The "Republicans" listened to other "Republicans". It's not like the party is some autonomous entity. It needs to keep aligned with its constituency, hence it changes. If you're being contacted by the people who vote for you, you are obliged to respond. You're an interface, not a self-imposed control.
"Sure, in places with real functioning political parties like Europe this is the case, but not so in the US."
I contradict that assertion with my assertion that the political parties here are indeed real and functioning, representing the actual dispersal of ideas in a populace, and that the European model is simply a decayed version of familial alignment via aristocracy support.
Or are you saying that Europeans actually only think in terms of black and white?
Your first sentence is complete bullshit. Your second is a lie. This makes your third (not a conclusion you can draw from false #1&2 anyway) wrong as well.
"It is only the geeks that see the laws out of sync with the "moral compass" of society."
As a geek, allow me to say "Bwahahahahahahahahaha!!"
"Even an idiot can see that it absurd.... false belief of "scarcity.""
That is nowhere near as deep or as true as you think it is.
You have wrapped yourself in geek arrogance, which may or may not be deserved, and believe that it elevates your opinion to fact. It does not. There are a number of geeks on/. who do not believe as you do and I'll warrant are your intellectual equal without problem.
No he doesn't. He's applying the broader sense. OS's are by definition a niche market. The US can't "invest" in OS development, it's already going great guns, so it's not even a niche under discussion.
We don't need a thousand phone OS's, but maybe a few thousand apps. Which makes his point right on target.
Also, the OS may be the most valuable piece of software on the iPhone, but it's not worth a dime without that little, cheap piece of hardware.
Just looked up Gordon Gould. Lot of patent strife, most of which he instigated, but no sign of the government forbidding him from working on lasers. Could provide a cite, please, as this sounds interesting.
To quibble, "copyright grants the author the right to distribute his work as he sees fits" is not at all correct.
Copyright grants the author exclusive right to determine distribution. In other words, someone cannot distribute your work in a manner you haven't approved.
Is Apple distributing author works in a manner the authors haven't approvde of? If not, no violation.
I went to Apple's site. There's ample opportunity to learn the details before you agree to use their software. That's where determination is utilized by the author. I don't want those restrictions, so I won't be using their software. I determine the distribution.
Now. If I *wanted* to publish an iBook. I agree to a contract and proceed. Again, I determined the distribution.
Don't conflate the desire for a specific distribution route with copyright. They are not the same. Copyright restricts what *they* can do, it doesn't open up what *you* can do.
piracy
1. practice of a pirate; robbery or illegal violence at sea.
2. the unauthorized reproduction or use of a copyrighted book, recording, television program, patented invention, trademarked product, etc.: The record industry is beset with piracy.
3. Also called stream capture. Geol. diversion of the upper part of one stream by the headward growth of another.
Copyrights were issued by the Queen of England in Elizabethan times. A hundred years? Other licenses for exclusivity were also issued. The concept is hardly new.
"If you wouldn't do it out of enjoyment, it probably sucks compared to what the guy who did it for himself would do. You should want people to copy your art, if not you are doing it wrong."
"Is there a database of traffic laws? Who provides the data? Is the data correct?"
Yes. Every state, online. For smaller locales, the autonomous folk wanting my money had better do a good job of acquiring it, just like the local humans must.
"Does the vehicle read road signs?"
An autonomous vehicle had *better* read road signs, and pretty damned well.
"Are the signs correct? Are they transiently obscured by a parked vehicle or a pedestrian?"
Same problems humans face, too bad.
"Computers, even with perfect design and implementation, are still able to do the wrong thing. Garbage in, garbage out."
Same for the humans, yet fines stand for them. I disagree with your premise. I believe that if a vehicle cannot do all the things a human is required to do, it cannot be an autonomous vehicle. It's just remote-controlled.
Outside of academia, you believe this to be an important skill why? I can program spreadsheets for some IBM mainframe thing, Excel, Lotus and whatever Corel called theirs... and you know what? Once out of corporate almost ten years ago, I haven't needed or wanted to do it one time. That's how important that knowledge is out in the world. You're inundated with technology, so you see it as the answer to whatever question. It's not. Besides, Excel costs $120, ledger books are far cheaper. So they don't need to know how to program Excel.
So, you're speaking of computer literacy at a college level, an utterly different thing than computer literacy for generic Shirley. And I know good and damned well that where you teach requires an intro computer course (see my rant elsewhere on this post), so why weren't they educated there before you got them? Failing of the uni, looks to me.
Now... Define "useful" in terms of day-to-day living in the real world, not academia. When the time comes that they need a spreadsheet for something, they figure it out. Probably with help and one of those specialized spreadsheets for home budget or whatever.
I'm aware of all that. I said I've done wood, brick and concrete. Wooden is less labor intensive, cheaper material and tool (especially) wise and it's faster.
Slashdot Mirror
Actively demonstrating it is what?
Even better is to close up the one they know you know about and allow false information out the others you've discovered.
The "Republicans" listened to other "Republicans". It's not like the party is some autonomous entity. It needs to keep aligned with its constituency, hence it changes. If you're being contacted by the people who vote for you, you are obliged to respond. You're an interface, not a self-imposed control.
So, you're criticizing someone for telling their politician "If you don't change, I won't vote for you"?
'Cause if you really believe they say they'll never vote Republican, you are incorrect. Not their message.
You might want to check into A there. The Dems simply want a different presence.
If you believe that is an actual document, you have serious problems.
"Sure, in places with real functioning political parties like Europe this is the case, but not so in the US."
I contradict that assertion with my assertion that the political parties here are indeed real and functioning, representing the actual dispersal of ideas in a populace, and that the European model is simply a decayed version of familial alignment via aristocracy support.
Or are you saying that Europeans actually only think in terms of black and white?
Your first sentence is complete bullshit. Your second is a lie. This makes your third (not a conclusion you can draw from false #1&2 anyway) wrong as well.
Good show. Utter failure.
Screw the author. There's nothing here that isn't simply political crap.
"It is only the geeks that see the laws out of sync with the "moral compass" of society."
.... false belief of "scarcity.""
/. who do not believe as you do and I'll warrant are your intellectual equal without problem.
As a geek, allow me to say "Bwahahahahahahahahaha!!"
"Even an idiot can see that it absurd
That is nowhere near as deep or as true as you think it is.
You have wrapped yourself in geek arrogance, which may or may not be deserved, and believe that it elevates your opinion to fact. It does not. There are a number of geeks on
Climb down.
Then you will have found yourself in an alternate universe where competition does not exist. For the foreseeable future, you're safe.
"First off,......"
Your first point is incorrect, you stole (or circumvented) their right to distribution, which cannot be restored. Your second is spot on.
Are you sure there wasn't some little incident, located betwixt your stopping and their suing, that prompted them?
Thus speaks the child to the naked emporer:
"Algorithms kept in abstraction are of no use. Without hardware, software is just mental masturbation."
No he doesn't. He's applying the broader sense. OS's are by definition a niche market. The US can't "invest" in OS development, it's already going great guns, so it's not even a niche under discussion.
We don't need a thousand phone OS's, but maybe a few thousand apps. Which makes his point right on target.
Also, the OS may be the most valuable piece of software on the iPhone, but it's not worth a dime without that little, cheap piece of hardware.
PC's. There's more to computing than PC's.
Just looked up Gordon Gould. Lot of patent strife, most of which he instigated, but no sign of the government forbidding him from working on lasers. Could provide a cite, please, as this sounds interesting.
To quibble, "copyright grants the author the right to distribute his work as he sees fits" is not at all correct.
Copyright grants the author exclusive right to determine distribution. In other words, someone cannot distribute your work in a manner you haven't approved.
Is Apple distributing author works in a manner the authors haven't approvde of? If not, no violation.
I went to Apple's site. There's ample opportunity to learn the details before you agree to use their software. That's where determination is utilized by the author. I don't want those restrictions, so I won't be using their software. I determine the distribution.
Now. If I *wanted* to publish an iBook. I agree to a contract and proceed. Again, I determined the distribution.
Don't conflate the desire for a specific distribution route with copyright. They are not the same. Copyright restricts what *they* can do, it doesn't open up what *you* can do.
Someone else without a dictionary, I see.
piracy
1. practice of a pirate; robbery or illegal violence at sea.
2. the unauthorized reproduction or use of a copyrighted book, recording, television program, patented invention, trademarked product, etc.: The record industry is beset with piracy.
3. Also called stream capture. Geol. diversion of the upper part of one stream by the headward growth of another.
You are incorrect.
"IP has NOT encouraged innovation."
"NONE of the credit for that rests in the hands of IP."
"Correlation isn't causation."
And assertion is not fact, regardless of the use of all caps.
Copyrights were issued by the Queen of England in Elizabethan times. A hundred years? Other licenses for exclusivity were also issued. The concept is hardly new.
"If you wouldn't do it out of enjoyment, it probably sucks compared to what the guy who did it for himself would do. You should want people to copy your art, if not you are doing it wrong."
Right. You're what, sixteen?
"Is there a database of traffic laws? Who provides the data? Is the data correct?"
Yes. Every state, online. For smaller locales, the autonomous folk wanting my money had better do a good job of acquiring it, just like the local humans must.
"Does the vehicle read road signs?"
An autonomous vehicle had *better* read road signs, and pretty damned well.
"Are the signs correct? Are they transiently obscured by a parked vehicle or a pedestrian?"
Same problems humans face, too bad.
"Computers, even with perfect design and implementation, are still able to do the wrong thing. Garbage in, garbage out."
Same for the humans, yet fines stand for them. I disagree with your premise. I believe that if a vehicle cannot do all the things a human is required to do, it cannot be an autonomous vehicle. It's just remote-controlled.
"(I am talking the most basic of Excel function)"
Outside of academia, you believe this to be an important skill why? I can program spreadsheets for some IBM mainframe thing, Excel, Lotus and whatever Corel called theirs... and you know what? Once out of corporate almost ten years ago, I haven't needed or wanted to do it one time. That's how important that knowledge is out in the world. You're inundated with technology, so you see it as the answer to whatever question. It's not. Besides, Excel costs $120, ledger books are far cheaper. So they don't need to know how to program Excel.
So, you're speaking of computer literacy at a college level, an utterly different thing than computer literacy for generic Shirley. And I know good and damned well that where you teach requires an intro computer course (see my rant elsewhere on this post), so why weren't they educated there before you got them? Failing of the uni, looks to me.
Now... Define "useful" in terms of day-to-day living in the real world, not academia. When the time comes that they need a spreadsheet for something, they figure it out. Probably with help and one of those specialized spreadsheets for home budget or whatever.
Or they use a ledger book.
I'm aware of all that. I said I've done wood, brick and concrete. Wooden is less labor intensive, cheaper material and tool (especially) wise and it's faster.