GPL and Creative Commons aren't public domain licenses.
Technically that is correct, which was the point of this whole topic. But that is the basic intent and they are about as close as it comes.
The greatest income inequality in the developed world can be found in probably the least statist country, the US.
Just two comments here, though there are many I could make.
First, income inequality is NOT the real issue. Why should you care who is or is not rich? The PROBLEM is poverty.
Second, my whole point was that it is very easy to show that income inequality has become WORSE, the more statist the U.S has become. I'm not saying that correlation proves causation, but the existence of a correlation is indisputable.
I'm very hesitant to download it much less sign up for it...the amount of info they seem to get from you is pretty bad.
Waze wasn't bad about collecting information until it was acquired by Google.
hint: there's no such thing as a public domain "license"
This is a patently ridiculous assertion. A copyright holder can voluntarily place a work in the public domain (that's what GPL and Creative Commons are all about, for example). In fact that's what this whole discussion is ABOUT. Have you read any of it?
There is no law in the US that allows something to be appropriated from the public domain without modification
Another patently ridiculous assertion. There doesn't have to be a law "allowing" it. That's not how the law works. It would not be possible only if there were a law against it.
The FACT is, not many years ago Congress passed a law that put millions of works that were formerly in the public domain back under copyright. That is the incident that caused EFF to start pushing for a law that would make that no longer possible.
So you are WAY out in left field.
Ummm. Are you saying that the peoples' will is to keep the skies over the White House open to drones of all sorts? Really?
Or are you just looking for any vaguely political story onto which to dump your anti-government bullshit...
Don't be a jerk. The question is whether all drones should be restricted just because the President is a candy-ass.
A Federal court has already ruled that the FAA does not have authority to regulate drones, except those that enter "navigable airways". REGARDLESS of whether their use is commercial. Their regulatory authority is limited to interstate commerce, which is the basis for the definition of navigable airways.
The solution to the Whitehouse problem is simply to make it illegal to fly drones THERE. Not to regulate them everywhere else.
The FAA has appealed the court's ruling, but based on evidence and precedent it is pretty clear the FAA will lose that appeal.
Now that they've got theirs, it's fine if regulations hold back everyone else.
I have nothing against people being rich, if they got there honestly and without coercion. Government lobbying, for example, is one form of coercion because it influences regulation of others via money.
But let's face it: most of them did not get there quite honestly or without resorting to coercion. And in fact, regulations helped to get them there. Not only is that obvious on its face, you can see it in the statistics: the more "statist" and regulatory governments have been, the less well economies have done and the more income inequality we've seen.
Now they're proposing to try to fix the problem they created, by doing more of what created it. Typical government idiocy.
And as for "unrest", they aren't going to be able to regulate that away. On the contrary: at least here in the U.S., if they don't start lightening up on Federal regulation, they're going to see far worse problems and more unrest than they have so far.
So either this sherriff's association has their heads completely up their asses, or what they're really doing is boo-hooing over the fact that people are interfering with their daily traffic ticket quota. Which means they have their heads up their asses, because what they should be doing is solving crimes.
Their actual example is clearly a case in which there was to be consideration on both sides.
Perhaps it is not a good example.
No it is not. In this context, it simply means that by declaring something to be in the public domain, you should reasonably expect people to use it as though it is in the public domain.
There is a lot of gray here. For example, some "public" licenses promise that a work will remain in the public domain. Not all do.
Real-world example: rights to the Java programming language were "purchased" by Oracle while the license was public domain. However, Oracle chose to make later versions not entirely public domain. The original license was not sufficient to guarantee the whole product would be public domain in perpetuity.
There is currently no law in the U.S. which requires something in the public domain to remain that way, unless it is so stipulated in the license. There are a number of famous cases in which something that was once public domain is no longer, even though that thing remained otherwise unchanged.
EFF and others are working to change that. But until it is changed, the concept of Promissory Estoppel only applies in some cases of public domain licensing.
It doesn't matter how popular usage changes. The technical definition will remain the same.
And the technical definition is the "correct" definition, since it is the one used to MEASURE the attribute.
Care to cite any evidence of that?
Care to explain why you had to ask?
Google is your friend. (Sometimes, anyway.) So is Wikipedia.
We're talking about blue ray, not broadcasting.
Will you at least attempt to read and understand the goddamned article? Look at the last sentence I quoted. It says In digital measurement, the display resolution would be given in pixels per inch.
Do you STILL need to have that explained to you again?
You are seriously suggesting that common use of the word for decades is in fact not a widely accepted definition of the word, but is an incorrect definition of the word because this wasn't a correct definition several decades ago?
No, I'm saying it's incorrect because it's not the correct definition RIGHT NOW.
Common usage of words changes all the time. But that doesn't make the technical definition of the word any different.
For example: people now use the word "schizophrenia" to mean something that is completely different from the actual, technical meaning of the word. But it's technical meaning still hasn't changed at all. People are using it incorrectly, and it will continue to be incorrect as long as they use it that way.
Common usage aside, the technical definition of resolution hasn't changed, and it's not going to. So you can use it however you want, but yes, you'll still be wrong.