Maybe other intelligent species are just ignoring our communications at this point...
Somewhere in a galaxy far far away, they HAVE the technology to hear and see our communications, but have put us on a permanent blacklist for all of our Viagra and Enzyte ads....
Not necessarily true - most items created by students in the academic setting are vested to the University (they don't usually enforce this, but it is a legal question):
Many explicitly state their ownership over the copyrighted materials created by staff and students:
This is true of most colleges - they hold strict Work for Hire rights over the faculty, and any creation by s student is a "Joint" work and therefore tied up under the professors work for hire restrictions (e.g. they own the work).
When I went to school for photography, I remember this being specifically spelled out to us by one of my design professors who was in a fight with the school over work being sold by a student (it was sculpture - he was pissed that the school was trying to stop his student from selling the art).
Lately we've seen more colleges adopt policies where they allow the student and faculty the rights to their own work, but they explicitly have to state so through a transfer of copyright; see:
You'll also note that they still retain copyright over materials that are patentable.
Yes, they are just your notes; but they also qualify as a literary creation by you (created jointly with faculty).
ANYWAYS, my point isn't to start a debate about copyright in the academic setting, but to point out that it is unlikely that the professor has the right to mandate what is done with the students notes for one of two reasons:
1) The University holds the rights over those notes, and it would have to be University policy that mandated the destruction of the copyrighted material (since it is likely the only copy)
-OR-
2) The University has transferred those rights (as in the Dartmouth example) and the Prof. has no rights over the students work.
If someone had told congressmen that buying mass-quantities of Viagra (and Vimax!) from canadian pharmacies was a bad idea, they may not have been exposed to so many security threats...
Please re-read the posting; You own the physical CD, with First Purchase rights to the physical object, but not the music. You can't do with it as you wish; you can only listen to it, make a personal use physical copy, or re-sell it under the rights as a first purchaser. You cannot use it in your film production, in a commercial, or play it in a for-profit venue without additional licensing.
and it is still theft - when you take someone else's money, you are charged with larceny (which is a subset of theft)...
I'm not in ANY way agreeing with the tactics of, or defending the RIAA; but for a note of clarification - the theft isn't of the physical (or digital) product, it is the theft of the revenue from the licensing of that music.
Make no mistake, when you are buying a CD, or purchasing a song online (or however you purchase it), you are purchasing a personal license for the listening of that music, and "First Purchase" rights to the physical CD (which is why you can legally re-sell your used CD, but not re-sell your digital files). But in no way do you "Own" the music you purchased (you purchased a personal usage license).
I always see a lot of confusion in how this is explained when it comes to music... I've been photographer (photojournalist and commercial) for 23 yrs, and its directly analogous to how when someone uses my work without paying for it, it is theft of my revenue. If I create a piece of work that is intended for commercial purposes, I've taken the time to create it and put up the money to purchase the necessary equipment, paid the crew, bought or rented the props, etc. Licensing allows me to recoup those costs and make a living from my profession. If that same work is created to sell as a print or poster, and someone decides that they are going to make prints of it and sell (or give it away), it is a definite loss of revenue for me. People who would have purchased it from me are getting it somewhere else, because someone is giving away my work for free (or selling it without my permission).
Now; in the case of music, does the loss trickle down to the actual artists who created the music? VERY little, and not directly - Fewer new artists get signed and the labels have had to down-size, but its the record labels own fault for not keeping up with technology and the potential of loss they would suffer from operating in an analogue philosophy of business.
Its common sense that if someone can get the same thing you are selling for FREE, and it goes largely unchecked, they are going to take it.
I am careful enough with my own work that I don't make large digital files of my photos available (except to clients who purchase the rights) and I watermark my images that I want to display but need to make revenue from - Some work I license under Creative Commons on if I don't need to generate revenue from it.
Bottom line is that it is theft (you are depriving them of money) - they question just becomes whether or not you care if you are taking money from the RIAA... (and its not difficult to guess how most 99% of us are going to answer that question...)
I happen to like Star Wars, but in my mind it was never about the tech, at all, nor was it even about space. Star Wars is almost completely story driven, IMHO.
See, I always thought it was Lucas' excellently written dialog...
The OP writes "The stereoscope, that killer technology of the last century but one, was invented in 1859 by Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr."
This is incorrect.
While Holmes popularized stereoscopy in America by creating libraries of stereoscope slides and his own hand-held viewer, Sir William Brewster
invented the lenticular stereoscope (a simple viewer) in 1850, and known stereoscopes date back to the early 1840s.
Notably, this is only shortly after Daguerreâ(TM)s first daguerreotype in 1937 (The first fixed image that didn't fade and needed less than a 30 min exposure).
Not trying to troll, just credit where it's due...
FTA: Devoted Aiko â" âoein her 20sâ â" has a stunning 32-23-33 figure, pretty face and shiny hair.
Should also read: comes complete with an assortment of outfits including Goth Lolita, Hello Kitty Maid, Sailor Moon Schoolgirl and Pink Nurse...
FTA: She is always happy to clean the house for âoehusbandâ Le, help with his accounts or get him a drink.
When she is put into iRobot Roomba mode
Okay, he's got me here, that a HELL of a lot less expensive than a real wife...
FTA: Computer ace Le, 33, from Ontario, Canada, has spent two years and £14,000 building his dream girl.
FTA: He had planned to make an android to care for the elderly.
But instead thought - "'no, I'll make a creepy prototype sexbot - to heck with the old people...)
FTA: But his project â" inspired by sci-fi robots like Star Warsâ(TM)s C3PO â" strayed off-course. ...especially in the sense that it isn't complete anal-retentive, or homosexual (not that there is anything wrong with C-3PO being a poof)
FTA: Le said: âoeAiko is what happens when science meets beauty.â.
and when lust meets geek-desperation...
FTA: Robo-wife Aiko starts the day by reading Le the main newspaper headlines.
Then follows by reading the Playboy Adviser, and Penthouse Letters.
FTA: The couple often go for a drive in the countryside, where Aiko proves a whizz at directions.
Which makes her JUST LIKE any other wife in the car, except for the getting the instructions correct part - "Turn Right, Turn Right, Turn Right, Turn Right..."
FTA: And they always sit down for dinner together in the evening, although Aiko doesnâ(TM)t have much of an appetite.
...preferring instead to remind Le constantly what a horrible provider he is and reminding him of his inadequacies in bed...
FTA: Le says his relationship with Aiko hasnâ(TM)t strayed into the bedroom, but a few âoetweaksâ could turn her into a sexual partner.
Christ, this guy is such a dullard he has to get a robot 'tweaked' (most likely on meth) to get her to have sex with him...
FTA: Le said: âoeHer software could be redesigned to simulate her having an orgasm.â
so like so many wives out there, she has perfected faking the orgasm for him... (sigh)
FTA: Aiko can already react to being tickled or touched. She also recognises faces and speaks 13,000 sentences.
some of these sentences include: "stop touching me", "Don't touch me!", "Which part of STOP don't you understand otaku?". "NO! means NO!" and "I'm sorry, I can't do that Dave"...
FTA: Now Le is seeking a sponsor to help him overcome the robot-makerâ(TM)s biggest challenge â" making Aiko walk like a human.
Because, despite buying on outer-shell from REAL Doll, the fact that she walks like she has a palsy turns him off...
FTA: Once Aiko has been perfected, Le hopes to sell clones for use as home-helps.
ignoring the much more lucrative and inevitable market of automated sex-slaves.
FTA: He said: âoeAiko doesnâ(TM)t need holidays, food or rest, and will work almost 24 hours a day. She is the perfect woman.â
For which he now needs this robot, because after that comment, he will never get laid again by a human woman...
FTA: Aiko sparks mixed reactions in public. Le said: âoeWomen usually try to talk to her. But men always want to touch her, and if they do it the wrong way she slaps them.â
,,,then berates them, "Dammit, my nipples are not radio knobs - you stupid Japanese are creepy and don't know how to please a robot, or clearly a woman"...
it's worth fretting over; if it's a Doomsday Scenario, we won't be here very long to worry about it, and there is nothing we can do to stop it (unless we send Bruce Willis and Ben Afleck up in a space shuttle to stop the meteor)...
it's worth fretting over; if it's a Doomsday Scenario, we won't be here very long to worry about it, and there is nothing we can do to stop it (unless we send Bruce Willis and Ben Afleck up in a space shuttle to stop the meteor)...
The war on drugs makes a lot of money for a lot people on both sides of the law.
As a taxpayer, I disagree.
As a taxpayer, you aren't one of the many people who are profiting from drug prohibition. You are actually FINANCING it..
On the "Legal" side:
- Law enforcement agencies and the government keep the majority of the drug-related assets they seize.
- The "War on Drugs" involves the hiring of the same "independent contractors" (read: Mercenaries) that we employ to supplement our armed forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. Blackwater, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, and Arinc where just awarded (jointly) $15 Billion (of your tax money) to join in on the prohibition. (this isn't conspiracy b.s. - this is easy to verify and widely reported).
- Globally, drug-testing is a $1.3bn/yr market.
These are just a few examples...
On the "illegal" side:
The "War" squeezes supply, which drives up prices and creates more profit for suppliers (that's Econ 101).
With the Decriminalization of alcohol, several things occurred:
- Quality controls was put into place. You could now buy proper distillates that wouldn't make you go blind - and if you did, someone was accountable for it.
- People would buy alcohol with limits to percentage alcohol content.
- Alcohol is now a Taxed item, and everyone in the supply and consumption line pay taxes on the product.
The same could apply to other, safer drugs (like cannabis).
Drug Regulation, instead of prohibition would create a taxable product, allow for quality control and decrease fatalities and drug-related crime by taking the means of productivity out of the hands of violent criminals, and putting it in hands of regulated companies (which are usually white collar criminals, but at least are non-violent...)
Of course it's a much more complex issue, but it can't be said that no one profits from the "War", Billions are being made annually on it.
Miller has only been credited as a Director on the Sin City projects, and now The Spirit.
Sin City was great, and a good enough adaptation of his work that he co-produced, DID take a director's credit and is now going on to make a sequel with Rodriguez.
So whose opinion is more valuable here: Miller's, who has created a huge body or amazing work, or the boxer-short clad/. troll?
/. had for long been one of the last holdouts against this type of "journalistic" garbage.
glad to see you lasted so long, guys. sad to see you give in and publicize this useless junk.
articles like this with absolutely no substance at all don't belong here.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe other intelligent species are just ignoring our communications at this point...
Somewhere in a galaxy far far away, they HAVE the technology to hear and see our communications, but have put us on a permanent blacklist for all of our Viagra and Enzyte ads....
actually, on /. yes...
But does it run on Ubuntu?
Not necessarily true - most items created by students in the academic setting are vested to the University (they don't usually enforce this, but it is a legal question):
Many explicitly state their ownership over the copyrighted materials created by staff and students:
(example for IT) http://www.odu.edu/ao/facultyhandbook/index.php?page=ch04s03.html
(example for artworks, etc) http://www.cotr.bc.ca/handbook/cotr_web.asp?IDNumber=164
This is true of most colleges - they hold strict Work for Hire rights over the faculty, and any creation by s student is a "Joint" work and therefore tied up under the professors work for hire restrictions (e.g. they own the work).
When I went to school for photography, I remember this being specifically spelled out to us by one of my design professors who was in a fight with the school over work being sold by a student (it was sculpture - he was pissed that the school was trying to stop his student from selling the art).
Lately we've seen more colleges adopt policies where they allow the student and faculty the rights to their own work, but they explicitly have to state so through a transfer of copyright; see:
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~osp/resources/policies/dartmouth/copyright.html
You'll also note that they still retain copyright over materials that are patentable.
Yes, they are just your notes; but they also qualify as a literary creation by you (created jointly with faculty).
ANYWAYS, my point isn't to start a debate about copyright in the academic setting, but to point out that it is unlikely that the professor has the right to mandate what is done with the students notes for one of two reasons:
1) The University holds the rights over those notes, and it would have to be University policy that mandated the destruction of the copyrighted material (since it is likely the only copy)
-OR-
2) The University has transferred those rights (as in the Dartmouth example) and the Prof. has no rights over the students work.
Short answer - Report this to the Dean.
If someone had told congressmen that buying mass-quantities of Viagra (and Vimax!) from canadian pharmacies was a bad idea, they may not have been exposed to so many security threats...
But what's a horny old-guy to do...
Please re-read the posting; You own the physical CD, with First Purchase rights to the physical object, but not the music. You can't do with it as you wish; you can only listen to it, make a personal use physical copy, or re-sell it under the rights as a first purchaser. You cannot use it in your film production, in a commercial, or play it in a for-profit venue without additional licensing.
and it is still theft - when you take someone else's money, you are charged with larceny (which is a subset of theft)...
I'm not in ANY way agreeing with the tactics of, or defending the RIAA; but for a note of clarification - the theft isn't of the physical (or digital) product, it is the theft of the revenue from the licensing of that music.
Make no mistake, when you are buying a CD, or purchasing a song online (or however you purchase it), you are purchasing a personal license for the listening of that music, and "First Purchase" rights to the physical CD (which is why you can legally re-sell your used CD, but not re-sell your digital files). But in no way do you "Own" the music you purchased (you purchased a personal usage license).
I always see a lot of confusion in how this is explained when it comes to music... I've been photographer (photojournalist and commercial) for 23 yrs, and its directly analogous to how when someone uses my work without paying for it, it is theft of my revenue. If I create a piece of work that is intended for commercial purposes, I've taken the time to create it and put up the money to purchase the necessary equipment, paid the crew, bought or rented the props, etc. Licensing allows me to recoup those costs and make a living from my profession. If that same work is created to sell as a print or poster, and someone decides that they are going to make prints of it and sell (or give it away), it is a definite loss of revenue for me. People who would have purchased it from me are getting it somewhere else, because someone is giving away my work for free (or selling it without my permission).
Now; in the case of music, does the loss trickle down to the actual artists who created the music? VERY little, and not directly - Fewer new artists get signed and the labels have had to down-size, but its the record labels own fault for not keeping up with technology and the potential of loss they would suffer from operating in an analogue philosophy of business.
Its common sense that if someone can get the same thing you are selling for FREE, and it goes largely unchecked, they are going to take it.
I am careful enough with my own work that I don't make large digital files of my photos available (except to clients who purchase the rights) and I watermark my images that I want to display but need to make revenue from - Some work I license under Creative Commons on if I don't need to generate revenue from it.
Bottom line is that it is theft (you are depriving them of money) - they question just becomes whether or not you care if you are taking money from the RIAA... (and its not difficult to guess how most 99% of us are going to answer that question...)
OMFG y r thy so mean? :-(
LOL... Troll? for the truth? AC must have logged in with his account and Modded me. Hilarious.
drudgereport for ammo?
You must believe the Enzyte commercials as well...
Ahh... just noticed you are an AC... you don't count.
So I guess no "me blog you long time"??
I happen to like Star Wars, but in my mind it was never about the tech, at all, nor was it even about space. Star Wars is almost completely story driven, IMHO.
See, I always thought it was Lucas' excellently written dialog...
(ducks and cowers from swinging lightsabers)...
So what you are saying is that my Hard Drive isn't fragmented; it's really full of Body Thetans?
Sh*t!
I better get an audit soon, so I can get my OSX to be OT-5.... Thank the FSM that my Linux install is already "clear"!
I for one welcome a Hard-Drive overlord - but sorry, I have to denounce Xenu.
(sorry, couldn't resist...)
There is a company that has cobbled one together that you can buy http://www.courtesy.nl/tac/camera/cameras.htm
But I'm sure in the future the folks at lomo will come up with one, this really their cup o tea...
The OP writes "The stereoscope, that killer technology of the last century but one, was invented in 1859 by Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr."
This is incorrect.
While Holmes popularized stereoscopy in America by creating libraries of stereoscope slides and his own hand-held viewer, Sir William Brewster invented the lenticular stereoscope (a simple viewer) in 1850, and known stereoscopes date back to the early 1840s. Notably, this is only shortly after Daguerreâ(TM)s first daguerreotype in 1937 (The first fixed image that didn't fade and needed less than a 30 min exposure).
Not trying to troll, just credit where it's due...
cheers!
FTA: Devoted Aiko â" âoein her 20sâ â" has a stunning 32-23-33 figure, pretty face and shiny hair. Should also read: comes complete with an assortment of outfits including Goth Lolita, Hello Kitty Maid, Sailor Moon Schoolgirl and Pink Nurse... FTA: She is always happy to clean the house for âoehusbandâ Le, help with his accounts or get him a drink. When she is put into iRobot Roomba mode Okay, he's got me here, that a HELL of a lot less expensive than a real wife... FTA: Computer ace Le, 33, from Ontario, Canada, has spent two years and £14,000 building his dream girl. FTA: He had planned to make an android to care for the elderly. But instead thought - "'no, I'll make a creepy prototype sexbot - to heck with the old people...) FTA: But his project â" inspired by sci-fi robots like Star Warsâ(TM)s C3PO â" strayed off-course. ...especially in the sense that it isn't complete anal-retentive, or homosexual (not that there is anything wrong with C-3PO being a poof)
FTA: Le said: âoeAiko is what happens when science meets beauty.â .
and when lust meets geek-desperation...
FTA: Robo-wife Aiko starts the day by reading Le the main newspaper headlines.
Then follows by reading the Playboy Adviser, and Penthouse Letters.
.
...preferring instead to remind Le constantly what a horrible provider he is and reminding him of his inadequacies in bed...
,,,then berates them, "Dammit, my nipples are not radio knobs - you stupid Japanese are creepy and don't know how to please a robot, or clearly a woman"...
FTA: The couple often go for a drive in the countryside, where Aiko proves a whizz at directions
Which makes her JUST LIKE any other wife in the car, except for the getting the instructions correct part - "Turn Right, Turn Right, Turn Right, Turn Right..."
FTA: And they always sit down for dinner together in the evening, although Aiko doesnâ(TM)t have much of an appetite.
FTA: Le says his relationship with Aiko hasnâ(TM)t strayed into the bedroom, but a few âoetweaksâ could turn her into a sexual partner.
Christ, this guy is such a dullard he has to get a robot 'tweaked' (most likely on meth) to get her to have sex with him...
FTA: Le said: âoeHer software could be redesigned to simulate her having an orgasm.â
so like so many wives out there, she has perfected faking the orgasm for him... (sigh)
FTA: Aiko can already react to being tickled or touched. She also recognises faces and speaks 13,000 sentences.
some of these sentences include: "stop touching me", "Don't touch me!", "Which part of STOP don't you understand otaku?". "NO! means NO!" and "I'm sorry, I can't do that Dave"...
FTA: Now Le is seeking a sponsor to help him overcome the robot-makerâ(TM)s biggest challenge â" making Aiko walk like a human.
Because, despite buying on outer-shell from REAL Doll, the fact that she walks like she has a palsy turns him off...
FTA: Once Aiko has been perfected, Le hopes to sell clones for use as home-helps.
ignoring the much more lucrative and inevitable market of automated sex-slaves.
FTA: He said: âoeAiko doesnâ(TM)t need holidays, food or rest, and will work almost 24 hours a day. She is the perfect woman.â
For which he now needs this robot, because after that comment, he will never get laid again by a human woman...
FTA: Aiko sparks mixed reactions in public. Le said: âoeWomen usually try to talk to her. But men always want to touch her, and if they do it the wrong way she slaps them.â
So THAT'S what those Microsoft ads with Gates and Jerry Seinfeld were about; A Show about Nothing in a Simulation of Everything...
No wonder they made no sense...
lol... i was going to mod you 'funny' but then found your statement to be true at 10:57 EST
Network Timeout
The server at agrippa.english.ucsb.edu is taking too long to respond.
it's worth fretting over; if it's a Doomsday Scenario, we won't be here very long to worry about it, and there is nothing we can do to stop it (unless we send Bruce Willis and Ben Afleck up in a space shuttle to stop the meteor)...
sorry, it's (NOT) worth fretting over... (pre-coffee typing)
it's worth fretting over; if it's a Doomsday Scenario, we won't be here very long to worry about it, and there is nothing we can do to stop it (unless we send Bruce Willis and Ben Afleck up in a space shuttle to stop the meteor)...
As a taxpayer, I disagree.
As a taxpayer, you aren't one of the many people who are profiting from drug prohibition. You are actually FINANCING it..
On the "Legal" side:
- Law enforcement agencies and the government keep the majority of the drug-related assets they seize.
- The "War on Drugs" involves the hiring of the same "independent contractors" (read: Mercenaries) that we employ to supplement our armed forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. Blackwater, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, and Arinc where just awarded (jointly) $15 Billion (of your tax money) to join in on the prohibition. (this isn't conspiracy b.s. - this is easy to verify and widely reported).
- Globally, drug-testing is a $1.3bn/yr market.
These are just a few examples...
On the "illegal" side:
The "War" squeezes supply, which drives up prices and creates more profit for suppliers (that's Econ 101).
With the Decriminalization of alcohol, several things occurred:
- Quality controls was put into place. You could now buy proper distillates that wouldn't make you go blind - and if you did, someone was accountable for it.
- People would buy alcohol with limits to percentage alcohol content.
- Alcohol is now a Taxed item, and everyone in the supply and consumption line pay taxes on the product. The same could apply to other, safer drugs (like cannabis).
Drug Regulation, instead of prohibition would create a taxable product, allow for quality control and decrease fatalities and drug-related crime by taking the means of productivity out of the hands of violent criminals, and putting it in hands of regulated companies (which are usually white collar criminals, but at least are non-violent...)
Of course it's a much more complex issue, but it can't be said that no one profits from the "War", Billions are being made annually on it.
Reading Serges rants is 10 times more interesting than the majority of the hubris-filled replies of most of our /. brethren.
Flickfilosopher comment thread on this is great.. it seems that Serge gets around, and has a lot of time on his hands...
Hmm.. Methinks thou complains too much...
/. troll?
Miller has only been credited as a Director on the Sin City projects, and now The Spirit.
Sin City was great, and a good enough adaptation of his work that he co-produced, DID take a director's credit and is now going on to make a sequel with Rodriguez.
So whose opinion is more valuable here: Miller's, who has created a huge body or amazing work, or the boxer-short clad
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....
Wow.. arguing over a python sketch...
If there was EVER any doubt about slashdots denizens, this pretty much clarified the situation.
Picard or Kirk, anyone?
/. had for long been one of the last holdouts against this type of "journalistic" garbage. glad to see you lasted so long, guys. sad to see you give in and publicize this useless junk. articles like this with absolutely no substance at all don't belong here.
Are we reading the same slashdot??