trafficpower.com alledge that they have been trying for over a year to get their 'trade secrets' removed from these websites, but then fail to identify just what those 'trade secrets' are so that they can be removed...
cc licensed works retain their copyright. same with gpl and bsd.
just because you issue something under a license does not mean that copyright vanishes. as an example, under the gpl you are using someone's copyrighted work. without the gpl, for example, you have absolutely no permissions [outside of fair use, etc] to use that work. same with cc licenses. without the cc, you can't use the work at all [see previous caveat].
what the licenses do is give you more rights then you normally would have and expedite the process you would have to go through in order to obtain such permissions, provided you obey the restrictions imposed by the license. if you violate the those conditions, you no longer have thsoe permissions and are commiting copyright infringement.
you also seem to confuse open with public domain. just because you can see something, does not mean it is the public domain. it is not, unless the copyright has expired or the rights holderhas specifically placed it there.
lastly, plenty of people/companies make money off of gpl/bsd/whatever software. why shouldn't an artist be able to do the same with the cc [especially if they use a non-commercial cc license]?
"Apple will never resort to airing its dirty laundry in public, at least not while Jobs is in charge."
must be good kool aid. try telling that to ati, wiley [publisher], ibm, motorolla, and everyone else who has ever gotten themselves into jobs' bad books...
i seem to remember that there were concerns when itunes first rolled out taht the **aas would allow apple to sell low at first only to jack up the prices once they had sufficient market penetration. seems those concerns where quite valid [as per usual]...
this reminds me of the way the kept cd prices in the stratosphere for 20 years [and were sunsequently convicted of doing so illegaly]. their arguments are always misdirections for their own greed. with an average of 12 songs per 'cd', and two 'hits', you are at or over the cost of purchasing the physical cd in a store, but you don't get any of the things that supposedly kept those prices high [media, printing, design, distribution costs, etc].
i won't get into the now ubiquitous bonus cd/dvds you also won't get with your downloaded album.
""god is, by defenition, outside of the scope of science."
But science is not outside the scope of God.:)"
irrelevant to my statement and is another field of discussion, as i pointed out.
""the question of the existance of god is theology [think sub-division of philosophy]."
The question of God's existence is philosophy. The question of God's presence is theology.
Philosophy and theology are subdivisions of basic human consciousness, which may be a node under God's existence (depending on your personal beliefs)."
which is not a scientific argument [see above].
""the only people that i see bringing god into scientific debates are fanatics trying to prove god's existance through non-scientific methods and logical fallacies while claiming it as science [eg intelligent design]."
Your statement itself is a series of logical fallacies. "the only people that i see" (Hasty Generalization), "bringing god into scientific debates" (Begging the Question) "are fanatics trying to prove god's existance" [sp] (Appeal to Ridicule), "through non-scientific methods and logical fallacies" (Biased Sample), "while claiming it as science" (Circumstantial Ad Hominem).
"this does not make it science.""
while you may not like the way i stated it, the fact remains that god is outside the field of science. you can shoot the messenger all you want, but faith and science are different beasts.
""evolutionists have no opinion on god from a scientific point of view."
"Evolutionists" maybe (if you are defining the term recursively to suit your own definition). But someone who believes in God is certainly entitled to believe that God constructed the universe through all manners of evolutionary process. A good scientist will acknowledge what he can know and can't know in terms of what's scientifically observable. However, many great scientists over the years have in fact openly expressed faith in God, and belief in science (as far as its methods of observation and proof are concerned in the observable world)."
irrelevant to my statement [see above].
whether or not an evolutionary scientist may or may not hold a personal religious view has nothing to do with their scientific opinion ["...from a scientific point of view"]. the minute they introduce god into the discussion, they are no longer espousing a scientific argument.
and i will also take a moment to point out that i did not say people weren't entitled to hold any religious belief(s) they might choose. evolution and faith are not mutually exclusive in the individual, but they are different fields.
in summary, you chose to play a lot of word games while actually saying very little that was actually pertinent to my original post.
god is, by defenition, outside of the scope of science. the question of the existance of god is theology [think sub-division of philosophy].
the only people that i see bringing god into scientific debates are fanatics trying to prove god's existance through non-scientific methods and logical fallacies while claiming it as science [eg intelligent design].
this does not make it science.
evolutionists have no opinion on god from a scientific point of view.
by harold bloom is an interesting read. it looks at the origins of several of the amercan-born religions [eg southern baptist convention, mormon, jw, christian scientist, etc].
that said, not everything in the book should be taken at face value [like most things, i suppose], but it does serve as a good primer for further reading.
the first amendment of the constitution has to do with separation of church and state.
thomas jefferson wrote of the need for a wall between church and state so as not to establish a particular religion and to allow the free practice of religion.
in sec filings you have to list all the potential harms to your business, even if you believe that there is virtually zero chance of it actually happening.
he said integrated memory controller, as in hardware. i don't believe intel has a license to this tech. nor do i believe amd would license it to intel cheaply.
he likely has a lease on the previous apartment. if he couldn't/can't find a suitable person to sublet the suite, he is contractually on the hook for the cash. how is that hard to understand?
is it a 'dumbass' move to actually fulfill your commitments? apparently you think it is...
Slashdot Mirror
that the big brother started a public conversation re: a supposedly off-the-record chat?
also, it is the big brother that is constantly doing the comparisons and seeking the recognition against the little brother.
how you got modded '5, insightful' i'll never know.
sum.zero
in response to a post about your failure to include a link to your own product, you respond by telling the person to google for it.
;P
uhm, why not include a working link in your response? this is the 'intarweb' after all...
btw, you are correct; you do suck at marketing
sum.zero
you will notice that the white people do also have full backpacks.
sum.zero
just who is the 'owner' of your computer? are you a 'user' in this document? it's not very clear to me...
sum.zero
trafficpower.com alledge that they have been trying for over a year to get their 'trade secrets' removed from these websites, but then fail to identify just what those 'trade secrets' are so that they can be removed...
nice.
sum.zero
i hope that sig is a joke.
if not, you show the same level of understanding there as you do of trademark law: little-to-none.
sum.zero
and this is a clear example of why.
it certainly isn't innovative or non-obvious to someone skilled in the art.
sum.zero
but i didn't see anyone buying 'good' music. what was that point about comnpusa again? oops, never mind.
sum.zero
cc licensed works retain their copyright. same with gpl and bsd.
just because you issue something under a license does not mean that copyright vanishes. as an example, under the gpl you are using someone's copyrighted work. without the gpl, for example, you have absolutely no permissions [outside of fair use, etc] to use that work. same with cc licenses. without the cc, you can't use the work at all [see previous caveat].
what the licenses do is give you more rights then you normally would have and expedite the process you would have to go through in order to obtain such permissions, provided you obey the restrictions imposed by the license. if you violate the those conditions, you no longer have thsoe permissions and are commiting copyright infringement.
you also seem to confuse open with public domain. just because you can see something, does not mean it is the public domain. it is not, unless the copyright has expired or the rights holderhas specifically placed it there.
lastly, plenty of people/companies make money off of gpl/bsd/whatever software. why shouldn't an artist be able to do the same with the cc [especially if they use a non-commercial cc license]?
sum.zero
his nick is the pitbull isn't it? so those would be dog canines, not vampire teeth.
sum.zero
his professed confusion is entirely intentional. he even trolls for more hits/letters in the final paragraph.
it's one thing to open up a real discussion on a subject. it is another to twist the existing facts to push your own sensational opinion...
sum.zero
this text is not here.
sum.zero
"Apple will never resort to airing its dirty laundry in public, at least not while Jobs is in charge."
must be good kool aid. try telling that to ati, wiley [publisher], ibm, motorolla, and everyone else who has ever gotten themselves into jobs' bad books...
sum.zero
i seem to remember that there were concerns when itunes first rolled out taht the **aas would allow apple to sell low at first only to jack up the prices once they had sufficient market penetration. seems those concerns where quite valid [as per usual]...
this reminds me of the way the kept cd prices in the stratosphere for 20 years [and were sunsequently convicted of doing so illegaly]. their arguments are always misdirections for their own greed. with an average of 12 songs per 'cd', and two 'hits', you are at or over the cost of purchasing the physical cd in a store, but you don't get any of the things that supposedly kept those prices high [media, printing, design, distribution costs, etc].
i won't get into the now ubiquitous bonus cd/dvds you also won't get with your downloaded album.
sum.zero
""god is, by defenition, outside of the scope of science."
:)"
But science is not outside the scope of God.
irrelevant to my statement and is another field of discussion, as i pointed out.
""the question of the existance of god is theology [think sub-division of philosophy]."
The question of God's existence is philosophy.
The question of God's presence is theology.
Philosophy and theology are subdivisions of basic human consciousness, which may be a node under God's existence (depending on your personal beliefs)."
which is not a scientific argument [see above].
""the only people that i see bringing god into scientific debates are fanatics trying to prove god's existance through non-scientific methods and logical fallacies while claiming it as science [eg intelligent design]."
Your statement itself is a series of logical fallacies. "the only people that i see" (Hasty Generalization), "bringing god into scientific debates" (Begging the Question) "are fanatics trying to prove god's existance" [sp] (Appeal to Ridicule), "through non-scientific methods and logical fallacies" (Biased Sample), "while claiming it as science" (Circumstantial Ad Hominem).
"this does not make it science.""
while you may not like the way i stated it, the fact remains that god is outside the field of science. you can shoot the messenger all you want, but faith and science are different beasts.
""evolutionists have no opinion on god from a scientific point of view."
"Evolutionists" maybe (if you are defining the term recursively to suit your own definition). But someone who believes in God is certainly entitled to believe that God constructed the universe through all manners of evolutionary process. A good scientist will acknowledge what he can know and can't know in terms of what's scientifically observable. However, many great scientists over the years have in fact openly expressed faith in God, and belief in science (as far as its methods of observation and proof are concerned in the observable world)."
irrelevant to my statement [see above].
whether or not an evolutionary scientist may or may not hold a personal religious view has nothing to do with their scientific opinion ["...from a scientific point of view"]. the minute they introduce god into the discussion, they are no longer espousing a scientific argument.
and i will also take a moment to point out that i did not say people weren't entitled to hold any religious belief(s) they might choose. evolution and faith are not mutually exclusive in the individual, but they are different fields.
in summary, you chose to play a lot of word games while actually saying very little that was actually pertinent to my original post.
good night.
sum.zero
god is, by defenition, outside of the scope of science. the question of the existance of god is theology [think sub-division of philosophy].
the only people that i see bringing god into scientific debates are fanatics trying to prove god's existance through non-scientific methods and logical fallacies while claiming it as science [eg intelligent design].
this does not make it science.
evolutionists have no opinion on god from a scientific point of view.
sum.zero
by harold bloom is an interesting read. it looks at the origins of several of the amercan-born religions [eg southern baptist convention, mormon, jw, christian scientist, etc].
that said, not everything in the book should be taken at face value [like most things, i suppose], but it does serve as a good primer for further reading.
sum.zero
the first amendment of the constitution has to do with separation of church and state.
thomas jefferson wrote of the need for a wall between church and state so as not to establish a particular religion and to allow the free practice of religion.
what was your point again?
sum.zero
id is a theological exercise, not a scientific one. thus it has no bearing in a science class.
sum.zero
ms: our studies lack integrity. your name would add some. if you don't cooperate, we'll use it as proof of your lack of faith.
sum.zero
did it run over your dog?
sum.zero
i didn't say that the concept was new.
i disagree about the difficulties in designing one or i feel they would be more prevalent, but i am not an expert.
what i was specifically speaking to, however, where all the people who said that the instruction set cross-license would cover this.
sum.zero
in sec filings you have to list all the potential harms to your business, even if you believe that there is virtually zero chance of it actually happening.
don't be too alarmed about this.
sum.zero
he said integrated memory controller, as in hardware. i don't believe intel has a license to this tech. nor do i believe amd would license it to intel cheaply.
sum.zero
he likely has a lease on the previous apartment. if he couldn't/can't find a suitable person to sublet the suite, he is contractually on the hook for the cash. how is that hard to understand?
is it a 'dumbass' move to actually fulfill your commitments? apparently you think it is...
sum.zero