LOL, well moderated. The possibilities of what this research will lead to are certainly unimaginable to anybody, even the scientists working on it now.
This is really some amazing stuff, imagine transistors using the properties they're researching?
Stories like this and comments like yours (and comments that teach) are why I still come here.
Who's going to impeach him? Congress and the Senate are complicit in this, and they're the ones who have to impeach. Remember, they don't give two shits about the constitution or they'd never had passed the Bono Act or the PATRIOT Act.
Lets impeach congress next election. I want my country back.
But the documents also revealed further problems. In particular, Judge Bates portrayed the issue, which the N.S.A. had brought to the secret surveillance courtâ(TM)s attention after discovering that it had been happening for several years, as part of a broader pattern of misleading the oversight court about its domestic spying activities.
âoeThe Court is troubled that the governmentâ(TM)s revelations regarding N.S.A.â(TM)s acquisition of Internet transactions mark the third instance in less than three years in which the government has disclosed a substantial misrepresentation regarding the scope of a major collection program,â he wrote.
There need to be penalties. Someone should be brought up on charges.
The documents showed that the problems were relatively small when compared with the vast scale of N.S.A. surveillance conducted from the United States on noncitizens abroad. The ruling estimated that the agency intercepts more than 250 million communications that way each year. And the N.S.A. fixed the problems to the courtâ(TM)s satisfaction, the documents showed.
This shit isn't worthy of the label "news" or "current events" or even "docu-romcom-tainment-dramedy".
Hi, Daniel Lawrence Whitney, is Comcast a nice place to work? This story IS worthy and if you didn't want it posted you should have voted against it in the firehose rather than bitching about its posting. If you did vote against it, YOU LOSE.
If we're going to have (I wish we did not... they're bad news) DMCA take-down orders, we also need a law WITH TEETH that criminalizes the abuse of same.
I agree that DMCA takedowns need teeth, and harsh penalties for abusing it. However, personal experience tells me we need takedowns of infringing material.
Fifteen years ago I started a Quake gaming site that I stuffed with all kinds of good contents, which included a huge trove of single player cheats, console commands and server commands that I meticulously tested and explained. Those pages may have been the most plagairized works on the internet; folks would take my content, remove my name, put theirs in, and repost.
My web host's IP address was used in one of the examples, and googling it brought up dozens of plagiarized pages. I'd email the sites and politely ask for simply credit and a link to my site. Very few complied and some were pretty damned hostile (most were at.edu domains so it was mostly college kids doing it, although a few were commercial).
Without takedowns there would have been nothing I could do about it. The same would apply to plagiarized GPL code someone posted and claimed credit for.
If someone posts my book on a commercial site I'll be issuing more (noncommercial use, including torrents, will be free). But bullshit like Comcast is pulling should result in someone's incarceration.
we all agreed that the whole Sky Fairy thing was a bit far fetched
1/3 of the world's population is Christian, 1/3 is Muslim, and half of the rest are Hebrew, Buddhist, Hindu, etc. Over half of all scientists are religious. So who's "we?" You have a mouse in your pocket? You atheists and agnostics are a small minority.
Obviously you're not serious (obvious because I don't think you're stupid). Books are also composed of words that anyone is already free to assemble as they please. Software is also composed of commands that anyone is already free to assemble as they please.
Copyright is supposed to be for a LIMITED time and there certainly is no justifiable reason why the copyright should extend beyond the time required to settle the estate of the artist.
I hold a lot of copyrights, three of them registered (I just registered my book Nobots last week), and I not only agree but think 30 years is a damned long time for a copyright to be valid. There's no reason for those two programs I wrote in 1983 to still be covered; hell, the computers they were written for were obsolete decades ago and any patents on those machines would have run out over ten years ago.
Nobody's trying to foist anything on anybody, unless your definition of "foist" is "suggest".
Cory Doctorow credits his use of making his books GPL and giving them away for free at boingboing for his status as a New York Times best seller.
As he says, nobody ever lost money from piracy but many have starved from obscurity. Did you know that Van Gogh sold only one painting in his life, for a pittance, to his brother, to pay off a loan? And nobody can argue that his stuff's no good, people pay millions for it today, while his big dollar contemporaries in the galleries have all been forgotten.
Give away the art, sell the container (book, CD, sheet music, canvas).
It doesn't have to be. You can as easily license a song under GPL as a computer program or a book (Doctorow releases his books with a creative commons license, and he's been on the NYT best seller list).
Copyright isn't supposed to be ownership, but a limited time monopoly. I'm fine with my copyrights expiring in 28 years, long copyrights stifle artistic innovation. Imagine how tech would have suffered if patents lasted as long as copyright?
Slashdot Mirror
Did you even read the comment? This wasn't just copyright infringement, it was plagiarism. It was a hobby site, do you know what lawsuits cost?
The point is, the law protected me from plagiarism. Are you FOR plagiarism??
LOL, well moderated. The possibilities of what this research will lead to are certainly unimaginable to anybody, even the scientists working on it now.
This is really some amazing stuff, imagine transistors using the properties they're researching?
Stories like this and comments like yours (and comments that teach) are why I still come here.
Who's going to impeach him? Congress and the Senate are complicit in this, and they're the ones who have to impeach. Remember, they don't give two shits about the constitution or they'd never had passed the Bono Act or the PATRIOT Act.
Lets impeach congress next election. I want my country back.
But the documents also revealed further problems. In particular, Judge Bates portrayed the issue, which the N.S.A. had brought to the secret surveillance courtâ(TM)s attention after discovering that it had been happening for several years, as part of a broader pattern of misleading the oversight court about its domestic spying activities.
âoeThe Court is troubled that the governmentâ(TM)s revelations regarding N.S.A.â(TM)s acquisition of Internet transactions mark the third instance in less than three years in which the government has disclosed a substantial misrepresentation regarding the scope of a major collection program,â he wrote.
There need to be penalties. Someone should be brought up on charges.
The documents showed that the problems were relatively small when compared with the vast scale of N.S.A. surveillance conducted from the United States on noncitizens abroad. The ruling estimated that the agency intercepts more than 250 million communications that way each year. And the N.S.A. fixed the problems to the courtâ(TM)s satisfaction, the documents showed.
Interesting...
This shit isn't worthy of the label "news" or "current events" or even "docu-romcom-tainment-dramedy".
Hi, Daniel Lawrence Whitney, is Comcast a nice place to work? This story IS worthy and if you didn't want it posted you should have voted against it in the firehose rather than bitching about its posting. If you did vote against it, YOU LOSE.
Someone should issue some takedown notices of Comcast pages. Actually, a lot of someones should. Let's slashdot them with DMCA takedowns!
If we're going to have (I wish we did not... they're bad news) DMCA take-down orders, we also need a law WITH TEETH that criminalizes the abuse of same.
I agree that DMCA takedowns need teeth, and harsh penalties for abusing it. However, personal experience tells me we need takedowns of infringing material.
Fifteen years ago I started a Quake gaming site that I stuffed with all kinds of good contents, which included a huge trove of single player cheats, console commands and server commands that I meticulously tested and explained. Those pages may have been the most plagairized works on the internet; folks would take my content, remove my name, put theirs in, and repost.
My web host's IP address was used in one of the examples, and googling it brought up dozens of plagiarized pages. I'd email the sites and politely ask for simply credit and a link to my site. Very few complied and some were pretty damned hostile (most were at .edu domains so it was mostly college kids doing it, although a few were commercial).
Without takedowns there would have been nothing I could do about it. The same would apply to plagiarized GPL code someone posted and claimed credit for.
If someone posts my book on a commercial site I'll be issuing more (noncommercial use, including torrents, will be free). But bullshit like Comcast is pulling should result in someone's incarceration.
we all agreed that the whole Sky Fairy thing was a bit far fetched
1/3 of the world's population is Christian, 1/3 is Muslim, and half of the rest are Hebrew, Buddhist, Hindu, etc. Over half of all scientists are religious. So who's "we?" You have a mouse in your pocket? You atheists and agnostics are a small minority.
The written score is the source, the recorded sample is the binary.
Art seldom depends on "cheap".
Your airbags, ABS, and cruise control are all computer-controlled. How many accidents have they caused?
Obviously you're not serious (obvious because I don't think you're stupid). Books are also composed of words that anyone is already free to assemble as they please. Software is also composed of commands that anyone is already free to assemble as they please.
So what's your point?
Copyright is supposed to be for a LIMITED time and there certainly is no justifiable reason why the copyright should extend beyond the time required to settle the estate of the artist.
I hold a lot of copyrights, three of them registered (I just registered my book Nobots last week), and I not only agree but think 30 years is a damned long time for a copyright to be valid. There's no reason for those two programs I wrote in 1983 to still be covered; hell, the computers they were written for were obsolete decades ago and any patents on those machines would have run out over ten years ago.
Nobody's trying to foist anything on anybody, unless your definition of "foist" is "suggest".
Cory Doctorow credits his use of making his books GPL and giving them away for free at boingboing for his status as a New York Times best seller.
As he says, nobody ever lost money from piracy but many have starved from obscurity. Did you know that Van Gogh sold only one painting in his life, for a pittance, to his brother, to pay off a loan? And nobody can argue that his stuff's no good, people pay millions for it today, while his big dollar contemporaries in the galleries have all been forgotten.
Give away the art, sell the container (book, CD, sheet music, canvas).
It doesn't have to be. You can as easily license a song under GPL as a computer program or a book (Doctorow releases his books with a creative commons license, and he's been on the NYT best seller list).
Check the polls, 52% want it legal. The numbers have been steadily rising for 40 years, in 1969 it was 13% and 33% just ten years ago.
Here's a bunch of links.
Copyright isn't supposed to be ownership, but a limited time monopoly. I'm fine with my copyrights expiring in 28 years, long copyrights stifle artistic innovation. Imagine how tech would have suffered if patents lasted as long as copyright?
Betteridge broke his own law, but in this case I think it holds.
Only one problem: They control the mainstream media. There's no way to out shout them.
tl;dr I guess (for them). They don't care what we think or pot would be legal. They just want us to believe they do.
That would only happen if farmers were stupid enough to spray a grass herbicide on a non-GM strain. No farmer that stupid would stay in business long.
There may indeed be downsides, they didn't expect the upsides.
The driver also monitors the cargo. I see self-driving trucks coming so there won't be need of sleep breaks, but I think that's not going to be soon.
And dont forget humans program the cars so they WILL be imperfect. Parts break so they will be imperfect
Parts break now. Software can and will be tested. Google's driven theirs thousands of miles without a mishap.
I personally wouldn't trust any auto driven care made by anyone. Its all about control baby and i want full control.
I hope you drive better than you type...