I'm not afraid someone will do it better. I'm afraid that some organization will take what I've given away, copy it, make a token modification, and copyright it, thus turning the work that I made as a gift into something that has a price on it, all without paying me a dime. They might even be able to turn around and issue DMCA takedowns and sue people for performing my work, claiming that they're really performing their version rather than my version. They've now taken free artistic work and made it no longer free. In other words, they aren't really adding any value at all, just taking value from me and from the public and declaring it theirs.
DMCA takedown notices must have a statement, under the penalty of perjury, that you represent the copyright owner. Unless your company rep/lawyer wants to go to jail, you are talking about a very unlikely scenario.
An illustrative case: Pete Seeger took biblical verses and wrote the song Turn, Turn, Turn [wikipedia.org], releasing it into the public domain. Several other folk musicians performed it, and it gained in popularity, and Pete finally recorded it in 1962. In 1965, the Byrds recorded it, and now most people who've heard of the song think that they wrote it originally, and some others think Bob Dylan wrote it. Had Pete Seeger not been a relatively well-known figure, it's quite possible his contribution would have been forgotten entirely.
So what? If you want to be attributed, don't give it to the public domain. That's what CC-BY licenses are for, which of course didn't exist back then.
Say, I publish a book under my own name. I don't care if people reproduce it on their websites, and I don't care if commercial enterprises included it into their own collections. Hey, it's not the money I'm after, so they can sell it too, if they want. What I do care about however, is that nobody comes and starts modifying (adding to, modifying or deleting from) that text... because my name and reputation are associated with it.
You are free to include a mark such as a publisher's name to indicate that this is the original version and prevent its misuse using trademark law. Heck, even well-respected scientific journals such as PloS ONE or Phys. Rev. X use CC-BY.
Page 23(the "scary stuff"): Yes, he(and you) can observe the air traffic. So what? It's not secret, hasn't ever been secret, and doesn't need to be secret.
Actually, I don't think so. With the increased availability of homebrew UAVs, it is probably a bad idea to give out the information how to steer these things right into the flight path of a 747.
Patent examiners are not stupid. But their performance reviews hinge on the number of patent application cases they were able to close. Rejecting a patent is much more time consuming than accepting it, because one has to justify it towards the applicants who are most certain to appeal the decision anyway, creating even more paperwork. So there is a strong incentive for any patent examiner to just rubber stamp with approval, resulting in the mess we currently observe.
The reason behind this lies in the fact that it is politically desired to artificially inflate the numbers of patents granted in a country, because that is widely seen as an indicator for innovation. And of course, that is just another instance of Campbell's law.
Keyboard covers have been around for a while the only thing that's special about this is it comes with one as standard.
So all this fuzz is about something you could as well get today by spending maybe $200 on an Android tablet and buying a tablet holder plus keyboard for less then $20?
Easy victory for debian, as there was no manager who had to wonder how fixing the bug ASAP vs. schedule the fix for later could potentially affect his career...
Canadians can still fly on plenty of domestic airlines, and I doubt an Air Canada flight that passes over, say, Alaska on the way to Tokyo, is going to divert to the US to arrest somebody.
Sometimes flights get diverted for other reasons (technical problem, medical emergency,...) and the US will know that you are on the plane because they require access to PNRs for flights passing over US airspace.
Re:Not a real succesor or maemo/meego?
on
Tizen Reaches 1.0
·
· Score: 4, Informative
In what way is Tizen Meego's succesor if : 1) it can't run meego apps. Or Maemo apps. It's a totally different platform. 2) it isn't a real linux, but just uses linux at a very low level (somewhat like android).
There's a rumor that the American Physical Society is banned from hosting their conferences in Vegas because physicists don't gamble, don't have champagne parties with hookers, and drink considerably less then the average Vegas-goer. I'd assume that these points also applied to anyone getting excited about a Star Trek themed hotel.
I think one possibility will be that degree-granting schools let their students take some courses on Udacity, while the site recieves a financial compensation for doing so. This could work especially well for highly specialized courses which the school cannot offer in-house. Ultimately, the goal might be to offer degrees themselves, but that would require significant resources for supervising exams all over the world in order to prevent cheating.
From the copyright information accompanying the SDK:
Except for the Open Source Software contained in Tizen SDK, all other software portions contained in Tizen SDK are governed by the terms and conditions of the Tizen Software Development Kit License Agreement, available at: http://developer.tizen.org/download/samsung_sdk_license.html
I see no SDK sources being posted except for some valgrind bit, and the SDK page talks about accepting an EULA. Are they really so stupid and try to ram down a proprietary SDK for what is supposed to be an open source operating system? And this within a Linux Foundation project?
Sorry, but I still don't get it. Before spontaneous symmetry breaking, the electron has no mass so it should not appear in the calculation. If you want to get Feynman diagrams, I assume you have to replace the propagator for the electron (with mass) by a massless fermion propagator and the diagrams that couple it to the Higgs, similar to the self-energy terms in QED. I still don't see how a large Higgs mass causes any problems.
How can you violate unitarity by tuning the physical constants if the underlying mathematical formulation (Lagrangian formulation of a quantum field theory) guarantees it by construction?
Sorry but we certainly are capable of probing the ENTIRE allowed mass range for the Standard Model Higgs. The upper bound is ~1 TeV/c2 because at this level, without the Higgs boson, some Standard Model processes e.g. e+e--->W+W- "break unitarity" i.e. have a more than 100% chance of happening.
I somehow never got this point. In the standard model, you're starting from a Lagrangian formulation of a quantum field theory, so the existence of a scalar product in the Hilbert space spanned by the theory automatically guarantees normalization of probabilities, no matter which physical values you attach to the parameters of your model. So if you're getting something larger than one, you must have made an error somewhere on the way, but that doesn't imply your entire model is wrong.
There is currently a huge research effort underway funded by tons of millions to make physical models of more complicated stuff: quantum simulators. With classical computers, there's basically no way to calculate properties of things like quantum magnets, quark-gluon plasmas, or high-temperature superconductors. But by using a different quantum system that we can precisely control (for example, ultracold atoms), we can tune it to simulate the behavior of the material we are interested in.
Additionally, Google and Mozilla have pretty much the same goals for the future direction of the web. Both want an open HTML5-based set of web standards, without any patent obstruction. Having two seats speaking essentially the same voice in the relevant circles (W3C, WHATWG,...) makes a huge difference, and I'm sure Google is quite happy to invest a bit of change to keep Firefox around.
I know this, but I am looking for a smaller (and lighter) device, and I'd rather buy something which is at least backed by the company that makes it...
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not afraid someone will do it better. I'm afraid that some organization will take what I've given away, copy it, make a token modification, and copyright it, thus turning the work that I made as a gift into something that has a price on it, all without paying me a dime. They might even be able to turn around and issue DMCA takedowns and sue people for performing my work, claiming that they're really performing their version rather than my version. They've now taken free artistic work and made it no longer free. In other words, they aren't really adding any value at all, just taking value from me and from the public and declaring it theirs.
DMCA takedown notices must have a statement, under the penalty of perjury, that you represent the copyright owner. Unless your company rep/lawyer wants to go to jail, you are talking about a very unlikely scenario.
An illustrative case: Pete Seeger took biblical verses and wrote the song Turn, Turn, Turn [wikipedia.org], releasing it into the public domain. Several other folk musicians performed it, and it gained in popularity, and Pete finally recorded it in 1962. In 1965, the Byrds recorded it, and now most people who've heard of the song think that they wrote it originally, and some others think Bob Dylan wrote it. Had Pete Seeger not been a relatively well-known figure, it's quite possible his contribution would have been forgotten entirely.
So what? If you want to be attributed, don't give it to the public domain. That's what CC-BY licenses are for, which of course didn't exist back then.
Say, I publish a book under my own name. I don't care if people reproduce it on their websites, and I don't care if commercial enterprises included it into their own collections. Hey, it's not the money I'm after, so they can sell it too, if they want. What I do care about however, is that nobody comes and starts modifying (adding to, modifying or deleting from) that text... because my name and reputation are associated with it.
You are free to include a mark such as a publisher's name to indicate that this is the original version and prevent its misuse using trademark law. Heck, even well-respected scientific journals such as PloS ONE or Phys. Rev. X use CC-BY.
Page 23(the "scary stuff"): Yes, he(and you) can observe the air traffic. So what? It's not secret, hasn't ever been secret, and doesn't need to be secret.
Actually, I don't think so. With the increased availability of homebrew UAVs, it is probably a bad idea to give out the information how to steer these things right into the flight path of a 747.
Even now, there are some notebooks available on their website, and you can probably get even more options when you ask them on the phone.
Patent examiners are not stupid. But their performance reviews hinge on the number of patent application cases they were able to close. Rejecting a patent is much more time consuming than accepting it, because one has to justify it towards the applicants who are most certain to appeal the decision anyway, creating even more paperwork. So there is a strong incentive for any patent examiner to just rubber stamp with approval, resulting in the mess we currently observe.
The reason behind this lies in the fact that it is politically desired to artificially inflate the numbers of patents granted in a country, because that is widely seen as an indicator for innovation. And of course, that is just another instance of Campbell's law.
Keyboard covers have been around for a while the only thing that's special about this is it comes with one as standard.
So all this fuzz is about something you could as well get today by spending maybe $200 on an Android tablet and buying a tablet holder plus keyboard for less then $20?
Easy victory for debian, as there was no manager who had to wonder how fixing the bug ASAP vs. schedule the fix for later could potentially affect his career...
According to Debian's security tracker, the stable version is still vulnerable (and unstable was fixed only two days ago).
Canadians can still fly on plenty of domestic airlines, and I doubt an Air Canada flight that passes over, say, Alaska on the way to Tokyo, is going to divert to the US to arrest somebody.
Sometimes flights get diverted for other reasons (technical problem, medical emergency, ...) and the US will know that you are on the plane because they require access to PNRs for flights passing over US airspace.
In what way is Tizen Meego's succesor if :
1) it can't run meego apps. Or Maemo apps. It's a totally different platform.
2) it isn't a real linux, but just uses linux at a very low level (somewhat like android).
3) the SDK is as closed source as it can get.
There's a rumor that the American Physical Society is banned from hosting their conferences in Vegas because physicists don't gamble, don't have champagne parties with hookers, and drink considerably less then the average Vegas-goer. I'd assume that these points also applied to anyone getting excited about a Star Trek themed hotel.
If you can set up a public website so secure that no hacker can ever hack, why don't you set one up?
Formally verified web servers have been around for a while.
.... for a social networking platform that does not track/store/analyze/use my personal data or relationship information.
Any takers?
Feel free to join your favorite Diaspora pod and donate them $2 a month.
Liberty? Freedom? Justice?
Where are you?
https://joindiaspora.com/
... now we can have the same security bugs as Chrome/Chromium but without any timely fixes!
I think one possibility will be that degree-granting schools let their students take some courses on Udacity, while the site recieves a financial compensation for doing so. This could work especially well for highly specialized courses which the school cannot offer in-house. Ultimately, the goal might be to offer degrees themselves, but that would require significant resources for supervising exams all over the world in order to prevent cheating.
There is no EU directive that mandates setting up a censorship infrastructure, so the rest of the argument is a non sequitur.
From the copyright information accompanying the SDK:
Except for the Open Source Software contained in Tizen SDK, all other software portions contained in Tizen SDK are governed by the terms and conditions of the Tizen Software Development Kit License Agreement, available at: http://developer.tizen.org/download/samsung_sdk_license.html
Open source, my ass.
I see no SDK sources being posted except for some valgrind bit, and the SDK page talks about accepting an EULA. Are they really so stupid and try to ram down a proprietary SDK for what is supposed to be an open source operating system? And this within a Linux Foundation project?
Sorry, but I still don't get it. Before spontaneous symmetry breaking, the electron has no mass so it should not appear in the calculation. If you want to get Feynman diagrams, I assume you have to replace the propagator for the electron (with mass) by a massless fermion propagator and the diagrams that couple it to the Higgs, similar to the self-energy terms in QED. I still don't see how a large Higgs mass causes any problems.
How can you violate unitarity by tuning the physical constants if the underlying mathematical formulation (Lagrangian formulation of a quantum field theory) guarantees it by construction?
Sorry but we certainly are capable of probing the ENTIRE allowed mass range for the Standard Model Higgs. The upper bound is ~1 TeV/c2 because at this level, without the Higgs boson, some Standard Model processes e.g. e+e--->W+W- "break unitarity" i.e. have a more than 100% chance of happening.
I somehow never got this point. In the standard model, you're starting from a Lagrangian formulation of a quantum field theory, so the existence of a scalar product in the Hilbert space spanned by the theory automatically guarantees normalization of probabilities, no matter which physical values you attach to the parameters of your model. So if you're getting something larger than one, you must have made an error somewhere on the way, but that doesn't imply your entire model is wrong.
Oh, we already have a quantum version of Moore's law. However, the time constant for doubling is on the order of six years and not 18 months.
There is currently a huge research effort underway funded by tons of millions to make physical models of more complicated stuff: quantum simulators. With classical computers, there's basically no way to calculate properties of things like quantum magnets, quark-gluon plasmas, or high-temperature superconductors. But by using a different quantum system that we can precisely control (for example, ultracold atoms), we can tune it to simulate the behavior of the material we are interested in.
Additionally, Google and Mozilla have pretty much the same goals for the future direction of the web. Both want an open HTML5-based set of web standards, without any patent obstruction. Having two seats speaking essentially the same voice in the relevant circles (W3C, WHATWG, ...) makes a huge difference, and I'm sure Google is quite happy to invest a bit of change to keep Firefox around.
I know this, but I am looking for a smaller (and lighter) device, and I'd rather buy something which is at least backed by the company that makes it ...