We have repeated cases of people going to court to dispute 'fair use', which shows that it is not well defined enough for humans to get right...
Pretty much bullshit, "fair use" is indeed well defined.
But the bigger issue *is not* the "bots", it's the media outlets that accept "take down notices" from bots.
In other words, I'm questioning the legality of machine generated "take downs" that have no human interaction. I'm suggesting that it is not strictly legal and media outlets could certainly make an argument that such automated "take downs" constitute an unfair burden and so are invalid.
You can do basic math and have no real reading comprehension, but hell, you know how to use Social Media, paly a few drining games, and give / get blow jobs!
Slashdot has a deserved reputation for being the territory of Hardcore 20-Something Linux Fanboys, and there's really nothing wrong with that.
But it skews the reception of any story for a system / product / idea that is not in line with the "group think", such stories are typically dismissed as "flamebait".
Such as the recent story about Steve Jobs. The general reaction was that Steve Jobs was nothing more than a "marketer" and Apple products may be only marginally better that competitors - even though many of Apples strongest detractors admit that Apple hardware quality is a cut above many competitors, and certainly Apple has a history of this âoeinnovationâ thingy.
Likewise, you can expect almost âoestream of thoughtâ vitriol and screed ANY time anything to to with Microsoft is mentioned, never mind an objective view of whatever the subject might be. I mean, the sheeple are still using stupid memes like âoeM$â and âoeMicroslothâ and what have you.
If itâ(TM)s a technology controlled by a Bug Company, you can expect the Slashdot Surfs to tow the Group Think with post after mindless post completely lacking with any objectivity, or often any actual coherent thought.
What in that article makes the concept of patents valid, moral, ethical, and socially beneficial?
Nothing at all. The original post suggested that "intellectual property" did not exist. Clearly hog-wash.
The existence of what makes up the definition of "intellectual property" is a separate thing from the debate about if - or not - such things should be copyrightable / patentable.
But it does give you a list of registered voters in the area so you can go hound people into voting for your candidate. It also reads your phone contacts so it can tell if you have a registered voter in your contacts. It can also read your call history, to see if you have called any numbers that match those people in your contacts.
But these things are *exactly* what the "app" was designed to do, and these are the reasons the people who install it do so.
Now, *I* wouldn't want these features, and that's why I'm not going to install the "app", but there are serious "campaign supporters" who want exactly these features.
I mean, people, this is *NON-NEWS*.
The two campaigns have built an "app" that does things their "hard core" supporters want. This does not effect *YOU* except that one of these drones might come knocking on your door.
Samsung should argue that it's not a screenlock getting unlocked though, that it's actually already unlocked and running an application when the screen is awoken - because that's what it does, the screen is already awake after being awoken with a keypress of a hw key.
Perhaps you have just described a component of Apple's patent?
You *DO* have a choice: Don't install apps that have behaviors you don't like.
Good grief, are you saying you are "helpless" in the face of some "app" that has click-though dialogs SO FUCKING MUCH LIKE HEROIN that you just can't help yourself?
Is this much of a surprise? This sort of "app" is specifically designed for the designated politico to "leverage" the mindless sycophants that install such apps. As to leading people to "bad" parts of town, that's subjective and poor people can vote, too.
Slashdot Mirror
We have repeated cases of people going to court to dispute 'fair use', which shows that it is not well defined enough for humans to get right...
Pretty much bullshit, "fair use" is indeed well defined.
But the bigger issue *is not* the "bots", it's the media outlets that accept "take down notices" from bots.
In other words, I'm questioning the legality of machine generated "take downs" that have no human interaction. I'm suggesting that it is not strictly legal and media outlets could certainly make an argument that such automated "take downs" constitute an unfair burden and so are invalid.
Seriously.
GNOME 3.6 To Include Major Revulsions
Yup.
School holidays are for learning social skills
That'll get you a job!
You can do basic math and have no real reading comprehension, but hell, you know how to use Social Media, paly a few drining games, and give / get blow jobs!
That will help you get a job!
When will it start this course?
In due course. The Rasp Pi doesn't have a lot of power, it takes a while to boot up...
iTunes music is DRM free.
Except that you can only install it so many times (5?) - that's called DRM...
I am filing a patent on "Upright Locomotion for Bipedal Hominids using Two Appendages."
Obviously because arm movement is not used in your process, you idea shows unique innovation. BROVO!
Somewhere in Texas, there is a judge and jury already lined up behind your blockbuster patent!
Slashdot has a deserved reputation for being the territory of Hardcore 20-Something Linux Fanboys, and there's really nothing wrong with that.
But it skews the reception of any story for a system / product / idea that is not in line with the "group think", such stories are typically dismissed as "flamebait".
Such as the recent story about Steve Jobs. The general reaction was that Steve Jobs was nothing more than a "marketer" and Apple products may be only marginally better that competitors - even though many of Apples strongest detractors admit that Apple hardware quality is a cut above many competitors, and certainly Apple has a history of this âoeinnovationâ thingy.
Likewise, you can expect almost âoestream of thoughtâ vitriol and screed ANY time anything to to with Microsoft is mentioned, never mind an objective view of whatever the subject might be. I mean, the sheeple are still using stupid memes like âoeM$â and âoeMicroslothâ and what have you.
If itâ(TM)s a technology controlled by a Bug Company, you can expect the Slashdot Surfs to tow the Group Think with post after mindless post completely lacking with any objectivity, or often any actual coherent thought.
It might be a good "additional resource" for the mobile command and control vehicles...
Of course at least 1/3 of the posts will try to knock you down with the blather "if you have to ask, you're not the right person for the job".
What in that article makes the concept of patents valid, moral, ethical, and socially beneficial?
Nothing at all. The original post suggested that "intellectual property" did not exist. Clearly hog-wash.
The existence of what makes up the definition of "intellectual property" is a separate thing from the debate about if - or not - such things should be copyrightable / patentable.
But it does give you a list of registered voters in the area so you can go hound people into voting for your candidate. It also reads your phone contacts so it can tell if you have a registered voter in your contacts. It can also read your call history, to see if you have called any numbers that match those people in your contacts.
But these things are *exactly* what the "app" was designed to do, and these are the reasons the people who install it do so.
Now, *I* wouldn't want these features, and that's why I'm not going to install the "app", but there are serious "campaign supporters" who want exactly these features.
I mean, people, this is *NON-NEWS*.
The two campaigns have built an "app" that does things their "hard core" supporters want. This does not effect *YOU* except that one of these drones might come knocking on your door.
Samsung should argue that it's not a screenlock getting unlocked though, that it's actually already unlocked and running an application when the screen is awoken - because that's what it does, the screen is already awake after being awoken with a keypress of a hw key.
Perhaps you have just described a component of Apple's patent?
Since "intellectual property" is nothing but catch-all propaganda phrase created by rights-holders, has no real meaning
Nonsense.
Read about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property
You may not like the laws both in the USA and indeed around the world with respect to "intellectual property", but that doesn't nullify the concept.
Your nick suits you well.
As does yours.
Grow up and sign in. Either you are embarrassed about your trolls / opinions, or you are a Karma Whore. Which is it?
Namely, the fact that patents and copyrights are unrelated.
Copyrights and patents are not "unrelated", they both deal with "intellectual property".
Hello, Anonymous Coward,
Apps have conditioned us to...
...Be a moron? And that's the "app's" problem?
We dont have a choice.
You *DO* have a choice: Don't install apps that have behaviors you don't like.
Good grief, are you saying you are "helpless" in the face of some "app" that has click-though dialogs SO FUCKING MUCH LIKE HEROIN that you just can't help yourself?
Sad, very sad.
And how is one to know if failing to make a certain click will render the app null? And how is an ordinary schmuck to know?
If an "app" says it needs permissions to do something, and you don't want it to do that something, maybe you SHOULDN'T install it? Hmmm?
If the "app" asks your permission, and you just click on through, clicky clicky clicky... Who's to blame?
Is this much of a surprise? This sort of "app" is specifically designed for the designated politico to "leverage" the mindless sycophants that install such apps. As to leading people to "bad" parts of town, that's subjective and poor people can vote, too.
What university did you go to where they pay PhD students that much?
It's the software licence that eats most of that $100K...
In other news, NASA retracted their claim of millions of new black holes, saying "Someone spilled some coffee on the printouts, sorry..."
We are not talking abour "ancient history", we are talking about "modern times".
He's referring to the using of sex to get one's way/money/goods I believe. That's why when you get married, you stop getting it...
Maybe I'm in the minority, but my wife likes sex just fine.
Maybe *YOUR* wife just doesn't like sex with YOU?
So glue a cock to her and paste on some chest hair.
OH YEAH BABY! I'm all over THAT web site...
reproduction for females is costly and dangerous, reproduction for males is cheap
First of all sex is more than reproduction, you know this, right?
for a man any cooter will do, for a woman a specific wang is sought after
Second of all, you know that sex is for more than reproduction, right?
The VAST majority of sexually active females are *not* trying to have a baby.