4401
Living Room / Re: Unlimited Energy Solution Found!
« Last post by wraith808 on September 29, 2014, 08:13 AM »At first, I wondered why this was its own thread instead of in silly humor. Now... I wonder at why it's still getting debated? 
Recent Posts
There are some slight differences between property law and copyright law.
When you own a house, that's your house, the public isn't involved in the process(buying, renting, selling) at any point. Copyright however was meant to be a deal between the creator and the public("We'll give you exclusive rights and related legal rights for a limited time to your works, so you can be incentivized to create more, but in exchange once that limited time is over with the rights to it go to the public so people can build off of what you've created"), it was never meant to be a welfare system for heirs and 'estates' like actual property.
This is one of the big reasons I believe that any copyright term lasting past death(at most) is excessive, the creator at that point is dead, they're not being given incentive to create squat, so at that point it's time for the public to receive their half of the deal.
Also, I've seen this mentioned before when the subject has come up, but if you believe that copyright should be treated the same as any other property, do you believe that is should ever go to the public domain? You don't have to give your car up after X number of years, nor your house, if copyright is just another category of property, why the difference?
As well, if a copyright is a property like any other, well, you pay taxes on your house and car based upon their worth, clearly paying taxes on a copyright is only fair as well. I'm sure the likes of Disney would love that.
Going on a tangent:
I, as many others, said early on that if G+ is aiming to reach Facebook level activity within a handful of years it is being delusional.
But it is by no means empty or deserted. 'Sharing with family' type updates is probably what keeps Facebook going more than any other. G+ was never going to just capture that market.-rgdot (September 27, 2014, 12:10 PM)
When a project is successfully funded, the creator must complete the project and fulfill each reward. Once a creator has done so, they’ve satisfied their obligation to their backers.
Throughout the process, creators owe their backers a high standard of effort, honest communication, and a dedication to bringing the project to life. At the same time, backers must understand that when they back a project, they’re helping to create something new — not ordering something that already exists. There may be changes or delays, and there’s a chance something could happen that prevents the creator from being able to finish the project as promised.
If a creator is unable to complete their project and fulfill rewards, they’ve failed to live up to the basic obligations of this agreement. To right this, they must make every reasonable effort to find another way of bringing the project to the best possible conclusion for backers. A creator in this position has only remedied the situation and met their obligations to backers if:
they post an update that explains what work has been done, how funds were used, and what prevents them from finishing the project as planned;
they work diligently and in good faith to bring the project to the best possible conclusion in a timeframe that’s communicated to backers;
they’re able to demonstrate that they’ve used funds appropriately and made every reasonable effort to complete the project as promised;
they’ve been honest, and have made no material misrepresentations in their communication to backers; and
they offer to return any remaining funds to backers who have not received their reward (in proportion to the amounts pledged), or else explain how those funds will be used to complete the project in some alternate form.
The creator is solely responsible for fulfilling the promises made in their project. If they’re unable to satisfy the terms of this agreement, they may be subject to legal action by backers.
Didn't ZeniMax/Bethesda/id Software recently sue John Carmack, saying all the ideas he had about VR Goggles while he worked at id belong to id? He is now working for Oculus Rift/Facebook.-Deozaan (September 18, 2014, 01:18 PM)
I think the only time you would worry is if you signed a non-disclosure because your code had the secret how the bank's time lock worked or something similar.-MilesAhead (September 18, 2014, 05:39 AM)
Sorry, but it doesn't look as clever saying a brand new phone is better than a year old phone (iPhone 6 vs. Nexus 5) as it does saying a two year old phone is better than a brand new phone (Nexus 4 vs iPhone 6).-Deozaan (September 12, 2014, 05:08 PM)
No, I'll be getting quite interested in finding an unplug app for my phone...even if I have to side load it.-Stoic Joker (September 11, 2014, 01:47 PM)
Then at that point you'll be interacting with someone's device that they may (and most likely will be) using for non-nefarious purposes. How is that even tolerable?-wraith808 (September 11, 2014, 01:57 PM)
Have you ever heard of the never bring a camera to a bachelor party rule?? ...It's kinda like that.
You seem to be missing some very important hints I've been giving about location location location. Because there is a time and place for everything...and very (very...) bad place(s) for misunderstandings to occur ....Savvy?-Stoic Joker (September 11, 2014, 04:05 PM)
No, I'll be getting quite interested in finding an unplug app for my phone...even if I have to side load it.-Stoic Joker (September 11, 2014, 01:47 PM)
Besides protecting your own network, the device also has an “All Out Mode” that can disconnect unwanted devices in range from every network they’re connected to, including tethered cellphones.
Dunno. Haven't thought about it too much. I can see both sides of the coin. I'm leaning towards zero restrictions on GG in public places. It's really no different than someone walking around with a video camera.I think it is. With a video camera, there is only one purpose. And you have to point and shoot. But there are also covert video cameras that have nothing to do with GG. But I've been looking at my phone, and someone gave me the stinkeye... and I figured out only after thinking about it they were paranoid that because the camera was pointed at them, that I was taking pictures or something. Is that my problem? Or is that theirs?-Renegade (September 11, 2014, 07:32 AM)
Is following someone (who doesn't want to be filmed) in a public place with a video camera harassment? Possibly. I can imagine scenarios where it clearly would be. I can also imagine other scenarios where it wouldn't be. Muddy.-Renegade (September 11, 2014, 07:32 AM)
A choice like a host has to be googled before using, the price may be one hint as to quality but more expensive doesn't equate to good either.-rgdot (September 10, 2014, 01:35 PM)
No... That is not acceptable. And once it gets explained to said errant fool it is going to come down to a simple question of which one of us is about to use what method to turn off that camera ... because the camera is about to get turned off.-Stoic Joker (September 10, 2014, 05:27 PM)
