But then again, when teachers unionize, there often isn't much you can do to get rid of the underperforming educators. I bet that if you dig deep enough, you'll find union leaders are the ones getting the most upset over these libelous claims.
All the teachers I've met who are aware of ratemyteachers.com are either indifferent to it or think it's a good idea (one mentioned it as a way to give him anonymous feedback). The same goes for ratemyprofessors.com. If it's not union bosses, it's probably a couple bad apples in the ranks.
Of course, it's not clear what compensation he asked for initially, but the lump sum was the campaign's idea.
$50,000 is a year's full-time pay or more for most people (the Census Bureau's numbers list the median household income below $50k in 36 states). If I were making an offer of a lump sum to someone who claimed not to be in it for the money, I would expect the suggested payment to be pretty small (from an individual's perspective). I'm not convinced this guy wasn't really in it for the money.
Sure, it has. If you're letting people see the source code, it makes perfect sense to not let those people copy it without permission. If nobody can see the source code, they can't copy it, but feel free to copyright it anyway (you'll just have trouble registering the copyright without, y'know, making the code visible). Of course, you could just copyright the object code, but reverse engineering would be an option for discovering the source code.
Or if you're taking "proprietary" to mean "closed source", most open source code is also somebody's "intellectual property," and all free (libre) software must be. Software freedom cannot be enforced on public domain code.
To add further to your call for sanity, it should not be possible to hold a patent for something that you are not actually producing. ...
And worse, if you hold a patent and do not produce the item but merely hold other producers to ransom for royalties with it, then you're just a patent troll and a completely negative contributer to progress --- you should be penalized, not rewarded.
Eliminating patent trolls would be nice, but doing it like this would also take patents away from the small inventor. Inventors licensing/selling their patents to companies capable of mass producing the product in question is about as old as mass production itself.
when companies apply for patents just to keep others from using a technology
Isn't that exactly what patents are for? You come up with an idea, explain what it is and get a temporary monopoly. One might argue that given the rate at which technology advances, it might be best to shorten the monopoly period.
Suppose Alice patents the FOO algorithm. If Bob wants to use it in a piece of software he's selling, he obviously needs a license from Alice to use it. But since "exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" has been taken to include non-commercial use, what else can't Bob do? Can he implement it in free (gratis) software? Can he use the algorithm in code he writes, but doesn't distribute? Can he perform the algorithm himself? Can he be paid to do so?
Since, as a sibling post stated, an algorithm is just a thought process, it's not really something to which exclusive rights should be granted.
Most of the software patents we see these days don't play by the rules as it is. Either they don't do the full disclosure that is supposedly required (really, doesn't it seem odd that a product can be both patented and a trade secret?), are trivial or obvious combinations of existing things, have a large body of prior art, or some combination of the three. Software patents that do follow those rules are essentially patents on algorithms (i.e. sets of instructions on how to perform some task or calculation).
The proper domains for proprietary software are trade secret for closed source code and copyright for open source code.
Slashdot's readership tends to mod up posts they agree with and mod down those they don't, regardless of whether the posts actually further the discussion on the topic.
I won't say Slashdot doesn't have that tendency, but... have you ever been to Digg?
Any time I start to feel like Slashdot's moderation system is messed up, I either go to metamod (and do what I can to fix it) or to Digg (and then run screaming back to Slashdot).
TFA isn't really clear on what sort of "break-in" this was. It looks like it was, at most, a proof of concept break-in, and may have been as little as figuring out how to break the system without actually doing it.
In any case, he didn't go around giving out exploit code, and he even worked on the problem of patching the hole (as well as solving other problems with the CCA software), with the intent of full diclosure of the patch and upgrades. This isn't really a punishment for breaking things, it's a DMCA-style punishment for figuring out how someone might break things.
You can for psychological issues though. A friend of mine is waiting a couple more years to "get off the crazy list" before he can buy a varmint rifle. (And yes, Illinois law applies to this one too).
And even if the judge's order stands, what's to stop an ISP from refusing to give the subscriber info to the RIAA anyway? The RIAA says, "You have to," and the ISP says, "Not gonna happen." The RIAA's only way to enforce this is... go to court!
(IANAL)
FWIW, the BSD Daemon didn't make the list. Hexley the platypus did, but they kinda failed on their explanation. The horn hat and pitchfork are there as symbols of BSD heritage.
because copyright law ultimately serves the purpose of enriching the general public through access to creative works, it is peculiarly important that the boundaries of copyright law be demarcated as clearly as possible
It's about time we started hearing this sort of thing again.
They say there's higher demand, but higher demand is supposed to lead to higher salaries, more jobs, or both. Why do we keep hearing that neither one is happening?
I imagine there's plenty more than that. The summary mentions "Category dividers triggered by Spotlight searches." That's the same type of organization the Finder has used for a long time when you tell it to display items "by row."
I don't get it. What's so "anti-US" about the suggestion politicians do stupid things and waste time? "Kneejerk reactionism" describes almost every use I've seen of the term "anti-US."
How are these still the #1 loss per incident crime?
Maybe because it's loss per incident? Nobody gets hit with a 419 scam for a few hundred dollars -- they get hit for a few thousand. Auction fraud is certainly more common, but a single instance of auction fraud probably costs less than a couple hundred dollars.
If you count total losses, auction fraud probably is number one.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, it has. If you're letting people see the source code, it makes perfect sense to not let those people copy it without permission. If nobody can see the source code, they can't copy it, but feel free to copyright it anyway (you'll just have trouble registering the copyright without, y'know, making the code visible). Of course, you could just copyright the object code, but reverse engineering would be an option for discovering the source code.
Or if you're taking "proprietary" to mean "closed source", most open source code is also somebody's "intellectual property," and all free (libre) software must be. Software freedom cannot be enforced on public domain code.
Suppose Alice patents the FOO algorithm. If Bob wants to use it in a piece of software he's selling, he obviously needs a license from Alice to use it. But since "exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" has been taken to include non-commercial use, what else can't Bob do? Can he implement it in free (gratis) software? Can he use the algorithm in code he writes, but doesn't distribute? Can he perform the algorithm himself? Can he be paid to do so?
Since, as a sibling post stated, an algorithm is just a thought process, it's not really something to which exclusive rights should be granted.
Most of the software patents we see these days don't play by the rules as it is. Either they don't do the full disclosure that is supposedly required (really, doesn't it seem odd that a product can be both patented and a trade secret?), are trivial or obvious combinations of existing things, have a large body of prior art, or some combination of the three. Software patents that do follow those rules are essentially patents on algorithms (i.e. sets of instructions on how to perform some task or calculation).
The proper domains for proprietary software are trade secret for closed source code and copyright for open source code.
Any time I start to feel like Slashdot's moderation system is messed up, I either go to metamod (and do what I can to fix it) or to Digg (and then run screaming back to Slashdot).
TFA isn't really clear on what sort of "break-in" this was. It looks like it was, at most, a proof of concept break-in, and may have been as little as figuring out how to break the system without actually doing it.
In any case, he didn't go around giving out exploit code, and he even worked on the problem of patching the hole (as well as solving other problems with the CCA software), with the intent of full diclosure of the patch and upgrades. This isn't really a punishment for breaking things, it's a DMCA-style punishment for figuring out how someone might break things.
You can for psychological issues though. A friend of mine is waiting a couple more years to "get off the crazy list" before he can buy a varmint rifle. (And yes, Illinois law applies to this one too).
"Stream of consciousness" writing is too trendy.
And even if the judge's order stands, what's to stop an ISP from refusing to give the subscriber info to the RIAA anyway? The RIAA says, "You have to," and the ISP says, "Not gonna happen." The RIAA's only way to enforce this is... go to court!
(IANAL)
Reality has a known liberal bias.
He's referring to the resolution, not the Constitution. Article III in the resolution accuses Cheney of showing unwarranted agression towards Iran.
FWIW, the BSD Daemon didn't make the list. Hexley the platypus did, but they kinda failed on their explanation. The horn hat and pitchfork are there as symbols of BSD heritage.
They say there's higher demand, but higher demand is supposed to lead to higher salaries, more jobs, or both. Why do we keep hearing that neither one is happening?
Using the term "cultural deficit" doesn't seem quite right -- it implies that the USA has a cultural surplus.
I imagine there's plenty more than that. The summary mentions "Category dividers triggered by Spotlight searches." That's the same type of organization the Finder has used for a long time when you tell it to display items "by row."
I don't get it. What's so "anti-US" about the suggestion politicians do stupid things and waste time? "Kneejerk reactionism" describes almost every use I've seen of the term "anti-US."
The house I live in has two area codes. I think this could be fun.
Further clarification:
Auction fraud probably also wins in losses per attempt.
If you count total losses, auction fraud probably is number one.