If it were any other country, they'd go in there full-force, not half commit to it and then start another completely unrelated conflict somewhere else.
Wow, all the trolls have come out of the woodwork.
What makes you think people are going to stop creating works of art just because somebody else is going to copy them? What makes you think that people are going to stop singing, painting, writing, telling stories, just because somebody else can sing the same song, paint the same picture, write the same words and tell the same stories?
Without copyright, people might not make money out of it. But nobody says people are supposed to make money for everything they do. Making money is not a right.
Copyright law allows the rights-holder to determine the conditions upon which they are willing to give you rights to use the content.
Wow. You failed twice in a row, and some idiot mod still modded you up.
Copyright. Read it carefully. Say it out loud. It is literally the right to copy. Copyright only deals with redistribution, whether in original or modified form. It does not deal with usage. Get it into your thick skull already; copyright cannot stop you from using what you bought the way you want it. It only stops you from copying what you bought and giving it to others. (Fair use covers the part where you copy something for backup purposes.)
Seesh. Get it right, or go troll somewhere else.
Re:Not very "Family Friendly" either
on
Watchmen Watched
·
· Score: 1
They're not bunnies, but Care Bears technically fart rainbows...
Re:I think you jumped the gun a little.
on
Watchmen Watched
·
· Score: 1
Watching movies is CmdrTaco's work you insensitive clod!
I thought you were going to call it the Bush module. Just imagine all of the punch lines you could come up with that, considering it will contain all of the life support systems, including the bathroom, and the machinery that turns urine back into water, and water into oxygen.
Your presentation of the facts may be copyrighted. But the facts themselves cannot, and should not be copyrighted. A copyright on facts means intellectual property protection on reality. And that's completely out of whack. Otherwise, somebody would copyright the fact that the sky is blue, and sue the hell out of anyone else using that statement.
Maybe if you can't make money collecting facts, you should try to do other things instead? Not every endeavour leads to success and you're certainly not entitled to succeed when your business model doesn't make sense.
That's the GUI interface to the Windows command line (whereas CMD is the command line interface itself). That there exists such a thing indicates that command lines are useful even to regular users.
Maybe it should've been an extension then? Since some people hate it, and some people love it, maybe it could be one of those included-by-default extensions that people can either disable, remove, or not install via the advance installation process.
Probably because the "Reply" button of the first post is the one that people see first, and automatically assume it's the reply button for the whole article.
I'd just consider the data and the disk to be trash and dispose of accordingly.
No data's so important that I can't make it disappear. If it is, then it shouldn't be in the same volume as any potentially incriminating data. And if it were really that important, I would've memorized it already, with the encrypted data being only a means of easy transmission to other people, or in case I forget later on.
BTW, I'd have a clean, newly-created encrypted partition created before putting the dirty drive into the computer. And I'd probably hot-plug the dirty drive after mounting the encrypted volume, unplug it before disconnecting the volume. A USB/Firewire external case comes to mind.
But they're usually satisfied with selling in the Chinese market. There's little money and a lot of red tape here. There's a lot more money in China. Which is why a lot of established, 1st world companies are trying to break into China. There are companies trying to do the reverse, but that's much rarer, and they probably operate in a market segment where IP is not an issue.
Damages should be based on the market value of your product and the scale of infringement.
This prevents your competition from undercutting you with the same product, and it discourages large companies from integrating your invention without a licensing agreement. It also completely stops patent trolls in their tracks, because patent trolls have no product on the market and no intention of bringing a product to the market.
The only detriment to this is somebody else coming out with a product convered under your patent faster than you. But that would be an argument for the current method of keeping a patent secret initially and then bringing it out when somebody infringes.
Slashdot Mirror
That's a purely US mistake. Bush, to be precise.
If it were any other country, they'd go in there full-force, not half commit to it and then start another completely unrelated conflict somewhere else.
In other news today, Adobe sues Google.
People (at least normal people) do not communicate with mathematical languages.
No, but I think GP is saying we could, and it would suck if we did.
Wow, all the trolls have come out of the woodwork.
What makes you think people are going to stop creating works of art just because somebody else is going to copy them? What makes you think that people are going to stop singing, painting, writing, telling stories, just because somebody else can sing the same song, paint the same picture, write the same words and tell the same stories?
Without copyright, people might not make money out of it. But nobody says people are supposed to make money for everything they do. Making money is not a right.
Copyright law allows the rights-holder to determine the conditions upon which they are willing to give you rights to use the content.
Wow. You failed twice in a row, and some idiot mod still modded you up.
Copyright. Read it carefully. Say it out loud. It is literally the right to copy. Copyright only deals with redistribution, whether in original or modified form. It does not deal with usage. Get it into your thick skull already; copyright cannot stop you from using what you bought the way you want it. It only stops you from copying what you bought and giving it to others. (Fair use covers the part where you copy something for backup purposes.)
Seesh. Get it right, or go troll somewhere else.
They're not bunnies, but Care Bears technically fart rainbows...
Watching movies is CmdrTaco's work you insensitive clod!
I thought you were going to call it the Bush module. Just imagine all of the punch lines you could come up with that, considering it will contain all of the life support systems, including the bathroom, and the machinery that turns urine back into water, and water into oxygen.
E.g. "I gotta go take a dump in the Bush."
Everybody else: "Where did the driver go?"
It's probably because he pronounced it wrong.
What's to say they're aren't enjoying those services already?
The nice thing about this is, it would apply to every form of transit running on a schedule, everywhere.
Your presentation of the facts may be copyrighted. But the facts themselves cannot, and should not be copyrighted. A copyright on facts means intellectual property protection on reality. And that's completely out of whack. Otherwise, somebody would copyright the fact that the sky is blue, and sue the hell out of anyone else using that statement.
Maybe if you can't make money collecting facts, you should try to do other things instead? Not every endeavour leads to success and you're certainly not entitled to succeed when your business model doesn't make sense.
Your forgot STDERR.
Usually used for output, but if you put something in, it's probably an error.
Start->Run.
That's the GUI interface to the Windows command line (whereas CMD is the command line interface itself). That there exists such a thing indicates that command lines are useful even to regular users.
Are they bigger than Deaf Leopard?
Is that the next version of OSX? Because if it is, then probably not.
Maybe it should've been an extension then? Since some people hate it, and some people love it, maybe it could be one of those included-by-default extensions that people can either disable, remove, or not install via the advance installation process.
Probably because the "Reply" button of the first post is the one that people see first, and automatically assume it's the reply button for the whole article.
I'd just consider the data and the disk to be trash and dispose of accordingly.
No data's so important that I can't make it disappear. If it is, then it shouldn't be in the same volume as any potentially incriminating data. And if it were really that important, I would've memorized it already, with the encrypted data being only a means of easy transmission to other people, or in case I forget later on.
BTW, I'd have a clean, newly-created encrypted partition created before putting the dirty drive into the computer. And I'd probably hot-plug the dirty drive after mounting the encrypted volume, unplug it before disconnecting the volume. A USB/Firewire external case comes to mind.
Just because you can put executable code in a document, doesn't mean the document reader should execute it.
Maybe he had mod points and wanted to mod himself up?
Not bankrupt, but there'd be nothing to do and nobody left to do any of it. Now that would make sense.
But they're usually satisfied with selling in the Chinese market. There's little money and a lot of red tape here. There's a lot more money in China. Which is why a lot of established, 1st world companies are trying to break into China. There are companies trying to do the reverse, but that's much rarer, and they probably operate in a market segment where IP is not an issue.
Treaty laws override local laws only if the government deems it to be so.
It's a catch-22.
The only thing that really works in this case is negotiation and soft power.
Damages should be based on the market value of your product and the scale of infringement.
This prevents your competition from undercutting you with the same product, and it discourages large companies from integrating your invention without a licensing agreement. It also completely stops patent trolls in their tracks, because patent trolls have no product on the market and no intention of bringing a product to the market.
The only detriment to this is somebody else coming out with a product convered under your patent faster than you. But that would be an argument for the current method of keeping a patent secret initially and then bringing it out when somebody infringes.