The problem is, the technical definition of censorship as it relates to the first amendment is such that only the GOVERNMENT is capable of it. They can't make laws limiting individual's right to free speech. The bill of rights all limit what the government can do, not what entities (individuals, corporations, etc) can do.
In practice, however, there has evolved a more broad definition. If anyone tries to limit your ability to say what you want, they're accused of censorship. Again, technically, only governments are capable of censorship. IANAL, but I believe the supreme court has supported the more broad definition, however.
A standard response to the madness!:-) I must say this is just entirely too funny. And a sad commentary on how little most people understand law. I will say that anyone who thinks we are trying to control reviews and such are jumping on a bandwagon without really giving it proper consideration. Legally, that's entirely impossible -- but then, most people know less about law than they do making ice.;-) This policy/agreement simply allows fan sites to use our trademarks and copyright character art, etc. Most developers/publishers do not allow this at all. End of story. We are providing a way for them to do so, though. Lay people, of course, read this policy and become panic mongers. This policy is only for owners of web sites who wish to use our trademarks and copyrights, like www.3dportal.com. Somehow, someone found a link to it and of course jumps to the wrong conclusion, because...hey...it then can become a hot topic. Yippee. Don't we live in a fun society? We might need to make it more clear that reviews are--of course!--not what concern us (nor could we legally prevent negative reviews--that's patently absurd). It's a web site using our logos next to overly foul, abusive, racist, etc. language or art. For example, we would not allow our logos to be used on a porn site. Back to important work...
Not that Slashdot ever checks with the accused before they post this stuff. Journalistic integrity, perhaps?
When I first read this, I thought that you were using very good logic here. On second thought....
College campuses are traditionally the place where independent music flourishes. Thus the RIAA has managed to shut down a distribution channel for the independent artists.
If your independent artists are using Napster as their distribution channel...I'm gonna bet that they stay independent for a long long time. Who looks for indie music that they haven't heard of on Napster? How would this happen? They look at someone's list and think, "Hmm, that's a damn spiffy song title, I think I'll download it." And people don't chat on napster. They search. They already know what they're looking for, before they even start the program.
I can't say that it was intentional, but it certainly will be a nice side-effect for the major labels. Of course, the RIAA says that "piracy" is the problem, costing them billions of dollars a year, yet at the same time they brag to their stockholders about record earnings this year.
This is certainly the part that I could agree with, if it were truely that meaningful. Yes, they are putting a stop to something. But really, how useful is that something to the indie artist?
Anything that allows the RIAA more control over online distribution takes away from the freedom of independent artists to distribute online.
True, but how useful is that particular freedom? This doesn't stop them from putting their mp3's on a website, or some other creatively useful venue.
This might not be all that bad. Patent applications have to be in by some (rush) date, and then the clueless patent office has about a year to consider everything submitted before issuing anything. The patents are issued about a year later... The difference is, in the current world, there is no limit on the number of patents. (Thus, no extra compulsion to get them in before your competitors).
No, its not. That's what the whole UNISYS/GIF controversy is about He said "in the public domain", not that it WAS public domain. As in...'visible to the public', as opposed to 'secret'.
That's why he said "in this context". You saw the words "public domain" and got confused. Maybe it could have been clearer if he had said "in the domain of the public", or "in the view of the public", or "in the public view". Blah. I'm posting about semantics. The author of the original comment was definitely NOT trying to say that LZH was Public Domain.
There is a lot of talk about various lengths/versions of Dune, and I thought I'd clear the fog a bit. Here's what IMDB has to say about the various versions:
Theatrical version is 140-minutes long; network TV version, disowned by director David Lynch, is 190 minutes long and features outtakes and additional footage. The TV print credits "Allen Smithee" as director. The theatrical release features a brief introductory narration spoken by the "princess". The TV version has a longer spoken introduction by a narrator, with still paintings and drawings used to bring the viewer up to speed on the story. The TV version (available on Japanese Laserdisc) lacks the blue color in the Fremen's eyes, indicating that the scenes were cut before special f/x were added. A third version of "Dune", seen on KTVU in San Francisco in 1992, is the only one that edits together footage from both the theatrical and TV versions, putting back the violent scenes (such as the "heart sucking sequence") and theatrical versions of some scenes (such as Paul and Jessica running from a thumper). Also, Lynch's name is restored at the end (watch for the "Assistant to Mr. Lynch" credit). Contrary to popular rumors, no 6-hours long director's cut, ever existed. The only "director's cut" of the film was the one shown theatrically; Lynch never had a hand in any other version of Dune. Lynch's original intention was for Dune to have been about 3+ hours long. To that end, about 5 hours was shot. This is also confirmed by author 'Frank Herbert' (qv) wrote in the introduction to the book "Eye". It would be impossible for a 6-hour version to exist and even a 5-hour Dune would mean the inclusion of many scenes never intended for the final version (for reasons of redundancy, etc.). It is only necessary to read any of the final scripts for the film to realize that there was never any intention of making Dune more than 4 hours in length at the very most: the script for anything more just was never there. There are two theatrical versions available in Europe, the only two differences between being the short scene in which the Navigator can be seen "at work" folding space; and a very short clip showing the cheek of Duke Leto torn open.
This information may be found at http://us.imdb.com/AlternateVersions?0087182. I own a copy of one of these versions, and based on the description and my memory, it is version 2 above. (There are some scenes missing in my version from the theatrical version, but it includes a narrator and still paintings as illustrations for an intro).
I purchased the long version from Revok in Canada. (http://www.revok.com).
Unfortunately, I cannot judge my version verses the US theatrical release, as it's been SOOO long since I've seen the short one.
The best place for information about the long version is above. (However, I'd be glad to add to it, if anyone has any questions).
I recommend Revok quite well, however DO realize that most of what they sell are vid transfers of things that are not available in the states by US distributors. (For further information about this, read their FAQ).
I'm just stating this because sometimes the picture quality can get a bit weak in some of their products. The transfer of Dune is quite good, though.
This is why actors frequently use either a different name, or a middle inital. (Although, in actor's cases, it's more to do with the Screen Actors Guild).
William H Macy Samuel L Jackson
etc...
Other than the other corrections.
on
Happy Odd Day!
·
· Score: 1
One has two factors anyway. 1 and itself. Just because 'itself' and '1' are the same numerically, it doesn't mean that they couldn't be counted seprately.
For example, on two dice, how many combinations of results that add up to 7 are there?
1,6 2,5 3,4 4,3 5,2 6,1
So, do you have a 3 in 36 chance of a lucky seven, or 6 in 36?
1) The reported exploit was fixed at the end of August. Rather nice to have the fixes in place BEFORE they happen, neh?
Microsoft is generally pretty damn quick with security fixes, and they're so widely reported, it's hard to fall prey to them.
2) Does this mean that all variants of *nix aren't interoperatable? What a horrible thing this must be for some people to face up to! (Keeping mind that I'm essentially *nix-ignorant, but will be correcting that soonish).
It's nice to know that Windows Update will inform me of the security fixes before I've even heard of the problem. Two clicks will generally install any necessary updates. Convenience and speed!
Yes, *nix users are generally more informed of their systems than MS users. Therefore, they are less suceptible.
Yes, *nix hasn't been targetted by many virii or worms, but that doesn't mean that it won't. I'm certain you'll see much more of this as it becomes more and more widespread. MS is just the biggest, most available target. (Much in the same way that AOL is the biggest, most available target for spam).
Why the focus on molecular computing? (I guess to answer myself, it'd be an intermediate step).
I think that a more productive branch of research would be in quantum computing. (bye-bye binary. ON/OFF/BOTH will become far more interesting).
They have had logic gates for some time in quantum computing. (One of the left-coast universities, I believe).
A good starting link to find out about this stuff is http://www.quantumcomputing.com. You will also find information about quantum cryptography. I haven't looked at the crypto stuff yet, but by the fact that they have a section about it, it would seem that it would answer people's current questions about current encryption technology as embattled by molecular computing.
There was also a show about it on Science Friday some months back. (http://www.sciencefriday.com), although I couldn't find it in the archive.
I can contribute what I knew from knowing John 10 years ago. (During the time of thermite and D&D, but after the hacking). I pretty much lost touch with him when he went to Shreveport though. We graduated from the same high school, and he was my DM.
Ask away, and I'll try to let you know what I know (and remember).
Re:A Role-model... but is it really a change?
on
John Carmack Answers
·
· Score: 1
Perfect analysis. Having known John personally 10 years ago during the days of thermite and D&D, I can say that this is exactly my view of him then and now.
It might be interesting to note that John's father is a local television (noon) news anchor. (I find it interesting because of the way that local media's tend to spoon-feed things for the general public).
I knew John during the days of thermite. (Not trying to brag. Just putting some background behind my comments).
I'm sure everyone will agree that John is damn smart. He has no reason to present himself as anything other than what he is (possibly a luxury afforded by his success and the respect that he's earned).
He hasn't really changed that much (that I can see), other than his example of doubling his knowledge in 6 months.
Maybe the good natured thing is his midwestern upbringing.
I hope this doesn't sound like bragging, but I knew John during the days of thermite and D&D. He was my DM for those D&D games. (Incidentally, the best role-playing experience I've ever had, and that was around 10 years ago). When I knew John, his 'crime' days were already over. This was before Shreveport (although he did come back to town once with some S'port friends that he gamed with, for a game. I wish I remember who!) Anyway, I think that John is just damn smart and figured out that he didn't need to resort to illegal means to do the things that he wanted to do, and earn the money that he wanted to be able to earn. I think it actually comes to a well considered and strongly developed moral structure. He is NOT religious by any means, and has put thought to all of those philosophical questions without relying on a religous construct to do his thinking for him. A friend of mine described a situation that resonated with me and my personal experiences, and I bet it did with John too. (Although I could be wrong. As I said before, I didn't know John before about 10 or 11 years ago, so I don't know much about his youth during and before highschool). Here it is. When someone grows up under a belief structure (christianity for example), and they abandon that belief structure, they enter a phase of amorality. A phase defined by the lack of meaning behind the words 'good' and 'evil'. You just do the things you do because you want to. Not because it's right or wrong. Eventually, you begin to figure out that morality isn't directly tied to religious beliefs, and that you can do things that are 'right', or things that are 'wrong', simply because they ARE right or wrong. You don't have to give up your non-religous scruples, or kowtow to a deity just because you're doing the 'right thing'. The doubling of knowledge in 6 months thing was a great example (unrelated to what I'm talking about above). I think I could see John's confidence in his intelligence during the time that I knew him. He didn't have a lot of regard and respect for idiots. (I think I held my own during that time, so he was pretty cool with me). I suppose that during his time in Shreveport, he moderated that opinion as he described above. In any case, I've ALWAYS had a great deal of respect for John, and I love the interview. It brings back a lot of nostalgia for me. I only wish that I had been able to keep in touch with him back then. (And not because of what he's become, but primarily because of the great deal of respect that I have for him. I'd LOVE to have some philosphical discussions with him sometime).
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is, the technical definition of censorship as it relates to the first amendment is such that only the GOVERNMENT is capable of it. They can't make laws limiting individual's right to free speech. The bill of rights all limit what the government can do, not what entities (individuals, corporations, etc) can do.
In practice, however, there has evolved a more broad definition. If anyone tries to limit your ability to say what you want, they're accused of censorship. Again, technically, only governments are capable of censorship. IANAL, but I believe the supreme court has supported the more broad definition, however.
And that's just in the U.S.
Not that Slashdot ever checks with the accused before they post this stuff. Journalistic integrity, perhaps?
When I first read this, I thought that you were using very good logic here. On second thought....
College campuses are traditionally the place where independent music flourishes. Thus the RIAA has managed to shut down a distribution channel for the independent artists.
If your independent artists are using Napster as their distribution channel...I'm gonna bet that they stay independent for a long long time. Who looks for indie music that they haven't heard of on Napster? How would this happen? They look at someone's list and think, "Hmm, that's a damn spiffy song title, I think I'll download it." And people don't chat on napster. They search. They already know what they're looking for, before they even start the program.
I can't say that it was intentional, but it certainly will be a nice side-effect for the major labels. Of course, the RIAA says that "piracy" is the problem, costing them billions of dollars a year, yet at the same time they brag to their stockholders about record earnings this year.
This is certainly the part that I could agree with, if it were truely that meaningful. Yes, they are putting a stop to something. But really, how useful is that something to the indie artist?
Anything that allows the RIAA more control over online distribution takes away from the freedom of independent artists to distribute online.
True, but how useful is that particular freedom? This doesn't stop them from putting their mp3's on a website, or some other creatively useful venue.
This might not be all that bad. Patent applications have to be in by some (rush) date, and then the clueless patent office has about a year to consider everything submitted before issuing anything. The patents are issued about a year later ... The difference is, in the current world, there is no limit on the number of patents. (Thus, no extra compulsion to get them in before your competitors).
No, its not. That's what the whole UNISYS/GIF controversy is about He said "in the public domain", not that it WAS public domain. As in...'visible to the public', as opposed to 'secret'.
That's why he said "in this context". You saw the words "public domain" and got confused. Maybe it could have been clearer if he had said "in the domain of the public", or "in the view of the public", or "in the public view". Blah. I'm posting about semantics. The author of the original comment was definitely NOT trying to say that LZH was Public Domain.
The theatrical adaptation only had plot from the first novel.
However, I think you might be confusing the fact that at one point the film version was possibly going to be a trilogy....for the first book.
I purchased the long version from Revok in Canada. (http://www.revok.com).
Unfortunately, I cannot judge my version verses the US theatrical release, as it's been SOOO long since I've seen the short one.
The best place for information about the long version is above. (However, I'd be glad to add to it, if anyone has any questions).
I recommend Revok quite well, however DO realize that most of what they sell are vid transfers of things that are not available in the states by US distributors. (For further information about this, read their FAQ).
I'm just stating this because sometimes the picture quality can get a bit weak in some of their products. The transfer of Dune is quite good, though.
This is why actors frequently use either a different name, or a middle inital. (Although, in actor's cases, it's more to do with the Screen Actors Guild).
William H Macy
Samuel L Jackson
etc...
One has two factors anyway. 1 and itself. Just because 'itself' and '1' are the same numerically, it doesn't mean that they couldn't be counted seprately.
:)
For example, on two dice, how many combinations of results that add up to 7 are there?
1,6
2,5
3,4
4,3
5,2
6,1
So, do you have a 3 in 36 chance of a lucky seven, or 6 in 36?
My money says 6.
1) The reported exploit was fixed at the end of August. Rather nice to have the fixes in place BEFORE they happen, neh?
Microsoft is generally pretty damn quick with security fixes, and they're so widely reported, it's hard to fall prey to them.
2) Does this mean that all variants of *nix aren't interoperatable? What a horrible thing this must be for some people to face up to! (Keeping mind that I'm essentially *nix-ignorant, but will be correcting that soonish).
It's nice to know that Windows Update will inform me of the security fixes before I've even heard of the problem. Two clicks will generally install any necessary updates. Convenience and speed!
Yes, *nix users are generally more informed of their systems than MS users. Therefore, they are less suceptible.
Yes, *nix hasn't been targetted by many virii or worms, but that doesn't mean that it won't. I'm certain you'll see much more of this as it becomes more and more widespread. MS is just the biggest, most available target. (Much in the same way that AOL is the biggest, most available target for spam).
Why the focus on molecular computing? (I guess to answer myself, it'd be an intermediate step).
I think that a more productive branch of research would be in quantum computing. (bye-bye binary. ON/OFF/BOTH will become far more interesting).
They have had logic gates for some time in quantum computing. (One of the left-coast universities, I believe).
A good starting link to find out about this stuff is http://www.quantumcomputing.com. You will also find information about quantum cryptography. I haven't looked at the crypto stuff yet, but by the fact that they have a section about it, it would seem that it would answer people's current questions about current encryption technology as embattled by molecular computing.
There was also a show about it on Science Friday some months back. (http://www.sciencefriday.com), although I couldn't find it in the archive.
Knew. :)
:)
Yes, the last name IS Goth.
Actually, from what I remember/read, Gates did some dumpster-diving and other hacking in his youth. But, I could be wrong.
I can contribute what I knew from knowing John 10 years ago. (During the time of thermite and D&D, but after the hacking). I pretty much lost touch with him when he went to Shreveport though. We graduated from the same high school, and he was my DM.
Ask away, and I'll try to let you know what I know (and remember).
Perfect analysis. Having known John personally 10 years ago during the days of thermite and D&D, I can say that this is exactly my view of him then and now.
It might be interesting to note that John's father is a local television (noon) news anchor. (I find it interesting because of the way that local media's tend to spoon-feed things for the general public).
I knew John during the days of thermite. (Not trying to brag. Just putting some background behind my comments).
I'm sure everyone will agree that John is damn smart. He has no reason to present himself as anything other than what he is (possibly a luxury afforded by his success and the respect that he's earned).
He hasn't really changed that much (that I can see), other than his example of doubling his knowledge in 6 months.
Maybe the good natured thing is his midwestern upbringing.
I hope this doesn't sound like bragging, but I knew John during the days of thermite and D&D. He was my DM for those D&D games. (Incidentally, the best role-playing experience I've ever had, and that was around 10 years ago). When I knew John, his 'crime' days were already over. This was before Shreveport (although he did come back to town once with some S'port friends that he gamed with, for a game. I wish I remember who!) Anyway, I think that John is just damn smart and figured out that he didn't need to resort to illegal means to do the things that he wanted to do, and earn the money that he wanted to be able to earn. I think it actually comes to a well considered and strongly developed moral structure. He is NOT religious by any means, and has put thought to all of those philosophical questions without relying on a religous construct to do his thinking for him. A friend of mine described a situation that resonated with me and my personal experiences, and I bet it did with John too. (Although I could be wrong. As I said before, I didn't know John before about 10 or 11 years ago, so I don't know much about his youth during and before highschool). Here it is. When someone grows up under a belief structure (christianity for example), and they abandon that belief structure, they enter a phase of amorality. A phase defined by the lack of meaning behind the words 'good' and 'evil'. You just do the things you do because you want to. Not because it's right or wrong. Eventually, you begin to figure out that morality isn't directly tied to religious beliefs, and that you can do things that are 'right', or things that are 'wrong', simply because they ARE right or wrong. You don't have to give up your non-religous scruples, or kowtow to a deity just because you're doing the 'right thing'. The doubling of knowledge in 6 months thing was a great example (unrelated to what I'm talking about above). I think I could see John's confidence in his intelligence during the time that I knew him. He didn't have a lot of regard and respect for idiots. (I think I held my own during that time, so he was pretty cool with me). I suppose that during his time in Shreveport, he moderated that opinion as he described above. In any case, I've ALWAYS had a great deal of respect for John, and I love the interview. It brings back a lot of nostalgia for me. I only wish that I had been able to keep in touch with him back then. (And not because of what he's become, but primarily because of the great deal of respect that I have for him. I'd LOVE to have some philosphical discussions with him sometime).