When an in-depth understanding of copyright law is just practical knowledge for creative professionals, there is something terribly, terribly wrong with the system.
1960 + 410 = 2370g
eee pc = 990g
I'm guessing that the eee pc battery weighs ~250g.
Given that each battery gives the eee pc ~3 hours of battery life, that gives the eee pc about 18 hours of battery life before it exceeds those weight specifications.
if you want them to start using Open Office and Firefox, burn a bunch of Disks and nice labels and start a campaign on 'back to school' periods when everyone is shopping for their kids and college students As part of my business, we do this at the local college during orientation. Seems popular, but we've run into the problem of figuring out how many people actually use the software, and of course the fact that costs begin to spiral when you start talking about professionally made CDs. Any suggestions would be welcome.
How the hell would Google know anything close to that much about me? My occupation could probably be surmised, and some of my personal interests, but my race? What car I drive? My age? I doubt it. As for knowing my face, frankly, if they can figure out what my face looks like by reading my email, they're clairvoyant anyway and there's not a whole hell of a lot I'm doing about supernaturally empowered marketing- marketing which, so far, doesn't seem to have a lot of nefarious implications.
So, is there more than hysteria here, or do you really have evidence that what you say is possible? What do you see as the negative ramifications of that scenario?
Personally, I don't think that knowledge should be anything but free- that everybody, all over the world, should have the right to think and create freely, informed by the sum total of previous human thought. I think it is to our benefit as a species and our credit as a civilization that today, more knowledge is available to the laziest and most disinterested dropout than was in bygone years known by the wisest and most studious. And I think we would be wise to continue that trend.
Economically, though, the RIAA and MPAA have one thing right- distribution is just too easy for the system of paying for the right to possess intellectual property to continue, and somebody has to make a living. Two alternatives come to mind: the first is the charity system, where an artist earns what the people feel they deserve. The second is a patronage system, where a patron commissions the work in advance, and pays for it on a similar timescale.
I expect a lot of people to say that neither scheme will work. Generally the arguments against these systems revolve around the basic question of why would people would buy the cow when they can have the milk for free?
I don't think anybody who says this has ever waited tables. Sure, a heavy percentage of tips will be mediocre, and some percentage will suck, but considering the fact that nobody is making the customer pay, it all works out pretty well. It turns into a statistical question, and if anybody has any has any real data on that, I'd like it if you'd post it.
I also don't think it squares up with the state of the music or movie industry. I mean, lets face it- it just isn't prohibitively hard to download a piece of media. But many, many more people do it than download illegally, and that to me says that people are still willing to pay for their media, for the convenience of having it on a disc, for the liner notes and album art and all kinds of things. In other words, just because the dominant distribution channel changes doesn't mean that people aren't willing to spend some money on their music or their movies.
Big difference between gaining root access to a (possibly trusted) machine and just taking it down. If you have unlimited physical access and just want it to go away, save yourself some time and pull the plug.
If you don't know the answers to these questions, don't get paid to know the answers. You don't want to be a knowledge worker and learning on the job. If I were you, I'd do it for the fun of doing it until you answer more questions than you ask on the forums for the technologies you're using, and swallow the costs in the meantime.
In case you ever take a break from bloviating to actually read the Constitution, the 9th amendment is the protector of unenumerated rights doctrine. If the courts agree, theoretically any restriction on government power can be derived from that source. That doesn't mean that file sharing is specifically addressed by the Constitution, but it does mean that just because a right isn't specifically addressed doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. This would be similar to the right to privacy or parenthood- both acknowledged social norms that have in recent years gained legal force.
Another possible derivation is the right to due process, which states that the government cannot strip from an individual that which they posess without due process of law, a deliberatey ambiguous phrase. If the courts held that, for example, the act of distributing copyrighted material were illegal, but that the act of downloading it was ambiguous, then any remedy of law would be prohibited to the copyright holders under due process doctrine. This would be much more similar to existing contract law, and would essentially represent the fact that you cannot deny to an innocent third party the fruit of a contract, even if that fruit were acquired via illegal means.
Note that I am not saying that this is settled law- it isn't- but you asked to be shown where in the constitution the right to filesharing can be found, and I've demonstrated at least two reasonable derivations of that right, each of which grows more plausible as file sharing becomes more acceptable. The Constitution is, in a very real sense, a living document, and to simply say that this-or-that isn't in there misses the point entirely. Bottom line being: nobody knows whether its protected or not, and until that's settled, you'd be wise to back down on the rhetoric.
I love this logic- support the existing law or you are against an orderly society! We have the ability to change laws for a reason- bad laws get passed. And it's not unpatriotic or immoral to suggest that a law needs change. Bottom line: if you agree with a law, say why you agree with it instead of pretending that changing an unpopular law is morally equivalent to destroying the rule of law.
If you're fresh out of a course in this, you should know better than to pretend that this is settled law. There have been rulings up one side and down the other on this issue, and there is no broad consensus even inside a given jurisdiction, god forbid we start talking about international law.
As far as shrinkwrap licensing goes, the point about the inaccessibility of the license is valid. The software vendor is well aware that it is impossible for the customer to freely leave the (nonexistent) negotiations, which, as you should surely know by now, voids the contract.
You should also know that there is no requirement that merchants refund the purchase cost of any item unless it is defective. There is especially no requirement that they take it back once you've tampered with it, or extracted its value. The obvious equivalent is that of eating an apple and trying to return its core.
As for the distinction between contract via post and shrinkwrap EULA's, the distinction arises out of the ability to freely enter and leave contract negotiations. This is, as you know, the central point of the validity of any contract.
As for the time of sale being the end of the binding process, you are partially right- a contract could be entered into or left after the sale has taken place, since technically the sale only transfers ownership rather than all the rights and privileges of ownership- but that contract must be freely entered into, and, as above, that criterion is disputable.
Slackware is older than Ubuntu, so it must be the better distro.
Solaris is older than Linux, so it must be the superior operating system.
Monarchy is older than democracy, so it must be a better form of government.
I can make my examples more absurd, if you want.
I don't mind useless distros, having set a few of them up myself, but the package management madness needs to stop. What we really need is not a new PM, but a way for PMs to interoperate reliably.
wouldn't be too hard to write an inotify script that stores a backup of the file and an md5sum whenever you drop a file in. wouldn't help you recover an already corrupt document, but it would help you to stop it in the future. a tie-in to the actions menu would make it more usable, but that's a bit more effort, and such solutions probably already exist.
Except that both bugfixes and regressions occur in new versions. It may not require the same attack, but guaranteeing the effectiveness of a certain class of attacks is just going to shift the issue from getting into 80% of the houses 1% of the time to getting into 60% of the houses 100% of the time.
If you're doing engineering, you want all your eggs in one basket- but you want to know exactly, precisely what the tolerances of that basket are, and, ideally, you want it to be a super-strong, super-lightweight basket. In this case, it helps to ensure that the elements in the toolchain are more thoroughly tested, giving us a much better understanding about the behavior of the toolchain. As they say, "knowledge is power"- in this case, better knowledge of the toolchain means a better ability to understand what programs will be affected by every change, and therefore which need to be rechecked for security issues.
Supposedly D&D is at a 20M globally, but it's without a doubt the most popular game of its type, and previous video game adaptations have- *ahem*- been less than successful. Again, my thought is that other large genres will move in on the highly successful subscription model that MMOs have going. If they bring enough technical innovation to the party I think we might see the mechanics necessary to support on-the-fly generation of complex story elements in the next decade, a number I am pulling out of my ass with wanton abandon. Don't get me wrong, though- I'm a reformed D&D player myself, and I would love to see a video game offer a similar level of interaction and character development.
Slashdot Mirror
When an in-depth understanding of copyright law is just practical knowledge for creative professionals, there is something terribly, terribly wrong with the system.
Lighten up, Francis.
Some people use language more precisely than others.
1960 + 410 = 2370g
eee pc = 990g
I'm guessing that the eee pc battery weighs ~250g.
Given that each battery gives the eee pc ~3 hours of battery life, that gives the eee pc about 18 hours of battery life before it exceeds those weight specifications.
Sounds like something Hitler would say, hmm?
Not on my network, it doesnt.
How the hell would Google know anything close to that much about me? My occupation could probably be surmised, and some of my personal interests, but my race? What car I drive? My age? I doubt it. As for knowing my face, frankly, if they can figure out what my face looks like by reading my email, they're clairvoyant anyway and there's not a whole hell of a lot I'm doing about supernaturally empowered marketing- marketing which, so far, doesn't seem to have a lot of nefarious implications.
So, is there more than hysteria here, or do you really have evidence that what you say is possible? What do you see as the negative ramifications of that scenario?
Because there are more people in the former group than the latter.
For a while, anyway.
Personally, I don't think that knowledge should be anything but free- that everybody, all over the world, should have the right to think and create freely, informed by the sum total of previous human thought. I think it is to our benefit as a species and our credit as a civilization that today, more knowledge is available to the laziest and most disinterested dropout than was in bygone years known by the wisest and most studious. And I think we would be wise to continue that trend.
Economically, though, the RIAA and MPAA have one thing right- distribution is just too easy for the system of paying for the right to possess intellectual property to continue, and somebody has to make a living. Two alternatives come to mind: the first is the charity system, where an artist earns what the people feel they deserve. The second is a patronage system, where a patron commissions the work in advance, and pays for it on a similar timescale.
I expect a lot of people to say that neither scheme will work. Generally the arguments against these systems revolve around the basic question of why would people would buy the cow when they can have the milk for free?
I don't think anybody who says this has ever waited tables. Sure, a heavy percentage of tips will be mediocre, and some percentage will suck, but considering the fact that nobody is making the customer pay, it all works out pretty well. It turns into a statistical question, and if anybody has any has any real data on that, I'd like it if you'd post it.
I also don't think it squares up with the state of the music or movie industry. I mean, lets face it- it just isn't prohibitively hard to download a piece of media. But many, many more people do it than download illegally, and that to me says that people are still willing to pay for their media, for the convenience of having it on a disc, for the liner notes and album art and all kinds of things. In other words, just because the dominant distribution channel changes doesn't mean that people aren't willing to spend some money on their music or their movies.
Big difference between gaining root access to a (possibly trusted) machine and just taking it down. If you have unlimited physical access and just want it to go away, save yourself some time and pull the plug.
Maybe if you did it to a Vista machine a decade ago, it would have.
If you don't know the answers to these questions, don't get paid to know the answers. You don't want to be a knowledge worker and learning on the job. If I were you, I'd do it for the fun of doing it until you answer more questions than you ask on the forums for the technologies you're using, and swallow the costs in the meantime.
In case you ever take a break from bloviating to actually read the Constitution, the 9th amendment is the protector of unenumerated rights doctrine. If the courts agree, theoretically any restriction on government power can be derived from that source. That doesn't mean that file sharing is specifically addressed by the Constitution, but it does mean that just because a right isn't specifically addressed doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. This would be similar to the right to privacy or parenthood- both acknowledged social norms that have in recent years gained legal force.
Another possible derivation is the right to due process, which states that the government cannot strip from an individual that which they posess without due process of law, a deliberatey ambiguous phrase. If the courts held that, for example, the act of distributing copyrighted material were illegal, but that the act of downloading it was ambiguous, then any remedy of law would be prohibited to the copyright holders under due process doctrine. This would be much more similar to existing contract law, and would essentially represent the fact that you cannot deny to an innocent third party the fruit of a contract, even if that fruit were acquired via illegal means.
Note that I am not saying that this is settled law- it isn't- but you asked to be shown where in the constitution the right to filesharing can be found, and I've demonstrated at least two reasonable derivations of that right, each of which grows more plausible as file sharing becomes more acceptable. The Constitution is, in a very real sense, a living document, and to simply say that this-or-that isn't in there misses the point entirely. Bottom line being: nobody knows whether its protected or not, and until that's settled, you'd be wise to back down on the rhetoric.
I love this logic- support the existing law or you are against an orderly society! We have the ability to change laws for a reason- bad laws get passed. And it's not unpatriotic or immoral to suggest that a law needs change. Bottom line: if you agree with a law, say why you agree with it instead of pretending that changing an unpopular law is morally equivalent to destroying the rule of law.
I believe you'll find that in the ninth amendment, the same place you find most of the other rights you exercise.
If you're fresh out of a course in this, you should know better than to pretend that this is settled law. There have been rulings up one side and down the other on this issue, and there is no broad consensus even inside a given jurisdiction, god forbid we start talking about international law.
As far as shrinkwrap licensing goes, the point about the inaccessibility of the license is valid. The software vendor is well aware that it is impossible for the customer to freely leave the (nonexistent) negotiations, which, as you should surely know by now, voids the contract.
You should also know that there is no requirement that merchants refund the purchase cost of any item unless it is defective. There is especially no requirement that they take it back once you've tampered with it, or extracted its value. The obvious equivalent is that of eating an apple and trying to return its core.
As for the distinction between contract via post and shrinkwrap EULA's, the distinction arises out of the ability to freely enter and leave contract negotiations. This is, as you know, the central point of the validity of any contract.
As for the time of sale being the end of the binding process, you are partially right- a contract could be entered into or left after the sale has taken place, since technically the sale only transfers ownership rather than all the rights and privileges of ownership- but that contract must be freely entered into, and, as above, that criterion is disputable.
You work with exherbo, I presume? If you are interested in incorporating anything along the lines of Portage, sign me up.
Slackware is older than Ubuntu, so it must be the better distro.
Solaris is older than Linux, so it must be the superior operating system.
Monarchy is older than democracy, so it must be a better form of government.
I can make my examples more absurd, if you want.
I don't mind useless distros, having set a few of them up myself, but the package management madness needs to stop. What we really need is not a new PM, but a way for PMs to interoperate reliably.
wouldn't be too hard to write an inotify script that stores a backup of the file and an md5sum whenever you drop a file in. wouldn't help you recover an already corrupt document, but it would help you to stop it in the future. a tie-in to the actions menu would make it more usable, but that's a bit more effort, and such solutions probably already exist.
Good thing too; those crystals are the root of all weevil.
Except that both bugfixes and regressions occur in new versions. It may not require the same attack, but guaranteeing the effectiveness of a certain class of attacks is just going to shift the issue from getting into 80% of the houses 1% of the time to getting into 60% of the houses 100% of the time.
If you're doing engineering, you want all your eggs in one basket- but you want to know exactly, precisely what the tolerances of that basket are, and, ideally, you want it to be a super-strong, super-lightweight basket. In this case, it helps to ensure that the elements in the toolchain are more thoroughly tested, giving us a much better understanding about the behavior of the toolchain. As they say, "knowledge is power"- in this case, better knowledge of the toolchain means a better ability to understand what programs will be affected by every change, and therefore which need to be rechecked for security issues.
Supposedly D&D is at a 20M globally, but it's without a doubt the most popular game of its type, and previous video game adaptations have- *ahem*- been less than successful. Again, my thought is that other large genres will move in on the highly successful subscription model that MMOs have going. If they bring enough technical innovation to the party I think we might see the mechanics necessary to support on-the-fly generation of complex story elements in the next decade, a number I am pulling out of my ass with wanton abandon. Don't get me wrong, though- I'm a reformed D&D player myself, and I would love to see a video game offer a similar level of interaction and character development.