I think the point is, it isn't the "little guy" because the "little guy" doesn't have a massive team of lawyers and effectively endless resources to pursue the case. Once upon a time patents as they were conceived may have been a good idea. However, like a very old SQL server being now riddled with security holes, companies have found all the loop holes, all the exploits for the patent system and now abuse them to the extreme. At the very least it need complete re-thinking.
>Right wing fiction from CBS's 60 Minutes and the Huffington post?
Given the original statement was that it was the special ops team that had the visual (when they didn't, it was the unarmed drone that had the visual), and this statement tells us nothing of the ground situation at them time, nor the proximity of said ground forces (it merely says they could have acted more quickly, which could mean they were anywhere from minutes to hours out), he is correct in saying it is fiction. It twists the situation to make it shown like they have a sniper with the guy in his cross-hairs when that isn't what was said at all.
Well, it isn't the greatest analogy, sure, but it does have a point. It is like the faulty 'If you can build a bridge that doesn't fail, why not a program', where the easy counter is 'Bridges generally don't have people trying 24/7 to destroy them through every imaginable means available to them, and when they do, they generally don't last long.' If you can't hold a door maker responsible for the failure of a door and lock to stop an determined intruder who has to be physically present, how do you really expect a software maker to ensure their software is secure when people across the whole globe can be attacking it constantly. Security just isn't the kind of thing you can ensure. Now, if the software maker gives you some kind of guarantee, then I can see it as they are making a claim they are now responsible for backing up, but for software in general I just can't see it working.
You are comparing two different things, the needs of 1 site, verses the usage across the net as a whole. It shouldn't be in the least surprising that the world wide numbers don't line up to the numbers any single site encounters, and using unique users world wide, or even within a country is equally useless in this regard as well. SC was never meant to meet the need of any single site to judge what browsers it will encounter other than as a starting guess. In fact, there is no metric out there that will be anything more than a guess. You have to measure that sort of thing yourself.
No, that logic would be 'passwords are useless because keyloggers exist'. Clearly faulty logic. You can argue it doesn't add enough value to be worth the effort, you can't argue that it is possible to defeat therefore it is useless.
Well hell, can't use that then. We all know that criminals are all well planned geniuses that think of every contingency and will counter every forensic method used to find them. I mean, seriously, what are they thinking.
The problem is, you assume humans work well 100% of the time, when in fact it is considerably lower than that. That's the key issue, not the pursuit of perfection, but the pursuit of something better than a human. Computers can have potentially have better response times, more awareness, and more correct handling of common danger scenarios than humans. We still have a ways to go till we reach the point when we swap a human driver with a computer, but computer assisted driving is getting more a more common.
Ah, yes, I knew something was missing or I disproved it inside of a couple seconds:P. Yeah, it would have to be even as all primes are odd save 2, and the sum of any 2 primes is even, so you'd be forced to use 2 as one of those primes all the time for all even number and that very quickly breaks.
And what, if I may be so crass as to inquire, do you base that assessment on? The fact that "billions" is a large-seeming number? What if the probability of life (as we know it) forming on an earth-like planet is 1:10^12? The point of the article is that we simply don't know what that probability is, so arguments like the one you are making here are based on fantasy rather than evidence.
What is more unlikely, that Earth is the special seed in the hundreds of billions of galaxies out there, all composed of a few billions stars each, or that we're just one of many such planets carrying life. Now, as the previous poster said, that doesn't mean we're ever going to encounter said life, but it is a HELL of an assumption that the qualities for production of life are so remote that only Earth managed to fit the criteria, especially when the biological evidence so far speaks to life being surprisingly easy to start out.
Indeed. Personally, I find all 12 of those points meaningless. I'd rather have some simple things, like a working web view, or having the ability to search and replace across paragraphs, or how about just letting me access all the F'ing auto format options (although as I recall Word had that issue too, just with slightly less annoying hidden untouchable options).
It goes beyond just that silliness too. Let's just give for a second that a programming language is copyrightable. Well, derivative works are also automatically copyrighted too, and Java is derivative of C++ and C before it, and probably something before that, and none of those have expired. Plus, forward facing, all use of Java of would be copyrighted too. So, suddenly, you'd have every business using Java pissed at Oracle for claiming copyright on their work, but not only that, Oracle has thrown the door wide open for being sued themselves for copyright infringement on a vast scale. Yeah, this is an argument you want to go down in flames, and really even Oracle, they may not realize it, but they too want it to go down in flames as well.
Even if you did such, all that does it push back the wall some, there is still a wall there. We only have so much farmland, never mind the limits on other resources. If you really want to reduce consumption in a way that won't hit a wall you'll have to stop our population growth, and even reverse as it is pretty much too high as is. I don't think genetics are the solution there though. That's more a social issue.
It's a good question. I personally don't know. My limited understanding of copyright protection is it protect not function, but expression. So copying the function of something isn't derivative. To protect function you have to get patent on it. However, it depends how close the new programmers are to the original code. For instance, if you hand a detective novel to a writer and say make me a story very similar to this one, even if he changed the names, places and such, if the general plot is the same, that could be considered a derivative work. But in that case, the plot itself is really an expression, not a function, so although that is very close, I think they are different situations.
Because cellphones were instantly in every driver's hands when they were introduced, nor did they suddenly disappear from everyone's hands when they were banned. The introduction of the cell phone happened over a decade, gradually getting out there, and gradually becoming more used while driving. But other factors were also changing over this same time period, like the performance characteristics of the vehicles, the congestion of the roads, the average training level of the drive, varying enforcement of laws, etc. For those places that ban it, enforcement is all over the place, and quite often people actually hide it, making it worse. It is also quite possible that (in both positive and negative sense) that people merely replace one distraction with another and there is no real significant improvement or loss.
This is not a good argument against the ban. It is a combination of the two wrongs make a right and common practice faulty arguments. Just because there are things that are as bad or worse does not mean we shouldn't move to correct this one. In due time those other things may get worked on as well.
They do. They were specifically given the right to add exemptions. I personally feel this is too much to ask though as it almost completely removes the teeth from the law when it comes to hardware copy protection. But, hey, I'm not in charge here.
That is what I was thinking. Maybe they just need a more customized compression algorithm. The problem there, I suppose, is figure out matches can be an expensive operation in itself.
Then the decision should have been not that they couldn't say it, but that they couldn't imply it is the only way. Instead they made the stupid chose. Oh well, that's government for you.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the point is, it isn't the "little guy" because the "little guy" doesn't have a massive team of lawyers and effectively endless resources to pursue the case. Once upon a time patents as they were conceived may have been a good idea. However, like a very old SQL server being now riddled with security holes, companies have found all the loop holes, all the exploits for the patent system and now abuse them to the extreme. At the very least it need complete re-thinking.
>Right wing fiction from CBS's 60 Minutes and the Huffington post?
Given the original statement was that it was the special ops team that had the visual (when they didn't, it was the unarmed drone that had the visual), and this statement tells us nothing of the ground situation at them time, nor the proximity of said ground forces (it merely says they could have acted more quickly, which could mean they were anywhere from minutes to hours out), he is correct in saying it is fiction. It twists the situation to make it shown like they have a sniper with the guy in his cross-hairs when that isn't what was said at all.
Well, it isn't the greatest analogy, sure, but it does have a point. It is like the faulty 'If you can build a bridge that doesn't fail, why not a program', where the easy counter is 'Bridges generally don't have people trying 24/7 to destroy them through every imaginable means available to them, and when they do, they generally don't last long.' If you can't hold a door maker responsible for the failure of a door and lock to stop an determined intruder who has to be physically present, how do you really expect a software maker to ensure their software is secure when people across the whole globe can be attacking it constantly. Security just isn't the kind of thing you can ensure. Now, if the software maker gives you some kind of guarantee, then I can see it as they are making a claim they are now responsible for backing up, but for software in general I just can't see it working.
How about Square-Enix taking down one of their own videos on their own channels? That one still have me baffled why they would DMCA themselves.
You are comparing two different things, the needs of 1 site, verses the usage across the net as a whole. It shouldn't be in the least surprising that the world wide numbers don't line up to the numbers any single site encounters, and using unique users world wide, or even within a country is equally useless in this regard as well. SC was never meant to meet the need of any single site to judge what browsers it will encounter other than as a starting guess. In fact, there is no metric out there that will be anything more than a guess. You have to measure that sort of thing yourself.
No, that logic would be 'passwords are useless because keyloggers exist'. Clearly faulty logic. You can argue it doesn't add enough value to be worth the effort, you can't argue that it is possible to defeat therefore it is useless.
Well hell, can't use that then. We all know that criminals are all well planned geniuses that think of every contingency and will counter every forensic method used to find them. I mean, seriously, what are they thinking.
The problem is, you assume humans work well 100% of the time, when in fact it is considerably lower than that. That's the key issue, not the pursuit of perfection, but the pursuit of something better than a human. Computers can have potentially have better response times, more awareness, and more correct handling of common danger scenarios than humans. We still have a ways to go till we reach the point when we swap a human driver with a computer, but computer assisted driving is getting more a more common.
Bah, that should be "For all odd numbers". That will treat me to reed my messages before posting.
Ah, yes, I knew something was missing or I disproved it inside of a couple seconds :P. Yeah, it would have to be even as all primes are odd save 2, and the sum of any 2 primes is even, so you'd be forced to use 2 as one of those primes all the time for all even number and that very quickly breaks.
And what, if I may be so crass as to inquire, do you base that assessment on? The fact that "billions" is a large-seeming number? What if the probability of life (as we know it) forming on an earth-like planet is 1:10^12? The point of the article is that we simply don't know what that probability is, so arguments like the one you are making here are based on fantasy rather than evidence.
What is more unlikely, that Earth is the special seed in the hundreds of billions of galaxies out there, all composed of a few billions stars each, or that we're just one of many such planets carrying life. Now, as the previous poster said, that doesn't mean we're ever going to encounter said life, but it is a HELL of an assumption that the qualities for production of life are so remote that only Earth managed to fit the criteria, especially when the biological evidence so far speaks to life being surprisingly easy to start out.
I skimmed it. It apparently got slashdotted since then.
Indeed. Personally, I find all 12 of those points meaningless. I'd rather have some simple things, like a working web view, or having the ability to search and replace across paragraphs, or how about just letting me access all the F'ing auto format options (although as I recall Word had that issue too, just with slightly less annoying hidden untouchable options).
It goes beyond just that silliness too. Let's just give for a second that a programming language is copyrightable. Well, derivative works are also automatically copyrighted too, and Java is derivative of C++ and C before it, and probably something before that, and none of those have expired. Plus, forward facing, all use of Java of would be copyrighted too. So, suddenly, you'd have every business using Java pissed at Oracle for claiming copyright on their work, but not only that, Oracle has thrown the door wide open for being sued themselves for copyright infringement on a vast scale. Yeah, this is an argument you want to go down in flames, and really even Oracle, they may not realize it, but they too want it to go down in flames as well.
Even if you did such, all that does it push back the wall some, there is still a wall there. We only have so much farmland, never mind the limits on other resources. If you really want to reduce consumption in a way that won't hit a wall you'll have to stop our population growth, and even reverse as it is pretty much too high as is. I don't think genetics are the solution there though. That's more a social issue.
It's a good question. I personally don't know. My limited understanding of copyright protection is it protect not function, but expression. So copying the function of something isn't derivative. To protect function you have to get patent on it. However, it depends how close the new programmers are to the original code. For instance, if you hand a detective novel to a writer and say make me a story very similar to this one, even if he changed the names, places and such, if the general plot is the same, that could be considered a derivative work. But in that case, the plot itself is really an expression, not a function, so although that is very close, I think they are different situations.
You too huh... it went from, ooo, this could be... oh psychics... well, nothing to see here folks.
Passwords should actually be hashed and preferably hashed and salted, not encrypted, but points for at least trying.
Because cellphones were instantly in every driver's hands when they were introduced, nor did they suddenly disappear from everyone's hands when they were banned. The introduction of the cell phone happened over a decade, gradually getting out there, and gradually becoming more used while driving. But other factors were also changing over this same time period, like the performance characteristics of the vehicles, the congestion of the roads, the average training level of the drive, varying enforcement of laws, etc. For those places that ban it, enforcement is all over the place, and quite often people actually hide it, making it worse. It is also quite possible that (in both positive and negative sense) that people merely replace one distraction with another and there is no real significant improvement or loss.
This is not a good argument against the ban. It is a combination of the two wrongs make a right and common practice faulty arguments. Just because there are things that are as bad or worse does not mean we shouldn't move to correct this one. In due time those other things may get worked on as well.
I hope that part at least is fake or that is seriously sad security measures in place for an automated weapon platform.
That was specific to mobile devices. This is asking for that right on pretty much every device.
They do. They were specifically given the right to add exemptions. I personally feel this is too much to ask though as it almost completely removes the teeth from the law when it comes to hardware copy protection. But, hey, I'm not in charge here.
That is what I was thinking. Maybe they just need a more customized compression algorithm. The problem there, I suppose, is figure out matches can be an expensive operation in itself.
Then the decision should have been not that they couldn't say it, but that they couldn't imply it is the only way. Instead they made the stupid chose. Oh well, that's government for you.