No, actually they do do this in encyclopedias. In fact, the first two entries of the errors (birthdates of Ben Turpin and Abraham Bosse) would be the kind of inconsequential facts they would bodge for this tactic.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. You cannot take your own copyrighted material, place it in a public forum for public viewing and then claim copyright infringement when viewed. Well, you can claim it, but it will be a false charge. In fact, because you went out of your way to "convince people on the network to view it", you would be enacting entrapment.
If, however, someone then uses said material in a copyright violating manner, you could.
Well, that's easy. They lose their right to control distribution of their copyrighted material. Nor can they get it back, as you have the material already. That's what copyright is about, you know. They own the right to decision, not you. You took that right away from them. Got it?
"A THEORY in technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena: the theory of relativity. A HYPOTHESIS is a conjecture put forth as a possible explanation of phenomena or relations, which serves as a basis of argument or experimentation to reach the truth: This idea is only a hypothesis."
You were saying? Those successes you mention were deemed successes because they were bolstered by emperical evidence, not more math.
So, if I conjecture it is indeed the second gods who are pushing the universe apart, that's a valid scientific theory. And if I'm proven wrong, it's just one possibility discounted and science has been advanced?
Publish does not mean what you think it does. I print and send stories to a friend of mine for him to edit. That printing constitutes publication.
And no, it shouldn't mean releasing it to the public, otherwise authors would never be able to get it published in the first place. You have to provide an agent and publisher with a copy (copyrighted) print. With no copyright, they could simply take it as their own.
In terms of access it makes perfect sense. One doesn't want just anyone walking into a bank vault. Therefore, only a known set of people are let in and they must identify themselves to do so. Lack of identity privacy.
Same goes for your home. If I showed up and let myself in, you'd probably be ticked. Why? My personal privacy is paramount, right? No, your home privacy trumps my personal privacy and I should either be already known to you (lack of identity privacy) or identify myself so you're satisfied (same).
You need to be more specific. Are you saying the majority of musicians play other people's copyrighted works? Or are you saying they have licensed out their copyrighted works? If the latter, they still own it.
"Because their philosophy is Closed Source, and developers like to control their entire development environment..."
Don't think so. I believe it's because MS produces crappy products, closed or otherwise. Open source is littered with the bodies of crappy products. Being open source, shouldn't they have garnered "mind share"?
"Open sourcing a platform like Websphere or a collabarative suite like Lotus Notes will not be a commercial disaster, like the bloke who modded my original post 'Troll' seems to believe."
This behavior is pretty normal. I will open all interesting links in an article, then view them one at a time. Last link viewed believes it's open the longest, even if I close it as soon as I see it. Do it all the time.
You display your ignorance. There are blogs by noted authorities which are anything but what you say. Check out The Volokh Conspiracy. Same for Dinocrat and others.
2) Applications should give advanced users the ability to turn off all toolbars (most of them do and most of us don't.)
Actually, this is what I was thinking when I first read it. WTF is he talking about? Every app I use with any frequency provides keyboard access to everything logically possible. All I got was a guy picking something to complain about and concocting stuff to fill a word count.
Congratulations. The Vedas wrote some interesting Bronze Age fantasy tales indeed. That is, however, what they were. You don't get the technology to fly mechanical craft with atomic weapons and then land on the ground to fight it out with maces or ride around on traditional chariots with traditional charioteers firing massive volumes of traditional and fantasy arrows. This is the bulk of the Dronaparva battle epic.
#3 : As for "depriving of income"? You maybe mean the income above and beyond a reasonable return on investment and than some? That sounds more than a straight rip-off than "money due".
You, of course, being the determiner of what is a "reasonable return"? Rowlings is an exception. Your average book is good for 15K or so. Maybe a trickle of royalties later. You create a portfolio and then you have a slow income from your efforts. Much like building a business which then pays you dividends.
If you need to shout it's funny, it probably isn't so much.
I'd certainly call it funny if they produced the parody and uploaded it, but they didn't. They tricked someone into fronting the expenses for their stage and audience and did "performance art".
Not funny when it costs someone else's money. More like parasitism.
Slashdot Mirror
No, actually they do do this in encyclopedias. In fact, the first two entries of the errors (birthdates of Ben Turpin and Abraham Bosse) would be the kind of inconsequential facts they would bodge for this tactic.
Describe how a simple unanswered question hints at vanity to you please.
How many of those errors were purposefully introduced? Encyclopedias and map makers do that all the time to see if others are plagerizing.
From KU's page -- "if you are caught".
What part of caught makes it hard for you to understand they aren't innocent?
Wrong, wrong, wrong. You cannot take your own copyrighted material, place it in a public forum for public viewing and then claim copyright infringement when viewed. Well, you can claim it, but it will be a false charge. In fact, because you went out of your way to "convince people on the network to view it", you would be enacting entrapment.
If, however, someone then uses said material in a copyright violating manner, you could.
Yes. Consult a lawyer.
Well, that's easy. They lose their right to control distribution of their copyrighted material. Nor can they get it back, as you have the material already. That's what copyright is about, you know. They own the right to decision, not you. You took that right away from them. Got it?
Allow me -- from Websters:
"A THEORY in technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena: the theory of relativity. A HYPOTHESIS is a conjecture put forth as a possible explanation of phenomena or relations, which serves as a basis of argument or experimentation to reach the truth: This idea is only a hypothesis."
You were saying? Those successes you mention were deemed successes because they were bolstered by emperical evidence, not more math.
So, if I conjecture it is indeed the second gods who are pushing the universe apart, that's a valid scientific theory. And if I'm proven wrong, it's just one possibility discounted and science has been advanced?
No.
Publish does not mean what you think it does. I print and send stories to a friend of mine for him to edit. That printing constitutes publication.
And no, it shouldn't mean releasing it to the public, otherwise authors would never be able to get it published in the first place. You have to provide an agent and publisher with a copy (copyrighted) print. With no copyright, they could simply take it as their own.
In terms of access it makes perfect sense. One doesn't want just anyone walking into a bank vault. Therefore, only a known set of people are let in and they must identify themselves to do so. Lack of identity privacy.
Same goes for your home. If I showed up and let myself in, you'd probably be ticked. Why? My personal privacy is paramount, right? No, your home privacy trumps my personal privacy and I should either be already known to you (lack of identity privacy) or identify myself so you're satisfied (same).
We have killed over a million Iraquis during the same time.
Lying doesn't do your position any good, you know.
You need to be more specific. Are you saying the majority of musicians play other people's copyrighted works? Or are you saying they have licensed out their copyrighted works? If the latter, they still own it.
Hyperbole, the resort of the weak argument. He was fundamentally correct. People who don't want to pay royalties are being cheap.
So, uncouth or ignorant Um, you're the one who went the Godwin's Law distance.
"Because their philosophy is Closed Source, and developers like to control their entire development environment..."
Don't think so. I believe it's because MS produces crappy products, closed or otherwise. Open source is littered with the bodies of crappy products. Being open source, shouldn't they have garnered "mind share"?
"Open sourcing a platform like Websphere or a collabarative suite like Lotus Notes will not be a commercial disaster, like the bloke who modded my original post 'Troll' seems to believe."
Nor will not open sourcing them.
This behavior is pretty normal. I will open all interesting links in an article, then view them one at a time. Last link viewed believes it's open the longest, even if I close it as soon as I see it. Do it all the time.
You display your ignorance. There are blogs by noted authorities which are anything but what you say. Check out The Volokh Conspiracy. Same for Dinocrat and others.
2) Applications should give advanced users the ability to turn off all toolbars (most of them do and most of us don't.)
Actually, this is what I was thinking when I first read it. WTF is he talking about? Every app I use with any frequency provides keyboard access to everything logically possible. All I got was a guy picking something to complain about and concocting stuff to fill a word count.
Congratulations. The Vedas wrote some interesting Bronze Age fantasy tales indeed. That is, however, what they were. You don't get the technology to fly mechanical craft with atomic weapons and then land on the ground to fight it out with maces or ride around on traditional chariots with traditional charioteers firing massive volumes of traditional and fantasy arrows. This is the bulk of the Dronaparva battle epic.
#3 : As for "depriving of income"? You maybe mean the income above and beyond a reasonable return on investment and than some? That sounds more than a straight rip-off than "money due".
You, of course, being the determiner of what is a "reasonable return"? Rowlings is an exception. Your average book is good for 15K or so. Maybe a trickle of royalties later. You create a portfolio and then you have a slow income from your efforts. Much like building a business which then pays you dividends.
'... any structure involving a boss or a "chain of command" cannot function as a swarm."
Bee swarms.
"If they run the experiments and conclude that time extended prior to the big bang, so be it."
By this, I presume if their math works? That will simply mean their math works. It will mean not a thing about cosmology.
By the way, notice Rambo isn't ever on a team?
Then play Rambo to begin with.
"People feel they are entitled to NOT DIE. Fancy that!"
No one is entitled not to die. That's one perceptual problem with humans, the idea that they can indefinitely stave off death.
Anyone who actually believes people are entitled not to die is the GDFI.
"...television engineer, ... computer systems engineer, ... network engineer, senior software developer,..."
You worked in those fields without a high school diploma? Hard to believe.
If you need to shout it's funny, it probably isn't so much.
I'd certainly call it funny if they produced the parody and uploaded it, but they didn't. They tricked someone into fronting the expenses for their stage and audience and did "performance art".
Not funny when it costs someone else's money. More like parasitism.