Yes. An article reflecting on the history of a piece of image-editing software, and how it grew out of the efforts of a single family, also includes extensive details on criminal copyright lawsuits initiated by the distribution company.
I do have to say that the motorcycle gangs have a better long term plan than the gamers do at this point.
I agree. My initial reaction to the article was that the motorcycle gangs are smarter than the gamers. Or a particular gamer. A threatening note under his door? What is the point of that? Did somebody think that was going to make him change his mind?
I'll assume the gamer was some teenage idiot who had zero intent or ability to carry out the threat. If he did intend to carry it out, however, that is even dumber. It certainly would not convince anyone to take a more favorable view on an adult gaming rating. A backlash is more likely.
Not true. The indictment indicates that five DVDs were mailed to Florida and five movies were downloaded.
I cannot say whether the charges would have been upheld if it were downloading alone. The court certainly did not dismiss those counts, he was convicted on all ten.
I do research at a public university in the US. A mix of privately funded and publicly funded work. In most cases the university retains a copyright to any work I do, and will aggressively defend it. I'd gladly share my work, but I am often forbidden to do so.
I have had "colleagues" not only in the same university, but in the same research program (different labs) flat-out deny a request to share software and insist that I must pay them for it
you can't disseminate or report on the game without their written, express consent
They claim that, but I'm almost certain it is not true. Does anyone think that thousands of sports reporters are getting written permission?
One of the reasons that that professional wrestling (WWF/WWE) admitted their event is fake was due to copyright. They could not stop writers from reporting on a "real" event, just as the NFL/MLB/etc cannot stop writers from reporting on their events. As theater, however, pro wrestling has much greater copyright control over how much can be written about their event.
Airbus may not use an AI type approach to interpret the pilot, but the net effect is nearly the same; the pilot attempts a maneuver that the computer prevents. On some occasions (AF447) a faulty sensor gave the computer a bad reading. In others (AF296), the software itself may have caused an undesirable behavior. Or the pilots have had the software in a mode that prevented the maneuver (CAL140). Airbus was a case-study for software liability in my college computer science courses.
I assume this means you are willing to work for free (during the jail and community service portions of your proposal) because your co-worked did something illegal? After all, you are part of the company as well.
Certainly, accounting could be screwed too. But there odds are it isn't as bad as IT.
If nothing else, they are required to file taxes every year. Which means somebody is putting expenses down onto paper. On top of that, computers are either on a depreciation schedule or section 179. There is no such annual requirement for IT in a small business, which is why it can get so easily forgotten.
I would also argue that most managers are far more likely to understand that falsifying taxes is illegal than realize that installing a single-seat copy of Acrobat on 20 machines is also illegal.
One of the best responses I've seen, although you probably won't get modded up. The only item I would add is that, in researching, the accounting department is a good place to go. They likely will not have license keys or other details, but are very likely to be able to tell you what was actually purchased, when, and from whom.
I think believe you are correct, in that the dichotomy exists only if people believe it to exist. I also think you are buying into it yourself. I played high school football, the coaches encouraged academic success. The captain of the football team was valedictorian (my school used a weighted GPA system, so only students taking honors courses would rank at the top, getting all As grades in shop and art classes would actually hurt your GPA).
As for the mathematicians not getting laid... well, that's probably true. Looking back on high school, it is also true that far fewer kids were getting laid than I thought were. And only a tiny fraction of those who claimed to be getting laid really were.
I agree completely. In fact, I seem to recall this whole thread about nine years ago...
What's the big obsession on Slashdot with perpetuating silly stereotypes? It's like people here actually believe that they are B-movie nerds, waging an eternal war against jocks. My friends and I played role-playing games in high school, we liked to mess with the computers. A wild Saturday night was some Pepsi, pizza, and a game of Starfleet Battles.We also played varsity football, basketball, and track. We were in the weight room three days a week.People who thought they were "nerds" thought we were "jocks". The people who thought they were "jocks" thought we were "nerds". I had a lot of fun playing sports and a lot of fun in other activities. You only hurt yourself by letting someone label you.
I think the biggest problem is the labels would appear to identify academic and athletic achievements. When, in reality, they're just certain fringe social groups and kids often allow themselves to be identified as one or the other, to their own loss. The most successful people I know were both in academic and athletic activities while in school, and continue to pursue both physical and mental growth as adults.
You probably don't need your congressman. Most cable monopolies are granted locally, by the city. As a bonus, you have a good chance of actually talking to the person responsible, unless you live in a very large city.
You need to read a little more closely. The UK has ordered enough vaccine for 132 million people. It does not have that much on hand. Initial deliveries are only now being made, which is why vaccinations have begin in hospitals and the armed forces.
Who is going to pay "your friend" the $100,000 for his initial work? If copyright is abolished, as you suggest, I could buy his first copy for $20 and then sell them for $10. Or give them away. So your friend made $20 for his one year of effort.
The commission/patron method won't work. If your friend's software has a market value of $20 per copy, why would someone pay $100,000 for the first one?
There are plenty of problems with current IP law, but the "abolish everything" model is just as bad, if not worse. I know plenty of independent journalists and photographers. The notion that only "big companies" benefit from IP law is absurd. They may be the biggest abusers of the law, but they are hardly the only ones who benefit.
In Minnesota, you could turn around after that one-month temporary job and receive benefits from the first job (assuming you did not already exhaust them). Also, part-time work will reduce benefits dollar-for-dollar until you exceed 32 hours a week (or make more money from part-time work than you'd receive on unemployment).
As you point out, the real problem here is a system with idiotic rules, not her honesty in reporting $238.
If she hit $600 by the end of the year (not likely, but who knows?) then Google would have issued a 1099, a copy of which is available to the state. It's not unreasonable to believe that the state has an automated system to match that against unemployment records. And then she gets hit with fraud.
The real problem is the state's rules that cause $1 to trigger a 25% reduction. A more reasonable regulation might be no reduction for income under $25 and then a dollar-for-dollar reduction up to $405 (the point at which NY cuts benefits entirely).
You misunderstand the cause. Disclosure: I work for a major US university in transportation research, we've been doing studies on various impairment (including distraction) for as long as I've been here, which is over ten years. As in, you drive with a cell phone, you drive with a hands-free cell phone, you drive while changing the radio every 30 seconds, you drive while drunk. Then we compare objective performance measures.
The physical interaction is not the major problem. It is the mental engagement that causes the driver to remove attention from the driving task. Eating that fast food cheeseburger does not take a lot of thought. Neither does adjusting the heat, mirrors, or stereo (once you have some basic familiarity with their operation). Following a route on a GPS is not a problem.
Cell phone conversations (hands-on AND hands-free) and composing text messages/email do take a significant concentration from the driving task. You are correct that passengers can be a serious problem, particularly with younger drivers*. Route-planning on a GPS is a problem.
*There is much debate in the community as to why cell phone conversations are worse than in-vehicle conversations with adults. A lot of theories, no solid evidence. Except to show that there is a demonstrable difference. One such theory is that the in-car conversation is a self-paced task while the cell phone is a forced-pace task. Your passenger does not wonder why you got quiet when trying to merge onto a busy freeway. The person on the other end of the cellphone is not aware of the driving environment and people will keep up the conversation even when dangerous to do so.
One of my favorite research videos is from a high school where students had their cars set up with cameras and computer recording. A girl goes around a slippery curve in winter, the car does two complete spins, and lands in the outside ditch. At no point does she drop the cell phone or stop talking to the other person. Although, at the end, it is mostly "Oh my god! I'm crashing!"
You may misunderstand how little I care about "the development of the social scene". For starters, I'm not that much older than you (based on your previous comments about your age in the 1980s).
Would I have been more "popular" or "accepted" if my parents bought me a car in high school? Perhaps. The same is also true if they allowed me to go on spring break vacations. Or get plastic surgery. Or held booze parties. Or any of a number of things some of my peers did.
A kid who runs around being influenced by peer pressure is bad enough. A parent who buys into it, thinking they must provide their child with X or they'll be scarred forever, is an idiot.
At risk of being a "social outcast"? Like some geek who hangs out on Slashdot?
How foolish of me to deny my son a phone while letting him play outside with his friends. Instead of spending that time together they could be busily texting each other about what they might have been doing.
Or worse, be like some idiot adults who have so little social skills that they spend most of their time with Person A ignoring them, and texting Person B. Only to reverse it later.
Slashdot Mirror
wealth != success & happiness
Sometimes quite the opposite. Although if you're an MBA (as your sig indicates) you may have trouble with that concept.
Yes. An article reflecting on the history of a piece of image-editing software, and how it grew out of the efforts of a single family, also includes extensive details on criminal copyright lawsuits initiated by the distribution company.
I agree. My initial reaction to the article was that the motorcycle gangs are smarter than the gamers. Or a particular gamer. A threatening note under his door? What is the point of that? Did somebody think that was going to make him change his mind?
I'll assume the gamer was some teenage idiot who had zero intent or ability to carry out the threat. If he did intend to carry it out, however, that is even dumber. It certainly would not convince anyone to take a more favorable view on an adult gaming rating. A backlash is more likely.
Not true. The indictment indicates that five DVDs were mailed to Florida and five movies were downloaded.
I cannot say whether the charges would have been upheld if it were downloading alone. The court certainly did not dismiss those counts, he was convicted on all ten.
Good luck.
I do research at a public university in the US. A mix of privately funded and publicly funded work. In most cases the university retains a copyright to any work I do, and will aggressively defend it. I'd gladly share my work, but I am often forbidden to do so.
I have had "colleagues" not only in the same university, but in the same research program (different labs) flat-out deny a request to share software and insist that I must pay them for it
They claim that, but I'm almost certain it is not true. Does anyone think that thousands of sports reporters are getting written permission?
One of the reasons that that professional wrestling (WWF/WWE) admitted their event is fake was due to copyright. They could not stop writers from reporting on a "real" event, just as the NFL/MLB/etc cannot stop writers from reporting on their events. As theater, however, pro wrestling has much greater copyright control over how much can be written about their event.
So, Linux's obscurity provides its security?
Airbus may not use an AI type approach to interpret the pilot, but the net effect is nearly the same; the pilot attempts a maneuver that the computer prevents. On some occasions (AF447) a faulty sensor gave the computer a bad reading. In others (AF296), the software itself may have caused an undesirable behavior. Or the pilots have had the software in a mode that prevented the maneuver (CAL140). Airbus was a case-study for software liability in my college computer science courses.
I assume this means you are willing to work for free (during the jail and community service portions of your proposal) because your co-worked did something illegal? After all, you are part of the company as well.
The majority of Americans? You mean the 32% of adults who voted for Obama?
He did receive a majority of the voters (53% vs 46%), but hardly a majority of Americans.
Certainly, accounting could be screwed too. But there odds are it isn't as bad as IT.
If nothing else, they are required to file taxes every year. Which means somebody is putting expenses down onto paper. On top of that, computers are either on a depreciation schedule or section 179. There is no such annual requirement for IT in a small business, which is why it can get so easily forgotten.
I would also argue that most managers are far more likely to understand that falsifying taxes is illegal than realize that installing a single-seat copy of Acrobat on 20 machines is also illegal.
One of the best responses I've seen, although you probably won't get modded up. The only item I would add is that, in researching, the accounting department is a good place to go. They likely will not have license keys or other details, but are very likely to be able to tell you what was actually purchased, when, and from whom.
I think believe you are correct, in that the dichotomy exists only if people believe it to exist. I also think you are buying into it yourself. I played high school football, the coaches encouraged academic success. The captain of the football team was valedictorian (my school used a weighted GPA system, so only students taking honors courses would rank at the top, getting all As grades in shop and art classes would actually hurt your GPA).
As for the mathematicians not getting laid... well, that's probably true. Looking back on high school, it is also true that far fewer kids were getting laid than I thought were. And only a tiny fraction of those who claimed to be getting laid really were.
I agree completely. In fact, I seem to recall this whole thread about nine years ago...
I think the biggest problem is the labels would appear to identify academic and athletic achievements. When, in reality, they're just certain fringe social groups and kids often allow themselves to be identified as one or the other, to their own loss. The most successful people I know were both in academic and athletic activities while in school, and continue to pursue both physical and mental growth as adults.
Aztec != Maya
The Maya did practice human sacrifice, as did most Mesoamerican civilizations, but on a significantly smaller scale.
You probably don't need your congressman. Most cable monopolies are granted locally, by the city. As a bonus, you have a good chance of actually talking to the person responsible, unless you live in a very large city.
You need to read a little more closely. The UK has ordered enough vaccine for 132 million people. It does not have that much on hand. Initial deliveries are only now being made, which is why vaccinations have begin in hospitals and the armed forces.
Who is going to pay "your friend" the $100,000 for his initial work? If copyright is abolished, as you suggest, I could buy his first copy for $20 and then sell them for $10. Or give them away. So your friend made $20 for his one year of effort.
The commission/patron method won't work. If your friend's software has a market value of $20 per copy, why would someone pay $100,000 for the first one?
There are plenty of problems with current IP law, but the "abolish everything" model is just as bad, if not worse. I know plenty of independent journalists and photographers. The notion that only "big companies" benefit from IP law is absurd. They may be the biggest abusers of the law, but they are hardly the only ones who benefit.
That depends entirely on the particular state.
In Minnesota, you could turn around after that one-month temporary job and receive benefits from the first job (assuming you did not already exhaust them). Also, part-time work will reduce benefits dollar-for-dollar until you exceed 32 hours a week (or make more money from part-time work than you'd receive on unemployment).
As you point out, the real problem here is a system with idiotic rules, not her honesty in reporting $238.
If she hit $600 by the end of the year (not likely, but who knows?) then Google would have issued a 1099, a copy of which is available to the state. It's not unreasonable to believe that the state has an automated system to match that against unemployment records. And then she gets hit with fraud.
The real problem is the state's rules that cause $1 to trigger a 25% reduction. A more reasonable regulation might be no reduction for income under $25 and then a dollar-for-dollar reduction up to $405 (the point at which NY cuts benefits entirely).
Twenty-eight United States Senators voted against the Iraq War in 2002. Obama was not one of them, as he was not a senator at the time.
The physical interaction is not the major problem. It is the mental engagement that causes the driver to remove attention from the driving task. Eating that fast food cheeseburger does not take a lot of thought. Neither does adjusting the heat, mirrors, or stereo (once you have some basic familiarity with their operation). Following a route on a GPS is not a problem.
Cell phone conversations (hands-on AND hands-free) and composing text messages/email do take a significant concentration from the driving task. You are correct that passengers can be a serious problem, particularly with younger drivers*. Route-planning on a GPS is a problem.
*There is much debate in the community as to why cell phone conversations are worse than in-vehicle conversations with adults. A lot of theories, no solid evidence. Except to show that there is a demonstrable difference. One such theory is that the in-car conversation is a self-paced task while the cell phone is a forced-pace task. Your passenger does not wonder why you got quiet when trying to merge onto a busy freeway. The person on the other end of the cellphone is not aware of the driving environment and people will keep up the conversation even when dangerous to do so.
One of my favorite research videos is from a high school where students had their cars set up with cameras and computer recording. A girl goes around a slippery curve in winter, the car does two complete spins, and lands in the outside ditch. At no point does she drop the cell phone or stop talking to the other person. Although, at the end, it is mostly "Oh my god! I'm crashing!"
Quite true. However, in defense of the GP, it is so often an easy and accurate predictor.
You may misunderstand how little I care about "the development of the social scene". For starters, I'm not that much older than you (based on your previous comments about your age in the 1980s).
Would I have been more "popular" or "accepted" if my parents bought me a car in high school? Perhaps. The same is also true if they allowed me to go on spring break vacations. Or get plastic surgery. Or held booze parties. Or any of a number of things some of my peers did.
A kid who runs around being influenced by peer pressure is bad enough. A parent who buys into it, thinking they must provide their child with X or they'll be scarred forever, is an idiot.
At risk of being a "social outcast"? Like some geek who hangs out on Slashdot?
How foolish of me to deny my son a phone while letting him play outside with his friends. Instead of spending that time together they could be busily texting each other about what they might have been doing.
Or worse, be like some idiot adults who have so little social skills that they spend most of their time with Person A ignoring them, and texting Person B. Only to reverse it later.