Slashdot Mirror

"Thus, no one shall do to Disney what Disney did to the Brothers Grimm." -Lessig

It should be notable that most creative works build on top of existing works, like how Disney drew a lot of content and inspiration from the brothers grimm. So the current culture of copyright severely impeded creativity.

Finally, an excuse to start dumping saltpeter into fuel tanks..

And in the last 10 years that's started to reverse.

(This time with a working link.)

And in the last 10 years that's started to reverse.

(This time with a working link.)

(Looks like my first response to this didn't get submitted before the power went out the other day. Apologies if this is a dupe.)

Revoking a charter is a drastic action. It's the death penalty for corporations. Not only do you have to prove that they (i.e. the corporation itself, not its employees) had a hand in crimes enough to warrant killing it.

But that proves the point. If corporations only existed for the public good, then revoking a charter would be no more drastic than revoking a driver's license - significant, but hardly comparable to the death penalty.

In a society where continued incorporation was permitted only if it served the public interest, the burden of prooving that would be on the corporation, or it's charter would not be renewed.

Instead, in the wake of the fraudulent and misbegotten Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad decision of 1886, corporations are seen to have the same rights as citizens. And citizens exist for their own sake, not for the public good.

Well, excluding the people who don't care (and we need to, otherwise "the people" wouldn't "want" anything, ever)...most of them may not care, a fact that the media has already worked out.

Part of the problem is that ruling classes always seek to make the people not care. From the Roman circuses to reality TV, keeping the masses distracted has always been a key to maintaining power.

You clearly own your letterbox, but do you own your Gmail inbox? It's on their server.

Not here. In my country, the post office considers mailboxes to be federal property. That might not be technically true, but it's a federal crime to deposit mailable matter without postage into a letterbox, which suggests I don't really own it.

It's hard to argue that you have a reasonable expectation of privacy when the sender sends the correspondence in plain text and with no prior knowledge of what systems it might pass through.

I send letters to my grandparents using unencrypted plaintext, too. Also I have no "prior knowledge of what systems it might pass through". Where would I find this information? I don't want to have to teach my grandfather how to do GPG with a pencil. He likes sudoku but I think that would be a bit much.

Further, a ruling against allowing Google to scan email to target advertising would have far reaching consequences: it would effectively ban the use of spam and virus filters by ISPs as well. I suspect a court would be very unlikely to make such a ruling.

Whether a message happens to have spam or a virus or a secret guacamole recipe shouldn't be the concern of anybody but me. If we're so enthusiastic about "network neutrality", why doesn't this apply to email as well? I give you packets, you deliver them, end of story.

But the difference between gold and fiat currency is that no one can print gold, debasing the economy as they go on.

The amount of currency in circulation has nothing to do with debasing the economy or inflation. Most "money" is in checking and savings accounts. Actual cash is a fairly small percentage of the total amount of money. And it's not the Fed that creates money, it's the banks. Here's an old Straght Dope article about it.

'Cause the smiley face has been tracked to 1962/1963.

If this were only about suicide rates you might have a point if you were actually correct about dentists being particularly high for suicide. Among medical professionals they're beat out by MDs and psychiatrists apparently.

More on point, happy, well adjusted homosexuals seem to be a lot rarer on the ground than pedophilia and incest victim homosexuals. Of the homosexuals that I've met, the number of reasonably well adjusted homosexuals who are healthy are a distinct minority. And I'm sorry but I'm not part of the problem when it comes to hepatitis and other diseases that run rampant through the homosexual community. You can wave away some of the problems as society induced but certainly not all of them, not unless you have an ideological ax to grind. It's not a happy community, never was, likely never will be.

I am sure the pan handlers I see everyday on the streets of Boston would say capitalism has failed. :-)

Then maybe you should go ask a few of those pan handlers how much they actually make. I'm sure you'll find that capitalism is working just fine for them, and they're certainly better off than many others in the world.

There seem to be at least three works at issue here, and none of them suggest that Viacom accused kdawson of infringing a copyright held by kdawson.

Work #1: Star Wars. This is an original work (although its origins can be traced to several other works).

Work #2: The Star Wars-themed commercial produced by kdawson. This might be a derivative work of Star Wars, or it might be an original work. Since George Lucas is not involved here, who cares? Viacom cannot argue that because kdawson's work might infringe on the works of George Lucas that Viacom has the right to use kdawson's work.

Work #3: The Viacom produced VH-1 segment featuring the Star Wars-themed commercial and commentary on that commercial. Sure, kdawson could sue for Viacom's use of the Star Wars-themed commercial without permission. That does not mean that Viacom can't protect the copyright in the commentary it produced. Viacom did not produce Star Wars-themed commercials that were derived from the Star Wars-themed commercials kdawson produced. Viacom created a compilation of the Star Wars-themed commercials kdawson produced and original commentary.

For example, if Robert Ebert reviews a movie and takes a few quotes from it, his commentary is still his. The movie producers do not have the rights to use that commentary (except, most likely, minimal non-infringing quotes).

If kdawson is not happy with Viacom's efforts to keep its commentary off of YouTube, then kdawson can a) sue Viacom for infringement of kdawson's work to pressure Viacom to be a bit less tight-fisted with its copyrights or b) send a counter-notice to YouTube to put-back the Viacom clip, then prepare for a defense if Viacom decides to sue for infringement by posting the Viacom-produced commentary.

The court of Slashdot, while a fun place to vent, is unlikely to have much effect. An appeal to change public policy to prevent users from being accused of infringing their own copyrights only makes sense if that is what is happening. That does not seem to be the case here.

Hear, hear!

What Is A Troll?

The term derives from "trolling", a style of fishing which involves trailing bait through a likely spot hoping for a bite. The troll posts a message, often in response to an honest question, that is intended to upset, disrupt or simply insult the group.

Usually, it will fail, as the troll rarely bothers to match the tone or style of the group, and usually its ignorance shows.

Why do trolls do it?

I believe that most trolls are sad people, living their lonely lives vicariously through those they see as strong and successful.

Disrupting a stable newsgroup gives the illusion of power, just as for a few, stalking a strong person allows them to think they are strong, too.

For trolls, any response is 'recognition'; they are unable to distinguish between irritation and admiration; their ego grows directly in proportion to the response, regardless of the form or content of that response.

Trolls, rather surprisingly, dispute this, claiming that it's a game or joke; this merely confirms the diagnosis; how sad do you have to be to find such mind-numbingly trivial timewasting to be funny?

Remember that trolls are cowards; they'll usually post just enough to get an argument going, then sit back and count the responses (Yes, that's what they do!).

How can troll posts be recognised?

* No Imagination - Most are frighteningly obvious; sexist comments on womens' groups, blasphemy on religious groups .. I kid you not.
* Pedantic in the Extreme - Many trolls' preparation is so thorough, that while they waste time, they appear so ludicrous from the start that they elicit sympathetic mail - the danger is that once the group takes sides, the damage is done.
* False Identity - Because they are anonymous cowards, trolls virtually never write over their own name, and often reveal their trolliness (and lack of imagination) in the chosen ID. As so many folk these days use false ID, this is not a strong indicator on its own!
* Crossposting - Any post that is crossposted to several groups should be viewed as suspicious, particularly if unrelated or of opposing perspective. Why would someone do that?
* Off-topic posting - Often genuine errors, but, if from an 'outsider' they deserve matter-of-fact response; if genuine, a brief apposite response is simply netiquette; if it's a troll post, you have denied it its reward.
* Repetition of a question or statement is either a troll - or a pedant; either way, treatment as a troll is effective.
* Missing The Point - Trolls rarely answer a direct question - they cannot, if asked to justify their twaddle - so they develop a fine line in missing the point.
* Thick or Sad - Trolls are usually sad, lonely folk, with few social skills; they rarely make what most people would consider intelligent conversation. However, they frequently have an obsession with their IQ and feel the need to tell everyone. This is so frequent, that it is diagnostic! Somewhere on the web there must be an Intelligence Test for Trolls - rigged to always say "above 150"

Who is at risk?

Any newsgroup, bulletin board, forum or chatroom can attract trolls, but they don't have the brains to attack nuclear physicists, and they are drawn to the quick response where sex, religion and race are found; so politics is easy prey.

One troll famously tried to infiltrate a mensa group; the results read like 100 trolls

It is well documented that Columbus believed that he'd reached India, with the result that he called the locals Indians. (A linguistic mistake that persists to this day.) This allows us to discount the theory that he had a secret purpose other than the stated one.

For a source you need look no farther than the letters he wrote describing his discovery. The straight dope discusses this, and links to translations of his letter.

The cycle is a resonance involving hormones. Based on this fact alone, one can conclude that hormone-based alignment is possible.

You don't believe in God

I believe in the Spinoza/Einstein idea of a God.

so it is simply dishonest of you to swear an oath to Him.

LOL! You sound like you want to burn me at the stake or something! Surely my religious beliefs shouldn't affect my equal access to justice?

And do you really believe he, sorry He, gives a shit that you capitalize 'Him' like that? Where in the bible does it tell you to do that?

The alternative, an affirmation, exists and is just as strong

No it's not, at least in America. Most Americans are Christian, and react as irrationally as you do at any suggestion that someone's religious beliefs are not identical to theirs. George H W Bush said that atheists shouldn't be citizens for example. If I were in a muslim country, it would be even more important to play along with majority religion, or more likely pick the closest religion on offer to my personal beliefs. And essentially we are arguing about quantization errors. Most people have such a simplistic conception of religion that there is some difference between what each of the options on their list and what I actually believe. I can minimise it by picking the best option but not make it zero.

E.g. in the UK, I'd go for this one which mentions God but is not explicitly linked to an Abrahamic religion

http://www.cjsonline.gov.uk/juror/walkthrough/the_ court/faqs/index.html#2277
I swear by Almighty God that I will faithfully try the defendant and give a true verdict according to the evidence

There is this -
Affirmation I do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that I will faithfully try the defendant and give a true verdict according to the evidence

But it is too atheist.

And practically, how can you possibly tell if I'm being dishonest in the oath or affirmation I pick? I could be lying outside court about my religion for example, and telling the truth inside. Which is ok - it's only illegal to lie in court. So you couldn't use my statements outside court to prove I deliberately picked the wrong oath. Plus you have no idea about who I really am, and I've already said I wouldn't mention these sorts of issues if I were going to court, just pick the best sounding oath or affirmation on offer.

Seriously, you'd be better off worrying about how many angels can dance of the head of a pin than worrying about this stuff. This isn't the Middle Ages!

Thus a layout was chosen, which was not based on ergonomic principles, but to slow the typer done.

I'm mildly surprised that people still believe this. I thought it had been well-debunked.

This is up there with the state of Indiana nearly passing a law stating that Pi would be equal to 3.14.

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a3_341.html

Pi is not a rational number: this is a natural law.

Legislatures, no matter how hard they try, can't repeal the law of supply and demand: it is a natural law.

Similarly, a government bureaucracy can't simply decree that Open Source is less secure: the greater security of open source software may not be considered a natural law yet, but it's getting there.

Make it out of what...

Humpty Dumpty is a character in a Nursery rhyme portrayed as an anthropomorphized egg.

Suicide isn't a crime in the vast majority of jurisdictions.

And, as my sibling points out, that's not what Habeas Corpus means.

-snarkbot

Grammar Nazi time: the correct phrase is "bated breath," not "baited breath." It's from Shakespeare.

Slightly more on-topic: If one of Linspire's claims to fame is hardware compatibility (and a painless install that goes along with that), how come Linspire 5.0 has such poor compatibility with most of your hardware? Is your stuff just that bleeding edge? Or is Linspire's reputation not in fact well earned?

• Expensive
  
• Heavy
  
• Soft
  

The truth is often more complicated than the little news blurbs lead you to believe.

The Straight Dope - Disappearing Bees

I don't see any other candidate vowing to get rid of the illegal IRS and Income tax, do you? No matter what your political agenta, I`m sure everybody in the U.S. would benefit from that.

I used to like Ron Paul because I have never heard him say anything stupid. I haven't been paying enough attention apparently!

The income tax is not illegal; there is a constitutional amendment for it and everything. The 16th Amendment was attacked as unconstitutional because President Taft introduced it in 1911 and he was born in Ohio in 1857. In 1953, before its sesquicentennial statehood anniversary, someone searched the records and found that Ohio had not been formally admitted to the Union in 1803. Things were more half-assed back then and nobody in 1803 actually filled out the paperwork. Ohio officially became a state in 1953 in a jovial celebration. They delivered a petition for statehood on horseback to Washington D.C., Eisenhower cracked a few Buckeye jokes, and then he signed a bill making Ohio retroactively a state back to 1803. BUT- the dominoes start falling here: on ex post facto grounds Ohio still wasn't a state when Taft was born in it in 1857- meaning he was not a natural-born citizen of the U.S.- rendering his entire presidency illegitimate- and his 16th Amendment illegal- so we can keep our taxes. It's my favorite anti-tax argument of all time, and if Ohio hadn't actually been a U.S. Territory in 1857 (rats!) I could have filed a 1040X for my refund.

Only a very elite few would benefit from abolishing the income tax. It wouldn't mean "no taxes let's party". It would be replaced with more taxes you won't like, such as higher sales taxes or higher consumption taxes. On an average per capita basis your tax burden would probably go up. Also everyone would be running around flush with dollars. Think gas would stay at $3 if that happened? We'd experience the sort of inflation that remains suppressed by the income tax, and those dollars would mostly flow into the hands of people who would no longer be paying income taxes. It sounds like a good strategy for creating a Latin American country.

There are only two types of people who want to replace the income tax with a sales tax or a consumption tax:
- Haves who know they pay more income tax now than they would pay if sales taxes replaced them.
- Have nots with the complete opposite situation, but who fall for disingenuous arguments about taxes involving too much paperwork. "They're too complicated!"

We saw the same thing with the inheritance tax. They really sold that one hard- a tax break for hardly anybody that would cost a lot of money- so you heard all about these mythical "family farms" being lost to the inheritance tax. Like WMDs, the fact that they did not exist didn't seem to matter. Right after Katrina, they were looking for dead millionaires floating around in the water whose estate would be subject to the tax. "Whether a millionaire gets to pass his wealth on to his heirs ... doesn't play well in the face of black people floating face down dead in the water," said Bruce Buchanan, a University of Texas political science professor. (The floating dead millionaires turned out not to exist either.) The inheritance tax has also been attacked as racist by Robert L. Johnson (founder of Black Entertainment Television) since only 59 African Americans are expected to pay it in 2008 and he is one of them.

Taxes are complicated because the government uses them to direct people's behavior, so the tax code is full of carrots and sticks. Not only do you have to avoid the sticks, you must grab every carrot, because generally you are expected to, and the money is reflected in the prices of things you pay. This is what happened with the first-home-buyer mortgage deduction. It started out as a nice thing meant to help people. In response, the price of a

I don't know the complete history of the use of abbreviations for humor, but it's pretty old. There are lots of writers from the 1920's who did this (PG Wodehouse and James Thurber spring to mind, particularly Wodehouse) and I think I recall it being very in vogue in the 1830's for a while, as well, when "OK" started getting used.

Actually theres a study out that equates driving while on the cell phone being 400% more likely to get into an accident.

Forbes Article
400% more likely claim supported by Berkely Lab Of course there is the psudeo-science of the Mythbusters as well where they placed a sober driver on the cell phone and a 'drunk' but under the legal limit of 0.8% blood alcohol level and put them both on a closed course and had them navigate it. They did it both sober with no distractions as a control as well I believe. Turns out they both did equally bad. I am not saying it is a perfect experiment (such would require more than 2 test cases) but it does illustrate that distraction or inebriation = bad for driving ability regardless of the exact percentages involved. and another article from The Straight Dope

So this idea goes with Steve Forbes' tax plan and many others that are great ideas...

It is hard to take your view seriously when you think a crazy plan like Steve Forbes's flat tax is great.

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_139.html

Personally, I think it's as much of a threat to the rest of the world as nuclear arms.

A recent article on the Straight Dope Web site says that in a famous 1886 case the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that corporations are "persons" having the same rights as human beings based on the 14th Amendment, which was intended to protect the rights of former slaves. Not to nitpick, but the Supreme Court made no such decision. If you look at the case in question, Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, you see that the court itself never rules on personhood. A court reporter by the name of J.C. Bancroft Davis (a former railroad president) snuck that "ruling" into the books. --bex, via the Straight Dope Message Board

There are several court cases that hinged on the concept of "corporate personhood". It can be a challenge for a non-lawyer to understand them, but below are a few links. http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/personhood/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juristic_person http://www.straightdope.com/columns/030919.html

Most interviews I read with insiders (on and off the record) said that no one consciously copied Kimba, but some of the animators quickly realised they were and began making jokes about it in the office. The better question is "Was there corporate mal intent?" I haven't ready any indication there was, and that the animators and writers may have consciously or unconsciously borrowed from Simba putting Disney in an awkward situation.

Straight Dope has the best answer to this (they talked to the animators no longer working for Disney):
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a991224.html

Wow! cool! That easy, eh? Are they going reclassify it as a vegetable, too?

The correct term is Hear, Hear. http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mhear.html

Yes. I also seem to recall a Mythbusters segment that arrived at the same conclusion.

Chimps possess muscles which are far superior to our own. http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_001b.html

Um, no.

I've read about Cayce before. I actually remembered the Atlantis comment and certainly remembered that he'd come up with some total whackjob treatments. Though the remainder of the specifics was from:

http://skepdic.com/cayce.html http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mcayce.html http://psychicinvestigator.com/demo/ReinSkp4.htm (James Randi) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgar_Cayce (mostly the links)

And I'm sooooooo truly disappointed that you aren't impressed. However, when deciding who is trusting secondary sources you might want to consider: I don't have to ask my doctor since I am one and can read the research and judge for myself as well as using my own clinical experience. Now, I do ask my doctor because I value her judgment too and it nice to have that second opinion. What I don't do however, is listen to every half-baked conspiracy theorist and whack-job like yourself that thinks that putting eye-of-newt and a pinch of the hair of a newborn baby in a poultice made during the full moon is going to do jack shit.

But please feel free to further embarrass yourself: Cayce, Area 51, can I get a 'Gunman on the grassy knoll'?

Clues for the clueless

Microwave power transmission has been a reality since at least the 60's and is still in use today (just don't get in the way :). See Das Vikipediem for more info. I believe also that Nikolai Tesla did some little work in this area again see El Viki

Don't get me wrong I applaud any technology the size of a dime that can be made for $5 and transmit power safely for our nifty home devices and pacemakers but, due respect to CNN's science guys I ain't about to go out and buy Powercast's stock just yet. Especially since the most common use of bradcast power (the Radarange) nd medical tech (pacemakers) are rumoured not to get along together.

Here here!

Where? Where?

http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mhear.html

If you want to make the US look bad, you say `The US has the largest per-capita prison population!' (the US used to be #1, at least until Rwanda put lots of people into prison for genocide.) If you want to make China look bad, you say China has the second largest prison population in the world! or `China probably executes more prisoners than any other country!' (I don't know if they do or not.) (I'm also guessing that China doesn't accurately report the number of prisoners they incarcerate and execute, which further skews the numbers.)

Pick any country, and you can probably find a few statistics that, by themselves, make it look bad or `the worst'.

Actually, the concept of "fair use" as understood historically by US courts of law, doesn't threaten the business models you refer to. Duplication of the entirety of a copyrighted work is generally not considered protected under fair use. A pretty user-friendly explanation of what is considered fair use can be found here on The Straight Dope. I highly recommend this series of four articles to anyone who finds US copyright law confusing.

"There is this assumption that you can't control it (the Internet)," Yarro said. "It's a toaster, we made it, we can fix it. ... We can solve the Internet pornography problem tomorrow if we decided to."

What Internet Porn problem? Nevermind the silly thought of the 'Net being a toaster.

> in 2 states defining pi = 4 and pi = 3.2, respectively.

See straightdope.com

Not to be used for identification purposes

British general Jeffery Amherst commanded some of his men to give smallpox infested blankets to Indians during the French and Indian war.

from The Straight Dope:

"Fact is, on at least one occasion a high-ranking European considered infecting the Indians with smallpox as a tactic of war. I'm talking about Lord Jeffrey Amherst, commander of British forces in North America during the French and Indian War (1756-'63). Amherst and a subordinate discussed, apparently seriously, sending infected blankets to hostile tribes. What's more, we've got the documents to prove it, thanks to the enterprising research of Peter d'Errico, legal studies professor at the University of Massachusetts at (fittingly) Amherst. D'Errico slogged through hundreds of reels of microfilmed correspondence looking for the smoking gun, and he found it.

The exchange took place during Pontiac's Rebellion, which broke out after the war, in 1763. Forces led by Pontiac, a chief of the Ottawa who had been allied with the French, laid siege to the English at Fort Pitt.

According to historian Francis Parkman, Amherst first raised the possibility of giving the Indians infected blankets in a letter to Colonel Henry Bouquet, who would lead reinforcements to Fort Pitt. No copy of this letter has come to light, but we do know that Bouquet discussed the matter in a postscript to a letter to Amherst on July 13, 1763:

P.S. I will try to inocculate the Indians by means of Blankets that may fall in their hands, taking care however not to get the disease myself. As it is pity to oppose good men against them, I wish we could make use of the Spaniard's Method, and hunt them with English Dogs. Supported by Rangers, and some Light Horse, who would I think effectively extirpate or remove that Vermine.

On July 16 Amherst replied, also in a postscript:

P.S. You will Do well to try to Innoculate the Indians by means of Blanketts, as well as to try Every other method that can serve to Extirpate this Execrable Race. I should be very glad your Scheme for Hunting them Down by Dogs could take Effect, but England is at too great a Distance to think of that at present.

On July 26 Bouquet wrote back:

I received yesterday your Excellency's letters of 16th with their Inclosures. The signal for Indian Messengers, and all your directions will be observed."

Like every other matter of importance, this was covered in a straightdope column

basic summary:
While it's true that letter reversal is common in English-speaking dyslexics, the term refers to any reading disability, and the Chinese have their share of folks who struggle to make sense of the written word. However, they seem to have fewer of them than we Anglophones. Some say 15 percent of English speakers are dyslexic, whereas only 7 percent of Chinese speakers are. ...
Sounds like you could be dyslexic in one language but not the other.

...but because I hate plants.

Most plants try to sicken or kill you. Plants have a problem: they can't run away from the animals that try to eat them so have evolved a huge arsenal of chemical weapons to use against their predators. Toxins such as oxalic acid, tannic acid, various bitter alkaloids, tetrahydracannibinol, and even muscimol (okay, fungi are plant-like) are present throughout the plant world and are part of the reason that us historic scavengers have such large livers. Good controls are essential in any comparative study of how nasty GMO plants may be because non-GMO plants are pretty nasty themselves.

In general it is best to use an authoritative source for items of this import.

I hope they don't have one of these.

There's always h'orsh'it. ;) I first saw mention of that in http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a3_245b.html

This raises the question...has anyone actually ever had sex in space? http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a4_214.html