As far as I can tell, both of your links talk about copyright protection for the information in a database, not for the schema of a relational database. The schema of a database is protected by copyright, even if the information stored in the database is not.
The structure can only be copyrighted if there was artistic design in its creation.
It's a matter of human creative effort, which isn't exactly the same thing as artistic (e.g. musical or visual) design. Database structure can be protected by copyright just as source code can be.
No it can't.
There are hundrets of cases about his, and modern cooy right law usually makes it explicit that data 'layout', can not be copy righted.
Stored procedures, triggers and even constraints might be different, table names and column names are clearly not under copyright. How would you able to write a bill if the names of the columns would be under copy right protection?
The copyright lawyers that I've spoken with disagree with you. Would you like to cite any cases in the United States that ruled that database structure is not protected by copyright?
Maybe I shouldn't have used the word "certainly". Independently coming up with a similar database structure because it's the most reasonable and functional structure would not be copyright infringement, most notably because you didn't copy the original (as the name implies, copyright only protects material from being copied). If table and column names are the same across a dozen different tables, though, it becomes much more difficult to argue that you created the structure independently. It becomes even more difficult to make that argument if it can be shown that you had access to the original database in some way.
In this case, it looks like, based on my reading just the summary and comments, they did intentionally copy the structure of the database, so they can't argue that it was independently created. Of course, that doesn't mean that there aren't other arguments that they can make.
Nope, I didn't. Information (the classic example being the contents of a telephone book) is not subject to copyright. Designing a database schema, which typically requires creative effort (where "creative" has a legal definition), can be protected by copyright.
Why wouldn't you want to order a Ford or GM (or Toyota or whatever) directly, instead of having to go through a middleman? Are these laws pure corruption or is there some way to look at them in the best light, where they serve the peoples' interests?
In theory, a car dealership could be like any other retailer. You go there, look at different models from different manufacturers, and decide which one is best for you. The fact that most dealerships only have cars from one manufacturer breaks that theory, though. Unless you want to spend a large amount of time, you have to narrow your choices down to two or three manufacturers before you even start to look at cars in person.
What exactly is moving to zero all the time? Bitcoin is still 10x times more valuable than one year ago
No, the price is 10 times what it was one year ago. The value (i.e. usefulness) hasn't changed at all. In fact, many people would argue that value has always been basically zero.
Three of the most richest men in the World... sat together for a talk about something that doesn't concern me... and it cost my life savings $5K within just one day.
And how much has your "life savings" increased over the past year or so? My retirement and investment accounts went down by about 1% yesterday, but they're still significantly higher than a year ago. If it's your "life savings", you shouldn't care what happens on a day-to-day basis.
No, you said that 1% of current new cars are electric. If that percentage doubles every year (admittedly an improbably large increase), then after 7 years, all new cars would be electric. At that point, you're already at a "significant portion" of all cars on the road. After another 5 years, it's probably well over 50% of all cars on the road. Optimistically, that's 12-15 years total for over 50% total. A more reasonable prediction would probably be around 25 years.
I was discussing this the other day with some people, and someone mentioned that animals aren't given antibiotics because of infections. Instead, some farmers a few decades ago discovered that giving animals antibiotics made them grow bigger, so now antibiotics are used as a substitute for and/or in addition to growth hormones.
Note: I haven't researched this at all myself, I'm just throwing it into the discussion in case others are interested.
But they didn't get meaningful output. They got "She made recommendations to the priest, man of the house and me and people". This makes little sense as the first line of a book on herbology.
In English, it makes little sense. Hebrew, especially ancient/Biblical Hebrew, uses different sentence structure, both in terms of word order and (lack of) punctuation. A better English translation could be something like "She has made many recommendations, first to the priest, then to her husband, then to me, and finally to everyone in town."
No, it's not a computer. A computer can carry out an arbitrary set of instructions. An iPad can not, and will only do those things which Apple blesses.
By that argument, any computer isn't a computer, because it can only do those things that are allowed by the CPU manufacturer.
Back when I was a PhD student, I came across a study showing that about 10% of the population naturally uses hierarchies in their mental model of structure. This came up in the context of HCI research, where you find things like filesystem hierarchies that make complete sense to some people and are largely incomprehensible to others. This was one of the reasons for iTunes' early success (before version 5, when they completely screwed up the UI): music was in a flat library, with arbitrary filters. You could filter by album, artist, or genre independently, there was no hierarchical structure. Geeks said 'why would I need this, I already have my music in a music/{genre}/{artist}/{album}/ hierarchy, people too stupid to understand that shouldn't use computers'.
I wonder if this is why so many programmers have trouble with database design and sometimes even just writing SQL. Something like an entity-relationship model grates against their hierarchical mode of thinking.
Slashdot Mirror
The New American? Respectable scientists? What world are you in?
The World of Denial.
Nuclear is the way to go. There are risks, for sure, but they can be mitigated
Which risk would you mitigate first and how?
Pretty much all of them are mitigated by using reactors that were designed more recently than 50 years ago.
It took people over 100 years of trying and I still can't find an electric vehicle that won't get stuck in a little snow.
Maybe you should learn how to drive in a little snow? It's really not that difficult if you're careful and practice a bit.
As far as I can tell, both of your links talk about copyright protection for the information in a database, not for the schema of a relational database. The schema of a database is protected by copyright, even if the information stored in the database is not.
The structure can only be copyrighted if there was artistic design in its creation.
It's a matter of human creative effort, which isn't exactly the same thing as artistic (e.g. musical or visual) design. Database structure can be protected by copyright just as source code can be.
No it can't. There are hundrets of cases about his, and modern cooy right law usually makes it explicit that data 'layout', can not be copy righted. Stored procedures, triggers and even constraints might be different, table names and column names are clearly not under copyright. How would you able to write a bill if the names of the columns would be under copy right protection?
The copyright lawyers that I've spoken with disagree with you. Would you like to cite any cases in the United States that ruled that database structure is not protected by copyright?
Maybe I shouldn't have used the word "certainly". Independently coming up with a similar database structure because it's the most reasonable and functional structure would not be copyright infringement, most notably because you didn't copy the original (as the name implies, copyright only protects material from being copied). If table and column names are the same across a dozen different tables, though, it becomes much more difficult to argue that you created the structure independently. It becomes even more difficult to make that argument if it can be shown that you had access to the original database in some way.
In this case, it looks like, based on my reading just the summary and comments, they did intentionally copy the structure of the database, so they can't argue that it was independently created. Of course, that doesn't mean that there aren't other arguments that they can make.
Nope, I didn't. Information (the classic example being the contents of a telephone book) is not subject to copyright. Designing a database schema, which typically requires creative effort (where "creative" has a legal definition), can be protected by copyright.
Yeah, Obama should have sent the guns to Nicaragua instead and just given Iran a huge pile of money, like a True American President would have done.
Copyright does not cover names and tables in a database are such.
Yes, it does. The data generally cannot be covered by copyright, but the structure of the database certainly can be.
Why wouldn't you want to order a Ford or GM (or Toyota or whatever) directly, instead of having to go through a middleman? Are these laws pure corruption or is there some way to look at them in the best light, where they serve the peoples' interests?
In theory, a car dealership could be like any other retailer. You go there, look at different models from different manufacturers, and decide which one is best for you. The fact that most dealerships only have cars from one manufacturer breaks that theory, though. Unless you want to spend a large amount of time, you have to narrow your choices down to two or three manufacturers before you even start to look at cars in person.
Facebook in particular had become a cesspool of irrelevant time-wasting nonsense. Finally deleting them all felt quite liberating.
This says more about your friends (or "friends" if you prefer) than it does about Facebook as a platform.
Is the dollar really backed by the might of the US government? I have seen inflation all my life.
You completely failed to provide any reason that your second sentence is in any way related to your question.
What exactly is moving to zero all the time? Bitcoin is still 10x times more valuable than one year ago
No, the price is 10 times what it was one year ago. The value (i.e. usefulness) hasn't changed at all. In fact, many people would argue that value has always been basically zero.
Three of the most richest men in the World... sat together for a talk about something that doesn't concern me... and it cost my life savings $5K within just one day.
And how much has your "life savings" increased over the past year or so? My retirement and investment accounts went down by about 1% yesterday, but they're still significantly higher than a year ago. If it's your "life savings", you shouldn't care what happens on a day-to-day basis.
No, you said that 1% of current new cars are electric. If that percentage doubles every year (admittedly an improbably large increase), then after 7 years, all new cars would be electric. At that point, you're already at a "significant portion" of all cars on the road. After another 5 years, it's probably well over 50% of all cars on the road. Optimistically, that's 12-15 years total for over 50% total. A more reasonable prediction would probably be around 25 years.
...yet an ICE can still drive as much as 8 times the distance on a tank
Holy shit, what kind of car do you have that can go 1,500 miles (2,400 km) on a single tank of gas?
It would be great if they sold me a phone where the battery would last me a couple of days, instead of running out of juice each evening.
They sold one to me.
I was discussing this the other day with some people, and someone mentioned that animals aren't given antibiotics because of infections. Instead, some farmers a few decades ago discovered that giving animals antibiotics made them grow bigger, so now antibiotics are used as a substitute for and/or in addition to growth hormones.
Note: I haven't researched this at all myself, I'm just throwing it into the discussion in case others are interested.
But they didn't get meaningful output. They got "She made recommendations to the priest, man of the house and me and people". This makes little sense as the first line of a book on herbology.
In English, it makes little sense. Hebrew, especially ancient/Biblical Hebrew, uses different sentence structure, both in terms of word order and (lack of) punctuation. A better English translation could be something like "She has made many recommendations, first to the priest, then to her husband, then to me, and finally to everyone in town."
Your fucking microwave oven has a microcontroller, with an embedded processor, memory and several other peripheral subsystems.
Does that make it a "computer"?
Technically, yes, that makes it a Von Neumann architecture computer.
No, it's not a computer. A computer can carry out an arbitrary set of instructions. An iPad can not, and will only do those things which Apple blesses.
By that argument, any computer isn't a computer, because it can only do those things that are allowed by the CPU manufacturer.
It's also a perfect example of exponential backoff.
Back when I was a PhD student, I came across a study showing that about 10% of the population naturally uses hierarchies in their mental model of structure. This came up in the context of HCI research, where you find things like filesystem hierarchies that make complete sense to some people and are largely incomprehensible to others. This was one of the reasons for iTunes' early success (before version 5, when they completely screwed up the UI): music was in a flat library, with arbitrary filters. You could filter by album, artist, or genre independently, there was no hierarchical structure. Geeks said 'why would I need this, I already have my music in a music/{genre}/{artist}/{album}/ hierarchy, people too stupid to understand that shouldn't use computers'.
I wonder if this is why so many programmers have trouble with database design and sometimes even just writing SQL. Something like an entity-relationship model grates against their hierarchical mode of thinking.
I was thinking COBOL...
I guess that depends on your opinion of how easy it is to use Apple products.