Furthermore just as with most other Warmist alarm-filled propaganda, they give no hard data
As opposed to the climate change deniers who release 900 page reports reviewed by the elite of the world scientific community with only 1 or 2 mistakes in them ?
Hmm, actually, no. Its the "Warmists" who are releasing the hard data, its the deniers who are a lunatic propaganda followers with a "Flat earth society" culture.
Unfortunately the mob only descends when the target is already on its knees.
The public pushes companies to make extreme profits and turn a blind eye to their methods until something goes wrong.
Im sure all the critics will keep using those oil derived products in your everyday life whilst maintaining outrage about the methods that where used to generate said products.
I am genuinely interested in the different views that physicists and philosophers have in time, there seems to be a big disconnect, which is strange for two groups to whom knowledge is so important.
I think perhaps the disconnect comes because physics is a specialty whereas philosophy isnt. Physicists are very focused on details, philosophers on the big picture.
Oy vay... how the heck did that get modded interesting?
Yes. VP8 is supposed to be free. And the code Google released is free. But the issues surrounding VP8 have absolutely nothing, zero, nada, to do with copyright law.
Umm, i cant see anything in the parent or grandparent about copyright, they only mention patents.
The government promised it prior to the last election, and Conroy (the minister responsible) has been pushing it his entire term. There have been public trials on the technology and many interviews and public debates on the filter.
The impression i get is that Conroy doesnt value the views of the majority of the population and is determined to implement it, no matter the cost.
The filter has even been criticized by the US which have a very poor history on Internet freedom themselves, e.g. roaming wiretaps (that was the previous leader though)
The need for secrecy is usually a reaction to a security failure, not a preventative measure.
The best way to be secure is to have lots of friends and few enemies, trust is the most valuable weapon to achieve that, secrets detract from trust.
Re your secret nuke launch codes, there is a saying (from the *BSD folk), without physical security there is no security, if all that is needed to launch nukes is some secret sequence of numbers then thats a design failure right there.
Lock the fckn door to the room with the button in it maybe ???
In the US, we have collectively decided, as a society, that some information should be kept secret, even from The People, and we have empowered and entrusted the government with the power to do so.
Really, did _you_ vote on it, will your vote be reaffirmed every generation or so to ensure its still what the people want ?
Perhaps you should have said, a previous generation let the powers that be keep secrets from everyone, and now we cant get them to give up their power.
And apples could well be closer than 25x better than oranges ?
The criticism isnt on the result of the measurement, its on the premise underlying it.
If the 4.8 million hours where all time that employee and worked themselves to exhaustion (mental or physical), then 4.8 million hours weren't lost, the workers had already given 100%.
Some employers in the IT field at least say to take a 5min break every hour to relax and help keep them fresh, thats not a wasted 5 minutes as it allows people to work more productively in the next hour or whatever.
It could well be that playing pacman booster productivity...
"That means the CSM -- and the entire playerbase it represents -- has as much influence on development projects as Marketing, Accounting, Publicity and all the other teams outside of the development team."
Remember that simpsons episode where homer designs a new car to appeal to the average Joe ?
"the department's position was that copyright of the whole thing belonged to them"
It doesnt matter what license the department releases the code under, it will still belong to them, only a license transfer will make it not theres.
If they merge other peoples copyrighted work with theres then neither party owns the copyright to the whole thing.
Maybe suggest releasing the code but maintain there own seperate fork, it would provide some accountability/transparency, might help with feedback and bug reports.
It could allow "outsiders" to experiment in taking the code in new directions that management are risk/averse to, if it works out then the company can implement feature/idea with there own money (being careful not to infringe).
The front page is different, its an unprotected point of entry, if they author of the page didn't want you to have access then it wouldnt be created that way.
A reasonable expectation might be for people to go to the front page and from there check the authors copyright notice. It would be unreasonable to place a copyright notice in a place that requires people to have already agreed to conditions before considering them, but the same argument cant be applied to other content.
Other pages on the website _could_ be protected by passwords or click through license agreements which state copyright license conditions, i doubt an implied license would cover access to those protected pages, an implied license is only supposed to be minimal.
Deep link cases i think they are arguing that there isnt an implied license to link to one of those protected pages, that they need a license. The counter is that if it has a URL that can directly access it (as opposed to dynamic content) then the content isnt hidden/protected, its like a front page.
The torrent file might not be copyrightable as its factual data without significant originality, if its not copyrightable then accessing it cant be a violation of copyright. Also im not aware of a torrent file being considered illegal under other laws (are you ?), the torrent file can be used to assist in violating copyright, just like an ftp/http client or P2P software, but its the act of copying thats the violation, not the instruments used.
If you break into someones house, the tools you use arent directly relevent, its the resulting actions.
What ive been able to understand (since yesterday hehe) about an implied licence is that its a "common sense" type thing, its a licence to do just enough to achieve a required task.
For example, when playing a DVD it could be argued there is an implied right to be able to copy it into memory or the play can cache it to disk in order to play it.
With a website i think there must be an implied license to view the front page, and anything reasonable to achieve the purpose of finding a copyright notice on the site. But it get hairy after that and gets tied into the deep linking cases.
I think if these people pushing the case that deep linking is bad started winning then this implied license could be reduced.
I doubt that is the case anywhere in the world. It certainly isn't where I live, or in any other country I've been to. If that were the case, any ISP would be liable for copyright infringement.
ISP is different, there are special exceptions granted for "Common carriers"
The term i think we are working around as i mention in my other post is called an "implied license", i suspect thats the situation with a web browser.
Slashdot Mirror
Furthermore just as with most other Warmist alarm-filled propaganda, they give no hard data
As opposed to the climate change deniers who release 900 page reports reviewed by the elite of the world scientific community with only 1 or 2 mistakes in them ?
Hmm, actually, no. Its the "Warmists" who are releasing the hard data, its the deniers who are a lunatic propaganda followers with a "Flat earth society" culture.
Get a grip
If you live in Victoria then you can vote below the line and Put Conroy last for Labor, no need to change which party you vote for.
See http://filter-conroy.org/ for more info
Well, capitalism encourages all people/companies to maximize profit, AFAIK its a legal obligation of listed companies.
Consumers want stuff cheap, owners want more profit, workers want higher wages, it all drives companies to take risks.
Unfortunately the mob only descends when the target is already on its knees.
The public pushes companies to make extreme profits and turn a blind eye to their methods until something goes wrong.
Im sure all the critics will keep using those oil derived products in your everyday life whilst maintaining outrage about the methods that where used to generate said products.
Its all a game to blame someone else.
Instead of saying "the day before yesterday", i find it easier to say, "two days ago"
This concept can be applied to other statements, such as;
The day before the day before yesterday becomes three days ago.
Thanks
Well obviously i took over someone else's account, but you can hardly blame me, who wouldn't be tempted by a 5 digit UID on a Internet forum. /sarcasm
Ahhh, but i have a very interesting bellybutton !
I am genuinely interested in the different views that physicists and philosophers have in time, there seems to be a big disconnect, which is strange for two groups to whom knowledge is so important.
I think perhaps the disconnect comes because physics is a specialty whereas philosophy isnt. Physicists are very focused on details, philosophers on the big picture.
John, do you believe time is real ?
Looks like the moderation police nuked what you responded to, so i didnt see it.
It would help if quoted posts you where responding to if you cant give your comments some context yourself.
Its common knowledge to philosophers that time isnt real, its a perception.
Stuff changes, humans use time to measure when changes happen(ed), that doenst make time exist in reality..
We can change stuff, and we can change our perception of stuff, but they are two separate things.
Changing how we perceive stuff doesnt change the stuff in reality.
I think more physicists should study philosophy....
Oy vay... how the heck did that get modded interesting?
Yes. VP8 is supposed to be free. And the code Google released is free. But the issues surrounding VP8 have absolutely nothing, zero, nada, to do with copyright law.
Umm, i cant see anything in the parent or grandparent about copyright, they only mention patents.
Who are you trying to argue with ?
The government promised it prior to the last election, and Conroy (the minister responsible) has been pushing it his entire term. There have been public trials on the technology and many interviews and public debates on the filter.
The impression i get is that Conroy doesnt value the views of the majority of the population and is determined to implement it, no matter the cost.
The filter has even been criticized by the US which have a very poor history on Internet freedom themselves, e.g. roaming wiretaps (that was the previous leader though)
What makes it a "vague intention" ?
The need for secrecy is usually a reaction to a security failure, not a preventative measure.
The best way to be secure is to have lots of friends and few enemies, trust is the most valuable weapon to achieve that, secrets detract from trust.
Re your secret nuke launch codes, there is a saying (from the *BSD folk), without physical security there is no security, if all that is needed to launch nukes is some secret sequence of numbers then thats a design failure right there.
Lock the fckn door to the room with the button in it maybe ???
In the US, we have collectively decided, as a society, that some information should be kept secret, even from The People, and we have empowered and entrusted the government with the power to do so.
Really, did _you_ vote on it, will your vote be reaffirmed every generation or so to ensure its still what the people want ?
Perhaps you should have said, a previous generation let the powers that be keep secrets from everyone, and now we cant get them to give up their power.
Timothy, if you dont understand big words, dont use them.
Ethernet is an improvement over than token ring, yet Ethernet has collisions and token ring doesn't.
Token ring avoids collisions, Ethernet accepts collisions will take place but has a good error recovery system.
"... but they could well be closer then 25x out."
And apples could well be closer than 25x better than oranges ?
The criticism isnt on the result of the measurement, its on the premise underlying it.
If the 4.8 million hours where all time that employee and worked themselves to exhaustion (mental or physical), then 4.8 million hours weren't lost, the workers had already given 100%.
Some employers in the IT field at least say to take a 5min break every hour to relax and help keep them fresh, thats not a wasted 5 minutes as it allows people to work more productively in the next hour or whatever.
It could well be that playing pacman booster productivity...
"That means the CSM -- and the entire playerbase it represents -- has as much influence on development projects as Marketing, Accounting, Publicity and all the other teams outside of the development team."
Remember that simpsons episode where homer designs a new car to appeal to the average Joe ?
Sometimes people shouldn't get what they want.
+whatcouldpossiblygowrong
Using nukes will make it a small problem for a long term rather than a big problem for a small time.
Sounds like something are shortsighted business and political leaders would be interested in.
Oh yea, and +whatcouldpossiblygowrong
"the department's position was that copyright of the whole thing belonged to them"
It doesnt matter what license the department releases the code under, it will still belong to them, only a license transfer will make it not theres.
If they merge other peoples copyrighted work with theres then neither party owns the copyright to the whole thing.
Maybe suggest releasing the code but maintain there own seperate fork, it would provide some accountability/transparency, might help with feedback and bug reports.
It could allow "outsiders" to experiment in taking the code in new directions that management are risk/averse to, if it works out then the company can implement feature/idea with there own money (being careful not to infringe).
Dont they both have "binary only" components ?
Or do you mean crackable ?
It shouldnt give you fewer methods to solve a problem.
It will give you less problem solvers.
The front page is different, its an unprotected point of entry, if they author of the page didn't want you to have access then it wouldnt be created that way.
A reasonable expectation might be for people to go to the front page and from there check the authors copyright notice. It would be unreasonable to place a copyright notice in a place that requires people to have already agreed to conditions before considering them, but the same argument cant be applied to other content.
Other pages on the website _could_ be protected by passwords or click through license agreements which state copyright license conditions, i doubt an implied license would cover access to those protected pages, an implied license is only supposed to be minimal.
Deep link cases i think they are arguing that there isnt an implied license to link to one of those protected pages, that they need a license. The counter is that if it has a URL that can directly access it (as opposed to dynamic content) then the content isnt hidden/protected, its like a front page.
The torrent file might not be copyrightable as its factual data without significant originality, if its not copyrightable then accessing it cant be a violation of copyright. Also im not aware of a torrent file being considered illegal under other laws (are you ?), the torrent file can be used to assist in violating copyright, just like an ftp/http client or P2P software, but its the act of copying thats the violation, not the instruments used.
If you break into someones house, the tools you use arent directly relevent, its the resulting actions.
What ive been able to understand (since yesterday hehe) about an implied licence is that its a "common sense" type thing, its a licence to do just enough to achieve a required task.
For example, when playing a DVD it could be argued there is an implied right to be able to copy it into memory or the play can cache it to disk in order to play it.
With a website i think there must be an implied license to view the front page, and anything reasonable to achieve the purpose of finding a copyright notice on the site. But it get hairy after that and gets tied into the deep linking cases.
I think if these people pushing the case that deep linking is bad started winning then this implied license could be reduced.
I doubt that is the case anywhere in the world. It certainly isn't where I live, or in any other country I've been to. If that were the case, any ISP would be liable for copyright infringement.
ISP is different, there are special exceptions granted for "Common carriers"
The term i think we are working around as i mention in my other post is called an "implied license", i suspect thats the situation with a web browser.
Maybe there is an "implied permission", which is briefly mentioned in http://www.copyright.org.au/g057.pdf