In where I come from, it is known for a fact that if your name sounds arabic and/or islamic, you can kiss visa to US goodbye. The rejection rate for those people is 99.99%. Even if you fight for it, and lucky enough, you'll have to wait at least 43 days for your papers to be shipped, reviewed, and considered at US homeland.
It doesn't matter who you are, unless you have some pull to make it a diplomatic disaster for the US.
Wow, IDK if you're just pulling my leg or if it's truly your ideal. Can't bring myself to trust 100% even my closest/best friend let alone some nebulous people who are doing the monitoring, cos that's one of the things required for your "ideal" to come true. That much power means great temptations to resist.
If you're true to your ideal, why don't gather others who share it and build a walled garden where you have total surveillance and 0 privacy. That way you get to live your dream.
Yes, what you've said are true, from the standpoint of most/sane people. However, there are other ways to look at the matter. For people dabbling with classified information, things are not as simple as that. I think Jeremy has eloquently explain how people managing classified information see things, and I found it entirely plausible. Please remember, these people are paid to be paranoid and want all things covered. What they want with these kind of policies are not dumbing down down their employees, nor forcing them to live in a fantasy land, but to stop further leaks.
I imagine these policies only enforced on workplace network. Those people can still access the said information as long as they're not using something which can be traced back to the workplace network. Rather than including those caveats in the policy, thus further complicating things for the morons-in-a-hurry masses, the policy writer just be done with it and made it like it's all encompassing.
So, you're right, from the standpoint of most people, it's a dumb move. But Jeremy is also right, from the standpoint of an information manager, it's a smart move.
And how about the original post? Point 1, 2, and 4 fits perfectly. Argument can be made for point 3. But to say that anyone without credentials cannot make any critics on a "complex" subject is dumb if not outright offensive. Yeah, patents are complex subject, so does that mean Mike, or anyone beside you, cannot have an opinion or critic about it?
I for one always interested on the "dimmest bulb in the whole universe"'s opinions and critics on a complex subject cos I found them usually sincere and where insights lie, not from the "omnipotent god-like" scientists/experts (the insights, I mean).
If the kids adapt their play to using fingers, enforce a mandatory mitten policy.
Instead of making things complex by having separate rules (ban pencils, but mittens for fingers) why not simplify the rules: either ban everything including fingers (meaning cut off the fingers at childbirth), or enforce covering rules for all (pencils needs to be covered). However, only the former is in tune with "zero tolerance" policies.
Will this file note that the two boys "pointed pencils at each other and made shooting noises?" Or will it state something to the effect that the boys broke the school's policy on violence and threatening behavior? My guess is the latter, which will allow anyone perusing the record to imagine the worst.
It depends on what actually written on those records.
Then call it for what it is, i.e. "revenue theft", "benefit theft", etc. Copyright, patents, and trademarks are forms of monopoly. The word "theft" is ill suited to describe actions breaking that monopoly, while "infringement" is more suited.
Then SHOW IT. Just crying that others don't show theirs won't make you right or give you some kind of highground. It only shows that you have nothing and fear the writer (Mike in this case) for the message s/he brings.
So, on one hand, no patents leads to locked up and hence lost knowledge that no one has access to. OTOH, patents leads to only the privileged has access to those knowledge. Dunno, no one has access to something seems rather fair/egalitarian to me rather than having a select few chosen by artificial means having access to something while others don't. And I'm saying this while a loved one lay hapless in the ICU.
Well, in the case of guns, it's relatively easier to determine who the criminal is. With digital "piracy", things are much more muddier, cos everyone can be labeled a pirate for doing what would otherwise normal things to do with physical properties but suddenly criminal if it's a digital property.
I'm not familiar with those 2 games. But if your argument is because someone coded a game themselves then it's not a ripoff, well, I must disagree. What makes a game ultimately is not the codes, but the game design. Coding is a largely mechanical part of game dev, but most creativity is in the game design.
So platform (16/32/64/128/512bit Windows/MacOS/Linux/Android/iOS/FireFoxOS etc) doesn't matter. As long as people perceive 2 games have their design alike, they will call it one ripoff another, and I tend to agree (though I don't care about it too much).
There's a layer of security called "security by obfuscation" which IMO still have a lion's share in many security firm's deployment strategy.
Have a friend in that business. I know well he worked hard to build good systems, and has many satisfied clients. However he still regard "security by obfuscation" as a major plus.
So, the reasons of those firms may not be nefarious. Misguided maybe, but the way they try to achieve/maintain it is certainly wrong. Even if it's not an abuse of the law, if obfuscation they want, they sure have to meet/get acquainted with ms. Streisand.
In my experience, stripping the EXIF data could significantly reduce the file size of the image. For some part of the world where inet bandwith is not a premium, the size savings may not matter, but for others where it's a premium, it does matter.
I can understand why some sites automatically strip the EXIF data. For them to reach the maximum penetration possible, they have to consider the lowest bandwith available to the user. Hence, smaller file transfer is desirable. I also use this technique on some sites I helped develop, and the bandwith saving is huge IMO (some pages reached nearly 9mb savings; but of course I'm combining EXIF stripping with other techniques).
That was sometimes ago, when such stripping really matters. However, the lower bandwith are now slowly rising. Does the rising made the saving from stripping EXIF matter now IDK, as I quit the web dev arena a while ago.
What I don't get is why you guys keep attacking the writer rather than the writing. If you think you got it right then it should be a breeze to demolish the writings rather than going for the writer's throat. Doing that only shows that you're:
1. Know that you're standing on a shaky ground but refuse to acknowledge it (the "la la la can't hear you" syndrome)
2. Fear the writer for the message (s)he brings, cos you know his/her writings/message will obliterate your worldview (primal survival instinct)
Given that, I'm so close to use the "T" word as comparison to you.
Human is highly adaptable to it's environment. Put a highly noble/honest/what-other-good-trait person in a highly corrupt environment, and (s)he is most likely to be "adapted" to that environment. Of course once a while there come a person who defies the norm and make the environment adapt to him/her instead, but that's an exception/anomaly rather than a rule.
Yes the $$ is a factor, but not the only one. The most dangerous is the "slippery slope" actions. "To achieve common good I must sacrifice X," and hell break loose from there. As they say, "the road to hell is full of good intentions".
What I'm thinking is AFAIK under current US laws derivative work are eligible for a separate copyright. The way you define "adapting to new medium" is not merely format shifting, but also include a fair amount of creativity. Adapting a movie to a novel, or in reverse, for example, is not straightforward.
If the law for derivative work stay as it is, and by my reading of your proposal that adaptation is exercising copyright hence not eligible for a separate copyright, there will be a dilemma, at least for the holder. The incentive for creating an "original" adaptation (i.e. quality work) will not too strong, as under law "any" adaptation will do. However, the market won't accept "unoriginal" work, but if the goal is only exercising copyright, then it still beneficial to create one after another.
Also, what if the one doing the adapting is not the original copyright holder. Can the adaptation be considered as exercising copyright by the original holder? Does the adaptor get a separate copyright?