To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
(emphasis added)
Also, this article quotes and discusses correspondence between Thomas Jefferson and James Madison that shows their reasoning behind the issue. Jefferson eloquently defined the essence of the Public Domain:
"Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society. It would be curious then, if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property. If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property."
There was no real "tipping point," but rather a gradual erosion:
It started with the Founding Fathers picking first-past-the-post voting and then factionalizing into the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans.
It continued with the gradual expansions of the Commerce Clause and the Elastic Clause.
People argue about the cause and purpose of the Civil War, but one effect of it was to more firmly establish Federal sovereignty (rather than state sovereignty).
The 17th Amendment eroded the power of state legislatures in favor of the Federal government by removing their power to elect Senators. This was also in favor of lobbyists because now they only had to contribute to the campaigns of 100 senators, rather than thousands of state politicians.
In the 20th Century there was the New Deal, the military-industrial complex (that Eisenhower warned us against), and too many other issues to even enumerate.
Amen. If they are going to end support, they should release the source to both game and servers, that way the community could continue to host servers and the ranking system of they want.
They should be forced by law to release that source code. The only reason the public granted them copyright in the first place was so that the work could eventually become Public Domain. If they're going to lock it away instead, then they've violated the social contract and no longer deserve the privilege of holding a monopoly on it.
What a combination of naivete and FUD... the mind boggles!
First of all, the case law on this topic was in fact Blizzard v. BNetD, where Blizzard objected to people running their own servers despite the fact that there was no content or subscription associated with it. That pretty much blows your claim that "Blizzard wouldn't mind" out of the water. Second, it is entirely unreasonable, and perhaps even slanderous, to claim that "generally speaking" people must have committed copyright infringement based solely on the fact that they wanted to host their own multiplayer games!
Are you using numpy for python or cblas and lapack for c/c++? They make a huge difference. blas is a little painful to use if you are used on an OO syntax for matrix manipulation but there are half-a-dozen major wrappers for matrix manipulation that can be used, although which one works the best for you would need to be teased out with benchmarking.
I hate to break it to you, but if you're using BLAS then you're still using Fortran!
If you want to say "But I don't program a UNIX system, I program Windows!", I invite you to explain CoCreateFreeThreadedMarshaler(), and when and why you would use it, when writing multithreaded Windows programs.
But I don't program in either; I program in ASP.NET -- wait, no, I don't even do that: I program against the project-specific API that my more senior coworkers wrote on top of ASP.NET. (Actually, that's not even true either -- there are 3 fucking layers of APIs between me and ASP.NET!)
Now, given all that, please explain to me how the fuck rote memorization of POSIX APIs would have done me any goddamn good at all?!
(This is not to say, by the way, that I'm not also familiar with the POSIX API -- I had to know it for my advanced operating systems (e.g. threading, scheduling, RPC, etc.) and computer graphics classes back in college -- but learning it was tangential to the purpose of learning advanced operating systems and computer graphics respectively, not the goal in and of itself. And that's exactly the way that it should be!)
If I could get BBC America, I would gladly cut cable, as the rest I can get online.
Netflix has a decent fraction of the more popular BBC America shows (Top Gear, Doctor Who, Sherlock, etc.). It's a season behind, but waiting a while is a whole lot better than paying $100/month!
I don't believe for a second that it's possible for the writer of such a poorly-phrased law to be "naive." Instead, the writer of such a law would have an exactly 100% chance (not 99% chance) of being an [ISP-content provider-hybrid company] lobbyist intentionally attempting to sabotage the bill by writing in an obviously untenable provision.
First, consider that a libertarian would support allowing each property owner to charge Comcast rent for allowing its cable to be buried across their property.
Since there is already government interference prohibiting the above (and said interference has absolutely no chance of going away), it is reasonable for a libertarian to support net neutrality as a compromise to improve the situation (although not make it optimal).
Actually, packet switched networks work just fine for this IF they have a "reserved bandwidth" connection-emulation feature. In return for being limited in the number and size of the packets, and having asked first, the packets of the call get to "go to the front of the line", which means they aren't dropped and have little variation in transit time (jitter). The high-bandwidth services that speed up until they hit a bottleneck and back off, dividing all available bandwidth among themselves, then find that "all available bandwidth" is just a little smaller. That way both types of service play together JUST FINE.
But that means treating some packets different than others, which in turn means that "net neutrality" mandates, in a naive form, ban them, leaving the phone calls running in the "best effort" manner you describe.
Repeat after me: NET NEUTRALITY IS NOT FUCKING QOS!.
It's really simple: QOS ("Quality Of Service") is about discriminating between different types of traffic based on its characteristics and needs (e.g. low-latency-required stuff like VoIP vs. latency-not-important "bulk data" transfers like BitTorrent). That kind of discrimination is just fine. In contrast, Net Neutrality seeks only to prohibit discrimination based on the origin or destination of the packets; i.e., who sent or requested them. That kind of discrimination is very much not "just fine."
For example, Comcast wanting to prioritize Comcast's video-streaming service above Bittorrent is fine; that's QOS. Comcast wanting to prioritize Comcast's video-streaming service above Netflix is wrong; that violates net neutrality.
In my experience, the only people who disagree with this after having it explained to them are those who are paid to believe otherwise.
How many of the average consumers getting Comcast "Hot Deals!®" realize the penalty for the deal? Not many.
I firmly believe Comcast's "average" customer has only the choice between Comcast or no adequate Internet service at all. Other than Stockholm syndrome, it's the only explanation that makes sense.
T-Mobile has a special plan (only available online or at Wal-Mart) that costs $30/month for unlimited data (5GB of 4G) but only 100 voice minutes. It's the closest thing I've found to a cheap data-only plan (at least a 4G one... 3G data-only plans can be even cheaper).
Good for you. But you do realize that posting is at cross-purposes with ignoring, right? If you want people to ignore RMS, drawing attention to him doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
Slashdot Mirror
US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8:
(emphasis added)
Also, this article quotes and discusses correspondence between Thomas Jefferson and James Madison that shows their reasoning behind the issue. Jefferson eloquently defined the essence of the Public Domain:
All that argument does is further prove that EULAs are unconscionable.
There was no real "tipping point," but rather a gradual erosion:
They should be forced by law to release that source code. The only reason the public granted them copyright in the first place was so that the work could eventually become Public Domain. If they're going to lock it away instead, then they've violated the social contract and no longer deserve the privilege of holding a monopoly on it.
What a combination of naivete and FUD... the mind boggles!
First of all, the case law on this topic was in fact Blizzard v. BNetD, where Blizzard objected to people running their own servers despite the fact that there was no content or subscription associated with it. That pretty much blows your claim that "Blizzard wouldn't mind" out of the water. Second, it is entirely unreasonable, and perhaps even slanderous, to claim that "generally speaking" people must have committed copyright infringement based solely on the fact that they wanted to host their own multiplayer games!
Hence the point of the article, which discusses what happens when that "shit" stops being unexpected.
I'm still kicking myself for giving up my Tandy Enhanced keyboard (I donated it to Goodwill when I was a teenager and didn't know any better)... : (
If you're buying 1024 computers to run your program, maybe budgeting a little extra for a better debugger is worth it.
I hate to break it to you, but if you're using BLAS then you're still using Fortran!
But I don't program in either; I program in ASP.NET -- wait, no, I don't even do that: I program against the project-specific API that my more senior coworkers wrote on top of ASP.NET. (Actually, that's not even true either -- there are 3 fucking layers of APIs between me and ASP.NET!)
Now, given all that, please explain to me how the fuck rote memorization of POSIX APIs would have done me any goddamn good at all?!
(This is not to say, by the way, that I'm not also familiar with the POSIX API -- I had to know it for my advanced operating systems (e.g. threading, scheduling, RPC, etc.) and computer graphics classes back in college -- but learning it was tangential to the purpose of learning advanced operating systems and computer graphics respectively, not the goal in and of itself. And that's exactly the way that it should be!)
Eh, the original works too (especially for robotics)!
That's just for the keycaps. You have to buy the rest of the keyboard separately (for something like $100).
And yet they are, unfortunately. See Blizzard v. bnetd.
Netflix has a decent fraction of the more popular BBC America shows (Top Gear, Doctor Who, Sherlock, etc.). It's a season behind, but waiting a while is a whole lot better than paying $100/month!
Damn it. "Filing," not "filling."
Nah, they just wanted you to wad your application up into a ball before giving it to them.
(It saves time when filling it in the circular file, don't ya know!)
I don't believe for a second that it's possible for the writer of such a poorly-phrased law to be "naive." Instead, the writer of such a law would have an exactly 100% chance (not 99% chance) of being an [ISP-content provider-hybrid company] lobbyist intentionally attempting to sabotage the bill by writing in an obviously untenable provision.
He logged in. Only ACs are required to preview; for logged-in users it's optional.
First, consider that a libertarian would support allowing each property owner to charge Comcast rent for allowing its cable to be buried across their property.
Since there is already government interference prohibiting the above (and said interference has absolutely no chance of going away), it is reasonable for a libertarian to support net neutrality as a compromise to improve the situation (although not make it optimal).
Repeat after me: NET NEUTRALITY IS NOT FUCKING QOS!.
It's really simple: QOS ("Quality Of Service") is about discriminating between different types of traffic based on its characteristics and needs (e.g. low-latency-required stuff like VoIP vs. latency-not-important "bulk data" transfers like BitTorrent). That kind of discrimination is just fine. In contrast, Net Neutrality seeks only to prohibit discrimination based on the origin or destination of the packets; i.e., who sent or requested them. That kind of discrimination is very much not "just fine."
For example, Comcast wanting to prioritize Comcast's video-streaming service above Bittorrent is fine; that's QOS. Comcast wanting to prioritize Comcast's video-streaming service above Netflix is wrong; that violates net neutrality.
In my experience, the only people who disagree with this after having it explained to them are those who are paid to believe otherwise.
I firmly believe Comcast's "average" customer has only the choice between Comcast or no adequate Internet service at all. Other than Stockholm syndrome, it's the only explanation that makes sense.
T-Mobile has a special plan (only available online or at Wal-Mart) that costs $30/month for unlimited data (5GB of 4G) but only 100 voice minutes. It's the closest thing I've found to a cheap data-only plan (at least a 4G one... 3G data-only plans can be even cheaper).
Good for you. But you do realize that posting is at cross-purposes with ignoring, right? If you want people to ignore RMS, drawing attention to him doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
If you want to ignore him, then WTF are you doing posting in this thread?
What about the Yellowstone caldera?