... I just didn't expect it to happen so soon. A mesh network is a natural step to take on the path to fully automating roads and all but eliminating the dangers of the road. Naturally the next step would be to mandate cars to participate in the network, to get the best data. I just wasn't predicting it would be in this decade. Mind you, the recent advances in automatic driving without mesh networking has also been surprising, so maybe I should have seen this coming.
I don't know what the submitter is so worried about. This is simply one of the final nails in the coffin of road fatalities.
You lose many babies, even when trying (even successfully) to conceive. That's not a problem; potential babies are a dime a dozen. We can always just manufacture more, with pleasure!
I can't say the same for potential sales. Once a sale is lost, it's very hard to get back, and impossible to fabricate.
What's your problem with a rape analogy? If you don't think copyright infringement and rape have common elements, why not argue like a man, instead of down-modding like a coward?
Indeed. Nothing new. Nothing helpful. Nothing that contributes to our culture or understanding of the world. Nothing that is any good to anyone, except the person who obtains it.
Nothing is *taken*
Ah, this is where you're wrong. The fact that there is a component of creation does not imply there is not a component of taking, or destruction.
Is there much of a moral distinction between copyright infringement and theft? Both involve acquiring something to which you have no right, at the quantifiable detriment to the owner. Is there some other moral dimension to theft of which I'm not aware?
Not just government-backed, but government-guaranteed. The entire time they were pouring their own money into making this stuff, they were doing so under the assumption that the law saying they would get a monopoly on their particular product would be upheld.
Of course they feel entitled to their monopolies. And, moreover, they are entitled to reparations to those of us who break the monopoly.
Coding and music (particularly composition) are excellent for the mind, but not every student has the aptitude. It's not a case of some kids being too dumb, but just that not every mind works that way.
I do think that students should be given the option though.
If you actually have a talent for writing software, you'll find out automatically.
Bullshit. Kids have no way of recognising that aptitude in themselves. How could they? I find that people who haven't been introduced to computer programming previously have no idea what it entails.
Also, I'd like to point out that programming in school is mostly about structuring your thoughts logically and a feel for how computers work, not professional coding etiquette.
Ahhh, if it's all the same to you, I'm not quite done with my critical reasoning skills yet. But, I promise, the moment I'm done with them, I'll come chase shadows with you on your imaginary demon hunt.
Obvious bias is indeed obvious, but, to be fair, it only points out that the reason is stupid, and does not comment on the law itself. It doesn't really need to either, since the/. groupthink will tell 95% of us what to think about it anyway.
but just check out TV forums and see how many posters refer to actors by their characters' names. For a lot of people, TV is real-life
That might be a bit of a leap there.
When I read a novel, I say/think $CHARACTER did something, even though I know that they don't exist, and I find I do the same in all sorts of entertainment, television included. Also, the names of the characters are a great way to refer to the person without having to memorise their names, or expect others to do so as well.
In fact, come to think about it, I don't know a single person who is even close to thinking that TV is real. I don't even know anyone who thinks it's plausible. Do you?
Sometimes I wonder if "Remember the dumb people" is/.'s "Think of the children".
No, the worst possible thing already happened, thats the content of the letter.
A slight exaggeration perhaps, but it's beside the point. It's not a competition of who can be more wrong; the fact of the matter is that it's possible for two parties to be in the wrong. And in principle, how wrong one party is should not affect how wrong the other party is.
Think about all those legal penalties for spying, warrantless searches, torture, and all those other illegal methods for obtaining potentially valuable information. Not only do we punish people who use them, we refuse to acknowledge, in court, the information obtained using them. Why? Because if we did, then people would continue to do them, regardless of the penalties. It's not enough to say, "Whoops, my bad, but at least you caught the serial kiddie-fiddler due to my illegal search!", and walk out scot-free. Regardless of how useful the information exposed, we know that the methods to obtain said information are evil, and we do our best to ensure they don't happen, even if it means ignoring valuable information. Basically, as far as the courts' are concerned, the ends never justify the means.
(Now, I don't mean to suggest we should ignore what Snowden turned up, just that we shouldn't allow the magnitude of NSA's crimes to blind us to the issue of whether Snowden himself has done wrong or not.)
Only when "propaganda spin-meisters" are crowing away to all who will still listen.
So, your reason for ignoring this part of the debate is because the other side are smelly poopy-faces? These may not be your exact words, but it's certainly the gist that I take from it.
It is not a debate when discourse limited and narrowed to concentrate on the messenger rather than the much more important message.
If you re-read my post, you'll see that I was not even remotely suggesting this. There's nuance here. No, the debate is not entirely the way you want it. No, by debating all of the issues raised, that does not mean we only debate the ones you don't want to. It does not mean we are deflecting the real issues, just addressing the other ones that you don't want to address, which is fine, because the "other side" doesn't necessarily want to address the issues you want to address. That's why you address them all.
Seriously modders, shame on you! I would think directly discussing the topic "The Death of Nuance" would be illuminating enough to stop you modding such dreck up, at least on this story!
What you're describing is the use of implicit meaning in language in order to convince people of a point. Such a technique is known as rhetoric, and it's been around roughly as long as language itself.
I disagree. A large part of the debate is about Snowden's conduct; whether it's right to share state secrets, given what the NSA is doing. Note that this is an issue not entirely dependent on whether the NSA is justified in their actions or not.
Focus in the message that is by far the important thing.
The message is extremely important, yes, but so is his conduct. That's what half the debate is about. He may be the mailman, but if he's opening the mail and delivering it deliberately to the wrong hands, the message itself is not the only relevant factor.
Actually come to think about it, I do have one concern, which is the problems it could create with third party upgrades. Something to keep an eye on, I guess.
This isn't like software where you're not shipping some bits, or even if you ship them and selectively enable or disable. These are physically manufactured components. The parts have to be physically manufactured and installed.
This reminds me of the furore there is every time a game company releases day 1 DLC, sometimes included on the physical media no less (Bioshock 2, IIRC). In the latter case, this is pretty much directly analogous.
Look, you have to remember that, in a capitalist system, the question of physical presence is hardly the point: they charge a price, you decide if it's fair. If the cost of the base model is inflated, compared to the competition, due to the extra hardware, then just buy the competition instead. If the price is comparable, then how exactly is it skin off your nose if they include disabled extras?
TFS takes the right attitude, IMHO. What I see here is a convenient and instantaneous way to deliver extras, with very low time and money costs, if it is indeed feasible. I don't see what there is to dislike.
I think one of the takeaways from the survey may be that formal intellectual property protection isn't always valuable to most businesses, even though intangible things like reputation may be very valuable.
You do realise that trademark protection exists with or without registration, right? Registration confers additional rights to your trademark, but even without registration, other businesses are not permitted to imitate you.
Therefore, even without taking the step of registration, there is still formal intellectual property protection, which the GP is correct in saying that businesses that trade on their reputation rely on. If a business wasn't able to have exclusivity over the name tied to their reputation, such a reputation would be very difficult to foster in the first place. It's easy to take things like the concept of a business's reputation for granted when we are so used to the idea of a trademark.
Grades are about quality control, if that's what you mean. Some students simply don't know the material that we teach them, and it would be unfair, stupid, and reckless to testify otherwise.
(I know it's not what you mean, but you're clearly an idiot, so I don't really care.)
Slashdot Mirror
... I just didn't expect it to happen so soon. A mesh network is a natural step to take on the path to fully automating roads and all but eliminating the dangers of the road. Naturally the next step would be to mandate cars to participate in the network, to get the best data. I just wasn't predicting it would be in this decade. Mind you, the recent advances in automatic driving without mesh networking has also been surprising, so maybe I should have seen this coming.
I don't know what the submitter is so worried about. This is simply one of the final nails in the coffin of road fatalities.
You lose many babies, even when trying (even successfully) to conceive. That's not a problem; potential babies are a dime a dozen. We can always just manufacture more, with pleasure!
I can't say the same for potential sales. Once a sale is lost, it's very hard to get back, and impossible to fabricate.
What's your problem with a rape analogy? If you don't think copyright infringement and rape have common elements, why not argue like a man, instead of down-modding like a coward?
Indeed. Nothing new. Nothing helpful. Nothing that contributes to our culture or understanding of the world. Nothing that is any good to anyone, except the person who obtains it.
Ah, this is where you're wrong. The fact that there is a component of creation does not imply there is not a component of taking, or destruction.
That's a helluvan algorithm when you want something specific!
I think their greed might be clouding their moral judgement.
Is there much of a moral distinction between copyright infringement and theft? Both involve acquiring something to which you have no right, at the quantifiable detriment to the owner. Is there some other moral dimension to theft of which I'm not aware?
Not just government-backed, but government-guaranteed. The entire time they were pouring their own money into making this stuff, they were doing so under the assumption that the law saying they would get a monopoly on their particular product would be upheld.
Of course they feel entitled to their monopolies. And, moreover, they are entitled to reparations to those of us who break the monopoly.
Coding and music (particularly composition) are excellent for the mind, but not every student has the aptitude. It's not a case of some kids being too dumb, but just that not every mind works that way.
I do think that students should be given the option though.
Bullshit. Kids have no way of recognising that aptitude in themselves. How could they? I find that people who haven't been introduced to computer programming previously have no idea what it entails.
Also, I'd like to point out that programming in school is mostly about structuring your thoughts logically and a feel for how computers work, not professional coding etiquette.
I'm not sure. When did we invent the military?
Ahhh, if it's all the same to you, I'm not quite done with my critical reasoning skills yet. But, I promise, the moment I'm done with them, I'll come chase shadows with you on your imaginary demon hunt.
Obvious bias is indeed obvious, but, to be fair, it only points out that the reason is stupid, and does not comment on the law itself. It doesn't really need to either, since the /. groupthink will tell 95% of us what to think about it anyway.
That might be a bit of a leap there.
When I read a novel, I say/think $CHARACTER did something, even though I know that they don't exist, and I find I do the same in all sorts of entertainment, television included. Also, the names of the characters are a great way to refer to the person without having to memorise their names, or expect others to do so as well.
In fact, come to think about it, I don't know a single person who is even close to thinking that TV is real. I don't even know anyone who thinks it's plausible. Do you?
Sometimes I wonder if "Remember the dumb people" is /.'s "Think of the children".
A slight exaggeration perhaps, but it's beside the point. It's not a competition of who can be more wrong; the fact of the matter is that it's possible for two parties to be in the wrong. And in principle, how wrong one party is should not affect how wrong the other party is.
Think about all those legal penalties for spying, warrantless searches, torture, and all those other illegal methods for obtaining potentially valuable information. Not only do we punish people who use them, we refuse to acknowledge, in court, the information obtained using them. Why? Because if we did, then people would continue to do them, regardless of the penalties. It's not enough to say, "Whoops, my bad, but at least you caught the serial kiddie-fiddler due to my illegal search!", and walk out scot-free. Regardless of how useful the information exposed, we know that the methods to obtain said information are evil, and we do our best to ensure they don't happen, even if it means ignoring valuable information. Basically, as far as the courts' are concerned, the ends never justify the means.
(Now, I don't mean to suggest we should ignore what Snowden turned up, just that we shouldn't allow the magnitude of NSA's crimes to blind us to the issue of whether Snowden himself has done wrong or not.)
So, your reason for ignoring this part of the debate is because the other side are smelly poopy-faces? These may not be your exact words, but it's certainly the gist that I take from it.
If you re-read my post, you'll see that I was not even remotely suggesting this. There's nuance here. No, the debate is not entirely the way you want it. No, by debating all of the issues raised, that does not mean we only debate the ones you don't want to. It does not mean we are deflecting the real issues, just addressing the other ones that you don't want to address, which is fine, because the "other side" doesn't necessarily want to address the issues you want to address. That's why you address them all.
Seriously modders, shame on you! I would think directly discussing the topic "The Death of Nuance" would be illuminating enough to stop you modding such dreck up, at least on this story!
What do you think this is, a site for techies?
What you're describing is the use of implicit meaning in language in order to convince people of a point. Such a technique is known as rhetoric, and it's been around roughly as long as language itself.
I disagree. A large part of the debate is about Snowden's conduct; whether it's right to share state secrets, given what the NSA is doing. Note that this is an issue not entirely dependent on whether the NSA is justified in their actions or not.
The message is extremely important, yes, but so is his conduct. That's what half the debate is about. He may be the mailman, but if he's opening the mail and delivering it deliberately to the wrong hands, the message itself is not the only relevant factor.
That's an odd attitude with which to approach a movie.
Actually come to think about it, I do have one concern, which is the problems it could create with third party upgrades. Something to keep an eye on, I guess.
This reminds me of the furore there is every time a game company releases day 1 DLC, sometimes included on the physical media no less (Bioshock 2, IIRC). In the latter case, this is pretty much directly analogous.
Look, you have to remember that, in a capitalist system, the question of physical presence is hardly the point: they charge a price, you decide if it's fair. If the cost of the base model is inflated, compared to the competition, due to the extra hardware, then just buy the competition instead. If the price is comparable, then how exactly is it skin off your nose if they include disabled extras?
TFS takes the right attitude, IMHO. What I see here is a convenient and instantaneous way to deliver extras, with very low time and money costs, if it is indeed feasible. I don't see what there is to dislike.
You do realise that trademark protection exists with or without registration, right? Registration confers additional rights to your trademark, but even without registration, other businesses are not permitted to imitate you.
Therefore, even without taking the step of registration, there is still formal intellectual property protection, which the GP is correct in saying that businesses that trade on their reputation rely on. If a business wasn't able to have exclusivity over the name tied to their reputation, such a reputation would be very difficult to foster in the first place. It's easy to take things like the concept of a business's reputation for granted when we are so used to the idea of a trademark.
Grades are about quality control, if that's what you mean. Some students simply don't know the material that we teach them, and it would be unfair, stupid, and reckless to testify otherwise.
(I know it's not what you mean, but you're clearly an idiot, so I don't really care.)