So you subscribe to the belief that if you've got nothing to hide, who cares? I've got nothing to hide, either, but I'm still aware of moneyed interests spying on what I'm actually doing.
Beyond that, there are plenty of fair use things you could be downloading that could still get you sued. Whether you won or lost, the fight itself could ruin you financially.
I just the other day got, a traffic was sent by my staff at 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday and I just got it yesterday. Why? Because it got tangled up with all these things going on the roads commercially.
uTorrent? You mean the closed source program now owned by Bittorrent, Inc., the company that has partnerships with Fox, MTV, Paramount, WB, and Comedy Central?
Sure, you keep trusting that code to not be reporting what you're downloading to anyone in Big Media.
What I want to know is, if he used this for debugging purposes and left it in by accident, why didn't he ever see thousands of Gmail passwords showing up in his inbox and realize the problem?
I know this is almost totally off topic, but you mentioned "Thriller" and I just had to share a video I came across on Youtube a few days ago when checking out various a cappella groups around the world: Brigham Young University's Vocal Point covers "Thriller." It's pretty much awesome.
Note: I'm completely unaffiliated with this group, the university, or the faith behind it. I just like a cappella music and was very impressed by this performance (notwithstanding the fact that the mic levels are not that good, and the background singers occasionally overpower the lead).
Think of how much work it would be to build a whole application that would forward every possible input from the iPhone, including all sensor data, back to an application really running on your computer?
Isn't the iPhone running some sort of BSD? If so, isn't it as easy as setting stdout to be the port with which the iPhone is connected to the computer and piping stdin directly to stdout, and then having the computer's application have stdin be the same port but on the computer side?
I'm no expert on stdin and stdout and all that, but it seems like it would be trivial from a programming standpoint to just forward every input from a device to another device. Isn't that what KVM software is all about? Taking all input from one computer and piping it to another via TCP/IP so the other computer can react to the first computer's inputs? There are plenty of that type of program out there already, so one is led to believe that it's not programmatically that difficult.
Handling the input once it's there isn't the hard part. I'd imagine writing the actual iPhone emulator would be more difficult than that. Unless, of course, there's so much input that the USB2.0 cable can't keep up with the massive amount of data in realtime. But that's unlikely, no?
If you believe those to be noble efforts, feel free to put your hours of labor toward those causes, and ask others to support it as well. Why do you feel the need to violate the rights of your neighbors and fellow citizens by telling them that, if they want to live in this country, they have to support your chosen cause.
I've seen you trot out this argument a few times in this discussion, and I wish to address it briefly.
Let one's goal be X. Let one alone be able to accomplish X/1e6. Also, imagine a situation in which the value of any percentage less than 100% of accomplishment of X to be 0. X knows that his work toward X is literally meaningless then. One also knows not a million people. Thus, one does no work toward X because it would be (from even a utilitarian point of view) a detriment to society to attempt goal X alone.
However, with government forcing people to do something, the goal will be met if the population is greater than one million.
We can see this phenomenon on a regular basis in politics. What do you think "momentum" is in the current Democratic run for president? Clearly there are people who don't like Clinton and love Obama. Clearly vice versa. When the race is close, many people show up to vote. However, suppose Clinton (without loss of generality) were losing badly. Fewer people would show up than if their votes were closer, simply because they know that their vote would (1) waste their time, and (2) accomplish practically nothing if the Democratic system were a winner-take-all system.
Similarly, there are probably a great number of Democrats in Utah who just don't vote in the general election since they know there's no way their votes will affect the 70% (or whatever) that definitely will vote Republican in the election.
To demostrate how Democrats in Utah actually voting when their votes will not affect the fact that the Republican candidate will take all of the electoral college votes, let's consider a cost-benefit analysis: Costs It wastes the Democrat voters' time that could go towards accomplishing a different personal or social goal gasoline would be wasted to drive to the election
Benefits Maybe the 20% or 30% Dem vote makes Republicans in Utah act a little more liberal to attract some of that vote, but not likely, since it's such a landslide for Republicans. No benefit here. There is a "moral imperative" to vote. The Democratic candidate for president realizes no electoral college votes
In my opinion, the voters just won't show up in droves because they know it "doesn't matter," but there is a moral reason for them to.
Basically, here's my 3am summary: People do not exercise morals that are a burden to exercise unless they know that through their exercise they will be effectual.
Finally, here's a bit of self-revelation: I believe in universal health care of the socialized variety, but I won't give any money to a private entity dedicated to providing health care to all because I know that my donation won't accomplish my goal of universal health care because not enough other people are similarly motivated. If we all shared one mind and knew of each others' desires, we'd probably get together and donate. However, because we are thousands of miles away and are actual individuals, we fail and thus go on with our lives.
To understand all the latin words and phrases used throughout legal documents. Ad valorem, adjournment sine die, affidavit, pro bono, pro hac vice, supersedeas, etc. etc. Are you telling me pre-law programs aren't requiring at least a year of latin? Heck, I thought most pharmacists and pre-med students still had to take it.
I realize the days where everyone had to take latin and greek are long past, but I did not realize how sad things have gotten.
#1 - I don't know what country you're from, but there's no such thing as a pre-law program in the USA as far as I know. It's nothing like medical school. In the USA, "pre-law" means "I plan to go to law school after I graduate with whatever degree I will receive." For example, I have a BS in abstract math and a BA in Japanese, and now I'm in a top law school without having ever heard of a "pre-law" program. In the US, when an undergrad says, "I'm pre-law," what they mean is, "I'm planning to take the LSAT and hope that I can get into law school because my BA in Philosophy won't get me the big dollars."
#2 - You don't need to learn Latin grammar and syntax to know what those mean. That's like being ZOMG SHOCKED that law students don't have to take French (we use words like tort and voir dire all over the place). The legal terms you mentioned might as well just be ten-dollar English words for all we care; you don't have to speak or write or read Latin anymore. In fact, it's frowned upon by my law school. My Federal Civil Procedure professor (one of the nation's foremost experts on Civ Pro) even banned us from using Latin Terms for the first half of the semester. We couldn't even use phrases like "in rem" in the class without her permission because the legal world is recognizing that using too much Latin in English documents is ridiculous.
Have you even studied law? You make two ridiculous assertions (that there is a pre-law program to go to law school, and that a working knowledge of Latin is required to understand the hundred-or-so legal terms that appear in the legal world).
Yeah and you raped the dictionary. Transposing words with a high negativity index in order to try to capitalize on people's emotion is a time tested marketing trick. It is also a logical fallacy, appeal to emotion and conflation.
I've said it once, and I'll say it again, "piracy" has been used to describe copyright infringement since the 1700s. I can't find the source off hand, but either Learned Hand or Holmes (two incredibly famous and important judges in US history) referred to copyright infringement as "piracy" in at least on opinion in the very early 20th century.
I'm not sure of copyright lengths in India but I'd be surprised if its longer than 70 years.
It's actually death+60 in India. The works-for-hire/anon/pseudonym/public-works/govt-works is creation+60.
Alfred Mosher Butts invented Scrabble in 1938. He was an individual creating the work. He died in 1993. Thus, if my limited understanding of Indian copyright law is accurate, then under Indian law any Scrabble copyright (if there are any) would not enter the public domain until Jan 1, 2054.
Now, even if India uses the rule of the shorter term, it wouldn't enter public domain under US law until death+70, or some time in 2063.
Surely if you really are a lawyer . . . you had to take [a] course[] in . . . latin.
Why would a lawyer have to take a Latin class? I'm in law school, and I've never heard of such a thing. I'd have loved to, but holy crap, I can't imagine how many people in my class would fail out of law school if that were true (hello, Big Law!). There are very few linguaphiles I know at my school.
They're copyrighting the concept as a whole, of which the word is a part. So other game companies can use the word "tap" (as in tapping the deck for luck) and they can use the concept of turning cards sideways. They CANNOT however, call turning cards sideways (perhaps more specifically, in order to use 'points') and call it tapping.
Source this this, please, as again you're saying they've copyrighted something that cannot be copyrighted. You seem to be confusing copyright with some sort of quasi-patent-trademark mixture that you're making up yourself.
It's Copyright Law 101 that you cannot copyright a concept. To quote the black letter law of copyright in the United States (where Wizards of the Coast is located) 17 USC 102(b):
In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.
That's what I just came in here to post. here is the Copyright Office on copyrighting games. Namely, they can't really be copyrighted (except for literary or artistic elements that accompany it, such as a board with specific color patterns).
I'll chip in with you. I live in TX, the heartless state that makes a hobby out of executing minors and retards, hating science, and worshipping Dubya (/sarcasm). However, most people I know care about foreign cultures (and not everyone I know are college-educated) and are generally very nice. There are a few homophobic, xenophobic people who give us a bad name, but the loud minorities always do everywhere (see "all Frenchmen are assholes" when it's really "all Parisians are assholes" hehe).
Even the most right-wing, "universal healthcare will be the downfall of American society" members of my family have absolutely no problem with my Venezuelan girlfriend (the country of Chavez for crying out loud!), and they like her a lot (they've told me this on a regular basis). There may be an occasional confusion between Japanese and Chinese cultures, but how many people outside of Continental Europe could be so accurate with respect to Dutch and German cultures, languages, and faces.
It's called common decency, something that's clearly fading away in our society.
Why don't you ask black people or women if they'd like to return to the "era of common decency." Or the Japanese. Or anyone who's not of northwestern European heritage.
Actually, you can't exploit it non-commercially, either. A patent blocks any non-patentee and non-licensee from even creating something covered by a patent, regardless of whether it's for private use or not. Hell, using a patented invention that was made without the patentee's permission makes you an infringer. For example, if I made one of these machines for fun, I'd be infringing. Then, if I gave it to my friend for free, even if he thought it was a legit product he was receiving, he could still be sued for patent infringement.
Of course, as long as you don't get caught making/using it, you're in the clear.
Wouldn't a hexxed clod of dirt actually have nerve endings, and therefore be sensitive?
Re:If you want to see the real Cuba, go now...
on
Fidel Castro Resigns
·
· Score: 1
I don't recall wanting/asking for these fast-food chains to open in my city. Yet here they are. It wasn't the citizens wanting them, it was just one company's greed ("capitalism" you might say).
Yes, because the capital needed to build all those shops just materialized out of the pure greed ore that Starbucks and McD's mined out of the earth!
Give me a break! Just because you didn't want fast-food chains in your city doesn't mean that most everyone else in the city didn't. The chains stay open somehow, and I'll give you a hint: It's because people keep giving them their money!
If you only protect specific implementations of ideas, then people actually have to implement them. It rewards creating a product and selling it - what a concept!
Except that one of the requirements of patents is that you reduce to practice your invention.
Of course, this is different from actually mass-marketing the invention, but requiring that would basically make it impossible for a poor person to patent anything ever without begging IBM to fund them and sign over their rights to IBM.
6) Copyright offers enough protection already, without patents.
What shit are you smoking? Copyright only protects a specific realization of an idea, not an idea itself. To use code for an example, public key cryptography cannot be copyrighted, but a specific implementation can be.
Copyright could not protect something like that (ignoring the question of whether it should be copyrighted or not).
Yes, I realized that. This banter was a welcome change from the typical flaming that goes on on Digg. This sort of thing (combined with highly intelligent comments from many members) is what keeps Slashdot superior in my opinion.
Slashdot Mirror
So you subscribe to the belief that if you've got nothing to hide, who cares? I've got nothing to hide, either, but I'm still aware of moneyed interests spying on what I'm actually doing.
Beyond that, there are plenty of fair use things you could be downloading that could still get you sued. Whether you won or lost, the fight itself could ruin you financially.
uTorrent? You mean the closed source program now owned by Bittorrent, Inc., the company that has partnerships with Fox, MTV, Paramount, WB, and Comedy Central?
Sure, you keep trusting that code to not be reporting what you're downloading to anyone in Big Media.
What I want to know is, if he used this for debugging purposes and left it in by accident, why didn't he ever see thousands of Gmail passwords showing up in his inbox and realize the problem?
I know this is almost totally off topic, but you mentioned "Thriller" and I just had to share a video I came across on Youtube a few days ago when checking out various a cappella groups around the world: Brigham Young University's Vocal Point covers "Thriller." It's pretty much awesome.
Note: I'm completely unaffiliated with this group, the university, or the faith behind it. I just like a cappella music and was very impressed by this performance (notwithstanding the fact that the mic levels are not that good, and the background singers occasionally overpower the lead).
I'm no expert on stdin and stdout and all that, but it seems like it would be trivial from a programming standpoint to just forward every input from a device to another device. Isn't that what KVM software is all about? Taking all input from one computer and piping it to another via TCP/IP so the other computer can react to the first computer's inputs? There are plenty of that type of program out there already, so one is led to believe that it's not programmatically that difficult.
Handling the input once it's there isn't the hard part. I'd imagine writing the actual iPhone emulator would be more difficult than that. Unless, of course, there's so much input that the USB2.0 cable can't keep up with the massive amount of data in realtime. But that's unlikely, no?
Agreed. If you can't modify and redistribute, then it's "open," but it's not "source." It's "library book."
Let one's goal be X. Let one alone be able to accomplish X/1e6. Also, imagine a situation in which the value of any percentage less than 100% of accomplishment of X to be 0. X knows that his work toward X is literally meaningless then. One also knows not a million people. Thus, one does no work toward X because it would be (from even a utilitarian point of view) a detriment to society to attempt goal X alone.
However, with government forcing people to do something, the goal will be met if the population is greater than one million.
We can see this phenomenon on a regular basis in politics. What do you think "momentum" is in the current Democratic run for president? Clearly there are people who don't like Clinton and love Obama. Clearly vice versa. When the race is close, many people show up to vote. However, suppose Clinton (without loss of generality) were losing badly. Fewer people would show up than if their votes were closer, simply because they know that their vote would (1) waste their time, and (2) accomplish practically nothing if the Democratic system were a winner-take-all system.
Similarly, there are probably a great number of Democrats in Utah who just don't vote in the general election since they know there's no way their votes will affect the 70% (or whatever) that definitely will vote Republican in the election.
To demostrate how Democrats in Utah actually voting when their votes will not affect the fact that the Republican candidate will take all of the electoral college votes, let's consider a cost-benefit analysis:
Costs
It wastes the Democrat voters' time that could go towards accomplishing a different personal or social goal
gasoline would be wasted to drive to the election
Benefits
Maybe the 20% or 30% Dem vote makes Republicans in Utah act a little more liberal to attract some of that vote, but not likely, since it's such a landslide for Republicans. No benefit here.
There is a "moral imperative" to vote.
The Democratic candidate for president realizes no electoral college votes
In my opinion, the voters just won't show up in droves because they know it "doesn't matter," but there is a moral reason for them to.
Basically, here's my 3am summary: People do not exercise morals that are a burden to exercise unless they know that through their exercise they will be effectual.
Finally, here's a bit of self-revelation: I believe in universal health care of the socialized variety, but I won't give any money to a private entity dedicated to providing health care to all because I know that my donation won't accomplish my goal of universal health care because not enough other people are similarly motivated. If we all shared one mind and knew of each others' desires, we'd probably get together and donate. However, because we are thousands of miles away and are actual individuals, we fail and thus go on with our lives.
#1 - I don't know what country you're from, but there's no such thing as a pre-law program in the USA as far as I know. It's nothing like medical school. In the USA, "pre-law" means "I plan to go to law school after I graduate with whatever degree I will receive." For example, I have a BS in abstract math and a BA in Japanese, and now I'm in a top law school without having ever heard of a "pre-law" program. In the US, when an undergrad says, "I'm pre-law," what they mean is, "I'm planning to take the LSAT and hope that I can get into law school because my BA in Philosophy won't get me the big dollars."
#2 - You don't need to learn Latin grammar and syntax to know what those mean. That's like being ZOMG SHOCKED that law students don't have to take French (we use words like tort and voir dire all over the place). The legal terms you mentioned might as well just be ten-dollar English words for all we care; you don't have to speak or write or read Latin anymore. In fact, it's frowned upon by my law school. My Federal Civil Procedure professor (one of the nation's foremost experts on Civ Pro) even banned us from using Latin Terms for the first half of the semester. We couldn't even use phrases like "in rem" in the class without her permission because the legal world is recognizing that using too much Latin in English documents is ridiculous.
Have you even studied law? You make two ridiculous assertions (that there is a pre-law program to go to law school, and that a working knowledge of Latin is required to understand the hundred-or-so legal terms that appear in the legal world).
And you both just LOST. THE. GAME.
Alfred Mosher Butts invented Scrabble in 1938. He was an individual creating the work. He died in 1993. Thus, if my limited understanding of Indian copyright law is accurate, then under Indian law any Scrabble copyright (if there are any) would not enter the public domain until Jan 1, 2054.
Now, even if India uses the rule of the shorter term, it wouldn't enter public domain under US law until death+70, or some time in 2063.
It's Copyright Law 101 that you cannot copyright a concept. To quote the black letter law of copyright in the United States (where Wizards of the Coast is located) 17 USC 102(b):
That's what I just came in here to post. here is the Copyright Office on copyrighting games. Namely, they can't really be copyrighted (except for literary or artistic elements that accompany it, such as a board with specific color patterns).
I'll chip in with you. I live in TX, the heartless state that makes a hobby out of executing minors and retards, hating science, and worshipping Dubya (/sarcasm). However, most people I know care about foreign cultures (and not everyone I know are college-educated) and are generally very nice. There are a few homophobic, xenophobic people who give us a bad name, but the loud minorities always do everywhere (see "all Frenchmen are assholes" when it's really "all Parisians are assholes" hehe).
Even the most right-wing, "universal healthcare will be the downfall of American society" members of my family have absolutely no problem with my Venezuelan girlfriend (the country of Chavez for crying out loud!), and they like her a lot (they've told me this on a regular basis). There may be an occasional confusion between Japanese and Chinese cultures, but how many people outside of Continental Europe could be so accurate with respect to Dutch and German cultures, languages, and faces.
Of course, as long as you don't get caught making/using it, you're in the clear.
Not legal advice, not your lawyer, etc.
Give me a break! Just because you didn't want fast-food chains in your city doesn't mean that most everyone else in the city didn't. The chains stay open somehow, and I'll give you a hint: It's because people keep giving them their money!
Of course, this is different from actually mass-marketing the invention, but requiring that would basically make it impossible for a poor person to patent anything ever without begging IBM to fund them and sign over their rights to IBM.
Copyright could not protect something like that (ignoring the question of whether it should be copyrighted or not).
Yes, I realized that. This banter was a welcome change from the typical flaming that goes on on Digg. This sort of thing (combined with highly intelligent comments from many members) is what keeps Slashdot superior in my opinion.
The middle line has only 6 syllables. "Tingling" is only two. /ducks ;)