument). Both of you appear to be talking about prior probabilities (or plausibility)."
It doesn't matter if he is claiming that the scientific method can't provide all the answers or that there are no unicorns. The burden of proof rests with those who claim the existence of the unicorns and the capabilities of the scientific method (and rational inquiry if that is the term he used).
There is no point in supplying any evidence of the negative because a negative can not be proven.
"Even the strong version of (shall we say) scientific optimism has only ever claimed to be able (someday) to explain the observed (and in principle observable) aspects of the universe."
I am not even certain what you are debating because in this statement you concede the point and admit that even the strongest "scientific optimism" doesn't claim the scientific method can be used to solve all assertions.
I think illustrating that one of the most well established theories in science suffers the same technical flaw that you point out in the point is the gp is fairly relevant. It is also a tad ironic.
"Nope. Just telling him/her not to make the mistake that just because there MAY be unprovable assertions in the system doesn't mean there necessarily ARE."
Indeed and just because Evolution MAY happen doesn't mean that it DOES. However, in both examples there is an overwhelming probability.
"2 a : a systematic body of concepts especially about human life or culture b : a manner or the content of thinking characteristic of an individual, group, or culture c : the integrated assertions, theories and aims that constitute a sociopolitical program"
Of course it is. Science and the scientific method depend on the belief that the world is observable and that meaning and reality can be derived from those observations.
That is an ideology and it is self supporting.
The core principle, that the world is observable and that meaning and reality can be derived from those observations, is typically supported by proponents by pointing to their observations of the success of the method.
Those who THINK they are rational have a tendency to dismiss evidence to the contrary. They call this skepticism but often it is simple denial. They use phrases like 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence' but there is nothing rational about how they define 'extraordinary' or about that double standard.
These individuals have simply decided that they know the truth and therefore any evidence to the contrary is either being misinterpreted or falsified.
"So, your "rigorous proof to the contrary" (and as I explained, Heisenberg is only remotely relevant and Godel only slightly more so) can only go so far as to introduce the possibility that there might be more to the universe than we can explain (not that there necessarily is)."
And all evidence to date only goes so far as to support the possibility of evolution not that it necessarily is.
You do worse than ask the gp to support the god stuff here, you ask him to prove a negative.
"Only if you consider that the last section (cancellation) refers to the rights under the whole license. If the last section just referred to the patent grant, then it wouldn't explicitly forbid you from distributing the software, it would just open you up to countersuit from google."
GPLv2 self destructs if there is any legal encumbrance. If you can lose your patent grant then you can't safely distribute.
society would benefit the same amount minus however much they would have benefited from the enhancements and modifications that would have been shared back had it been GPL and whatever snowball effect would have been enjoyed from enhancements to the enhancements of course.
But you don't have access to improvements based on it.
Every such improvement that is made and distributed makes the original public domain source less valuable because the enhanced version has all its features plus the enhancements.
Nobody would contribute back and the original would not only stagnate but actually grow more and more obsolete.
Of course, if there were no copyright at all and everything was in the public domain it would be a different story. Then everything could be reversed so it wouldn't matter.
"If the stack had been GPL, hardly anyone would of used it,"
Why do you make that assumption? It isn't like the entire OS would have to be opened if the stack were GPL. Everyone who used it would just have to contribute back to the stack.
The result would be a more robust and featureful stack all around, as it is any improvements made by those who used the BSD stack stayed proprietary.
yes, in a word of all public domain/bsd code nobody contributes code anymore. They all take the code add their enhancements and either keep it closed or sell it, still keeping it closed.
The freely available code no longer gets improved and stagnates until it is no longer useful to any one.
In other words, "everyone takes what they can from it until it is no longer useful to anyone".
If everyone had replicators then nobody would need money anymore.
The world doesn't grind to a halt in that situation it simply finds other incentives.
Every day movies, art, software, and inventions are made on a voluntary basis.
The only thing that collapses in a world without tangible wealth is the feeling that one is being cheated if they don't get tangible wealth for their every effort.
I agree with the general point but not with the price. I'm not willing to pay per chunk for media. It doesn't make sense in a world where producing digital copies is free. It especially doesn't make sense in a world where a movie is entertaining only about once every 5 years.
All that is needed is to drop the DRM and make all the blockbuster titles available to services like Netflix to stream in HD and make them available as soon as they are on PPV and brick and mortar stores.
"A car is a useful article, which is ineligible from copyright protection except to the extent the form can be separated from its medium"
Your except is the only extent to which the aesthetic design of a car SHOULD be covered. If it is not aesthetically unique enough to be covered under copyright and isn't functional and inventive enough to qualify for a true patent then it shouldn't be protected at all.
The area between copyright and patent you are referring to doesn't need to be fixed with additional IP. That gap is a feature, not a bug. Closing that gap with a 'design patent' only serves to hinder progress.
Slashdot Mirror
"The model works."
But now the network providers are changing the game and the dynamics that make the model work are being broken.
The model works because we don't pay for transfer (nor should we, since the providers don't either).
Because you either buy the tethering capability from them or you illegally hack your own phone (yes, they have twisted the law to the point where it is illegal to modify your own possessions).
The problem with that logic is that the service providers collude (and all of them just knowing where their common interests sit and acting accordingly is collusion whether a meeting happens or not).
There is nothing wrong with offering the service on any contract terms they like as long as there are other terms to be had. If the service providers are going to collude to make every service essentially the same then they should lose the right to dictate any terms they like.
Since the carrier is aware of it and knows you are willing to pay more. Your perception of value affects demand, that in turn affects how much money they can get you pay for the service.
Prices aren't about how much it costs to provide the service, they are based on how much they can get someone to pay them for the service.
If you want to do GNS3 legally you are going to have to shell out some cash though. It uses actual cisco firmware. If you are in the peace corp in Kenya and don't care the firmware is easy to find online.
And what makes an invisible dragon an extraordinary claim? How is that different than say a color changing lizard or fire breathing beetle? What is the empirical metric used to define one as extraordinary and one as ordinary?
Why should the burden of proof be different? Either I can provide evidence of my claim or I cannot. Either that evidence proves what I claim or it does not. Shouldn't the claim and its evidence be evaluated on its own merit not filtered through the lens of subjective preconceived notions?
"Extraordinary claims cannot be treated on equal footing as an ordinary claim because taking extraordinary claims at face value can be far more dangerous."
That doesn't mean much without a metric for extraordinariness. Where would say an invisible dragon fall on the extraordinality scale and what instrument can I use to measure it?
The 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence' is nothing more than a way to dismiss claims and their evidence when they (or their consequences) fall too far from our comfort zones.
If I claim an invisible dragon in my garage the burden of proof is on me who claims the positive and not you who claims there is no dragon. In the same token I place the burden upon you to prove there is such a thing as an extraordinary claim, that such a thing is both observable and measurable and therefore scientifically valid, and once you've properly defined them to prove that 'taking extraordinary claims at face value can be far more dangerous'. I don't mean an example of such a claim mind but actual proof a relationship between being extraordinary and dangerous.
Good luck with that.
"Not at all. You repeat his/her mistake (hence my repeated assertion of the irrelevance of the evolution argument). Both of you appear to be talking about prior probabilities (or plausibility)."
It doesn't matter if he is claiming that the scientific method can't provide all the answers or that there are no unicorns. The burden of proof rests with those who claim the existence of the unicorns and the capabilities of the scientific method (and rational inquiry if that is the term he used).
There is no point in supplying any evidence of the negative because a negative can not be proven.
"Even the strong version of (shall we say) scientific optimism has only ever claimed to be able (someday) to explain the observed (and in principle observable) aspects of the universe."
I am not even certain what you are debating because in this statement you concede the point and admit that even the strongest "scientific optimism" doesn't claim the scientific method can be used to solve all assertions.
Ah, well... carry on then and keep up the good work.
"I agree. Bit of a non-sequitur but *shrug*"
I think illustrating that one of the most well established theories in science suffers the same technical flaw that you point out in the point is the gp is fairly relevant. It is also a tad ironic.
"Nope. Just telling him/her not to make the mistake that just because there MAY be unprovable assertions in the system doesn't mean there necessarily ARE."
Indeed and just because Evolution MAY happen doesn't mean that it DOES. However, in both examples there is an overwhelming probability.
Per Merriam Webster definition of ideology:
"2 a : a systematic body of concepts especially about human life or culture b : a manner or the content of thinking characteristic of an individual, group, or culture c : the integrated assertions, theories and aims that constitute a sociopolitical program"
Of course it is. Science and the scientific method depend on the belief that the world is observable and that meaning and reality can be derived from those observations.
That is an ideology and it is self supporting.
The core principle, that the world is observable and that meaning and reality can be derived from those observations, is typically supported by proponents by pointing to their observations of the success of the method.
Those who THINK they are rational have a tendency to dismiss evidence to the contrary. They call this skepticism but often it is simple denial. They use phrases like 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence' but there is nothing rational about how they define 'extraordinary' or about that double standard.
These individuals have simply decided that they know the truth and therefore any evidence to the contrary is either being misinterpreted or falsified.
"So, your "rigorous proof to the contrary" (and as I explained, Heisenberg is only remotely relevant and Godel only slightly more so) can only go so far as to introduce the possibility that there might be more to the universe than we can explain (not that there necessarily is)."
And all evidence to date only goes so far as to support the possibility of evolution not that it necessarily is.
You do worse than ask the gp to support the god stuff here, you ask him to prove a negative.
I would need at least one more:
* Freedom 4: The freedom to grant all of these freedoms to anyone you redistribute copies and modified versions to.
The soft in software refers to "it" being an intangible electrical state as opposed to a solid tangible item.
It has nothing to do with your ability to change it.
"Only if you consider that the last section (cancellation) refers to the rights under the whole license. If the last section just referred to the patent grant, then it wouldn't explicitly forbid you from distributing the software, it would just open you up to countersuit from google."
GPLv2 self destructs if there is any legal encumbrance. If you can lose your patent grant then you can't safely distribute.
"how much more society would benefit"
society would benefit the same amount minus however much they would have benefited from the enhancements and modifications that would have been shared back had it been GPL and whatever snowball effect would have been enjoyed from enhancements to the enhancements of course.
But you don't have access to improvements based on it.
Every such improvement that is made and distributed makes the original public domain source less valuable because the enhanced version has all its features plus the enhancements.
Nobody would contribute back and the original would not only stagnate but actually grow more and more obsolete.
Of course, if there were no copyright at all and everything was in the public domain it would be a different story. Then everything could be reversed so it wouldn't matter.
"If the stack had been GPL, hardly anyone would of used it,"
Why do you make that assumption? It isn't like the entire OS would have to be opened if the stack were GPL. Everyone who used it would just have to contribute back to the stack.
The result would be a more robust and featureful stack all around, as it is any improvements made by those who used the BSD stack stayed proprietary.
yes, in a word of all public domain/bsd code nobody contributes code anymore. They all take the code add their enhancements and either keep it closed or sell it, still keeping it closed.
The freely available code no longer gets improved and stagnates until it is no longer useful to any one.
In other words, "everyone takes what they can from it until it is no longer useful to anyone".
"This may come as a surprise, but there's an article linked from the summary!"
And you read it? Heathen! Stone him!!!
Except that life is not an invention and life and genes should not fall within the scope of patent.
I'm hoping you intended sarcasm and just forgot that you need to state it explicitly for anyone to know in text land.
If everyone had replicators then nobody would need money anymore.
The world doesn't grind to a halt in that situation it simply finds other incentives.
Every day movies, art, software, and inventions are made on a voluntary basis.
The only thing that collapses in a world without tangible wealth is the feeling that one is being cheated if they don't get tangible wealth for their every effort.
I agree with the general point but not with the price. I'm not willing to pay per chunk for media. It doesn't make sense in a world where producing digital copies is free. It especially doesn't make sense in a world where a movie is entertaining only about once every 5 years.
All that is needed is to drop the DRM and make all the blockbuster titles available to services like Netflix to stream in HD and make them available as soon as they are on PPV and brick and mortar stores.
"A car is a useful article, which is ineligible from copyright protection except to the extent the form can be separated from its medium"
Your except is the only extent to which the aesthetic design of a car SHOULD be covered. If it is not aesthetically unique enough to be covered under copyright and isn't functional and inventive enough to qualify for a true patent then it shouldn't be protected at all.
The area between copyright and patent you are referring to doesn't need to be fixed with additional IP. That gap is a feature, not a bug. Closing that gap with a 'design patent' only serves to hinder progress.