"This seems to me kind of like how you can't just find pi by measuring the circumference or a circle and dividing it by the diameter. I had always thought of this being because there is no such thing as an exact point in space, but maybe I was just misunderstanding or something."
The only reason you can't determine pi to high level of accuracy by measurement is that in practice there will be inaccuracies in your measurements and in the shape of the circle. measurement issue. In principle, given perfect circle-making and measurement techniques, your accuracy is only limited by the Planck length (1.6 x 10-35m).
You are either wrong or under a misapprehension as to the nature of science.
if by "exists" you mean "has effects on the physical world" then you're wrong: if something has effects then you can test it. If by "exists" you mean something else, then you're making a metaphysical claim which science isn't competent to test. Randi doesn't look at purely metaphysical claims (and nor could he).
if by an effect being "random" you mean "only happens sometimes, but more often than you'd expect if there was no effect" then this is a physical claim which is statistically testable (i.e. try to guess the flip of a coin 100 times - you don't need to get it right all the time for me to admit you're psychic).
If by "random" you mean "happens no more often that it would if there were no effect" then again you're making a metaphysical claim which is untestable.
The article is either incredibly bad journalism and way over-simplifying the paper, or else it stinks of a hoax.
"Lynds also points out that in all cases a time value represents an interval on time, rather than an instant. "For example, if two separate events are measured to take place at either 1 hour or 10.00 seconds, these two values indicate the events occurred during the time intervals of 1 and 1.99999...hours and 10.00 and 10.0099999...seconds respectively." "
This is stunningly obvious. I learnt the resolution of this, and the tortoise paradox, at age 17 in high school maths classes.
Also, why is the contact for further information an "Independent Communications Consultant"?
at least two of the 9/11 hijackers were on FBI watch list, and boarded under their real names. This would have stopped them.
and locked doors - the question is whether a pilot will be psychologically capable of keeping their door locked if hijackers start slaughtering passengers. They didn't on 9/11 and we can't know if they will in the future.
The original poster was confusing ignorance of the law with ignorance of relevant facts. My point was simply that ignorance of the facts can be a defence. Indeed it is probably the most common defence to tort claims.
IAAL, and this is the only correct reply to the original question. I'd just add that many countries outside the US don't even have a "fair use" doctrine.
well, whether you like it or not, EC law distinguishes between reverse engineering (which is generally allowed) and disassembling (which is generally prohibited).
And it's quite normal for laws to be subject to exceptions: otherwise the law would be completely inflexible and (more importantly) nobody would pay lawyers lots of money for advice.
With a process of this sensitivity, accidental contamination may become a serious problem. Did that billionth of a gram of DNA come from the perp's fingerprint or did it float into the room from somewhere else?
You can't copyright your own DNA because you didn't create it.
And the DMCA would be entirely irrelevant unless you encrypted your DNA: it prohibits "circumvention of technological measures that control access to copyrighted works".
"In the US at least, ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it."
the point wasn't whether they were ignorant of the law, it's whether they were ignorant of the relevant facts.
If I shoot out the window, not realising you were there, and kill you then my ignorance of the fact of your presence provides a defence. If, on the other hand, I shoot you on the assumption that murder is legal then my ignorance of the law is no defence.
Anyway, I was wrong on the facts: seems SCO are still licensing the allegedly infringing code today.
Sorry - I'm a lawyer: I can answer the "what" but I can't answer the "why".
If you're really interested you could explore europa.eu.int and see if you can find background information from the time the Directive was introduced. The site's hopeless, but good luck.
this is the key argument: without evidence of infringement they clearly have no claim.
2. you can't charge a license fee to users
this has to be correct: if there has been a breach of SCO's copyright then SCO has a right to sue the Linux distributors. It has no right to charge or sue Linux users.
3. SCO distributed the allegedly-copyrighted work themselves, and have therefore licensed it under GPL
I'm not sure it's no simple. SCO will no doubt argue that, at the time, they didn't realise the source contained their copyrighted material. This raises the question of whether you can be legally bound by the GPL if you don't realise what you were licensing. This is a tricky question under English law; I've no idea what the US position is but doubt it is straightforward.
This doesn't make economic sense. Why would anyone pay in advance to buy an "original" version when they could wait until after it had been released and get it from someone else for less (or even for free)?
The only CDs that could be sold this way would be those which support massive advance sales to people who are easily suckered by marketing but aren't technologically sophisticated. Can you say "Britney"?
it's a little more complicated than that: it depends what, exactly, you mean by reverse engineering.
There's a general right in Article 5(3) of the Directive to "observe, study or test the functioning" of a program to "determine the ideas and principles which underlie any element of the program".
But decompilation is restricted to circumstanecs where it's essential to do so to achieve interoperability (e.g. interchange of file formats) with other, independently created, software. You can't use decompiled code for any other purpose.
As this is an EC Directive, it should have been implemented by an EU member States. If you live in a State which hasn't implemented it in full, and you suffer loss as a result, you are entitled to sue your government!
Copyrights in the database are quite separate from copyrights in the content of the database. An analogy: if you cover a Britney Spears song then she retains copyright in her song (and you would need a license from her), but you have copyright in your recording of the song. Having multiple copyrights in one work is very common.
The question here is whether the implied license granted by someone posting to Usenet is wide enough to let Google operate their Groups service.
I'm an English IP lawyer (well, I'm Scottish but practice English law). I'm not aware of any case-law anywhere on the status of Usenet. However Courts have to take a wide view of the implied license granted by people who post information on Usenet (and indeed the internet) or else they would be making a wide variety of internet use unlawful. Implied licenses tend to be simple: I've never heard of a court recognising an implied license as complicated/sophisticated as you suggest.
Slashdot Mirror
"This seems to me kind of like how you can't just find pi by measuring the circumference or a circle and dividing it by the diameter. I had always thought of this being because there is no such thing as an exact point in space, but maybe I was just misunderstanding or something."
The only reason you can't determine pi to high level of accuracy by measurement is that in practice there will be inaccuracies in your measurements and in the shape of the circle. measurement issue. In principle, given perfect circle-making and measurement techniques, your accuracy is only limited by the Planck length (1.6 x 10-35m).
pray tell, who are these legitimate researchers? Where can we find them? Does the Nobel committee have their contact details?
You are either wrong or under a misapprehension as to the nature of science.
if by "exists" you mean "has effects on the physical world" then you're wrong: if something has effects then you can test it. If by "exists" you mean something else, then you're making a metaphysical claim which science isn't competent to test. Randi doesn't look at purely metaphysical claims (and nor could he).
if by an effect being "random" you mean "only happens sometimes, but more often than you'd expect if there was no effect" then this is a physical claim which is statistically testable (i.e. try to guess the flip of a coin 100 times - you don't need to get it right all the time for me to admit you're psychic).
If by "random" you mean "happens no more often that it would if there were no effect" then again you're making a metaphysical claim which is untestable.
you're just a sceptic: this is clear proof of life after death.
The article is either incredibly bad journalism and way over-simplifying the paper, or else it stinks of a hoax.
"Lynds also points out that in all cases a time value represents an interval on time, rather than an instant. "For example, if two separate events are measured to take place at either 1 hour or 10.00 seconds, these two values indicate the events occurred during the time intervals of 1 and 1.99999...hours and 10.00 and 10.0099999...seconds respectively." "
This is stunningly obvious. I learnt the resolution of this, and the tortoise paradox, at age 17 in high school maths classes.
Also, why is the contact for further information an "Independent Communications Consultant"?
at least two of the 9/11 hijackers were on FBI watch list, and boarded under their real names. This would have stopped them.
and locked doors - the question is whether a pilot will be psychologically capable of keeping their door locked if hijackers start slaughtering passengers. They didn't on 9/11 and we can't know if they will in the future.
I agree
You have misunderstood.
The original poster was confusing ignorance of the law with ignorance of relevant facts. My point was simply that ignorance of the facts can be a defence. Indeed it is probably the most common defence to tort claims.
... this all seems quite sensible.
It's ridiculous that at the moment more stringent checks are made on someone applying for a credit card than on someone boarding a plane.
IAAL, and this is the only correct reply to the original question. I'd just add that many countries outside the US don't even have a "fair use" doctrine.
the value of something in a market economy is simply what people are willing to pay for it. In the case of a CD, that's $12 or so.
well, whether you like it or not, EC law distinguishes between reverse engineering (which is generally allowed) and disassembling (which is generally prohibited).
And it's quite normal for laws to be subject to exceptions: otherwise the law would be completely inflexible and (more importantly) nobody would pay lawyers lots of money for advice.
With a process of this sensitivity, accidental contamination may become a serious problem. Did that billionth of a gram of DNA come from the perp's fingerprint or did it float into the room from somewhere else?
You can't copyright your own DNA because you didn't create it.
And the DMCA would be entirely irrelevant unless you encrypted your DNA: it prohibits "circumvention of technological measures that control access to copyrighted works".
the Nazis had very little difficulty identifying Jewish people in the 30s: why do you think DNA would have made things any easier for them?
"In the US at least, ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it." the point wasn't whether they were ignorant of the law, it's whether they were ignorant of the relevant facts. If I shoot out the window, not realising you were there, and kill you then my ignorance of the fact of your presence provides a defence. If, on the other hand, I shoot you on the assumption that murder is legal then my ignorance of the law is no defence. Anyway, I was wrong on the facts: seems SCO are still licensing the allegedly infringing code today.
Sorry - I'm a lawyer: I can answer the "what" but I can't answer the "why".
If you're really interested you could explore europa.eu.int and see if you can find background information from the time the Directive was introduced. The site's hopeless, but good luck.
You are right. I was wrong.
Thanks for the correction.
Citing of broken Commandments? Public flogging? Are you the geek version of Jerry Falwell?
1. where's the evidence of infringement?
this is the key argument: without evidence of infringement they clearly have no claim.
2. you can't charge a license fee to users
this has to be correct: if there has been a breach of SCO's copyright then SCO has a right to sue the Linux distributors. It has no right to charge or sue Linux users.
3. SCO distributed the allegedly-copyrighted work themselves, and have therefore licensed it under GPL
I'm not sure it's no simple. SCO will no doubt argue that, at the time, they didn't realise the source contained their copyrighted material. This raises the question of whether you can be legally bound by the GPL if you don't realise what you were licensing. This is a tricky question under English law; I've no idea what the US position is but doubt it is straightforward.
This doesn't make economic sense. Why would anyone pay in advance to buy an "original" version when they could wait until after it had been released and get it from someone else for less (or even for free)?
The only CDs that could be sold this way would be those which support massive advance sales to people who are easily suckered by marketing but aren't technologically sophisticated. Can you say "Britney"?
The RIAA doesn't have power over legislators because they're stupid; it has power over legislators because it chucks money at them.
it's a little more complicated than that: it depends what, exactly, you mean by reverse engineering.
There's a general right in Article 5(3) of the Directive to "observe, study or test the functioning" of a program to "determine the ideas and principles which underlie any element of the program".
But decompilation is restricted to circumstanecs where it's essential to do so to achieve interoperability (e.g. interchange of file formats) with other, independently created, software. You can't use decompiled code for any other purpose.
As this is an EC Directive, it should have been implemented by an EU member States. If you live in a State which hasn't implemented it in full, and you suffer loss as a result, you are entitled to sue your government!
They seem to have just duplicated the inventor's press release - the article doesn't contain any independent evaluation of the substance whatsoever.
Copyrights in the database are quite separate from copyrights in the content of the database. An analogy: if you cover a Britney Spears song then she retains copyright in her song (and you would need a license from her), but you have copyright in your recording of the song. Having multiple copyrights in one work is very common.
The question here is whether the implied license granted by someone posting to Usenet is wide enough to let Google operate their Groups service.
I'm an English IP lawyer (well, I'm Scottish but practice English law). I'm not aware of any case-law anywhere on the status of Usenet. However Courts have to take a wide view of the implied license granted by people who post information on Usenet (and indeed the internet) or else they would be making a wide variety of internet use unlawful. Implied licenses tend to be simple: I've never heard of a court recognising an implied license as complicated/sophisticated as you suggest.