I don't disagree that knowledgeable people with the intention are really up to date on tech.
However, they are the minority, far and few between. People who gets set top internet device are really on the less knowledgeable end of the spectrum. I personally think that the product is a good concept (in the early 2000's) and it does help some of the old folks who doesn't use PC to get on the internet and do emailing and surfing etc. However, when it breaks, these types of users are really not in position to self-trouble shoot.
PS. I don't really believe that Texas gentleman who threatened to call the police on me because I can't stop "people in the IRC channel bad mouthing President Bush" are pulling my strings... wait a sec...
That first transcript is a deja vu on when I was working as support for a TV top internet device, where the average customer age is 55+
Ahhh... memories of asking a customer if their network cable is plugged in and getting an answer of "huh?". Additional explanation of asking them if they "see a line, coming out of the back of the box, that connects to the wall" and getting an answer of "what's a line?" Eventually after 20mins, the old gentleman says he'll wait till his son is back then call again.
God I have such disdain for humanity after that job...
Hey! You know that officer safety comes first! We all know how venerable a 200lb, body armor wearing, gun carrying, tazer welding, baton equipped, combat trained office is when facing the citizens walking down the street holding their iPhone gun, or a camera gun, or the most terrifying of them all... finger gun!!!
Upon close reading on the article, I am afraid I am siding with silverscarcat on this one too.
Look, we all hate what NSA/US gov. has done here, but don't let emotion override your good sense. Not the entire world is against snowden.
On the title my first instinct is also like "they are blaming the messenger".
however, if you read the content, it's quite an accurate description of the article. It's NOT saying snowden is causing the damage, but this revelation is causing the damage, and that is true.
For example, if person A shot person B and person C reported this incident causing a police gang crackdown, the title "The shooting reported by person A makes local police start a gang crackdown" is not taking aim at person C, but is describing the "reporting"
This is not killing the golden goose. It's more like milking the cow for all it's worth. If industry has its way, they want 99% profit of all the internet services' profit and leave the streaming company in a half-dead status, just enough profit to not make them give up on this streaming business.
After all, all those service did was "put our stuff online", so the industry deserve all the profit.
i am not against journalists outting the dirty laundry of politicians who deserve it. in this case i also agree that this is newsworthy.
however, i am concerned about how a blog/forum/website would outst an anonymous commenter in general.
so today you outst a anonymous commenter because you determine it's newsworthy. what if tomorrow you decide some anonymous commenter that's causing you some inconvinience is newsworthy? how about if you are flat out just don't like some commentator?
it's difficult to decide if this really is a clear win in the long run
I've been wondering... Does digitization of work give you a claim on copyright?
Cause that seems to be the case for many museums and public entities. They take something in the public domain, digitize it, and then claim copyright for them, or at least the digital version of them. I guess the mentality is that they put the work to digitize it so they have a stake in it and should profit from it.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is truly astonishing.
And you are naively enough to believe that what judges decides are purely on what law and legal precedent is.
In fact, your own statement just proved that because you said "...because they relied more on their personal views than the law to reach their decisions"
So, how is the overrule not a reflection of the personal view of the higher court judge "relied more on the personal views than law"? ======================
Oh, and please don't try to suggest that I am trying to be "above the law"
I am so sick of you people who doesn't do the work trying to tell me how "that's the rule of law and precedent".
I am telling you, and open your freakin' ears, that WHAT THEY DECIDED MAKES PEOPLE WHO DO THEIR WORK MUCH HARDER, FOR REASONS THAT DOESN'T HAVE GOOD RETURN ON THE ADDITIONAL WORK. And it's not just me, a bunch of people who actually do this work agrees.
If this decision actually have benefits, I don't think people would be this outraged. BUT IT DOESN'T. It just requires more effort for no return. How hard is that to understand?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is truly astonishing.
I really, really, REALLY hate to bring this in the discussion.
But if judges are only in the role of applying the law, how are they different than the nazi soldiers who says they are just following orders?
See? I told you I really don't want to bring that argument in.
I am not complaining about the roles or naccesity of law, judges or government. I am just saying that you really shouldn't be making a decision, or "judge", when you do not understand what you are judging about.
And in this case, it's obviouse that the judges have no clear understanding on the issue at hand because everyone who understands how this works just had a collective facepalm so loud that you can hear it on Neptune.
Now about a judge's impartiality... That's a whole different can of worms...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is truly astonishing.
I agree that I do not understand copyright law. I only do what I know how to do, which is to write applications for people.
However, fundamentally, what is law? Well, law, as I understand it of course, is created so people could agree to work together in a state of conflict, or to define a certain framework so everyone could work together for progress.
So in the very essence of law, as I understand it, is to promote progress.
What just happened with Oracle, Google and the court, from a non-lawyer, actual worker of the field's eye is to hinder progress, GREATLY hindering progress.
It's a scenario in which, for example, a farmer in the field busily harvesting crop just heard some manager/boss/government/court/lawyer decided that, in order to satisfy the law, now you have to harvest while wearing a 20kg shackle, while carrying a crying baby.
This is why people has such disdain for lawyers. Make no mistake, I believe lawyers does have its place in society (my brother is a lawyer working for one of the top 3 wall street firms) But every once in a while, some really wanky things gets decided that's so out of tune with reality by a group of people who had zero "real life" experience on what they are deciding on.
And often that decision is final.
How could we not get pissed off by lawyers and governments and courts in those cases? How could not to lose respect for people like these? How could we not starting to lose trust in governing?
Looping around, it always come back to how "The law is not working and not based in reality" and "Judges unable to admit that perhaps they are not the know-it-all they think they are"
As soon as I saw you comment that "actual letter and numbers" are copied and that THAT is written expression, I am certain that you are not really a programmer.
Look, spending years researching doesn't make you possess actual knowledge of things you research. That's like saying I have spent my last 10 years researching extensively on how a house is built, and knows every in and out of building a house, but have never built one, makes me an expert and you should trust me to build your next house from scatch.
I don't want to talk about "definitions" and "dictionaries" and "meanings" with you. That's all just words and they can be twisted. I am just going to show you.
Why should basic names and "letters and numbers" not copyrightable.
Let say you are writing a library management software. To makes things clear, you use a variable called "book" which can be grouped in a variable called "books".
In order to do some work on it, you define a function and call it SortBooks() and pass in the books to be sorted.
Another person some along to write a different library management software, he also decides to use variable named "book" and "books" and a function called SortBooks(). WHY? because it makes sense.
Now, we claim that is copyrightable, so 2nd person can no longer do that. What's he going to do? Name it "fish", "fishes", and "SortFish()"?
Now let says a company decided to make this type of software easier to create, so it created a group of functions all related to sorting books in various ways for everyone to use. In their group of functions, they also have an function to do the sorting, so they list in their interface something call "SortBooks()", which makes logical sense to call it that. If that's copyrightable, what could a second company call that function that does the same thing, "SortBuffalo()"?
That list of definitions listing out functions which is provided in that group of functions is call "API".
People get so caught up in "definitions" that actual meanings are all but lost.
1. It's a locked mailbox, not a mail slot on my door. You need a post office master key to open the boxes to deliver these junk mails, eliminating possibilities that others drop those in
2. It's "un-addressed mail", for example, a flier for a local car dealer having a sale and sending out a flyer. The post office doesn't have to deliver it to me because it does NOT have my name, nor address on it. They received, for example, 10,000 sheets and is just putting them on ANYONE and EVERYONE's box.
3. The "Post Person" is not dealing with it. They just collect everything and dump into a bag to have the machines sorted. It's the post office that has to deal with it.
In my neighbourhood, we have centralized mailboxes (so they don't have to deliver door to door and save some man hours). Some people don't like it, but I like it because the mail slot is right next to the mailbox.
If I pick up my mails and found there are junk mails which does not have my address on it, I slip them right into the mail slot.
After a few month of doing that, one day I found a sticker on the mail slot which says, "Please take the fliers home to recycle instead of using the mailbox." In which I added a sticker of my own, "I'll stop using the mailbox when you stop sending me unwanted junk mail."
What I want to know is, how likely is an American court/judge to admit they made a terrible mistake? Usually judges/courts are viewed with high regards and that makes them hard to admit their own fault.
Some of you may know that Canada Revenue Agency (basically Canadian IRS) has shut down all online submission and query for filing tax return for 2014.
What you may not know is that during an interview today, the spokesperson, with a bit of hesitation, said that they "had to shut down because they cannot be sure if any illegal organization (slight pause) and intelligence agency are able to get to the private information of Canadian citizens..."
I am just unsure whether to laugh or cry when I hear that sentence.