Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
also, i've received phones from rogers that have been bought and then returned, with the other person's content still on the sd card - as could easily have been the case with the phone in question. In my case, there were pictures of the guy's trip to new york left on the phone.
And what is 'organically' for human culture, anyways? If we have free will, we control what we do.
Also, he wasn't just noting that it was going to happen - he was asserting a proscriptive argument for what should (or should not) happen: "there should be no effort made to keep a language living".
Would you say the same thing about culture? Should we allow all minor cultures in the world to die, just because they are being consumed by another more dominant culture?
Diversity is beneficial - and in this case it comes at extraordinarily little cost.
I think that an effort should absolutely made to aid bilingualism for people in situations where it is economically and socially beneficial to speak a dominant language, in order to ensure that traditional languages remain.
Frankly, I don't understand why you would feel so vehemently that there should be no effort made to preserve these languages.
I was thinking that he was saying that, because the parent invention is public domain, all subsequent inventions based on it must therefore also be public domain - which sounded ridiculous.
I'm not sure if I agree with him about VOIP, but I can see the logic of the argument.
The way I saw his argument was this:
1. Sending data over TCP/IP is public domain
2. All ways of sending data that involve sending it using TCP/IP should therefore also be public domain. This includes VOIP, etc.
So to carry that over to my example, it would be:
1. Using the alphabet to communicate data is public domain
2. All ways of sending data that use the alphabet should also therefore be public domain. This includes books, etc.
To me, the second case seems wrong - and if it follows from the first case, then I vociferously disagree. But I'm thinking that maybe my example is flawed.
TCP/IP and its relatives might have been patentable back when Kahn, Cerf and others developed them. But thanks to ARPA, they are in the public domain. Since the general case is addressed, moving generic digital data, is in the public domain, then why are specific subsets of this technology patentable?
As I understand it, this line of reasoning could be used to argue that, since the alphabet is public domain, all other uses of that alphabet should also be public domain. If that's what you mean, then I disagree.
Am I misunderstanding your argument?
Yup, sounds complicated.
It is important that MPs/"MLs" must retain public confidence.
That ship has already sailed (on a nicely cleaned moat, nearly colliding with a duck house). The MPs are a laughing stock - being allowed to say "whoops - my bad" and pay them back doesn't really reassure the public much.
And, AFAIK, the CPS/Police investigation (the important one - dealing with the handful of claims that would get us mere mortals thrown in jail) has been running independently for months.