Correct me if I'm wrong, but it was my understanding that he lied about his relationship with a subordinate, in a hearing concerning allegations of sexual harrassment. In this context, lying about a blowjob is a very significant perjury.
Not that I'm defending Bush, mind you.
"The problem is that we're supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. You don't have to explain anything. Unless they have PROOF that you did something illegal, keep your mouth shut."
IANAL, but under these laws, your cash is guilty untill proven innocent. You have to show that you got the money legitemately, or you won't get it back.
[If] current attitudes and results about development continue, within 10 years new coders will be hearing that "It is impossible to write complex software that isn't subject to running arbitrary code."
He said "US government has been trying to erode protections for online privacy and information access for years", and you read into that "Bush=Hiter".
Defensive?
The erosion of rights in general has been going on for a long time, arguably since the day the constitution was ratified. Bush as continued it, but so did Clinton, and so would have Kerry or Gore, or Dole, McCain, Dean, or Perot. Probably even Nader.
While control by North Korea or China would be disturbing, they are not the totality of the UN. Purely from a business perspective, I'd imagine the brittish and japanese, among others, might have legitimate problems with US control of the root domain.
Me: I have a right to copy information, copyright is an unjust infringement on this right.
You: Fine, but if you're not going to get the permission of the artist, then don't even look at his work, let alone copy it.
Your attitute is presupposing that the artist has a say in what I do with public information. You miss the point that we are talking about freedom, and ask us to self-censor on account of your view of morality.
Sending an email to your friend does not constitute publication, nor does sending it to someone with whom you have a contractual relationship.
I would say a good general rule is that if it is not put before the public with the consent of the author(s), it is not published. My friends and colleauges are not the public, and they have no right to distribute what I show them in confidence. It's published when you give the information to strangers.
As copyright is being dissolved, the law would need to be changed to repect this privacy.
The screenwriter would enter into a contract with whoever he's showing the script to so that they can't distribute it, or use it without paying him. Also, it would be in the interests of studios not to get a reputation of ripping off artists
I was not referring to the original purchase, and
I was refering to the situation where an artist sells her work without copyright existing at all. If I have a copy of a published work, I can redistribute it without harm, the artist has been paid. specifically, the artist has been paid a fair market price for the work not for a copy. This isn't an example of me leaving the singer with $8.95 and putting the thing up on napster. The singer would get thousands of dollars from her fans.
Republishing a work as your own would be fraud. Copyright has little to do with plagiarism.
You presume that there would be less content in the world without copyright, even though I have already demonstrated that artists could easily make a living without it.
Copyright is not a contract in any sense. It is a law. Contracts are consensual, Laws are not. Currently, copyright affect me even if I never had any dealings with the author whatsoever. If someone anonymously mails me a copy of Harry Potter, I am legally prohibted from copying it. There is no contract there.
I do not have it backwards, I was refferring again to a copyright-free situation. (street preformer protocol)
How? How would they collect it? From whom? When? What stops someone from simply making a copy of the work, and the collecting the price themselves five minutes later in a different venue?
From anyone who wants to see that movie. It would be difficult for anyone to collect a price again in a different venue because the work would be already published by then.
Again, the Street performer protocol is not complicated if you bother to think about it. It is a true free market of information. You have information we want, we will pool our funds and buy it from you.
Are you against capitalism?
If you want to boycott an artist based on a moral position, fine, but don't pretend that that is a prerequisite for having a moral position.
I enjoy a work as a work based on it's own merits. That doesn't make me a moral relativist.
The centrality of copyright in my relationship with the artist is remedied by not respecting the copyright. By not buying their copies, I do not strengthen that system. They have released it to the public, I have a righ to copy it.
Further, this talk about my (or your) moral character is not relevant to the actual issues.
I did start using the term immoral, but you are the one that asserted this must imply a complete rejection.
I fully support artists being paid for their work. I have been making great efforts to describe a system by which they may do so in a free market.
My initial statement actually meant to imply that it would be increasingly difficult for them to rely on copyright in a world where everything is easy to copy. They should switch to moral methods both because it is right and becasue they will work more reliably.
Where did you get that idea?
Because that is what he has done.
I asked you if his fans should form some sort of collective to keep feeding him money while he works on his next book... or whether it might just be easier to buy his books as he's asking that you do.
Yes, his fans should, and he is free to ask them to buy his (licenced) books.
He is not free to sue me or put me in jail when I copy them, that is the immoral coercion.
I don't think clicking on paypal links for movies you want to see constitutes 'full time speculation'. One way for you to support musicians or authors would be to buy copies from publishers that have contractual agreements with the author. You would pay a premium for the copy, but you would promote the artist. Studios could use the same model with theaters and official DVD's.
In pure the SPP model, a variety of agents would arise so that you could fund the art genres or artists of your choice without tracking everything. In the internet age, there would likely be a nonprofit website to do just that.
Is that sarcasm? Contract law is pretty clear cut.
The two situations do not clash because 'obtain a copy' does no imply I entered into a contractual relationship with her. Further, I would not enter a contract that prohibited me from copying the work. (unless I were a revier or such, but in that case, I'm getting paid for my trouble)
The way the artist makes her money is by having her fans pay her to make and release her work. Once released it is public, and my copying it is inconsequential.
If you reject everything about everyone who does anything immoral, you must not have many friends, or watch many movies. for that matter, what to do you eat? Making sure that the eople who provide your food are moral must be even harder than staying kosher. All people do immoral things, it is not a matter of being to dumb to know better, it s part of being human. It is your extremism that is irrational and hypocritical.
Further, I do not need to support an artists lifesytle in order to enjoy their work. even under copyright, I can hear things on the radio or borrow copies from the library.
I am not a moral relativist. I do not want entertainment slaves, I want artists to be paid for doing work.
The coercion is when they threaten me with lawsuits or jail time for excercising my basic human right to copy.
Yes, many eople do enjoy music without paying for it. I among them. but if everyone did that with all their music, artists would not be able to make much of it. But this cannot happen, because people want new music, and they will see that they need to pay artists to get it. Supply and Demand. There is demand, there is supply, money will flow. No copyright needed. Not complicated.
Movies and other big business entertainment could use the street performer protocol in exactly the same way, with the studio playing the role of the artist, and financing the idividual work of the actors and director and such. They would produce the movie, send it to reviewers and offer previews and collect their price. If an actor or director (or storyline or special effects house) had a particular following, a studio might be able to collect some funds well in advance of the film's completion. This isn't rocket science, some things you should try to figure out on your own.
Neal stphenson does not have the right to form a coercive organization. Fortunately I think he can get people to support him without threatening them, so what's the problem?
As for them losing their investment, I do not support an immediate end to copyright, as that would wreak havoc. A gradual transition would allow artists and publishers an opportunity to recover their investment, and adopt new business models. Besides that solution, is your argument now 'This is the things are, so they must stay this way.'?
I respect artists as artists for their art. Bradd Pitt is a good actor, he may have cheated on his wife, but that has no impact on my desire to watch his movies. Do you boycott actors who have cheated, or do you consider infidelity moral?
Again, if I hated people who did immoral things, i wouldn't have any friends.
Frankly I think you are just trying to inflict a false piousness on me for rhetorcal reasons. If you have perfect friends, I would much like to meet them, perhaps they will reform me. Of course, having perfect friends, by your standards, means you must also be perfect.
That's not true, the exact same system can work with copiable art such as songs or novels.
People will willingly pay for something because if they do not, it will not be released. The fans pay the author for the writing of the book, and then either download it, or pay a publisher for copies.
Once it is released, there is no need to protect it.
It does not need to be a perfect free market, just close. We see echos of this even under the current system.
Yes, without copyright. What one writes is private, what one publishes is public.
I do believe in privacy rights, and contractual obligations. Publishing a file you find on my computer is a violation of my privacy. I would have grounds to sue you and anyone else who distributed my private information.
The screenwriter would enter into a contractual relationship with either the studio, an agent, or a reviewer. In a contract free world, a sample and a good review from a repected reviewer could get the funding for the movie, sight unseen.
Even if you publish a great work for free, and get nothing for it, you get reputation. If people like your work, they will want more, and they will pay you to write it. It is supply and demand, and it does not need copyright to work. Fans will find a way to get you money.
Yes, without copyright.
What one writes is private, what one publishes is public.
I do believe in privacy rights, and contractual obligations.
Publishing a file you find on my computer is a violation of my privacy. I would have grounds to sue you and anyone else who distributed my private information.
The screenwriter would enter into a contractual relationship with either the studio, an agent, or a reviewer.
In a contract free world, a sample and a good review from a repected reviewer could get the funding for the movie, sight unseen.
Even if you publish a great work for free, and get nothing for it, you get reputation. If people like your work, they will want more, and they will pay you to write it. It is supply and demand, and it does not need copyright to work. Fans will find a way to get you money.
Your strawmen are amazing.
You posted a very long reply to my very short comment. You assumed many things that are false. You also put words into my mouth, please do not do this.
If an artist is selling her work, and I agree to buy it, but do not pay her, she would have every right to take me to court for breach of contract.
If an artist publishes her work, and I obtain a copy, but do not pay her, I have not wronged her in any way. If I make additional copies without paying her, I have not wronged her.
Artists do not have moral ownership of publishd works. when something is presented to the public, it is in the public domain, by default. Publishing a public document does not make a publisher unscrupulous.
As long as people want books to be written, they will pay people to write them. This is a feature of the free market, and does not depend on copyright. If an investor has confidence in an author, he may offer her an advance in exchange for a percentage of the book's final price, or a flat repayment. Essentially a loan, which is what I believe book advances essentially are now.
The street performer protocol is one moral way to get paid. I'm not sure I'd say I'm doing artists a favor, but I am doing them no harm. Why do you think copying is immoral?
Your position is that artists are acting in an immoral way. That makes the artists immoral. Why would you want art produced by such a person?
This is a logical fallacy. Everyone does immoral things at one time or another. I do not believe this condemns the person as a whole. Further, why would I not want art simply because it has been produced by an person who as done immoral things? If Michael Jackson molested little boys, does that change the quality of his music? I largely disagree with many political opinions of artists whose work I cherish. Why do you try to place on me a strange inhuman absolutism?
I have no secret artists. There are artists who release their work, and they do not starve. People want art, people will pay artists.
Under copyright, artists do not ask a price for their work, they ask a price for a copy. The immorality is in threatening those who would exercise their basic right to communicate information. I resepect artists, as artists, for their art. I will not respect their attempts at coercion.
Your final paragraph was mostly strawmen. I do not hate artists for using copyright. I will address the other relevant points when you can state them politely.
Authors should not be in the business of making copies, they should be in the business of writing.
Publishers will always be paid to publish, the cost of an individual book will be slightly above the cost of it's printing.
How would one write a book and make money?
One would write it, and then sell it's release. The price would be based on what the market (the fans) are willing to pay. Street Performer Protocol
Even brand new artists could sell their work this way by releasing samples or showing the work to reviewers.
Write a song, you get paid what it's worth. You get paid for doing work, just like every other industry. Copyright has artists getting paid for mselling copies, which is not their art.
It is a simple fact of a free market that if someone has a skill that is in demand (such as making music) he will be able to get a price for it. If people desire new music, they will pay someone to make it. Copyright is not required.
Performing concerts is another such moral way to get paid.
The real problem with computer security today is the attitude of programmers. People say it's impossible to write bug-free software, and that is simply not true. It is difficult to write bug-free software, and may be virtually impossible to prove that it is bug-free, but it can be written.
10 PRINT "Perfect code" 20 END
Yes, I know it's a simplistic example, but at what level of complexity does perfect code become impossible? Is it possible to write a perfect stack? a perfect text box widget? a perfect video player? From a few simple perfect pieces it should be possible to construct a bug-free web browser. Is it impossible to build a full-feature bug-free operating system?
For most of my life, I've heard people say that every complex peice of software must have bugs in it, and these are inevitable. I believe that is current attitudes and results about development continue, within 10 years new coders will be hearing that "It is impossible to write complex software that isn't subject to running arbitrary code." This would give a big boost to the cyberpunks and authors of emergent AI sci-fi, but I don't think things need to be that way. Maybe you can't write perfect code, but you can at least try.
I assumed that anti-virus software would look for any program that monitors all keystrokes an alert the user. If this is the case, it might not notify the user every time a program tries to monitor the microphone. (though perhaps it should)
I'd bet that it is, or will be soon, and this is just an ad to get someone to license their 'Method', or worse, get someone to implement it without knowing it's patented, so the lawyers can do their magic.
But more on topic, These are boxers, and I think the idea was that the silver will help cool the body, so you don't sweat so much. (Maybe the design helps the sweat evaporate faster)
I don't think it's possible to make clothes that actually stop you from sweating when you are hot.
'Don't be Evil' is completely consistent with shareholder value. A good name is worth something, not incuring congressional hearings is worth a lot. Microsoft is dealing with alot of trouble in US and Europe because of their business practices, and it is probably not over. 'Make as much money as possible' might be what the theoretical market shareholder wants, but it is not a business plan. EVERY business plan must include ethical considerations, for legal reasons, PR reasons, and employee recruitment reasons, among others. You think a jury would convict a CEO for NOT being evil? We have corporate officers because the optimal strategy is not always clear, and officers have to weigh different options and values. Yes, it is good financial sense to forclose on the orphanage, but it will be bad for business in the long run. Google codifies it's strategy as 'Don't be evil' It is a winning strategy. And frankly, real world shareholders have values other than making money. They express these values through voting. Now, if the Google shareholders vote to recind the 'do no evil' policy, then we can worry.
Slashdot Mirror
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it was my understanding that he lied about his relationship with a subordinate, in a hearing concerning allegations of sexual harrassment. In this context, lying about a blowjob is a very significant perjury. Not that I'm defending Bush, mind you.
"The problem is that we're supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. You don't have to explain anything. Unless they have PROOF that you did something illegal, keep your mouth shut."
IANAL, but under these laws, your cash is guilty untill proven innocent. You have to show that you got the money legitemately, or you won't get it back.
Why is male_or_female an int?
I called it.
[If] current attitudes and results about development continue, within 10 years new coders will be hearing that "It is impossible to write complex software that isn't subject to running arbitrary code."
Sadly, this came true sooner than I thought.
He said "US government has been trying to erode protections for online privacy and information access for years", and you read into that "Bush=Hiter".
Defensive?
The erosion of rights in general has been going on for a long time, arguably since the day the constitution was ratified. Bush as continued it, but so did Clinton, and so would have Kerry or Gore, or Dole, McCain, Dean, or Perot. Probably even Nader.
While control by North Korea or China would be disturbing, they are not the totality of the UN. Purely from a business perspective, I'd imagine the brittish and japanese, among others, might have legitimate problems with US control of the root domain.
In fact it is also spelled out in the 5th amendment, you have a right not to testify [even] against yourself.
Anytime you have the state trying to pry into someone's brain under threat of force, you have a problem.
People have a right to privacy, 'journalist' or not.
The constitution doesn't say anything about journalist, it says 'freedom of the press'. If it's printed, it's protected, how about that?
Your line of thought is somewhat absurd.
Me: I have a right to copy information, copyright is an unjust infringement on this right.
You: Fine, but if you're not going to get the permission of the artist, then don't even look at his work, let alone copy it.
Your attitute is presupposing that the artist has a say in what I do with public information. You miss the point that we are talking about freedom, and ask us to self-censor on account of your view of morality.
That is absurd.
Sending an email to your friend does not constitute publication, nor does sending it to someone with whom you have a contractual relationship.
I would say a good general rule is that if it is not put before the public with the consent of the author(s), it is not published. My friends and colleauges are not the public, and they have no right to distribute what I show them in confidence. It's published when you give the information to strangers.
As copyright is being dissolved, the law would need to be changed to repect this privacy.
The screenwriter would enter into a contract with whoever he's showing the script to so that they can't distribute it, or use it without paying him.
Also, it would be in the interests of studios not to get a reputation of ripping off artists
I was not referring to the original purchase, and I was refering to the situation where an artist sells her work without copyright existing at all. If I have a copy of a published work, I can redistribute it without harm, the artist has been paid. specifically, the artist has been paid a fair market price for the work not for a copy. This isn't an example of me leaving the singer with $8.95 and putting the thing up on napster. The singer would get thousands of dollars from her fans.
Republishing a work as your own would be fraud. Copyright has little to do with plagiarism.
You presume that there would be less content in the world without copyright, even though I have already demonstrated that artists could easily make a living without it.
Copyright is not a contract in any sense. It is a law. Contracts are consensual, Laws are not. Currently, copyright affect me even if I never had any dealings with the author whatsoever. If someone anonymously mails me a copy of Harry Potter, I am legally prohibted from copying it. There is no contract there. I do not have it backwards, I was refferring again to a copyright-free situation. (street preformer protocol)
How? How would they collect it? From whom? When? What stops someone from simply making a copy of the work, and the collecting the price themselves five minutes later in a different venue?
From anyone who wants to see that movie. It would be difficult for anyone to collect a price again in a different venue because the work would be already published by then. Again, the Street performer protocol is not complicated if you bother to think about it. It is a true free market of information. You have information we want, we will pool our funds and buy it from you.
Are you against capitalism?
If you want to boycott an artist based on a moral position, fine, but don't pretend that that is a prerequisite for having a moral position.
I enjoy a work as a work based on it's own merits. That doesn't make me a moral relativist.
The centrality of copyright in my relationship with the artist is remedied by not respecting the copyright. By not buying their copies, I do not strengthen that system. They have released it to the public, I have a righ to copy it.
Further, this talk about my (or your) moral character is not relevant to the actual issues.
I did start using the term immoral, but you are the one that asserted this must imply a complete rejection.
I fully support artists being paid for their work. I have been making great efforts to describe a system by which they may do so in a free market.
My initial statement actually meant to imply that it would be increasingly difficult for them to rely on copyright in a world where everything is easy to copy. They should switch to moral methods both because it is right and becasue they will work more reliably.
Where did you get that idea?
Because that is what he has done.
I asked you if his fans should form some sort of collective to keep feeding him money while he works on his next book... or whether it might just be easier to buy his books as he's asking that you do.
Yes, his fans should, and he is free to ask them to buy his (licenced) books.
He is not free to sue me or put me in jail when I copy them, that is the immoral coercion.
I don't think clicking on paypal links for movies you want to see constitutes 'full time speculation'. One way for you to support musicians or authors would be to buy copies from publishers that have contractual agreements with the author. You would pay a premium for the copy, but you would promote the artist. Studios could use the same model with theaters and official DVD's.
In pure the SPP model, a variety of agents would arise so that you could fund the art genres or artists of your choice without tracking everything. In the internet age, there would likely be a nonprofit website to do just that.
Supply and
>>Right.
Is that sarcasm? Contract law is pretty clear cut.
The two situations do not clash because 'obtain a copy' does no imply I entered into a contractual relationship with her. Further, I would not enter a contract that prohibited me from copying the work. (unless I were a revier or such, but in that case, I'm getting paid for my trouble)
The way the artist makes her money is by having her fans pay her to make and release her work. Once released it is public, and my copying it is inconsequential.
If you reject everything about everyone who does anything immoral, you must not have many friends, or watch many movies. for that matter, what to do you eat? Making sure that the eople who provide your food are moral must be even harder than staying kosher. All people do immoral things, it is not a matter of being to dumb to know better, it s part of being human. It is your extremism that is irrational and hypocritical.
Further, I do not need to support an artists lifesytle in order to enjoy their work. even under copyright, I can hear things on the radio or borrow copies from the library.
I am not a moral relativist.
I do not want entertainment slaves, I want artists to be paid for doing work.
The coercion is when they threaten me with lawsuits or jail time for excercising my basic human right to copy.
Yes, many eople do enjoy music without paying for it. I among them. but if everyone did that with all their music, artists would not be able to make much of it. But this cannot happen, because people want new music, and they will see that they need to pay artists to get it. Supply and Demand. There is demand, there is supply, money will flow. No copyright needed. Not complicated.
Movies and other big business entertainment could use the street performer protocol in exactly the same way, with the studio playing the role of the artist, and financing the idividual work of the actors and director and such. They would produce the movie, send it to reviewers and offer previews and collect their price. If an actor or director (or storyline or special effects house) had a particular following, a studio might be able to collect some funds well in advance of the film's completion.
This isn't rocket science, some things you should try to figure out on your own.
Neal stphenson does not have the right to form a coercive organization. Fortunately I think he can get people to support him without threatening them, so what's the problem?
As for them losing their investment, I do not support an immediate end to copyright, as that would wreak havoc. A gradual transition would allow artists and publishers an opportunity to recover their investment, and adopt new business models.
Besides that solution, is your argument now 'This is the things are, so they must stay this way.'?
I respect artists as artists for their art.
Bradd Pitt is a good actor, he may have cheated on his wife, but that has no impact on my desire to watch his movies. Do you boycott actors who have cheated, or do you consider infidelity moral?
Again, if I hated people who did immoral things, i wouldn't have any friends.
Frankly I think you are just trying to inflict a false piousness on me for rhetorcal reasons. If you have perfect friends, I would much like to meet them, perhaps they will reform me.
Of course, having perfect friends, by your standards, means you must also be perfect.
So perhaps you're just a narcisistic egotist.
Please clarify.
That's not true, the exact same system can work with copiable art such as songs or novels.
People will willingly pay for something because if they do not, it will not be released. The fans pay the author for the writing of the book, and then either download it, or pay a publisher for copies.
Once it is released, there is no need to protect it.
It does not need to be a perfect free market, just close. We see echos of this even under the current system.
As far as I can see from visiting the site, the software does not really exist.
...Yet.
Yes, without copyright.
What one writes is private, what one publishes is public.
I do believe in privacy rights, and contractual obligations.
Publishing a file you find on my computer is a violation of my privacy. I would have grounds to sue you and anyone else who distributed my private information.
The screenwriter would enter into a contractual relationship with either the studio, an agent, or a reviewer.
In a contract free world, a sample and a good review from a repected reviewer could get the funding for the movie, sight unseen.
Even if you publish a great work for free, and get nothing for it, you get reputation. If people like your work, they will want more, and they will pay you to write it. It is supply and demand, and it does not need copyright to work. Fans will find a way to get you money.
Yes, without copyright. What one writes is private, what one publishes is public. I do believe in privacy rights, and contractual obligations. Publishing a file you find on my computer is a violation of my privacy. I would have grounds to sue you and anyone else who distributed my private information. The screenwriter would enter into a contractual relationship with either the studio, an agent, or a reviewer. In a contract free world, a sample and a good review from a repected reviewer could get the funding for the movie, sight unseen. Even if you publish a great work for free, and get nothing for it, you get reputation. If people like your work, they will want more, and they will pay you to write it. It is supply and demand, and it does not need copyright to work. Fans will find a way to get you money.
Your strawmen are amazing.
You posted a very long reply to my very short comment. You assumed many things that are false. You also put words into my mouth, please do not do this.
If an artist is selling her work, and I agree to buy it, but do not pay her, she would have every right to take me to court for breach of contract.
If an artist publishes her work, and I obtain a copy, but do not pay her, I have not wronged her in any way. If I make additional copies without paying her, I have not wronged her.
Artists do not have moral ownership of publishd works. when something is presented to the public, it is in the public domain, by default. Publishing a public document does not make a publisher unscrupulous.
As long as people want books to be written, they will pay people to write them. This is a feature of the free market, and does not depend on copyright. If an investor has confidence in an author, he may offer her an advance in exchange for a percentage of the book's final price, or a flat repayment. Essentially a loan, which is what I believe book advances essentially are now.
The street performer protocol is one moral way to get paid. I'm not sure I'd say I'm doing artists a favor, but I am doing them no harm. Why do you think copying is immoral?
Your position is that artists are acting in an immoral way. That makes the artists immoral. Why would you want art produced by such a person?
This is a logical fallacy. Everyone does immoral things at one time or another. I do not believe this condemns the person as a whole. Further, why would I not want art simply because it has been produced by an person who as done immoral things? If Michael Jackson molested little boys, does that change the quality of his music? I largely disagree with many political opinions of artists whose work I cherish. Why do you try to place on me a strange inhuman absolutism?
I have no secret artists. There are artists who release their work, and they do not starve. People want art, people will pay artists.
Under copyright, artists do not ask a price for their work, they ask a price for a copy. The immorality is in threatening those who would exercise their basic right to communicate information. I resepect artists, as artists, for their art. I will not respect their attempts at coercion.
Your final paragraph was mostly strawmen. I do not hate artists for using copyright. I will address the other relevant points when you can state them politely.
Authors should not be in the business of making copies, they should be in the business of writing.
Publishers will always be paid to publish, the cost of an individual book will be slightly above the cost of it's printing.
How would one write a book and make money?
One would write it, and then sell it's release. The price would be based on what the market (the fans) are willing to pay.
Street Performer Protocol
Even brand new artists could sell their work this way by releasing samples or showing the work to reviewers.
Write a song, you get paid what it's worth. You get paid for doing work, just like every other industry. Copyright has artists getting paid for mselling copies, which is not their art.
The street performer protol is one such way.
It is a simple fact of a free market that if someone has a skill that is in demand (such as making music) he will be able to get a price for it. If people desire new music, they will pay someone to make it. Copyright is not required.
Performing concerts is another such moral way to get paid.
Content producers need to start using moral ways to get paid, rather than relying on immoral copyrights.
Theft of buggy whips is not a good analogy. This is not theft.
If you can hear it, you can copy it.
Audioconsumer: Pristine digital copies from noisy analog sources.
Similar methods could be used with video.
The real problem with computer security today is the attitude of programmers.
People say it's impossible to write bug-free software, and that is simply not true.
It is difficult to write bug-free software, and may be virtually impossible to prove that it is bug-free, but it can be written.
10 PRINT "Perfect code"
20 END
Yes, I know it's a simplistic example, but at what level of complexity does perfect code become impossible?
Is it possible to write a perfect stack? a perfect text box widget? a perfect video player?
From a few simple perfect pieces it should be possible to construct a bug-free web browser.
Is it impossible to build a full-feature bug-free operating system?
For most of my life, I've heard people say that every complex peice of software must have bugs in it, and these are inevitable. I believe that is current attitudes and results about development continue, within 10 years new coders will be hearing that "It is impossible to write complex software that isn't subject to running arbitrary code."
This would give a big boost to the cyberpunks and authors of emergent AI sci-fi, but I don't think things need to be that way.
Maybe you can't write perfect code, but you can at least try.
I assumed that anti-virus software would look for any program that monitors all keystrokes an alert the user.
If this is the case, it might not notify the user every time a program tries to monitor the microphone.
(though perhaps it should)
Golden Question:
Is this Method Patented?
I'd bet that it is, or will be soon, and this is just an ad to get someone to license their 'Method', or worse, get someone to implement it without knowing it's patented, so the lawyers can do their magic.
Commando
But more on topic, These are boxers, and I think the idea was that the silver will help cool the body, so you don't sweat so much. (Maybe the design helps the sweat evaporate faster)
I don't think it's possible to make clothes that actually stop you from sweating when you are hot.
'Don't be Evil' is completely consistent with shareholder value. A good name is worth something, not incuring congressional hearings is worth a lot. Microsoft is dealing with alot of trouble in US and Europe because of their business practices, and it is probably not over.
'Make as much money as possible' might be what the theoretical market shareholder wants, but it is not a business plan. EVERY business plan must include ethical considerations, for legal reasons, PR reasons, and employee recruitment reasons, among others.
You think a jury would convict a CEO for NOT being evil? We have corporate officers because the optimal strategy is not always clear, and officers have to weigh different options and values. Yes, it is good financial sense to forclose on the orphanage, but it will be bad for business in the long run. Google codifies it's strategy as 'Don't be evil' It is a winning strategy.
And frankly, real world shareholders have values other than making money. They express these values through voting. Now, if the Google shareholders vote to recind the 'do no evil' policy, then we can worry.
...and people won't think you're an idiot.