Jane Fonda and Michael Moore are much more like traitors than George Bush.
Eh? Bush & his buddies have helped anti-American recruitment efforts far beyond terrorists' wildest dreams, have done an incredible job at setting up the U.S. government for a future financial collapse, and undermining public safety & education. Bush couldn't be doing a better job for America's enemies if U.S. enemies were paying him to do it.
If you judged "traitorship" solely by results instead of intent, Bush & Co. should be sitting in the execution chair right now.
The founding of copyright laws had nothing to do with the founders of this country.
I was thinking of the "intellectual property" clause of the Constitution. The founders definitely put that in there, although many of them had strong reservations about allowing peoples' personal rights to be violated to such an extent.
In fact, England pretty much forced us to incorporate copyright laws because books were being duplicated in America and sold without giving any royalties to the author/publisher.
England didn't force us to do squat. Copyright laws were incorporated because 1) the founders thought that they _might_ encourage innovation (and I suspect they would have changed their mind if they saw the current corrupted mess related to IP), and 2) because some people thought they could make money easier if they had some laws on their side to create artificial scarcity.
One of the reasons that America got so powerful so fast is because it pretty much stole most of Europe's industrial-age "intellectual property". It's a typical pattern that the successful (both countries & individuals) will try and place artificial barriers to those entities who they consider potential competitors. Those developing countries that ignore attempts to restrain their innovation (or pay only lip service to IP, like China), will eventually catch up to & replace those societies who have allowed IP laws to make their idea-marketplace stagnant.
You would have to drop an awful huge number of those asteroids onto Mars to appreciably change its mass. You might get more luck by somehow slowing the orbits of Mar's moons so that they merge with the main body of Mars, but I suspect that it would take quite a while for the resultant mess to cool down to the point to be useful for terraforming.
If your instructions take longer to execute than the number of cycles available to them, it just can't do the work and you get junk in your registers.
Your statement is true on its face, but do you really understand why this guy could get his chip to overclock so high? He's not cooling it in LN2 just to keep it from melting (although that is certainly very important).
At low temperatures, typical silicon transistors operate much faster, and wires have less impedance, thus allowing a properly-designed chip to operate correctly at a much higher frequency than it would normally be able to achieve.
It's certainly not useful for a user who wouldn't have a constant source of LN2 available, but the fact that it can be done makes some interesting engineering scenarios possible.
Keep in mind that the actual number of recipients is lower than the number of mails he sent out, because not every address spammers use actually exist. Then the number of mails that actually reached people without being caught by spam filters is still lower, a LOT lower most likely.
Each of these scenarios still cost somebody (a user or ISP or some company's IT department) some money & time per message to handle, however.
Even with a VERY conservative estimate of $0.001 per message (a bit lower than what 1 sec of someone's time is worth at an hourly wage of $4.95), sending out a billion messages is about the same as costing $1mil to the community. Some of these guys have sent out a lot more messages than that.
How long would a vandal who had caused $1mil of damage be put away?
due to the physics involved, AC is generally a better long-distance electrical power transmission method.
Eh? I thought that the long-haul, high-voltage lines tended to be DC (to reduce power loss by induction with the environment among other reasons), and that the reason that the local power distribution is AC was to allow easy step-up/down by transformers.
You propose they would ignore the copyrights (which are valid) on one corporations products simply because it is a monopoly?
No, I'm proposing that they ignore the copyrights for one company because that company would be refusing to sell its IP in the EU market at all, and the refusal to sell that IP would be a major detriment to that market's economy.
Once it's passed, a law is a law.
We're talking what's good for the society, not what is "legal". By your logic, all of the laws that a dictator passes are automatically good & the population should never resist them. Good grief, if somebody got a law passed saying that your family was their property, would you go around saying: "It's the law. I have to obey!"?
The populist sentiment only matters insofar as it is enforced by police, courts, Senate/Parliament, and military.
In a representative form of government, populist sentiment is _everything_. If the government officials aren't listening to populist sentiment, then they'd better have a damn good societal-good based argument, or they're just being corrupt & should be replaced as soon as possible (and anything corrupt that they've done should be invalidated).
I'd say not going to war for the past few hundred years is a pretty good thing, espceially considering the previous history.
_And_ they made some pretty good money by cutting deals with whoever happened to be winning in their neck of the continent at the time. (Yes, I'm being a bit critical:-)
Actually, I think that Microsoft's EULA (and other EULAs like it) are actually on shakier ground than the GPL.
A typical EULA usually tries to place restrictions over and above what copyright law normally dictates - stuff that usually requires that a contract be signed. The GPL (and other licenses like it) actually waive some of the restrictions that copyright places on a user's rights, as long as the conditions in the GPL are met.
Here we are years later with a possible end in sight, and perhaps some due karma being paid.
Due karma would not be paid unless everyone who invested in this litigation strategy ends up with less assets than they started with. Not real likely to happen, but a fond daydream nonetheless...
They weren't trying to invalidate the GPL completely - they were trying to argue that anything under the GPL was essentially public domain, and that the GPL didn't have the power to require redistribution of source code. If they had gotten their way, then they would've been clear.
stop subsidizing inefficient technologies, and impose taxes that correspond to the true cost of an activity. Then, let the market work it out.
Pleeeeez, that would cost rich people too much money. Do you have any idea how hard it is to make wads of money when people keep insisting that you stop using resources without paying their true cost?!
_Some_ of their systems are compromised regularly, but so far we haven't heard about highly-classified ones being compromised.
On the other hand, remember that these routers are _NOT_ the government's classified systems - they belong to OTHER people. So you've got to wonder if the government will really care if those routers get compromised, as long as they can still listen in.
I played Lemonade Stand, Chopper Rescue (might not be the right name), and Space Invaders.
I have memories of spending hours at a time trying to design my own Sprites, translating the grids into numbers, then trying to write Apple Basic programs which POKEd them into some memory & had them whizzing around the screen.
Yes, I was the school computer geek - although big & strong enough that no one tried to stuff me in any lockers:-)
Show me the contributions to culture, society, civilization, science
And how would describing that "prove" any kind of religion, including Christianity?
I'm not asking for societal effects, I'm asking for PROOF - uncontestable, physical evidence that PROVES the basis of a religion. And I will reiterate - Christian mythology has the same amount of hard, physical proof for it that any other religion (including the Norse mythology) does: ZERO.
If a religion had hard, physical proof of its basis, then it wouldn't require Faith to keep itself alive, would it?
See my other response later in the thread about trade wars - I don't think one would happen, because this ban would be specifically against Microsoft's IP - everyone else's IP would still be recognized & honored.
As I mentioned above, since they are not selling real products or service, IP owners can make money _only_ when the government enforces the IP laws on their behalf. If they don't want retaliation, then they'd better not piss off the government.
but just some demands before they can sell it in Europe like no more disabling tactics, a browser which is not so prone to exploits and which follows standards, demands like that?
The message I was responding to was suggesting a scenario where Microsoft was pulling sales completely out of the EU - if they had decided to drop such a big market in the first place, why would Microsoft have any reason to meet any of those demands?
Now I could see making those demands to allow Microsoft back INTO the market - but if they _did_ declare all of Microsoft's IP as public domain, then there would really no point with that either.
If you'll note, I was responding to a question about what the EU could do if Microsoft pulled completely out of the EU - and my solution is a perfectly valid governmental response to what would be a stupid childish gesture on Microsoft's part. I wasn't talking about a complete ban on all forms of intellectual property.
Also, since the ban would only be on _Microsoft's_ IP, I highly doubt any kind of trade war would start. All other patents & copyrights would still be honored. In such a scenario (MS declaring that no one in the EU was allowed to use its products), I'm pretty sure that most people would say that Microsoft was asking for it by acting so arrogantly.
You're talking about the same society that has now twice nearly passed laws establishing software patents. They are far from dismissing intellectual property.
Only a small group of people within the EU legislative body keep trying to get patents passed, even against the wishes of the more populist legislative bodies & the general populace. That hardly shows a great deal of preference toward software patents, and if Microsoft showed them how destructive an IP company could be by trying to stop them from using any of its products, I would guess that popular support for ANY kind of IP would go downhill really fast.
I for sure would welcome a selling ban to microsoft in the EU, but where will my games run on, and my tax return program O-:
Oh that's easy - the EU could simply declare that, in the EU, all Microsoft products & patches past, present & future are automatically public domain - and that it is perfectly legal for EU hackers or companies to bypass any Microsoft Product Activation schemes. As long as Microsoft made their software available _anywhere_ in the world, EU citizens would have no problems getting working copies of it - and a lot cheaper than any other countries!
That's one of the big problems about selling a legal-fiction-defined IP "product" like software - if the society enforcing those IP laws decides not to go along, then you're pretty much SOL.
I've read stories from both of them, although it was so long ago that I'd be hard pressed to remember any details. I don't remember their stories standing out as being that much more interesting concept-wise from the thousands of other sci-fi stories I've read over the years.
That's kind of besides the point though - I'd be happy to challenge you to point me to ANY author whose work is 100% original, created from scratch. Don't bother mentioning their names if they haven't created their own language, complete with symbols, method of writing, and a grammar completely unrelated to anything already existing, and whose work mentions only concepts that no one else has ever thought of. I'll accept it if they have paid or at least given credit to the original authors for _every_ _single_ unoriginal aspect of their work.
Obviously, you're not going to find anyone like that.
Every single creative person on the planet uses ideas that someone else already came up with, either deliberately, unconsciously or because they learned those ideas as part of their "craft". Their creative contribution might be because of the clever way they combine those ideas, or because they incrementally added a creative idea to the overall set of ideas that they are using, but they cannot deny that they HAD to use other peoples' contributions in order to create their own work - and it is often impractical for them to compensate or give credit to the people who originally contributed those ideas.
Anyone who criticizes someone else for reusing an idea without compensation or credit, and claims that they would never do the same thing, is either in denial or a hypocrite.
Slashdot Mirror
You should double-check to make sure you _still_ have them.
Amazing - I don't think I've ever seen a message where every single statement contradicts reality so completely.
Eh? Bush & his buddies have helped anti-American recruitment efforts far beyond terrorists' wildest dreams, have done an incredible job at setting up the U.S. government for a future financial collapse, and undermining public safety & education. Bush couldn't be doing a better job for America's enemies if U.S. enemies were paying him to do it.
If you judged "traitorship" solely by results instead of intent, Bush & Co. should be sitting in the execution chair right now.
I was thinking of the "intellectual property" clause of the Constitution. The founders definitely put that in there, although many of them had strong reservations about allowing peoples' personal rights to be violated to such an extent.
England didn't force us to do squat. Copyright laws were incorporated because 1) the founders thought that they _might_ encourage innovation (and I suspect they would have changed their mind if they saw the current corrupted mess related to IP), and 2) because some people thought they could make money easier if they had some laws on their side to create artificial scarcity.
One of the reasons that America got so powerful so fast is because it pretty much stole most of Europe's industrial-age "intellectual property". It's a typical pattern that the successful (both countries & individuals) will try and place artificial barriers to those entities who they consider potential competitors. Those developing countries that ignore attempts to restrain their innovation (or pay only lip service to IP, like China), will eventually catch up to & replace those societies who have allowed IP laws to make their idea-marketplace stagnant.
You would have to drop an awful huge number of those asteroids onto Mars to appreciably change its mass. You might get more luck by somehow slowing the orbits of Mar's moons so that they merge with the main body of Mars, but I suspect that it would take quite a while for the resultant mess to cool down to the point to be useful for terraforming.
Your statement is true on its face, but do you really understand why this guy could get his chip to overclock so high? He's not cooling it in LN2 just to keep it from melting (although that is certainly very important).
At low temperatures, typical silicon transistors operate much faster, and wires have less impedance, thus allowing a properly-designed chip to operate correctly at a much higher frequency than it would normally be able to achieve.
It's certainly not useful for a user who wouldn't have a constant source of LN2 available, but the fact that it can be done makes some interesting engineering scenarios possible.
Each of these scenarios still cost somebody (a user or ISP or some company's IT department) some money & time per message to handle, however.
Even with a VERY conservative estimate of $0.001 per message (a bit lower than what 1 sec of someone's time is worth at an hourly wage of $4.95), sending out a billion messages is about the same as costing $1mil to the community. Some of these guys have sent out a lot more messages than that.
How long would a vandal who had caused $1mil of damage be put away?
Eh? I thought that the long-haul, high-voltage lines tended to be DC (to reduce power loss by induction with the environment among other reasons), and that the reason that the local power distribution is AC was to allow easy step-up/down by transformers.
Actually, it does. Although it certainly doesn't make you look elite anything.
No, I'm proposing that they ignore the copyrights for one company because that company would be refusing to sell its IP in the EU market at all, and the refusal to sell that IP would be a major detriment to that market's economy.
We're talking what's good for the society, not what is "legal". By your logic, all of the laws that a dictator passes are automatically good & the population should never resist them. Good grief, if somebody got a law passed saying that your family was their property, would you go around saying: "It's the law. I have to obey!"?
In a representative form of government, populist sentiment is _everything_. If the government officials aren't listening to populist sentiment, then they'd better have a damn good societal-good based argument, or they're just being corrupt & should be replaced as soon as possible (and anything corrupt that they've done should be invalidated).
_And_ they made some pretty good money by cutting deals with whoever happened to be winning in their neck of the continent at the time. (Yes, I'm being a bit critical :-)
Actually, I think that Microsoft's EULA (and other EULAs like it) are actually on shakier ground than the GPL.
A typical EULA usually tries to place restrictions over and above what copyright law normally dictates - stuff that usually requires that a contract be signed. The GPL (and other licenses like it) actually waive some of the restrictions that copyright places on a user's rights, as long as the conditions in the GPL are met.
Due karma would not be paid unless everyone who invested in this litigation strategy ends up with less assets than they started with. Not real likely to happen, but a fond daydream nonetheless...
They weren't trying to invalidate the GPL completely - they were trying to argue that anything under the GPL was essentially public domain, and that the GPL didn't have the power to require redistribution of source code. If they had gotten their way, then they would've been clear.
Not particularly, although that's an amusing game. Just thinking about a natural accessory for a machine designed for a baseball role.
Considering a robo-pitcher would probably be using some sort of cannon, I figure it's just as well that we aren't going to allow any in the game...
Pleeeeez, that would cost rich people too much money. Do you have any idea how hard it is to make wads of money when people keep insisting that you stop using resources without paying their true cost?!
_Some_ of their systems are compromised regularly, but so far we haven't heard about highly-classified ones being compromised.
On the other hand, remember that these routers are _NOT_ the government's classified systems - they belong to OTHER people. So you've got to wonder if the government will really care if those routers get compromised, as long as they can still listen in.
I played Lemonade Stand, Chopper Rescue (might not be the right name), and Space Invaders.
:-)
I have memories of spending hours at a time trying to design my own Sprites, translating the grids into numbers, then trying to write Apple Basic programs which POKEd them into some memory & had them whizzing around the screen.
Yes, I was the school computer geek - although big & strong enough that no one tried to stuff me in any lockers
And how would describing that "prove" any kind of religion, including Christianity?
I'm not asking for societal effects, I'm asking for PROOF - uncontestable, physical evidence that PROVES the basis of a religion. And I will reiterate - Christian mythology has the same amount of hard, physical proof for it that any other religion (including the Norse mythology) does: ZERO.
If a religion had hard, physical proof of its basis, then it wouldn't require Faith to keep itself alive, would it?
See my other response later in the thread about trade wars - I don't think one would happen, because this ban would be specifically against Microsoft's IP - everyone else's IP would still be recognized & honored.
As I mentioned above, since they are not selling real products or service, IP owners can make money _only_ when the government enforces the IP laws on their behalf. If they don't want retaliation, then they'd better not piss off the government.
The message I was responding to was suggesting a scenario where Microsoft was pulling sales completely out of the EU - if they had decided to drop such a big market in the first place, why would Microsoft have any reason to meet any of those demands?
Now I could see making those demands to allow Microsoft back INTO the market - but if they _did_ declare all of Microsoft's IP as public domain, then there would really no point with that either.
If you'll note, I was responding to a question about what the EU could do if Microsoft pulled completely out of the EU - and my solution is a perfectly valid governmental response to what would be a stupid childish gesture on Microsoft's part. I wasn't talking about a complete ban on all forms of intellectual property.
Also, since the ban would only be on _Microsoft's_ IP, I highly doubt any kind of trade war would start. All other patents & copyrights would still be honored. In such a scenario (MS declaring that no one in the EU was allowed to use its products), I'm pretty sure that most people would say that Microsoft was asking for it by acting so arrogantly.
Only a small group of people within the EU legislative body keep trying to get patents passed, even against the wishes of the more populist legislative bodies & the general populace. That hardly shows a great deal of preference toward software patents, and if Microsoft showed them how destructive an IP company could be by trying to stop them from using any of its products, I would guess that popular support for ANY kind of IP would go downhill really fast.
Oh that's easy - the EU could simply declare that, in the EU, all Microsoft products & patches past, present & future are automatically public domain - and that it is perfectly legal for EU hackers or companies to bypass any Microsoft Product Activation schemes. As long as Microsoft made their software available _anywhere_ in the world, EU citizens would have no problems getting working copies of it - and a lot cheaper than any other countries!
That's one of the big problems about selling a legal-fiction-defined IP "product" like software - if the society enforcing those IP laws decides not to go along, then you're pretty much SOL.
I've read stories from both of them, although it was so long ago that I'd be hard pressed to remember any details. I don't remember their stories standing out as being that much more interesting concept-wise from the thousands of other sci-fi stories I've read over the years.
That's kind of besides the point though - I'd be happy to challenge you to point me to ANY author whose work is 100% original, created from scratch. Don't bother mentioning their names if they haven't created their own language, complete with symbols, method of writing, and a grammar completely unrelated to anything already existing, and whose work mentions only concepts that no one else has ever thought of. I'll accept it if they have paid or at least given credit to the original authors for _every_ _single_ unoriginal aspect of their work.
Obviously, you're not going to find anyone like that.
Every single creative person on the planet uses ideas that someone else already came up with, either deliberately, unconsciously or because they learned those ideas as part of their "craft". Their creative contribution might be because of the clever way they combine those ideas, or because they incrementally added a creative idea to the overall set of ideas that they are using, but they cannot deny that they HAD to use other peoples' contributions in order to create their own work - and it is often impractical for them to compensate or give credit to the people who originally contributed those ideas.
Anyone who criticizes someone else for reusing an idea without compensation or credit, and claims that they would never do the same thing, is either in denial or a hypocrite.