To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
This is where current copyright is unconstitutional on its face. It says "for limited times" to "the Authors and Inventors". A copyright term of "Life" granted to the Author is not limited from the perspective of that Author, it is unlimited. It is all the time they have in the world. So right there, in plain English, the law that was passed that extended the copyright term to be based on the life of the author/inventor is unconstitutional as Congress was not granted the power to secure for unlimited times the exclusive rights.
...by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors...
This is where current copyright is unconstitutional on its face. It says "for limited times" to "the Authors and Inventors". A copyright term of "Life" granted to the Author is not limited from the perspective of that Author, it is unlimited. It is all the time they have in the world. So right there, in plain English, the law that was passed that extended the copyright term to be based on the life of the author/inventor is unconstitutional as Congress was not granted the power to secure for unlimited times the exclusive rights.
f all of the ranter's are as morally self righteous and as smart as they think they are, they shouldn't have any trouble getting hired.
I take it you've never seen or filled out the forms required or participated in the interviews necessary to get a government clearance. That alone is a lot of trouble. It's easiest when your young as you can actually remember all the details of your life and associations that they require you to disclose.
There is some idea that anyone who works for these agencies has had their brain and conscience wiped.
Well considering that it is common knowledge that they do this in basic training for regular, lowly soldiers with no access to classified information, it isn't much of a stretch they would do the same for the intelligence agencies (which also happen to recruit form the armed services). Keep in mind, from the army's (and I daresay the government's) perspective, a good soldier is not one who does what is right, unquestionably, it is one who follows orders, unquestionably.
Since there are more laws on the books than any one person could learn or know, in addition to the volumes of judgements interpreting and/or refining them, this is not a practical option for most. Not breaking the law requires knowing the law. Not getting caught, does not. Therefore, the best option is to not get caught (whether intentionally breaking the law or not). Basically, your best option is not to tell anyone anything about or make records of; what you have done, are doing, or plan to do in the future.
but most of them pay a bigger percentage of their income in taxes then Mitt Romney does.
True, but how many years worth of their full salary does Romney pay in taxes in a single year? For some, it's a life time of earnings. That's why this "fair share" talk from Obama is nothing but crap.
It was the uneducated masses and official church dogma that this was not true, and this created a climate where openly saying the earth was round was not exactly a safe position to take.
Which means to say that the majority of published scientific findings said what? I would guess the safe, untrue thing that would keep said scientist(s) alive and free. This does not help the argument.
the point is to verify that the vast majority of experts believes (base don their study) that global warming is man made.
Is entirely man-made or man contributed to it? Those are two very different statements. If we only contribute that suggests that it's going to happen no matter what we do, the best we could hope for is to delay the inevitable. Given the history of the planet, I think this is the more likely scenario and we would be better off spending our energy figuring out how, as a species, to survive it when it inevitably happens.
The novel, in its entirety, is stored in binary digits on a computer. If that is the only place it exists, then it only exists as very long string of 0's and 1's. Converting the binary back to readable ASCII text is math. Mind you, both the binary format and it's conversion to text are copyrightable but neither are patentable which is the context we are talking about.
1. You can of course claim that all software is maths, and call everyone stupid who doesn't believe it, but that doesn't make it true. If someone says "it is a mathematical function", I say "show me the function". Which never happens.
Look at the compiled code, what the software actually is, the step by step, iterative process that is fed to the CPU and you will see it nothing but a veeeeerrrryyyyyy long sequence of simple math operations. That is all software is. All other concepts about software were abstractions of this fact, created by us, so that we could understand and utilize it better.
Well, I HATE this software argument about patents as, to be honest, EVERYTHING can be described as mathematics
While true that everything can be described in mathematical terms that doesn't make the comparison the same. When it comes to software, it not only can be described in mathematical terms, it is compiled and executed in mathematical terms because that's all the CPU understands, it's the only thing the computer can do, execute mathematical expressions, you know "Compute".
When software is distributed to the end-user, it is nothing but a complex, iterative, mathematical formula formatted in the way the computer understands so that it can compute it for you. It is not anything else and never was, except for maybe source code but that would fall under copyright.
Software is mathematics because all software is expressed and processed as mathematical formulas when run on a computer , therefore it can't be patented.
That's like saying that a chair is just a representation of geometrical shapes which can be expressed as mathematical formulas.
Everything is math, therefore everything must not be patentable.
That's not the same analogy. A chair is made of wood, which comes from a tree. A tree doesn't do math, it lives, grows and tries to reproduce. Starting with that and turning it into a chair is not math.
However, a computer is a machine that's only purpose is to compute. The only thing a computer can do at it's core, is math. So every piece of software, at its core, is nothing more than a complex, iterative, mathematical formula, period. If complex, iterative mathematical formulas cannot be patented then neither should software because they are the same thing.
Everything on a computer is NOT math. Everything on a computer is representable as math.
Incorrect, Sir! Everything on a computer is math, complicated math, used to store/represent what ever the information, picture, sound, etc. that the user wants on the computer. A computer can only compute, it can only do math, that is it's only function, period. We, as humans, have become so ridiculously advanced with our understanding and application of math have been able to take a machine which can only do math, albeit at ridiculous speed, and pretty much do whatever we can imagine with it. People have designed entire 3D models of cities using nothing but math.
This assumes that it is impossible for a plant to develop a resistance to glyphosate naturally, which is, of course, a false assumption. I didn't read the article or the transcript of the case, so I don't know for sure how much the defendant admitted, but it is possible that the seeds that survived the pesticide were naturally resistant and, if so, he would of had the right the harvest and replant them. If he didn't sign a contract stipulating these were GMO seeds and these are the terms for their use, this could of been a plausible defense.
Have you ever actually darkened the door of a polling place? They've got a list of the registered voters. You vote, they check you off. Try again, and they see you've already voted
Okay, think a little more creatively and you will start to see the problem. Realize, that there exists a subset of registered voters who do not actually vote. Also realize, that this list can be compiled exclusively from public sources as matter of public records. Now, with a list of known registered voters who have little probability of actually voting, one could go through the voting line many times, impersonating a different person at a different address each time because that is all the information you need - a name and a street address. It doesn't even need to be the same person, with some money you can hire a team of unemployed people to do this for you.
Now, remind me again why needing to show ID to prove you are the person you claim to be when picking up your ballot is bad? Keep in mind all the other places you need to show ID which are not considered bad; buying alcohol, cigarettes, or a plane ticket to name a few.
Unfortunately, the numbers you've used, while mathematically correct, really don't provide any meaningful insight. If you want to compare useful numbers, compare the total number of firearms in the US and the total number of automobiles on the road in the US (the per household figures have no relation to the question and are completely irrelevant). Compare the total number of guns to total gun deaths, and the total number of automobiles to total car deaths. Those comparisons would actually have some relevance to the discussion.
The problem with gun ownership, is that there is now a majority of americans who believe that restrictions on gun ownership should be tightened (to some degree).
First, citation needed. Along with the actual question(s) that were asked because this is a subject where the specific language of the question really matters as it is easy to mislead people to say something they don't really mean (or even realize they said).
Second, the problem with gun control is that the "Right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is an amendment to the Constitution and can not be superseded with a regular law. The existing language leaves no room for legally/constitutionally restricting this right, in any way. (unless you can find a definition of "infringe" that allows for that, I have asked many times and have never got a response). This means that you need at least 2/3's (66.7%) of the population's representation (Senators & Representatives) and then 2/3's of the States to agree to change it. Gun control has no where near that much support and the proponents of it know it which is why they have never even suggested enacting gun control in the only legal way, as a constitutional amendment which limits/restricts the second.
The problem is if Windows doesn't know the type of device it can't include its ID's in the machine hash. When the drivers are installed then it does know the device type and its ID's being added to the hash, change the hash. This probably only affects things like the chipset and NICs. However, I agree this is a programmer's error, the hash should not be computed and activation not be allowed if there is still unknown hardware detected, unless the user agrees to a very specific warning about what will happen if they don't install the drivers first.
Yes, you can. But we know far more about the composition of a AA battery than we do of the composition of the earth. We've also drained many a AA battery to its end to come-up with and tweak those averages/extrapolations so that they are accurate. So still not a fitting analogy. Not that you can prove via analogy anyway.
Without counting the electrons in an AA battery, how can you know how many are left without destroying the battery? "It's simply impossible - mathematically and logically."
And yet we can tell by examining the profile of the power it's giving out over time.
First, I assume you are talking about a non-brand new AA battery. Second, you say we can do that by examining the power profile over time. However, that seems an awful lot like counting to me, even when combined with averaging and extrapolation you still counted first.
When have public cameras caused someone to be harassed?
Firstly, individual privately operated cameras and centralized government dragnet surveillance are two different things and I am only commenting the governmental one. Secondly, the main analogy for the justification for their being little-to-no expectation of privacy in a public space is that their are other people who can see you there anyway. However, the people who can see you, you can also see, they have no authority to wield over you, and are not following you around all day, every day. Meaning that in order to get the full picture of ones activities (or a group of people's) you'd have to find and then talk to lots of people and fit the pieces together yourself. If a single person were to follow you around, all day, every day, and compile a detailed account of your activities, that would be harassment and you could file charges if that person refused to cease. So the analogy doesn't fit with centralized government surveillance. It does fit with individual privately operated cameras though.
If strangers have the right to "see" me with their eyes as I walk the street and walk in to a store, is it so different if that "seeing" is recorded?
Yes, obviously. There would then be permanent documentation of every move everyone makes while in public which can be accessed now or at any time in the future for reasons which will not be made clear and will be subject to change at any time.
I think what the "privacy" crowd wants is a right to "anonymity". And I'm not sure we have a right to "anonymity".
No, what they want is their right to not be harassed upheld. Their right to not have every moment of their public activities stored as part of a permanent record. It is not unreasonable.
No bank hater keeps $800,000 in cash in a vehicle and risks it every time he drives it around
Who said he drives it around all the time? No one, you just assumed that. Me, I would assume that he was trying to move it from an insecure location to a secure one and was short on time which would also explain why he overstuffed the compartment to the point of it not opening again. He seems pretty anxious to not be continually risking it in his car since he was trying to get the compartment open, presumably to get the money out of the car.
Slashdot Mirror
You forgot the Rocky Horror Picture Show where they stop singing it abruptly right before they would of have to pay to license it.
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
This is where current copyright is unconstitutional on its face. It says "for limited times" to "the Authors and Inventors". A copyright term of "Life" granted to the Author is not limited from the perspective of that Author, it is unlimited. It is all the time they have in the world. So right there, in plain English, the law that was passed that extended the copyright term to be based on the life of the author/inventor is unconstitutional as Congress was not granted the power to secure for unlimited times the exclusive rights.
This is where current copyright is unconstitutional on its face. It says "for limited times" to "the Authors and Inventors". A copyright term of "Life" granted to the Author is not limited from the perspective of that Author, it is unlimited. It is all the time they have in the world. So right there, in plain English, the law that was passed that extended the copyright term to be based on the life of the author/inventor is unconstitutional as Congress was not granted the power to secure for unlimited times the exclusive rights.
f all of the ranter's are as morally self righteous and as smart as they think they are, they shouldn't have any trouble getting hired.
I take it you've never seen or filled out the forms required or participated in the interviews necessary to get a government clearance. That alone is a lot of trouble. It's easiest when your young as you can actually remember all the details of your life and associations that they require you to disclose.
There is some idea that anyone who works for these agencies has had their brain and conscience wiped.
Well considering that it is common knowledge that they do this in basic training for regular, lowly soldiers with no access to classified information, it isn't much of a stretch they would do the same for the intelligence agencies (which also happen to recruit form the armed services). Keep in mind, from the army's (and I daresay the government's) perspective, a good soldier is not one who does what is right, unquestionably, it is one who follows orders, unquestionably.
The best option is to not to break the law.
Since there are more laws on the books than any one person could learn or know, in addition to the volumes of judgements interpreting and/or refining them, this is not a practical option for most. Not breaking the law requires knowing the law. Not getting caught, does not. Therefore, the best option is to not get caught (whether intentionally breaking the law or not). Basically, your best option is not to tell anyone anything about or make records of; what you have done, are doing, or plan to do in the future.
but most of them pay a bigger percentage of their income in taxes then Mitt Romney does.
True, but how many years worth of their full salary does Romney pay in taxes in a single year? For some, it's a life time of earnings. That's why this "fair share" talk from Obama is nothing but crap.
It was the uneducated masses and official church dogma that this was not true, and this created a climate where openly saying the earth was round was not exactly a safe position to take.
Which means to say that the majority of published scientific findings said what? I would guess the safe, untrue thing that would keep said scientist(s) alive and free. This does not help the argument.
the point is to verify that the vast majority of experts believes (base don their study) that global warming is man made.
Is entirely man-made or man contributed to it? Those are two very different statements. If we only contribute that suggests that it's going to happen no matter what we do, the best we could hope for is to delay the inevitable. Given the history of the planet, I think this is the more likely scenario and we would be better off spending our energy figuring out how, as a species, to survive it when it inevitably happens.
The novel, in its entirety, is stored in binary digits on a computer. If that is the only place it exists, then it only exists as very long string of 0's and 1's. Converting the binary back to readable ASCII text is math. Mind you, both the binary format and it's conversion to text are copyrightable but neither are patentable which is the context we are talking about.
1. You can of course claim that all software is maths, and call everyone stupid who doesn't believe it, but that doesn't make it true. If someone says "it is a mathematical function", I say "show me the function". Which never happens.
Look at the compiled code, what the software actually is, the step by step, iterative process that is fed to the CPU and you will see it nothing but a veeeeerrrryyyyyy long sequence of simple math operations. That is all software is. All other concepts about software were abstractions of this fact, created by us, so that we could understand and utilize it better.
Well, I HATE this software argument about patents as, to be honest, EVERYTHING can be described as mathematics
While true that everything can be described in mathematical terms that doesn't make the comparison the same. When it comes to software, it not only can be described in mathematical terms, it is compiled and executed in mathematical terms because that's all the CPU understands, it's the only thing the computer can do, execute mathematical expressions, you know "Compute".
When software is distributed to the end-user, it is nothing but a complex, iterative, mathematical formula formatted in the way the computer understands so that it can compute it for you. It is not anything else and never was, except for maybe source code but that would fall under copyright.
Software is mathematics because all software is expressed and processed as mathematical formulas when run on a computer , therefore it can't be patented.
There, fixed that for ya.
That's like saying that a chair is just a representation of geometrical shapes which can be expressed as mathematical formulas. Everything is math, therefore everything must not be patentable.
That's not the same analogy. A chair is made of wood, which comes from a tree. A tree doesn't do math, it lives, grows and tries to reproduce. Starting with that and turning it into a chair is not math.
However, a computer is a machine that's only purpose is to compute. The only thing a computer can do at it's core, is math. So every piece of software, at its core, is nothing more than a complex, iterative, mathematical formula, period. If complex, iterative mathematical formulas cannot be patented then neither should software because they are the same thing.
Everything on a computer is NOT math. Everything on a computer is representable as math.
Incorrect, Sir! Everything on a computer is math, complicated math, used to store/represent what ever the information, picture, sound, etc. that the user wants on the computer. A computer can only compute, it can only do math, that is it's only function, period. We, as humans, have become so ridiculously advanced with our understanding and application of math have been able to take a machine which can only do math, albeit at ridiculous speed, and pretty much do whatever we can imagine with it. People have designed entire 3D models of cities using nothing but math.
This assumes that it is impossible for a plant to develop a resistance to glyphosate naturally, which is, of course, a false assumption. I didn't read the article or the transcript of the case, so I don't know for sure how much the defendant admitted, but it is possible that the seeds that survived the pesticide were naturally resistant and, if so, he would of had the right the harvest and replant them. If he didn't sign a contract stipulating these were GMO seeds and these are the terms for their use, this could of been a plausible defense.
Have you ever actually darkened the door of a polling place? They've got a list of the registered voters. You vote, they check you off. Try again, and they see you've already voted
Okay, think a little more creatively and you will start to see the problem. Realize, that there exists a subset of registered voters who do not actually vote. Also realize, that this list can be compiled exclusively from public sources as matter of public records. Now, with a list of known registered voters who have little probability of actually voting, one could go through the voting line many times, impersonating a different person at a different address each time because that is all the information you need - a name and a street address. It doesn't even need to be the same person, with some money you can hire a team of unemployed people to do this for you.
Now, remind me again why needing to show ID to prove you are the person you claim to be when picking up your ballot is bad? Keep in mind all the other places you need to show ID which are not considered bad; buying alcohol, cigarettes, or a plane ticket to name a few.
Unfortunately, the numbers you've used, while mathematically correct, really don't provide any meaningful insight. If you want to compare useful numbers, compare the total number of firearms in the US and the total number of automobiles on the road in the US (the per household figures have no relation to the question and are completely irrelevant). Compare the total number of guns to total gun deaths, and the total number of automobiles to total car deaths. Those comparisons would actually have some relevance to the discussion.
The problem with gun ownership, is that there is now a majority of americans who believe that restrictions on gun ownership should be tightened (to some degree).
First, citation needed. Along with the actual question(s) that were asked because this is a subject where the specific language of the question really matters as it is easy to mislead people to say something they don't really mean (or even realize they said).
Second, the problem with gun control is that the "Right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is an amendment to the Constitution and can not be superseded with a regular law. The existing language leaves no room for legally/constitutionally restricting this right, in any way. (unless you can find a definition of "infringe" that allows for that, I have asked many times and have never got a response). This means that you need at least 2/3's (66.7%) of the population's representation (Senators & Representatives) and then 2/3's of the States to agree to change it. Gun control has no where near that much support and the proponents of it know it which is why they have never even suggested enacting gun control in the only legal way, as a constitutional amendment which limits/restricts the second.
The problem is if Windows doesn't know the type of device it can't include its ID's in the machine hash. When the drivers are installed then it does know the device type and its ID's being added to the hash, change the hash. This probably only affects things like the chipset and NICs. However, I agree this is a programmer's error, the hash should not be computed and activation not be allowed if there is still unknown hardware detected, unless the user agrees to a very specific warning about what will happen if they don't install the drivers first.
Yes, you can. But we know far more about the composition of a AA battery than we do of the composition of the earth. We've also drained many a AA battery to its end to come-up with and tweak those averages/extrapolations so that they are accurate. So still not a fitting analogy. Not that you can prove via analogy anyway.
Without counting the electrons in an AA battery, how can you know how many are left without destroying the battery? "It's simply impossible - mathematically and logically." And yet we can tell by examining the profile of the power it's giving out over time.
First, I assume you are talking about a non-brand new AA battery. Second, you say we can do that by examining the power profile over time. However, that seems an awful lot like counting to me, even when combined with averaging and extrapolation you still counted first.
When have public cameras caused someone to be harassed?
Firstly, individual privately operated cameras and centralized government dragnet surveillance are two different things and I am only commenting the governmental one. Secondly, the main analogy for the justification for their being little-to-no expectation of privacy in a public space is that their are other people who can see you there anyway. However, the people who can see you, you can also see, they have no authority to wield over you, and are not following you around all day, every day. Meaning that in order to get the full picture of ones activities (or a group of people's) you'd have to find and then talk to lots of people and fit the pieces together yourself. If a single person were to follow you around, all day, every day, and compile a detailed account of your activities, that would be harassment and you could file charges if that person refused to cease. So the analogy doesn't fit with centralized government surveillance. It does fit with individual privately operated cameras though.
If strangers have the right to "see" me with their eyes as I walk the street and walk in to a store, is it so different if that "seeing" is recorded?
Yes, obviously. There would then be permanent documentation of every move everyone makes while in public which can be accessed now or at any time in the future for reasons which will not be made clear and will be subject to change at any time.
I think what the "privacy" crowd wants is a right to "anonymity". And I'm not sure we have a right to "anonymity".
No, what they want is their right to not be harassed upheld. Their right to not have every moment of their public activities stored as part of a permanent record. It is not unreasonable.
No bank hater keeps $800,000 in cash in a vehicle and risks it every time he drives it around
Who said he drives it around all the time? No one, you just assumed that. Me, I would assume that he was trying to move it from an insecure location to a secure one and was short on time which would also explain why he overstuffed the compartment to the point of it not opening again. He seems pretty anxious to not be continually risking it in his car since he was trying to get the compartment open, presumably to get the money out of the car.