By deliberately using an overreaching definition of what can be legally, ethically and morally protected.
Specific implementation of ideas are protectable by patents. Specific performances of ideas are protectable by copyright. Ideas themselves cannot be protected.
"Becoming really really rich" is a possible side-effect of the "exclusive rights" trade-off to let the general public use those inventions after the "limited times" has expired.
All the original patent rules support this idea; inventions should be well-described (so they will be easy to copy); inventions should be special enough that the general public would NEED access to the documentation in order to reproduce it; the invention should be an invention, not merely a discovery of what has always been there; the protection should be a limited time, so the general public has access to the invention while it still has a use for it; etc. Of course, all of these has been eroded to the point of being unrecognizable and useless to the intended purpose of patents.
Patents were created to benefit the public, not the inventor. The value of patents is in the sharing of inventions for public use, the cost of patents is a period of protection given to the inventor. Requiring inventions to be used by the patent owner or else allow use by the public seems perfectly in line with the concept of patents.
Wouldn't it be nice if ISPs wrote a rebate check each month to reflect the percentage of their promised throughput that was actually available?
I'm sure what they promise in the fine print is to do their best to try and deliver you atleast some fraction of the advertised bandwidth some of the time.
If they're doing that, they might as well teach the birds to fly upside down underneath the drones, unscrew the access panel and rewire the electronics to operate on a radio frequency used by the cops so they gain control over it.
Today I worked on an addon for a popular open source javascript-based code editor, added some minor features to one of my open source projects and added a bunch of much needed unittests to another of my open source projects.
I also took a few minutes to read some Slashdot posts and make a few comments.
Anything politically charged is bound to cause lots of comments on Slashdots. It's all about selling advertising space. Just be happy the subject wasn't "10 Shocking Things You Won't Believe US gov't Said About Clinton".
They're not even restricting speech; they're restricting commerce. You still have the freedom to discuss these gun sales restrictions and to try and get Facebook to change it's stance.
What facebook is doing--that is, blackballing discussion of it across the board--is morally wrong,
Lucky for us they are completely not doing that.
You're allowed to discuss the sale of guns on Facebook all you want, you're just not allowed to do the actual selling of guns.
Have you ever listend to politicians? They're constantly saying and discussing things that are against the law; it's their job. If they were only allowed to stay within the law, you wouldn't need politicians. But they're damn well not allowed to do any of it until they can get the law changed.
That is what free speech is about; the freedom to think, say and discuss whatever you want, no matter how much against the rules (be that law, morality, some doctrine or whatever), likely even with the intent to change those rules.
This all is completely predictable, happens in every area of art, craft, engineering, etc.
1. A new hamer becomes available. Everything suddenly looks like a nail 2. Turns out most things aren't nails. Everybody stops using the hamer, because it's so often the wrong tool. 3. Some things turn out to actually be nails, and people start using the hamer for what it was made for.
Digital effects are only now entering phase 2, because phase 1 just kept on going so long with ever more powerful technology.
Slashdot Mirror
It's brain washing.
By deliberately using an overreaching definition of what can be legally, ethically and morally protected.
Specific implementation of ideas are protectable by patents.
Specific performances of ideas are protectable by copyright.
Ideas themselves cannot be protected.
Kids will learn to protect original ideas.
So they'll learn not to protect unoriginal ideas like 99.9% of software patents.
may be impossible to hack
...in the same way that I may be the sexiest guy in the world.
You confuse "purpose" with "trade-off".
"Becoming really really rich" is a possible side-effect of the "exclusive rights" trade-off to let the general public use those inventions after the "limited times" has expired.
All the original patent rules support this idea; inventions should be well-described (so they will be easy to copy); inventions should be special enough that the general public would NEED access to the documentation in order to reproduce it; the invention should be an invention, not merely a discovery of what has always been there; the protection should be a limited time, so the general public has access to the invention while it still has a use for it; etc. Of course, all of these has been eroded to the point of being unrecognizable and useless to the intended purpose of patents.
Patents were created to benefit the public, not the inventor.
The value of patents is in the sharing of inventions for public use, the cost of patents is a period of protection given to the inventor.
Requiring inventions to be used by the patent owner or else allow use by the public seems perfectly in line with the concept of patents.
Is this meant to be irony?
HFT is not merely useless, it is utterly destructive.
7 most painful ways in which the editors should go fuck themselves.
Wouldn't it be nice if ISPs wrote a rebate check each month to reflect the percentage of their promised throughput that was actually available?
I'm sure what they promise in the fine print is to do their best to try and deliver you atleast some fraction of the advertised bandwidth some of the time.
You can make Wall Street happy by constantly creating new companies that kill and replace the old favourites.
Wall Street thrives on instability.
If they're doing that, they might as well teach the birds to fly upside down underneath the drones, unscrew the access panel and rewire the electronics to operate on a radio frequency used by the cops so they gain control over it.
Are we talking about chips that are actually using unlicense patented technology, or just chips that have a compatible pinout and interface?
Today I worked on an addon for a popular open source javascript-based code editor, added some minor features to one of my open source projects and added a bunch of much needed unittests to another of my open source projects.
I also took a few minutes to read some Slashdot posts and make a few comments.
Amazingly, both can be done in a single day!
What's the point of continuing with Hurd?
I mean, apart from making make laugh whenever they have "news".
I wonder what the editors though the ",-" part meant in "12.523,- EUR"?
Trump will just build a huge new political system because he's the best at political systeming.. and the Democrats will pay for it.
Anything politically charged is bound to cause lots of comments on Slashdots.
It's all about selling advertising space.
Just be happy the subject wasn't "10 Shocking Things You Won't Believe US gov't Said About Clinton".
They're not even restricting speech; they're restricting commerce.
You still have the freedom to discuss these gun sales restrictions and to try and get Facebook to change it's stance.
What facebook is doing--that is, blackballing discussion of it across the board--is morally wrong,
Lucky for us they are completely not doing that.
You're allowed to discuss the sale of guns on Facebook all you want, you're just not allowed to do the actual selling of guns.
Have you ever listend to politicians? They're constantly saying and discussing things that are against the law; it's their job. If they were only allowed to stay within the law, you wouldn't need politicians. But they're damn well not allowed to do any of it until they can get the law changed.
That is what free speech is about; the freedom to think, say and discuss whatever you want, no matter how much against the rules (be that law, morality, some doctrine or whatever), likely even with the intent to change those rules.
I thought the US finally had some ethical medical care.
Apparently they're still lagging behind the rest of the world.
Instead, he should have just make a 10 hour movie of the most hyperactive 6-second vines with exactly one second of naked boob somewhere.
This all is completely predictable, happens in every area of art, craft, engineering, etc.
1. A new hamer becomes available. Everything suddenly looks like a nail
2. Turns out most things aren't nails. Everybody stops using the hamer, because it's so often the wrong tool.
3. Some things turn out to actually be nails, and people start using the hamer for what it was made for.
Digital effects are only now entering phase 2, because phase 1 just kept on going so long with ever more powerful technology.
Or you could link the basic income to the number of years as a legal citizen in that country.
Like which countries?
Only I can think of right now is that Switzerland is still planning it and the Dutch city of Utrecht is experimenting with it.
If you pay an anonymous extortionist money to no longer extort you, is there any reason to believe he'll stop extorting you?
And what if the free hosting site was based in some country that is not beholden to US laws?