And this is where the idea of intellectual property makes sense. If someone invested billions in creating something, he's entitled to profit from that.
Spending money does not entitle you to profit, I wish people would understand that. You could spend billions of dollars to research something useless. IP law gives creators the privilege of monopoly control, not the right. That privilege is meant as an encouragement to share what they've created instead of keeping it secret. When encouragement is no necessary that privilege does not make sense.
People invent thing because the want to or need to. IP law doesn't encourage people to create things. What IP law is supposed to do is encourage people to share those things once they've created them rather than horde it for fear of being copied.
which mandates expulsion for any "student in possession of a bomb (or) explosive device... while at a school (or) a school-sponsored activity... unless the material or device is being used as part of a legitimate school-related activity or science project conducted under the supervision of an instructor
Technically, (and theses people seem to love technicalities), party poppers, snappers, and other harmless things are grounds for expulsion... And people think that parents who home-school their children are the crazy ones.
It's cheaper to enslave other people to achieve that "good life" than it is to build the technology to elevate us all.
Some have argued that slavery is a factor of energy production. When the net energy production of the whole world drops below a certain threshold, that's when people start enslaving each other. Supposedly when energy is abundant and cheap, slavery won't be an issue.
heh the lawyer for Alcatel didn't even know which patent it was!
"Successful defendants have their litigation managed by people who care," said Cheng. "For me, it's easy. I believe in Newegg, I care about Newegg. Alcatel Lucent, meanwhile, they drag out some random VP—who happens to be a decorated Navy veteran, who happens to be handsome and has a beautiful wife and kids—but the guy didn't know what patents were being asserted. What a joke.
I hated and still hate wearing glasses. I wear contacts now. Glasses get dirty, sweaty, have blind spots, and generally suck. I don't love contacts, but until I can afford surgery I'll take them.
Google glass wouldn't seem to have any of the problems I see with regular glasses. The seem to do what they were intended to do quite well. As soon as they are for sale I'm buying them.
>Which personal information have you stored about me
What constitutes personal information? What distinguished personal information from public information?
I saw a device for a deaf person that translated sounds into larger vibrations in a belt.
Maybe if you put an accelerometer in the conductor's baton and then wirelessly transmit that data to some type of haptic feedback device.
This would give you a lot more information about what the conductor was doing than a simple beat measure would.
I imagine a 2-D grid of sensations over your back that interpreted the batons movements would allow you to sense the baton being raised in anticipation of the down beat and so on. An array of pancake vibrators could be sewn into a vest or even applied with adhesive.
Hooking up with a hackerspace local to you would probably be a good starting point.
Having $800K in cash you can't account for is going to get you into the territory of seizure laws, unless you can account for where you got it (and the onus is on you to prove that).
Prove it to whom? Not to some one you are buying something from.
And, sadly, once he saw it, and reasonably knew what the second one was likely to be used for.. he was screwed. Because either he said nothing and became complicit, or he turned in some shady people who might not be understanding of that.
It is not reasonable to expect a vendor to know that cash he saw was elicit.
I agree with you about the blum blog being worthwhile, and I agree with her on most of what she said. You pick the one nit I have with that post,
only real offense in this case was not just turning around and telling the guys to knock it off.
If that was all she did, she would have done nothing. She took their pic an posted it on twitter. That is a grievous offense in my book, much worse than simply not saying anything.
Because it's always good to make it easier to break the law and steal movies.
The short answer is yes, it is better to make it easier to "break the law" and "steal movies."
By "breaking the law" you are actually just diminishing the artificial right that has been temporarily granted to the copyright holder.
That right (copyright) was never intended to be more important than an individuals natural right to share ideas and information.
Copyright's purpose is to give additional incentive to people who create, to share that creation, by allowing them an artificially stronger (than it would normally be) right to decide who to share the creation with.
That right directly conflicts every individuals natural rights to communicate and share ideas. There needs to be a balance.
I think there are things we need to reconsider.
In the case of music, what has this type of incentive provided us? Has copyright actually given us better music? What kind of musician (composer, player, singer etc.) has this form of copyright favored evolutionarily? I would argue that over all the quality of musician has gotten worse as copyright has grown in scope and strength.
Thus we need to reconsider how music is protected by copyright.
Other media needs to be subject to the same scrutiny as well.
To simply chant the mantra that "it's the law" is basically an appeal to tradition, and not a valid argument for why it is wrong to copy things.
It is a valid argument in favor of not copying things, but that is not the same as saying copying things is "wrong."
I would hope that most Americans, while not always willing to exercise it, would still recognize that civil disobedience is not immoral and that blind faith in "the law" is not something one should be proud of.
This could be a great play to cut out all the middlemen...
I think you mean... "replace the middle man"
I doubt it but maybe we'll get lucky and be able to buy the content from the producers ourselves. It is already happening with music to some degree.
Your definitions are not correct. Anonymity can provide privacy. If you do something anonymously, you are doing some thing that other people don't know about (you doing). They may know that it is being done but privacy is not about concealing actions, it is about concealing identity.
Secrecy is doing something that other people don't know about (whats being done).
Privacy is doing something that other people don't know about (you doing).
Adding a tax to consumer electronics to support actual investigative journalism isn't a horrible idea, but bailing out newspapers is just ludicrous. I do think we need real investigative journalism, but not from dead tree newspapers. Things like FOX "Nuz" (cause that's not fucking news), just don't inform people.
Now a govt. funded news agency? I'm not quite ready to say that would be a good thing either, but how can we get back real journalists?
Bloggers, if you repeat news, do more to credit your sources.
This is a suit over a software patent. This is what makes CSIRO a troll. Do any of these companies MAKE the hardware their selling? This sounds like a cash grab to me. We need to fix the system and get rid of software patents altogether.
Slashdot Mirror
And this is where the idea of intellectual property makes sense. If someone invested billions in creating something, he's entitled to profit from that.
Spending money does not entitle you to profit, I wish people would understand that. You could spend billions of dollars to research something useless. IP law gives creators the privilege of monopoly control, not the right. That privilege is meant as an encouragement to share what they've created instead of keeping it secret. When encouragement is no necessary that privilege does not make sense. People invent thing because the want to or need to. IP law doesn't encourage people to create things. What IP law is supposed to do is encourage people to share those things once they've created them rather than horde it for fear of being copied.
which mandates expulsion for any "student in possession of a bomb (or) explosive device... while at a school (or) a school-sponsored activity... unless the material or device is being used as part of a legitimate school-related activity or science project conducted under the supervision of an instructor
Technically, (and theses people seem to love technicalities), party poppers, snappers, and other harmless things are grounds for expulsion... And people think that parents who home-school their children are the crazy ones.
It's cheaper to enslave other people to achieve that "good life" than it is to build the technology to elevate us all.
Some have argued that slavery is a factor of energy production. When the net energy production of the whole world drops below a certain threshold, that's when people start enslaving each other. Supposedly when energy is abundant and cheap, slavery won't be an issue.
"Successful defendants have their litigation managed by people who care," said Cheng. "For me, it's easy. I believe in Newegg, I care about Newegg. Alcatel Lucent, meanwhile, they drag out some random VP—who happens to be a decorated Navy veteran, who happens to be handsome and has a beautiful wife and kids—but the guy didn't know what patents were being asserted. What a joke.
I hated and still hate wearing glasses. I wear contacts now. Glasses get dirty, sweaty, have blind spots, and generally suck. I don't love contacts, but until I can afford surgery I'll take them. Google glass wouldn't seem to have any of the problems I see with regular glasses. The seem to do what they were intended to do quite well. As soon as they are for sale I'm buying them.
I prefer my tactical man purse http://www.amazon.com/UTG-Multi-Functional-Tactical-Messenger-Black/dp/B002BJBIRW
>Which personal information have you stored about me What constitutes personal information? What distinguished personal information from public information?
Cygnus was the name of Dr. Hans Reinhardt's ship in the 1979 Disney movie 'The Black Hole'
And using the google authenticator plugin for 2 factor authentication.
I saw a device for a deaf person that translated sounds into larger vibrations in a belt. Maybe if you put an accelerometer in the conductor's baton and then wirelessly transmit that data to some type of haptic feedback device. This would give you a lot more information about what the conductor was doing than a simple beat measure would. I imagine a 2-D grid of sensations over your back that interpreted the batons movements would allow you to sense the baton being raised in anticipation of the down beat and so on. An array of pancake vibrators could be sewn into a vest or even applied with adhesive. Hooking up with a hackerspace local to you would probably be a good starting point.
Having $800K in cash you can't account for is going to get you into the territory of seizure laws, unless you can account for where you got it (and the onus is on you to prove that).
Prove it to whom? Not to some one you are buying something from.
And, sadly, once he saw it, and reasonably knew what the second one was likely to be used for .. he was screwed. Because either he said nothing and became complicit, or he turned in some shady people who might not be understanding of that.
It is not reasonable to expect a vendor to know that cash he saw was elicit.
...put all your eggheads in one basket. Seems like your just begging for an attack.
only real offense in this case was not just turning around and telling the guys to knock it off.
If that was all she did, she would have done nothing. She took their pic an posted it on twitter. That is a grievous offense in my book, much worse than simply not saying anything.
If they are so unsafe then they must have posted statistics about the number of reported laser related injuries/accidents. If not they can shaddap!
Because it's always good to make it easier to break the law and steal movies.
The short answer is yes, it is better to make it easier to "break the law" and "steal movies."
By "breaking the law" you are actually just diminishing the artificial right that has been temporarily granted to the copyright holder.
That right (copyright) was never intended to be more important than an individuals natural right to share ideas and information.
Copyright's purpose is to give additional incentive to people who create, to share that creation, by allowing them an artificially stronger (than it would normally be) right to decide who to share the creation with.
That right directly conflicts every individuals natural rights to communicate and share ideas. There needs to be a balance.
I think there are things we need to reconsider.
In the case of music, what has this type of incentive provided us? Has copyright actually given us better music? What kind of musician (composer, player, singer etc.) has this form of copyright favored evolutionarily? I would argue that over all the quality of musician has gotten worse as copyright has grown in scope and strength.
Thus we need to reconsider how music is protected by copyright.
Other media needs to be subject to the same scrutiny as well.
To simply chant the mantra that "it's the law" is basically an appeal to tradition, and not a valid argument for why it is wrong to copy things. It is a valid argument in favor of not copying things, but that is not the same as saying copying things is "wrong."
I would hope that most Americans, while not always willing to exercise it, would still recognize that civil disobedience is not immoral and that blind faith in "the law" is not something one should be proud of.
Have they implemented a region scheme for books?
Yes, it is called 'language'.
Can a book be rendered illegible by a scratch?
Water can ruin most books, and water covers 78% of the planet.
Is there some scheme in place to prevent you from quoting an except from a book verbatim?
no, and why should there be?
This could be a great play to cut out all the middlemen...
I think you mean... "replace the middle man" I doubt it but maybe we'll get lucky and be able to buy the content from the producers ourselves. It is already happening with music to some degree.
That is awesome.
Maybe I'm wrong, but doesn't digital music play from RAM anyway?
Having anything removed or tampered with by any outside agency on hardware I have purchased is unacceptable, full stop.
Then don't install apps from the app store DUMBASS. You can get the same apps without using the app store, and Google can't delete them.
You do have a choice with Android where your apps come from and who has control over them. Stop blaming some one else for your uninformed choices.
We are Americans... Stories about Australia are kinda like watching the show Cops. http://bash.org/?262417
The technology lens itself very well to that.
I sea what you mean.
Water you talking about????
Your definitions are not correct. Anonymity can provide privacy. If you do something anonymously, you are doing some thing that other people don't know about (you doing). They may know that it is being done but privacy is not about concealing actions, it is about concealing identity.
Secrecy is doing something that other people don't know about (whats being done).
Privacy is doing something that other people don't know about (you doing).
Adding a tax to consumer electronics to support actual investigative journalism isn't a horrible idea, but bailing out newspapers is just ludicrous. I do think we need real investigative journalism, but not from dead tree newspapers. Things like FOX "Nuz" (cause that's not fucking news), just don't inform people. Now a govt. funded news agency? I'm not quite ready to say that would be a good thing either, but how can we get back real journalists? Bloggers, if you repeat news, do more to credit your sources.
This is a suit over a software patent. This is what makes CSIRO a troll. Do any of these companies MAKE the hardware their selling? This sounds like a cash grab to me. We need to fix the system and get rid of software patents altogether.