I've searched two different online printings of "Mein Kampf" for this passage and couldn't find it. Can you direct me to where in "Mein Kampf" it is located?
World without content pirates gives you access to X life enriching pieces of content.
World without content producers gives you access to X life enriching pieces of content.
World without ridiculously overbearing Imaginary Property laws who's sole purpose is to support obsolete business models based on outdated technology and restrict amazing new business models using modern technology gives you access to X*1000 life enriching pieces of content.
Fixed that for you. You seem to have missed an option there.
The checksum is a fact and as such cannot be covered under copyright.
Sports statistic are facts yet the sports organizations use copyright to stop fantasy sports sites and even some sports related games because they were using those statistics. Train and bus schedules are facts yet copyright law has been used to stop people from publishing the information. TV schedules are facts yet copyright law has been used to stop people from publishing the information. See my post below.
I wasn't aware that mathematics were handed down on stone tablets from on high. Mathematics are an abstract human creation we use to model things.
Plug in data, get this result out. No human created that. It's just a result.
Lets see, data in result out. Sounds like every computer program ever created. Give me one example of a math that just was and you could plug data in and something come out. Hell even numbers are an abstract creation of man.
And in the book margins you could write your own alternate book once you've bought it.
Not if it is in any way remotely related to, in any part, the subject matter or characters of the book which the factorization is of the checksum is. See my post below.
No I'm pretty sure they'd call that Identity theft now too.
Yeah, I should have said ten years ago this wouldn't have been called identity theft and blamed on the customer, it would have been bank robbery using fraud.
The credit agency shrugs their shoulders at bad information in your credit file and tells *you* to fix it (while they happily go on reporting the bad information).
Can some lawyerly type explain why this isn't actionable slander/libel and defamation of character?
That may or may not arguably be true (personally I think it's bullshit)
Actually I think it's all bullshit too. And my original post was more than 80% sarcasm. The sad thing is that in the idiotic world of Imaginary Property that exists today not one person even got a hint of the sarcasm. And I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if even stupider arguments are put forth in court if this should go that far. In a world where something as common fundamental as multiple linked list can get patented anything is possible when it comes to Imaginary Property.
Of course it's cheaper than doing it right. They've managed to twist bank robbery do to their lack of adequate security into identity theft that they blame on the costumer and force the costumer to suffer all the financial consequences. It's the perfect scam. If you walk into the bank with a fake id and steal money it's never been blamed on the costumer.
Today, the PHP service that got popped was running on the... PHP server. Is the OS important when someone snarfs up your web app and all data it had access to?
Yes, it's very important. To extend your analogy a little, with Microsoft all the goodies are sitting on open tables inside the big tent so a tear in the big tent generally allows complete access to all the goodies. With linux there are locked covered cubicles inside the tent that you can keep the goodies in. If the goodies are kept in the cubicles, as they should be, it's much harder to get at them even after you tear through the outside tent. With OpenBSD there are steel cubicles for the goodies.
Dude, you really need to get some help on this psychopathic hate for all things American. Your first sentence has no context in the discussion at hand.
All I can say in reply to this is your username is VERY appropriate. I'd be interested to know where you're from. I thought American schools were weak and one sided in their teaching of history but where ever your from they did one hell of a job of brainwashing you.
And by small and shrinking you mean they belong to the biggest christian denomination in the world, a religion that compares in size to all of the muslim world
No by small and shrinking I mean although they may call themselves catholic they for the most part don't even make a pretense of attempting to live by catholic doctrine as dictated from Rome. Most wouldn't even have a clue what that doctrine is. Hell, most would be mortified if they found out the details of catholic doctrine.
I know many catholics and I don't know one that the above wouldn't apply to.
The Islas Malvinas war resulted in the deaths of 255 British and 649 Argentine soldiers, 323 of wich were killed when the ARA General Belgrano was sunk, so if you use simple math, 255 vs 326 (Very deplorable) deaths are definitely not "2 o 3 times the number of causalities".
I should of used the word losses in stead of casualties. I was more referring to equipment losses. But depending on how you define causalities it was much bigger ratio. Most definitions would include the some 11,000 Argentines that surrendered at the point they were about to be slaughtered at a rate that would have been much greater than the British losses in subduing them. I think most military definitions would include captured amongst the causalities since they are pretty much combat ineffective for all intents and purposes.
That's an outrageous claim. The Argentineans were not bad pilots in fact considering their equipment and the ineptitude of some of their leaders they gave the Royal Navy a proper spanking. The Argentines would not have succeeded in inflicting such heavy losses on the Royal Navy if they were bad pilots.
Ummm...who controls the Falklands now? I don't know, if sailing 1000's of miles with nothing but naval based air for support against land based air power and landing an invasion force that successfully took complete control of the objective while inflicting 2 or 3 times the number of causalities on the enemy is taking a spanking, I have to wonder what your expectations are for actually winning a fight.
Something else to ponder: the Soviet Union never invested in the massive carriers, focusing rather heavily on fast, long-range submarines instead. Presumably they also had "people thinking about fleet deployment for a living", don't you think? Or do you suppose they were all idiots, far beneath the American Super-Men, The Masters of the Universe?
Man, I could write a book trying to explain your mis-comprehensions of the strategic situation during the cold war. It really scares me when posts like this get modded insightful. It's more along the lines of complete ignorance of anything about the subject at hand. Presumable the people in control of the Soviet Union had some grasp of history and military strategy That's sorely laking in the poster and those who mossed it insightful.
The Soviet Union had no need of naval power projection. Their primary objective (or threat from their perspective) was the rest of Europe. They didn't need aircraft carriers to attack Germany and France. You see, it's much more difficult to sink an airfield on land than one floating in the water. They had no need to control the oceans. Their supply lines were all over land. So since they weren't idiots they chose not to make the massive resource investment required for such control and instead used those resources for land forces they could actually use to achieve there primary objective (or neutralize their primary threat). This actually shows they were intelligent in there allocation of resources. Now the survival of Europe required massive transport of supplies and troops from the US so the this required power projection and complete control of the oceans. Thus the US had to make the massive investment in forces to control those oceans. On the Soviet side they could make a relatively cheap investment in submarines (you could produce I'd guess from 20 to 50 modern subs for the resource cost of a complete carrier task force and all the support troops and equipment) that could challenge that control at a cost effective rate of return. There are numerous fantastic historical example of this. 2 more recent ones include what are often referred to as World War I and World War II. I included links to some very basic starter material on these subject because from your post it seems apparent you have never heard of either.
It's far more complex than this simple posting here. Like I said I could write a book about it and there have been a huge number of books written about it. I really hope you and all the folks who modded you insightful would actually take the time to dispel their ignorance of the subject matter before they spread more fecal mater such as the parent post.
The whole thing is rather disconcerting as we seem to be developing better ways to kill just as quickly as all our other tech is advancing but I don't see leaps in our ability to live peacefully or get along keeping up with it all.
Ummm...the first pretty much dictates the second. He who fails to prepare for a fight had better be expecting to get in one.
As to getting along, I don't think technology can help much there. There have been assholes, and people who will follow assholes, since long before man was even here. I'm thinking the only chance there would be either complete brain transformation technology (and who the hell would want that) or wiping everything out and letting evolution try again (or god if your beliefs go that way cause he surely screwed the pooch on that one).
(note, this is sarcastic, just intended to underscore the hypocrisy of people who demand apologies from those who saw their mistake and fixed it, like for example the English and Americans, and not demand anything from the people, like muslims for example, who still have not seen how despicable their behavior is, and still en-masse attack homosexuals, practice slavery,... the works. The problem is, just about any religion except Christianity has always, for the whole of their history, practiced slavery, execution of homosexuals (note that christianity is the only religion where homosexuality is not punishable by death in it's law*, whereas both sharia** and hindu law*** prescribe stoning), or... and that sort of stuff gets in the way of proclaiming how eeeeeeeeeeevil christianity is)
* the punishment for homosexuality in canon law is a mild form of banishment. You don't have to leave the country, but you can't be seen in normal society. Not abiding by the punishment rules, needless to say, does carry heavier punishment (though still not execution).
Dude, do know anything about the history of the christian church? Prostitution, slavery, persecution of all manner of individuals (include torture and murder), purchasing "indulgences" in case you, say, wanted to murder someone, the christian church had it all. There's a small and shrinking minority of christians that still believe this kind of crap. You know what? That's true of the Muslim religion also. Saudi Arabia, as a fundamentalist state, is no worse than Spain and the Spanish Inquisition which wasn't abolished until the early 19th century. Given that the muslim religion is about the same age as the christian religion during the worse of it's persecutions I would say they are on schedule. The muslim religion is shifting to a much less intrusive doctrine and if you compare the timelines at about the same time and rate as the christian religion did.
Ask yourself this: What do you think was the basis for those laws for persecuting (and including castration) people like Turing? It sure as hell wasn't science or for the overall good of society. It was christianity.
If you don't talk to them, what the fuck else are they supposed to do?
I would think they would actually do some research to get their story. You know, reporting. I know that no longer exists in this day and age but one can reminisce about the days when reporters actually did their job.
Make shit up? You'd bitch about that. Ask someone who doesn't know anything? You'd bitch about that.
This is the primary methodology used by the modern reporter. Look it up on Wikipedia, call a few random people and then either make something up based on misinformation or even print the press release almost verbatim.
Research something they don't understand, then report it incorrectly? You'd bitch about that.
Damn. I thought researching something that wasn't well understood was the whole point of reporting. To get the facts about something and then print those facts as a coherent story. I guess in your world reporters only report on things they and everyone else fully understands already?
What the fuck do you nerds want?
Yeah, imagine the nerve of those nerds expecting reporters to actually have to do a little work to get their story. The story should be provided in a clear coherent easily understood format by subject of the story. You know, like a press release. That way the reporter can just change a few words and then print it.
And main stream news organizations wonder why they're failing. They quit doing reporting years ago. I gave up getting on reliable information from them even longer ago.
So you're saying that every valid implementation of XML is patentable? The hole point of the markup language is to allow this type of processing. What the hell do you think a markup language is? It's instructions on how to process a document.
This won't hold up if challenged, there is plenty of prior art.
And what the hell difference does that make. They'll sue and the defendant will either have to settle or go out of business because:
A. There'll be an injunction against their product so they can't sell it.
B. Because it'll be made clear that the court battle will cost them loads more than fighting (Microsoft has billions for lawyers).
C. Microsoft will make the license terms so outrageous they have to fight and then Microsoft will break them with the legal battle.
D. They'll lose the court case because they are violating the patent even though it never should have been issued..
So far courts have assumed the validity of patents even when a preliminary review has found them invalid. It takes years at best to get a final invalidation of a patent and that can be extended by appeals and modifications of the claims and other legal tactics. By then any company that was fighting would be out of business for one or more of the above reasons.
Slashdot Mirror
Mein Kampf
I've searched two different online printings of "Mein Kampf" for this passage and couldn't find it. Can you direct me to where in "Mein Kampf" it is located?
World without content pirates gives you access to X life enriching pieces of content.
World without content producers gives you access to X life enriching pieces of content.
World without ridiculously overbearing Imaginary Property laws who's sole purpose is to support obsolete business models based on outdated technology and restrict amazing new business models using modern technology gives you access to X*1000 life enriching pieces of content.
Fixed that for you. You seem to have missed an option there.
The checksum is a fact and as such cannot be covered under copyright.
Sports statistic are facts yet the sports organizations use copyright to stop fantasy sports sites and even some sports related games because they were using those statistics. Train and bus schedules are facts yet copyright law has been used to stop people from publishing the information. TV schedules are facts yet copyright law has been used to stop people from publishing the information. See my post below.
They're flat out straight mathematics.
I wasn't aware that mathematics were handed down on stone tablets from on high. Mathematics are an abstract human creation we use to model things.
Plug in data, get this result out. No human created that. It's just a result.
Lets see, data in result out. Sounds like every computer program ever created. Give me one example of a math that just was and you could plug data in and something come out. Hell even numbers are an abstract creation of man.
And in the book margins you could write your own alternate book once you've bought it.
Not if it is in any way remotely related to, in any part, the subject matter or characters of the book which the factorization is of the checksum is. See my post below.
No I'm pretty sure they'd call that Identity theft now too.
Yeah, I should have said ten years ago this wouldn't have been called identity theft and blamed on the customer, it would have been bank robbery using fraud.
The credit agency shrugs their shoulders at bad information in your credit file and tells *you* to fix it (while they happily go on reporting the bad information).
Can some lawyerly type explain why this isn't actionable slander/libel and defamation of character?
But a checksum, unlike a book, is not a creative work. It's a mathematical result.
It's creative mathematics. Just like programing is. See my post below .
That may or may not arguably be true (personally I think it's bullshit)
Actually I think it's all bullshit too. And my original post was more than 80% sarcasm. The sad thing is that in the idiotic world of Imaginary Property that exists today not one person even got a hint of the sarcasm. And I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if even stupider arguments are put forth in court if this should go that far. In a world where something as common fundamental as multiple linked list can get patented anything is possible when it comes to Imaginary Property.
the "checksum" (really a cryptographic key used for verifying signatures) is free for all to see
Ummm...every book I read is free for me to see also once I bought the book. Same with the calculator.
Breaking the checksum allows you to load alternate code on the calculator, so how exactly does it protect a copyrighted work?
The checksum is copyrighted.
mostly because it's cheaper than doing it right.
Of course it's cheaper than doing it right. They've managed to twist bank robbery do to their lack of adequate security into identity theft that they blame on the costumer and force the costumer to suffer all the financial consequences. It's the perfect scam. If you walk into the bank with a fake id and steal money it's never been blamed on the costumer.
Today, the PHP service that got popped was running on the... PHP server. Is the OS important when someone snarfs up your web app and all data it had access to?
Yes, it's very important. To extend your analogy a little, with Microsoft all the goodies are sitting on open tables inside the big tent so a tear in the big tent generally allows complete access to all the goodies. With linux there are locked covered cubicles inside the tent that you can keep the goodies in. If the goodies are kept in the cubicles, as they should be, it's much harder to get at them even after you tear through the outside tent. With OpenBSD there are steel cubicles for the goodies.
Dude, you really need to get some help on this psychopathic hate for all things American. Your first sentence has no context in the discussion at hand.
All I can say in reply to this is your username is VERY appropriate. I'd be interested to know where you're from. I thought American schools were weak and one sided in their teaching of history but where ever your from they did one hell of a job of brainwashing you.
And by small and shrinking you mean they belong to the biggest christian denomination in the world, a religion that compares in size to all of the muslim world
No by small and shrinking I mean although they may call themselves catholic they for the most part don't even make a pretense of attempting to live by catholic doctrine as dictated from Rome. Most wouldn't even have a clue what that doctrine is. Hell, most would be mortified if they found out the details of catholic doctrine.
I know many catholics and I don't know one that the above wouldn't apply to.
The Islas Malvinas war resulted in the deaths of 255 British and 649 Argentine soldiers, 323 of wich were killed when the ARA General Belgrano was sunk, so if you use simple math, 255 vs 326 (Very deplorable) deaths are definitely not "2 o 3 times the number of causalities".
I should of used the word losses in stead of casualties. I was more referring to equipment losses. But depending on how you define causalities it was much bigger ratio. Most definitions would include the some 11,000 Argentines that surrendered at the point they were about to be slaughtered at a rate that would have been much greater than the British losses in subduing them. I think most military definitions would include captured amongst the causalities since they are pretty much combat ineffective for all intents and purposes.
Well, the moment people believe it can't happen, it will.
Although it's saying almost the same thing I would go with: The moment you stop preparing for it, it'll happen.
That's an outrageous claim. The Argentineans were not bad pilots in fact considering their equipment and the ineptitude of some of their leaders they gave the Royal Navy a proper spanking. The Argentines would not have succeeded in inflicting such heavy losses on the Royal Navy if they were bad pilots.
Ummm...who controls the Falklands now? I don't know, if sailing 1000's of miles with nothing but naval based air for support against land based air power and landing an invasion force that successfully took complete control of the objective while inflicting 2 or 3 times the number of causalities on the enemy is taking a spanking, I have to wonder what your expectations are for actually winning a fight.
Something else to ponder: the Soviet Union never invested in the massive carriers, focusing rather heavily on fast, long-range submarines instead. Presumably they also had "people thinking about fleet deployment for a living", don't you think? Or do you suppose they were all idiots, far beneath the American Super-Men, The Masters of the Universe?
Man, I could write a book trying to explain your mis-comprehensions of the strategic situation during the cold war. It really scares me when posts like this get modded insightful. It's more along the lines of complete ignorance of anything about the subject at hand. Presumable the people in control of the Soviet Union had some grasp of history and military strategy That's sorely laking in the poster and those who mossed it insightful.
The Soviet Union had no need of naval power projection. Their primary objective (or threat from their perspective) was the rest of Europe. They didn't need aircraft carriers to attack Germany and France. You see, it's much more difficult to sink an airfield on land than one floating in the water. They had no need to control the oceans. Their supply lines were all over land. So since they weren't idiots they chose not to make the massive resource investment required for such control and instead used those resources for land forces they could actually use to achieve there primary objective (or neutralize their primary threat). This actually shows they were intelligent in there allocation of resources. Now the survival of Europe required massive transport of supplies and troops from the US so the this required power projection and complete control of the oceans. Thus the US had to make the massive investment in forces to control those oceans. On the Soviet side they could make a relatively cheap investment in submarines (you could produce I'd guess from 20 to 50 modern subs for the resource cost of a complete carrier task force and all the support troops and equipment) that could challenge that control at a cost effective rate of return. There are numerous fantastic historical example of this. 2 more recent ones include what are often referred to as World War I and World War II. I included links to some very basic starter material on these subject because from your post it seems apparent you have never heard of either.
It's far more complex than this simple posting here. Like I said I could write a book about it and there have been a huge number of books written about it. I really hope you and all the folks who modded you insightful would actually take the time to dispel their ignorance of the subject matter before they spread more fecal mater such as the parent post.
The whole thing is rather disconcerting as we seem to be developing better ways to kill just as quickly as all our other tech is advancing but I don't see leaps in our ability to live peacefully or get along keeping up with it all.
Ummm...the first pretty much dictates the second. He who fails to prepare for a fight had better be expecting to get in one.
As to getting along, I don't think technology can help much there. There have been assholes, and people who will follow assholes, since long before man was even here. I'm thinking the only chance there would be either complete brain transformation technology (and who the hell would want that) or wiping everything out and letting evolution try again (or god if your beliefs go that way cause he surely screwed the pooch on that one).
(note, this is sarcastic, just intended to underscore the hypocrisy of people who demand apologies from those who saw their mistake and fixed it, like for example the English and Americans, and not demand anything from the people, like muslims for example, who still have not seen how despicable their behavior is, and still en-masse attack homosexuals, practice slavery, ... the works. The problem is, just about any religion except Christianity has always, for the whole of their history, practiced slavery, execution of homosexuals (note that christianity is the only religion where homosexuality is not punishable by death in it's law*, whereas both sharia** and hindu law*** prescribe stoning), or ... and that sort of stuff gets in the way of proclaiming how eeeeeeeeeeevil christianity is)
* the punishment for homosexuality in canon law is a mild form of banishment. You don't have to leave the country, but you can't be seen in normal society. Not abiding by the punishment rules, needless to say, does carry heavier punishment (though still not execution).
Dude, do know anything about the history of the christian church? Prostitution, slavery, persecution of all manner of individuals (include torture and murder), purchasing "indulgences" in case you, say, wanted to murder someone, the christian church had it all. There's a small and shrinking minority of christians that still believe this kind of crap. You know what? That's true of the Muslim religion also. Saudi Arabia, as a fundamentalist state, is no worse than Spain and the Spanish Inquisition which wasn't abolished until the early 19th century. Given that the muslim religion is about the same age as the christian religion during the worse of it's persecutions I would say they are on schedule. The muslim religion is shifting to a much less intrusive doctrine and if you compare the timelines at about the same time and rate as the christian religion did.
Ask yourself this: What do you think was the basis for those laws for persecuting (and including castration) people like Turing? It sure as hell wasn't science or for the overall good of society. It was christianity.
If you don't talk to them, what the fuck else are they supposed to do?
I would think they would actually do some research to get their story. You know, reporting. I know that no longer exists in this day and age but one can reminisce about the days when reporters actually did their job.
Make shit up? You'd bitch about that. Ask someone who doesn't know anything? You'd bitch about that.
This is the primary methodology used by the modern reporter. Look it up on Wikipedia, call a few random people and then either make something up based on misinformation or even print the press release almost verbatim.
Research something they don't understand, then report it incorrectly? You'd bitch about that.
Damn. I thought researching something that wasn't well understood was the whole point of reporting. To get the facts about something and then print those facts as a coherent story. I guess in your world reporters only report on things they and everyone else fully understands already?
What the fuck do you nerds want?
Yeah, imagine the nerve of those nerds expecting reporters to actually have to do a little work to get their story. The story should be provided in a clear coherent easily understood format by subject of the story. You know, like a press release. That way the reporter can just change a few words and then print it.
And main stream news organizations wonder why they're failing. They quit doing reporting years ago. I gave up getting on reliable information from them even longer ago.
So you're saying that every valid implementation of XML is patentable? The hole point of the markup language is to allow this type of processing. What the hell do you think a markup language is? It's instructions on how to process a document.
Framemaker
We were using there markup language to create documents back the the early 90's. Not sure when they started.
This won't hold up if challenged, there is plenty of prior art.
And what the hell difference does that make. They'll sue and the defendant will either have to settle or go out of business because:
A. There'll be an injunction against their product so they can't sell it.
B. Because it'll be made clear that the court battle will cost them loads more than fighting (Microsoft has billions for lawyers).
C. Microsoft will make the license terms so outrageous they have to fight and then Microsoft will break them with the legal battle.
D. They'll lose the court case because they are violating the patent even though it never should have been issued..
So far courts have assumed the validity of patents even when a preliminary review has found them invalid. It takes years at best to get a final invalidation of a patent and that can be extended by appeals and modifications of the claims and other legal tactics. By then any company that was fighting would be out of business for one or more of the above reasons.