Secondly, if it IS gameplay, it's going to be the worst game in the world to control. The camera zooms about absolutely everywhere, in silly places, with little or no thought of what it's looking at or why it's chosen that angle (which suggests a bad camera director of a trailer than a game THAT poor at picking an angle).
My guess is they meant "in-engine" as opposed to actual gameplay.
some parts of it look absolutely grotesque. All the character's 3D models have outlines, ffs. The "grass" at the end looks like something out of Doom. The only decent parts are the far-off windmills over the town.
I'm not a huge fan of cel shading myself, but I'd still say it looks pretty good. Sure, it's a different direction from the previous games, but this has been a series that re-invents itself.
If it's a trailer, it's a truly pitiful trailer, that really doesn't deserve a link, let alone a front-page one.
I would say it does a pretty good job of presenting the game's graphic potential, hints at some 2 player or somehow 1 player combined (i.e. controlling 2 characters or working with AI) gameplay, and displays that there will be fighting and platforming. I got all of that from the trailer -- I'm not sure what more you'd get in a minute.
Why is it that anytime a large organization abuses its power/influence and Slashdot calls them on it, there are always those like you who rush in to defend said organization? I realize you're probably not really an employee and are probably not a paid shill; however, the reason why such accusations come up from time to time is that it otherwise doesn't make sense.
The GP was trolling in tone, but it tangentially raises a good point. Artists don't have to sign with a label. They are totally free to release music on their own according to any business model they wish. Some of them do so, and others do not. Those who choose to do so obviously have reasons. The labels are able to provide marketing and distribution services which the artists apparently find lacking in other models.
I think the "slashdot community" (and by that I mean the generally highest-modded opinions expressed on this site) believes that the record labels should not be able to support their marketing and distributing activities through the restriction of opportunities to subvert those marketing and distribution activities. On the flip side, it also seems that most people do want to "consume" the artists'-who-choose-to-use-the-labels music. In other words, if at least some people (and in fact a very large number of people) didn't want to buy it, this discussion would be moot. After all, it's extremely easy to make the record industry as it exists now go away -- simply don't purchase their music. If people didn't buy, the industry would already be defunct.
What we have, then, is a situation where 1) people want the music, but 2) some don't want to pay for it, and 3) those can get away with not paying for it fairly easily. The people who want it and do pay for it are subsidizing the attacks on those who want it but don't pay for it. Further, regardless of your ideology on how things should be, it's difficult to argue that the large scale transfer of copyrighted material is legal under the law. That is, if you share a CD with a friend (or even several friends) you can argue that as a fair use. If you transfer a copy of that CD to a few dozen strangers, under current US law, I don't see how that's defensible. The labels are in a position where they have a right which is being violated, and enforcement is essentially impossible. All of these laws are their attempt to make enforcement of their rights possible. In other words, even their current business model should be sustainable given current law if enforcement of their rights were possible.
They [the labels] have, by any measure, gone way way too far. ACTA is an undoing of some of the best parts of the DMCA, and a totally unreasonable extension of the liability of other industries. At the same time, you can't say their business model requires expanding the authority of the government.
And as the GP said, if you want them to go away, it's easy -- don't buy their products.
Note that while the guerrilla fighters in Iraq have managed to prevent the invading US army from safely occupying much territory, they are completely incapable of expelling them through force of arms.
Of course that's true. The US could arguably not be defeated by any force of arms whatsoever, but what's far more important is political will. The Iraqi insurgency may yet be successful in making the occupying force so unpopular as to remove any political will to allow it to stay there. It is not Iraqi (or Arab) weapons which will get us out, it will be politicians responding to domestic and international pressure.
The point of having at least some arms to fight a rebellion is to buy time to allow a successful political solution. A lone individual would not have the capability to do it, of course, but a large group of people over a long period of time might. In a domestic rebellion, the goal would not be to defeat the armed forces, but to inflict just enough damage that the conflict isn't worth it, or to gain outside assistance which is capable of ejecting an enemy.
Do you really think a handgun would be any use whatsoever against the armour-plated, tank driving army, should the US populace ever get riled up enough for open revolt?
If the purpose of the second amendment is to allow for armed revolt against an oppressive government, it is currently outdated and ineffective. Given the weapons available to the general public right now, no such armed revolt could ever succeed.
Really? Ask the marines and soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. They're generally not fighting against an enemy with equivalent arms or training, yet the insurgency has done a very good job keeping the government unstable, and may well force the US (and allies) out. I would argue that while such weapons are not effective in a fair fight, rebellions tend not to fight fair.
A 5-4 decision means that the somewhat-sane members of the court outnumbered the completely-crazy members of the court by One Single Vote. We've got ourselves a Supreme Court that's divided on the meaning of some of the most fundamental aspects American law. This doesn't bode well for the next 30 years.
-Sean
I'm not sure I agree with you. The court throughout its history has had 5-4 (or otherwise decided by 1 vote) cases because they seldom accept cases which aren't close. That is, if it isn't a legal point on which there's substantial disagreement, the Court won't grant cert. Moreover, members may concur in the result of the case, but not the legal reasoning, so they end up joining only certain sections of the majority (or plurality) opinion.
Close cases will always be a part of the Supreme Court. I would say that is the way we want it, most of the time.
In this instant case, I think more of the justices should have agreed with the majority, but they didn't ask me...
The whole "chad" thing was already a trip down stupid street. Print out a piece of paper with a big fricking box next to every name, give someone a writing utensil, and tell them to make a mark in that box.
I think you underestimate the impact that the 2000 election had on people's opinions of paper voting. While it does seem like the punchouts were a bad idea, the point behind them was to make a voter's intention unambiguous and clear. You punch the hole, and you're done. Tallying the votes was also easier (in theory).
In practice, it might have cost one person the presidency of the United States (probably not, but it might have). That affected the course of the entire world for eight years. I think that makes it fairly understandable why people want trustworthy electronic systems, but in the rush the emphasis has been put on "electronic systems" rather than "trustworthy".
Does your E-Vote equipment produce a voter verifieable paper trail?
What does a paper trail do on its own? Couldn't the software falsify the paper trail? Who does the verifying and who verifies the verifyers? Let's say the software is open source and auditable (and competent, trustworthy people do the auditing), how do you ensure that untampered software is on the machine?
If it doesn't have a paper trail, ask yourself why.
I could come with several reasons, ranging from innocuous to stupid to malicious to criminal. It could be that a paper trail which simply prints out the votes in hard copy adds nothing to the security of the system. It could be that the company constructing the machine never thought of it. It could be that whatever people control the machines (naturally, the Illuminati) want to (and are able to) fix the election, but aren't competent enough to print the fixed results from the machine.
My guess is something along the lines that secure elections are really difficult to do. We're not there yet, but we never have been. Electronic machines bring in new difficulties than what we've dealt with in the past, but it's not like election fraud is a new thing, or any less despicable now.
In response to the original article, I would say the best that you can do is watch your assistant, make sure he or she watches you. Other than that, I'm not sure what you can do given the equipment that's prevalent.
I think there will always be some level of trust involved in voting. I think most advocates are presently arguing that the trust we currently place in the machines is too high, and that the machines should be put in place with the idea that they are untrustworthy.
Basically, he hates the 1st Amendment, and isn't afraid to make a ridicules lawsuit to try and censor people.
That's sort of like saying "Al-Quaeda hates freedom" -- I don't think Thompson hates the first amendment, it is just (in his mind) trumped by other values. He has further picked a particularly poor method for promoting his values.
To be more technically correct (and as this is slashdot, that's the best kind of correct), I'd say he believes that video games (and other media) containing sexual or violent content are the root of all evil, and that he'd rather have no video games (or other media) than the possibility that the games could contain sexual or violent content.
This particular story relates to disbarment proceedings against the man for repeated poor (and illegal) conduct.
I'm sorry, but this is the point of having registered trademarks; to have a legal way to protect the MARKs that you TRADE with.
Actually, the purpose of a trademark is for a consumer to be able to identify the origin of a product. Trademark infringement cases figure out "likelihood of confusion" to determine if a trademark has been violated. The point of having "registered" trademarks is to make part of the likelihood of confusion analysis easier to determine. That is, one of the elements of likelihood of confusion is the existence of "secondary meaning" of a mark. "Secondary meaning" basically means that a mark has a meaning that's different from the plain meaning of the words or symbols that make up a mark. Registration is prima facie evidence of secondary meaning.
This might set precident if SCOTUS rules in favor of it for the US going to a loser pays court system which I think would be a great idea.
I don't think a strict "loser pays" system is really what people want. Let's say you sue a medium to large corporation. The case is close, but you lose. The corporation could easily have huge legal expenses, even if yours are relatively minor. Would an individual (or small corporation) ever take the risk of suing a large corporation?
I realize that other countries do have loser pays systems, and it works, but I've never heard conclusively that it's better. Those countries also tend to have more active consumer protection on the part of their governments, which would make suits which are currently brought by individuals (or classes) less necessary.
I tend to think that the system that we have now is good in theory, though not so good in practice. The bar to find a suit frivolous or harassing is so high as to be practically meaningless. I think if that bar were lowered some, we'd have the system that most individuals desire.
'Arms' had a completely different meaning when the US consitution was written. The idea that citizens should be able to own any gun-shaped device of destruction that science comes up because a 300 years old piece of paper says so is ridiculous.
So did "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..." -- we didn't have electronic documents, telephones, photographs, video, breathalysers, DNA tests, etc., but I daresay you would not argue that the 4th amendment should be limited to the 1789 (drafted) or 1791 (ratified) definition. "Arms" takes on the definition of the time in which it's interpreted, just as persons, houses, papers, and effects does.
The "300 years [sic] old piece of paper" says many things which should not be disregarded simply because they were said a long time ago. The authors of the Bill of Rights recognized that changes would occur, but provided protections to citizens because they realized that governments eventually tend to become tyrannical.
Bah, I hit submit too fast.
Anyhow, I wanted to add that I'd like to see an updated "Bill of Rights" include encryption as a sort of firearm. It's protection against a corrupt and tyrannical regime, much like a firearm.
That's because the purpose of the 2nd amendment wasn't to guarantee firearms, but to guarantee that the people had the right to form militias and appropriate weapons to arm the militias.
The 2nd amendment states: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
It's a statement that's somewhat difficult to parse in modern English, but I don't think it says precisely what you're implying. The basis for the amendment is the US was a colony of Great Britain born of an armed rebellion. The authors of the Bill of Rights recognized that a tyrannical government will do what it can to ensure it remains in power. One of those means is to ensure people cannot defend themselves by strength of arms. The second amendment was meant to prevent the government from removing that ability from the people. People might say in the US that no firearms possessed by citizens could defeat the US army, which I agree with. However, armed insurgencies with little in the way of technology or firepower have done very well destabilizing and toppling governments even in the face of the technological might of the US.
Basically, I think the amendment, even to a strict constructionist, doesn't allow the federal government to prevent people from owning firearms. I think it's a better question as to whether states may do so.
Actually, Iraq is a bad war. Afghanistan was legit.
I agree with you, but fear so many have forgotten it in light of Iraq. If we had dedicated the resources to Afghanistan that we did to Iraq, these issues probably would not have come up, and we'd have a much better chance of having the leadership of Al Qaeda. All the international goodwill we've lost, and what have we bought for it?
I don't know what you mean by "process patent", does it have anything to do with business methods, such as Amazon's "One Click" business method that was patented? If so then as I've said before business methods should not be patentable.
I can see you're well versed in patent law, which is good to have an educated opinion. 35 USC 101 defines patentable subject matter as "any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof." A "process patent" is a patent which claims a new and useful process (or a new and useful improvement on a process). Process patents do include business method patents, but also other types of process improvements (often improvements in manufacturing processes).
You draw the line at software, that's where. No, that's wrong. You draw the line where you have a physical object. If it's not a physical object or one that does not work the way described then it shouldn't be patented.
Okay, so what if I have a physical object which implements an algorithm? Is that patentable? Would an abacus be patentable (disregarding for arguments' sake the fact that it's been around thousands of years)? I don't think the line is as clear as you make it sound. Under your logic, if I implemented an algorithm in clockwork it would be allowed, but if I instead used transistors, would it not?
Why does the public benefit so much more from granting a monopoly to the inventor of a physical thing than a process or method?
Now I'm confused. Here you're arguing similarly to what I said above whereas in your second paragraph you argue software patents should have been granted earlier.
I should clarify, I thought the particular patent at issue in Gottschalk should have been invalidated for obviousness. I do not think it's possible to be consistent with prior practice to forbid software patents. I do think they should have stricter requirements in terms of enablement.
If you forbid "software" patents, where do you draw the line? It seems like you would have to eliminate any process patent whatsoever. All process patents boil down to a series of instructions, which is one of the ways people file "software" patents. If you forbid software patents, you also have to restrict machine patents greatly. A machine patent claims a machine with certain specific properties. Many software patents claim a machine wherein the properties are essentially defined by software.
I personally would require source code to enable a software patent. "Enablement" is a term of art that requires the description of the patent to allow someone besides you who is skilled in the art to build your invention. Because strictly software patents have never been allowed and patent attorneys follow this fiction of either process or machine patents, the patent office has never required the code actually necessary to execute the software. I think that the actual code should be required, which would both make the patent more specific and would add the code to the public domain once the patent expires.
The hobbyist software creator didn't exist in large part thirty years ago
Damn, I just vanished in a puff of logic!
Sorry about that, I try to make as few people as possible disappear. I'm not trying to lessen the contributions of 30 years ago, just to say that in terms of sheer numbers and access, it's not what it is today.
Well, to be more accurate, what the patent system is supposed to do in a case like this is lower the net costs of security, and then reward the inventor by diverting some of the savings to him.
That may be the economic theory, but I don't think it's necessarily the legal theory. Legally, the patent system is supposed to induce inventors to create new processes, materials, machines, etc. and to disclose their inventions so that they will eventually be owned by the public. Something often lost on the discussions on this site is that any patented invention will become public domain. In 20 years, potential patent holders will have to overcome this "land grab" of patents that we're currently experiencing. The broader the patents now granted, the more difficult they will be to overcome in the future.
I personally believe that the current problem with our system is that the patent office (due in large part to a decision by the Supreme Court) didn't grant software patents (in the form of business method or machine patents) earlier. Had the land grab happened thirty years ago, and the patent office learned to deal with it then, this all would have been worked out by now. The hobbyist software creator didn't exist in large part thirty years ago, and the fights would have been between large companies like IBM and its challengers.
The case referred to above was Gottschalk v Benson409 US 63. The Court held that mathematical expressions could not be patented, and essentially found that all computer programs were mathematical expressions. The patent in question was for a bit shifter (converting decimal numbers into binary). IMO, we would be better off today had they simply found the patented material to be obvious, which is what many amici suggested.
This is just another act of the **AAs wanting to bludgeon people over the head for their own profits, and whether we give them what they want or not their response will just be to want more bludgeoning.
The simple solution is simply not to consume what they produce. If nobody buys / downloads / watches what they output, they will go away.
We have a right to privacy, as the 4th Amendment says.
The 4th Amendment says: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The 4th Amendment absolutely does not create a generalized right to privacy. The Supreme Court examined this issue in detail in Griswold v Connecticut (see the treatment at Cornell's website, the legal cite is 381 U.S. 479). In this case, the state of Connecticut had passed a law making it illegal to use a device or article to prevent conception, and doctor and the director of planned parenthood were convicted as accessories for advising a married couple on contraception. The Court overturned the conviction (and law) on the grounds that a generalized right of privacy may be found in the penumbra of several amendments, including the 4th, in the relationship of a married couple.
As an aside, I think it's arguable that the Court based even this decision on shaky legal ground, and that they should have upheld the law. That would hopefully have provided the public impetus for the passage of a Constitutional amendment which actually would specifically have dealt with the protection of privacy, but that's just me.
Or are you going to tell me that, say, the 13th Amendment banning slavery limits only the government from owning slaves? No, freedom is a right. Rights are inalienable, not just "inalienable by the government".
The 13th Amendment says: Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
In other words, slavery shall not exist in the US. There is no such legal condition. Had the writers of the Bill of Rights intended a generalized right of privacy, they easily could have stated "The right of privacy shall not be abridged" -- but of course that was not their intention. That the 4th amendment to the Constitution applies to the federal government is a matter of common law. Private parties are not allowed to search and seize, as that would be a trespass, especially in the world of the 1780s where searches and seizures involved a physical intrusion.
And as another aside, while you say "freedom is a right", those same people who wrote the 4th amendment also wrote the Constitution in such a way that slavery was legal. All rights have boundaries. The best law strikes the proper boundary, and some times it takes a while to get there.
Back to this particular instance, it seems like the "skeptic" should sue the fraudster in civil court. Likely there are criminal statutes involved as well. And lest we forget, this took place in the UK, where the US Constitution most certainly doesn't apply.
Send them a notice saying that they have two choices: they can comply with the DMCA and take down all content that uses your photos, or they can pay you a nominal fee of $2,500-$5,000/photo to get a full business license to use it in any of their marketing materials online.
You're getting two legally different concepts confused, I think. First, by "comply with the DMCA", I'm guessing you're referring to the Safe Harbor provisions of the DMCA which require a service provider to take down a copyrighted work if someone claims ownership of that work. Service provider is defined fairly broadly, but would likely not apply to Fox. It would apply if, for example, someone served a take down notice to Fox's ISP.
From the summary (naturally, I didn't read the article, I'm merely responding to your comments) what seems to have happened is straight forward infringement. The owner of the photo can sue for infringement -- no DMCA required.
That's some damned weak logic, since LimeWire's real reason for existance (and the RIAA's opposition to it) is for independant artists to get their music out.
Interesting... the original Napster was required to implement filtering software, which far from perfect, did remove a great deal of the major label music while allowing the independent music to remain. Why was it not successful? Why did its usage fall to zero?
If LimeWire's "real reason for existance [sic]" is for "independant [sic] artists to get their music out", how many indie artists have exploded in popularity thanks to LimeWire? What percentage of LimeWire traffic is indie? I'm sure the percentage is non-zero, but if LimeWire's main purpose is to promote indie music, I would say it is a colossal failure.
Slashdot Mirror
Secondly, if it IS gameplay, it's going to be the worst game in the world to control. The camera zooms about absolutely everywhere, in silly places, with little or no thought of what it's looking at or why it's chosen that angle (which suggests a bad camera director of a trailer than a game THAT poor at picking an angle).
My guess is they meant "in-engine" as opposed to actual gameplay.
some parts of it look absolutely grotesque. All the character's 3D models have outlines, ffs. The "grass" at the end looks like something out of Doom. The only decent parts are the far-off windmills over the town.
I'm not a huge fan of cel shading myself, but I'd still say it looks pretty good. Sure, it's a different direction from the previous games, but this has been a series that re-invents itself.
If it's a trailer, it's a truly pitiful trailer, that really doesn't deserve a link, let alone a front-page one.
I would say it does a pretty good job of presenting the game's graphic potential, hints at some 2 player or somehow 1 player combined (i.e. controlling 2 characters or working with AI) gameplay, and displays that there will be fighting and platforming. I got all of that from the trailer -- I'm not sure what more you'd get in a minute.
Why is it that anytime a large organization abuses its power/influence and Slashdot calls them on it, there are always those like you who rush in to defend said organization? I realize you're probably not really an employee and are probably not a paid shill; however, the reason why such accusations come up from time to time is that it otherwise doesn't make sense.
The GP was trolling in tone, but it tangentially raises a good point. Artists don't have to sign with a label. They are totally free to release music on their own according to any business model they wish. Some of them do so, and others do not. Those who choose to do so obviously have reasons. The labels are able to provide marketing and distribution services which the artists apparently find lacking in other models.
I think the "slashdot community" (and by that I mean the generally highest-modded opinions expressed on this site) believes that the record labels should not be able to support their marketing and distributing activities through the restriction of opportunities to subvert those marketing and distribution activities. On the flip side, it also seems that most people do want to "consume" the artists'-who-choose-to-use-the-labels music. In other words, if at least some people (and in fact a very large number of people) didn't want to buy it, this discussion would be moot. After all, it's extremely easy to make the record industry as it exists now go away -- simply don't purchase their music. If people didn't buy, the industry would already be defunct.
What we have, then, is a situation where 1) people want the music, but 2) some don't want to pay for it, and 3) those can get away with not paying for it fairly easily. The people who want it and do pay for it are subsidizing the attacks on those who want it but don't pay for it. Further, regardless of your ideology on how things should be, it's difficult to argue that the large scale transfer of copyrighted material is legal under the law. That is, if you share a CD with a friend (or even several friends) you can argue that as a fair use. If you transfer a copy of that CD to a few dozen strangers, under current US law, I don't see how that's defensible. The labels are in a position where they have a right which is being violated, and enforcement is essentially impossible. All of these laws are their attempt to make enforcement of their rights possible. In other words, even their current business model should be sustainable given current law if enforcement of their rights were possible.
They [the labels] have, by any measure, gone way way too far. ACTA is an undoing of some of the best parts of the DMCA, and a totally unreasonable extension of the liability of other industries. At the same time, you can't say their business model requires expanding the authority of the government.
And as the GP said, if you want them to go away, it's easy -- don't buy their products.
For some of us that isn't a problem, since we don't believe in IP anyway.
So you're cool with violations of the GPL? After all, the only thing that gives the GPL any teeth whatsoever is copyright law.
Of course that's true. The US could arguably not be defeated by any force of arms whatsoever, but what's far more important is political will. The Iraqi insurgency may yet be successful in making the occupying force so unpopular as to remove any political will to allow it to stay there. It is not Iraqi (or Arab) weapons which will get us out, it will be politicians responding to domestic and international pressure.
The point of having at least some arms to fight a rebellion is to buy time to allow a successful political solution. A lone individual would not have the capability to do it, of course, but a large group of people over a long period of time might. In a domestic rebellion, the goal would not be to defeat the armed forces, but to inflict just enough damage that the conflict isn't worth it, or to gain outside assistance which is capable of ejecting an enemy.
If the purpose of the second amendment is to allow for armed revolt against an oppressive government, it is currently outdated and ineffective. Given the weapons available to the general public right now, no such armed revolt could ever succeed.
Really? Ask the marines and soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. They're generally not fighting against an enemy with equivalent arms or training, yet the insurgency has done a very good job keeping the government unstable, and may well force the US (and allies) out. I would argue that while such weapons are not effective in a fair fight, rebellions tend not to fight fair.
-Sean
I'm not sure I agree with you. The court throughout its history has had 5-4 (or otherwise decided by 1 vote) cases because they seldom accept cases which aren't close. That is, if it isn't a legal point on which there's substantial disagreement, the Court won't grant cert. Moreover, members may concur in the result of the case, but not the legal reasoning, so they end up joining only certain sections of the majority (or plurality) opinion.
Close cases will always be a part of the Supreme Court. I would say that is the way we want it, most of the time.
In this instant case, I think more of the justices should have agreed with the majority, but they didn't ask me...
I think you underestimate the impact that the 2000 election had on people's opinions of paper voting. While it does seem like the punchouts were a bad idea, the point behind them was to make a voter's intention unambiguous and clear. You punch the hole, and you're done. Tallying the votes was also easier (in theory).
In practice, it might have cost one person the presidency of the United States (probably not, but it might have). That affected the course of the entire world for eight years. I think that makes it fairly understandable why people want trustworthy electronic systems, but in the rush the emphasis has been put on "electronic systems" rather than "trustworthy".
What does a paper trail do on its own? Couldn't the software falsify the paper trail? Who does the verifying and who verifies the verifyers? Let's say the software is open source and auditable (and competent, trustworthy people do the auditing), how do you ensure that untampered software is on the machine?
If it doesn't have a paper trail, ask yourself why.I could come with several reasons, ranging from innocuous to stupid to malicious to criminal. It could be that a paper trail which simply prints out the votes in hard copy adds nothing to the security of the system. It could be that the company constructing the machine never thought of it. It could be that whatever people control the machines (naturally, the Illuminati) want to (and are able to) fix the election, but aren't competent enough to print the fixed results from the machine.
My guess is something along the lines that secure elections are really difficult to do. We're not there yet, but we never have been. Electronic machines bring in new difficulties than what we've dealt with in the past, but it's not like election fraud is a new thing, or any less despicable now.
In response to the original article, I would say the best that you can do is watch your assistant, make sure he or she watches you. Other than that, I'm not sure what you can do given the equipment that's prevalent.
I think there will always be some level of trust involved in voting. I think most advocates are presently arguing that the trust we currently place in the machines is too high, and that the machines should be put in place with the idea that they are untrustworthy.
That's sort of like saying "Al-Quaeda hates freedom" -- I don't think Thompson hates the first amendment, it is just (in his mind) trumped by other values. He has further picked a particularly poor method for promoting his values.
To be more technically correct (and as this is slashdot, that's the best kind of correct), I'd say he believes that video games (and other media) containing sexual or violent content are the root of all evil, and that he'd rather have no video games (or other media) than the possibility that the games could contain sexual or violent content.
This particular story relates to disbarment proceedings against the man for repeated poor (and illegal) conduct.
The Death Knight is a Hero Class -- available to anyone with a character over level 55, starting at level 55. See also Gamespot's preview
Actually, the purpose of a trademark is for a consumer to be able to identify the origin of a product. Trademark infringement cases figure out "likelihood of confusion" to determine if a trademark has been violated. The point of having "registered" trademarks is to make part of the likelihood of confusion analysis easier to determine. That is, one of the elements of likelihood of confusion is the existence of "secondary meaning" of a mark. "Secondary meaning" basically means that a mark has a meaning that's different from the plain meaning of the words or symbols that make up a mark. Registration is prima facie evidence of secondary meaning.
I don't think a strict "loser pays" system is really what people want. Let's say you sue a medium to large corporation. The case is close, but you lose. The corporation could easily have huge legal expenses, even if yours are relatively minor. Would an individual (or small corporation) ever take the risk of suing a large corporation?
I realize that other countries do have loser pays systems, and it works, but I've never heard conclusively that it's better. Those countries also tend to have more active consumer protection on the part of their governments, which would make suits which are currently brought by individuals (or classes) less necessary.
I tend to think that the system that we have now is good in theory, though not so good in practice. The bar to find a suit frivolous or harassing is so high as to be practically meaningless. I think if that bar were lowered some, we'd have the system that most individuals desire.
So did "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..." -- we didn't have electronic documents, telephones, photographs, video, breathalysers, DNA tests, etc., but I daresay you would not argue that the 4th amendment should be limited to the 1789 (drafted) or 1791 (ratified) definition. "Arms" takes on the definition of the time in which it's interpreted, just as persons, houses, papers, and effects does.
The "300 years [sic] old piece of paper" says many things which should not be disregarded simply because they were said a long time ago. The authors of the Bill of Rights recognized that changes would occur, but provided protections to citizens because they realized that governments eventually tend to become tyrannical.
Bah, I hit submit too fast. Anyhow, I wanted to add that I'd like to see an updated "Bill of Rights" include encryption as a sort of firearm. It's protection against a corrupt and tyrannical regime, much like a firearm.
The 2nd amendment states: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
It's a statement that's somewhat difficult to parse in modern English, but I don't think it says precisely what you're implying. The basis for the amendment is the US was a colony of Great Britain born of an armed rebellion. The authors of the Bill of Rights recognized that a tyrannical government will do what it can to ensure it remains in power. One of those means is to ensure people cannot defend themselves by strength of arms. The second amendment was meant to prevent the government from removing that ability from the people. People might say in the US that no firearms possessed by citizens could defeat the US army, which I agree with. However, armed insurgencies with little in the way of technology or firepower have done very well destabilizing and toppling governments even in the face of the technological might of the US.
Basically, I think the amendment, even to a strict constructionist, doesn't allow the federal government to prevent people from owning firearms. I think it's a better question as to whether states may do so.
I agree with you, but fear so many have forgotten it in light of Iraq. If we had dedicated the resources to Afghanistan that we did to Iraq, these issues probably would not have come up, and we'd have a much better chance of having the leadership of Al Qaeda. All the international goodwill we've lost, and what have we bought for it?
I can see you're well versed in patent law, which is good to have an educated opinion. 35 USC 101 defines patentable subject matter as "any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof." A "process patent" is a patent which claims a new and useful process (or a new and useful improvement on a process). Process patents do include business method patents, but also other types of process improvements (often improvements in manufacturing processes).
You draw the line at software, that's where. No, that's wrong. You draw the line where you have a physical object. If it's not a physical object or one that does not work the way described then it shouldn't be patented.Okay, so what if I have a physical object which implements an algorithm? Is that patentable? Would an abacus be patentable (disregarding for arguments' sake the fact that it's been around thousands of years)? I don't think the line is as clear as you make it sound. Under your logic, if I implemented an algorithm in clockwork it would be allowed, but if I instead used transistors, would it not?
Why does the public benefit so much more from granting a monopoly to the inventor of a physical thing than a process or method?
I should clarify, I thought the particular patent at issue in Gottschalk should have been invalidated for obviousness. I do not think it's possible to be consistent with prior practice to forbid software patents. I do think they should have stricter requirements in terms of enablement.
If you forbid "software" patents, where do you draw the line? It seems like you would have to eliminate any process patent whatsoever. All process patents boil down to a series of instructions, which is one of the ways people file "software" patents. If you forbid software patents, you also have to restrict machine patents greatly. A machine patent claims a machine with certain specific properties. Many software patents claim a machine wherein the properties are essentially defined by software.
I personally would require source code to enable a software patent. "Enablement" is a term of art that requires the description of the patent to allow someone besides you who is skilled in the art to build your invention. Because strictly software patents have never been allowed and patent attorneys follow this fiction of either process or machine patents, the patent office has never required the code actually necessary to execute the software. I think that the actual code should be required, which would both make the patent more specific and would add the code to the public domain once the patent expires.
Damn, I just vanished in a puff of logic!
Sorry about that, I try to make as few people as possible disappear. I'm not trying to lessen the contributions of 30 years ago, just to say that in terms of sheer numbers and access, it's not what it is today.That may be the economic theory, but I don't think it's necessarily the legal theory. Legally, the patent system is supposed to induce inventors to create new processes, materials, machines, etc. and to disclose their inventions so that they will eventually be owned by the public. Something often lost on the discussions on this site is that any patented invention will become public domain. In 20 years, potential patent holders will have to overcome this "land grab" of patents that we're currently experiencing. The broader the patents now granted, the more difficult they will be to overcome in the future.
I personally believe that the current problem with our system is that the patent office (due in large part to a decision by the Supreme Court) didn't grant software patents (in the form of business method or machine patents) earlier. Had the land grab happened thirty years ago, and the patent office learned to deal with it then, this all would have been worked out by now. The hobbyist software creator didn't exist in large part thirty years ago, and the fights would have been between large companies like IBM and its challengers.
The case referred to above was Gottschalk v Benson 409 US 63. The Court held that mathematical expressions could not be patented, and essentially found that all computer programs were mathematical expressions. The patent in question was for a bit shifter (converting decimal numbers into binary). IMO, we would be better off today had they simply found the patented material to be obvious, which is what many amici suggested.
The simple solution is simply not to consume what they produce. If nobody buys / downloads / watches what they output, they will go away.
The 4th Amendment says: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The 4th Amendment absolutely does not create a generalized right to privacy. The Supreme Court examined this issue in detail in Griswold v Connecticut (see the treatment at Cornell's website, the legal cite is 381 U.S. 479). In this case, the state of Connecticut had passed a law making it illegal to use a device or article to prevent conception, and doctor and the director of planned parenthood were convicted as accessories for advising a married couple on contraception. The Court overturned the conviction (and law) on the grounds that a generalized right of privacy may be found in the penumbra of several amendments, including the 4th, in the relationship of a married couple.
As an aside, I think it's arguable that the Court based even this decision on shaky legal ground, and that they should have upheld the law. That would hopefully have provided the public impetus for the passage of a Constitutional amendment which actually would specifically have dealt with the protection of privacy, but that's just me.
Or are you going to tell me that, say, the 13th Amendment banning slavery limits only the government from owning slaves? No, freedom is a right. Rights are inalienable, not just "inalienable by the government".The 13th Amendment says: Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
In other words, slavery shall not exist in the US. There is no such legal condition. Had the writers of the Bill of Rights intended a generalized right of privacy, they easily could have stated "The right of privacy shall not be abridged" -- but of course that was not their intention. That the 4th amendment to the Constitution applies to the federal government is a matter of common law. Private parties are not allowed to search and seize, as that would be a trespass, especially in the world of the 1780s where searches and seizures involved a physical intrusion.
And as another aside, while you say "freedom is a right", those same people who wrote the 4th amendment also wrote the Constitution in such a way that slavery was legal. All rights have boundaries. The best law strikes the proper boundary, and some times it takes a while to get there.
Back to this particular instance, it seems like the "skeptic" should sue the fraudster in civil court. Likely there are criminal statutes involved as well. And lest we forget, this took place in the UK, where the US Constitution most certainly doesn't apply.
You're getting two legally different concepts confused, I think. First, by "comply with the DMCA", I'm guessing you're referring to the Safe Harbor provisions of the DMCA which require a service provider to take down a copyrighted work if someone claims ownership of that work. Service provider is defined fairly broadly, but would likely not apply to Fox. It would apply if, for example, someone served a take down notice to Fox's ISP.
From the summary (naturally, I didn't read the article, I'm merely responding to your comments) what seems to have happened is straight forward infringement. The owner of the photo can sue for infringement -- no DMCA required.
Of course, people could simply avoid "leaking" the music to p2p networks. That would solve the problem rather easily, wouldn't it?
Interesting... the original Napster was required to implement filtering software, which far from perfect, did remove a great deal of the major label music while allowing the independent music to remain. Why was it not successful? Why did its usage fall to zero?
If LimeWire's "real reason for existance [sic]" is for "independant [sic] artists to get their music out", how many indie artists have exploded in popularity thanks to LimeWire? What percentage of LimeWire traffic is indie? I'm sure the percentage is non-zero, but if LimeWire's main purpose is to promote indie music, I would say it is a colossal failure.