A long time ago (6 years) the supreme court ruled that if a company wishes to reproduce works done by freelance photographers, they should inform and pay them for royalties for the new use
Much more recently the supreme court changed its own decision and said that if the work was a freelance production that if the company decided to reproduce it for a similar cause they don't need to (inform/ask permission/pay) the photographer.
Essentially they redefined what is a similar use of a photograph. It used to be that if they wanted to do anything but reprint the old article or ad (or whatever the picture was involved in) they needed to make it crystal clear their new intention and give the photographer their due.
In a lot of senses, this is much like converting from DRM to non-DRM for the corperations that use freelance in that they don't have to induce a pay-per-use scheme and instead pay once for rights to the photo. While photographers may now be paid less frequently (probably once) for an individual work, they will probably be able to negotiate a higher price under the new scheme. So there is pro and con to this decision.
P2P (while actually a mix of several types of protocols) by default is 1000 - 1000000 times as bulky as most HTTP transfers are (unless you're downloading files off an HTTP file server) Most of the time though it's just text and pics. I think the article is just reaffirming what/. users already knew.
I agree that OSI has very little ground to stand upon at this point, but it seems they are under the false advertising aspect which someone should stand up for. While they have a very strict definition of open source, there has been code labeled "open source" that I have wanted to get my grubby little paws on in the past and after an exhaustive search through the vendors site first then the internet in general have found no hits. Some of these solutions I began using strictly because they were open source and I knew if I had some minor problem or difference of preference with the software I may be able to go through and see what can be changed.
OSI may be wrong to assume they can push around vendors to adapt to a very strict sense of "open source" but they're just as wrong as vendors trying to edge out some more sales by misleadingly labeling their software "open source."
Considering inkjet printers are sold at or sometimes below cost. The only profit made is on the cartridges themselves. I don't like their solution of making people think they're on empty far before that actually happens, but in no way does this shock me.
Please point me to a peer-reviewed study that indicates this effect is really occurring. I've been looking for a reference to such a study for quite a while now, but haven't heard anything more than anecdotal and "it's obvious" arguments that patents do anything to help the overall innovation rate of a society. Maybe if you took the time to read the parent you were posting under, you would realize that what I said had absolutely nothing to do with the "innovation rate." Perhaps then you'd see that I do indeed (oh and I quote from parent) agree that it's ridiculous that 20 year patents are allowed in technological fields where the idea itself will be obsolete in 5
Maybe then you'll realize my argument is simple: Give credit where it's due, but if the idea is sat upon and not developed in the time frame where it's still pertinent than let the public take it from there.(aka. far shorter patent terms)
As a side note, there can be no "peer reviewed study" as we don't have a mirror USA in a plastic bubble for study upon. Likewise all information you hear concerning the true benefits or drawbacks of the patent system will be anecdotal no matter what side of the fence you're on.
of the "perfect" device of any sort and it would require appropriate licensing (or wrongful patent lawsuits is some unfortunate cases) to develop. That is true.
It does allow the little guy to get credit where it is due though and it requires true innovation in the field and not plagiarism of an idea. I do agree that it is relatively ridiculous that 20 year patents are allowed in technological fields where the idea itself will be obsolete in 5, but a lot of the Slashdot community tends to overlook the good that is also done.
While this does not deal specifically with the patriot act, this will hopefully help set a precedent that a lot of the rights we "gave up" with respect to wiretapping in the patriot act will not be tolerated.
Even if they had the information off the ram, there's no way to tell what context they're running the information in.
1001011010100100 - Well with this information I have no choice but to rule the defendant innocent... oh wait...
1001011010100101!! That changes everything! - I have no choice but to rule the defendant guilty !
If this does fly it could produce a method to invent and earn money by paying attention to the up-and-coming games and investing when they're undervalued or overvalued and additionally, their popularity. Unfortunately this will also prompt an age minimum and consumer taxes, but it would be interesting to see if it would even fly on a global level.
Actually by Links, I do mean Links. It's a text based web browser with support for frames that's been around for quite a time now... but you're probably too busy using IE to care.
It's (sort of) news because despite the fact that Microsoft's own management found that the price which would turn the most profit for Xbox and also give consumers a nice discount overall is much lower than what they're selling them for, Microsoft is practicing bad management skills by not lowering the price. The reason this is news is the documentation stating this price is public and Microsoft chooses to poorly manage this department.
Slashdot is many things to many people. Some people think it's a Linux site. To others, it's a geek hangout. I've always worked very hard to make sure that Slashdot matches up with my interests and the interests of my authors. We think we're pretty typical Slashdot readers... but that does mean that occasionally one of us might post something that you think is inappropriate. You might be interested in my Omelette rant.
Personally, I have a pet peeve when people post comments saying things like "That's not News For Nerds!" and "That's not Stuff that Matters!" Slashdot has been running for almost 5 years, and over that time, I have always been the final decision maker on what ends up on the homepage. It turns out that a lot of people agree with me: Linux, Legos, Penguins, Sci (both real and fiction). If you've been reading Slashdot, you know what the subjects commonly are, but we might deviate occasionally. It's just more fun that way. Variety Is The Spice Of Life and all that, right? We've been running Slashdot for a long time, and if we occasionally want to post something that someone doesn't think is right for Slashdot, well, we're the ones who get to make the call. It's the mix of stories that makes Slashdot the fun place that it is.
Slashdot is meant to be a giant mixing bowl of stories. They focus primarily on the tech but there are some things that pop up other than tech or sci-fi stories that are worth noting
Until Microsoft actually reveals the patents that are being "violated" it really can't be judged what patents (if any) do and don't violate Microsoft patents. Until this happens, all we are being fed is hearsay and speculation.
I'm sure that most level-headed people would agree that actually terminating a pregnancy due to very small unfavorable genetic traits such as those you mentioned is completely wrong. The benefit to this will come when we can use methods of gene-therapy in order to eliminate most life-threatening diseases entirely.
So I compressed it for ease of reading:
"Atmcmpc has n n-krdibly n-depth lûk ata wide rng of video codcs. It lûks not nly at ther iner wrkngs, but also shws thá kwality produced by each ata vriety of settngs and situashuns."
please note a lossy codec was used for paraphrasing
The major breakthrough though is the ability to select which device will be powered. Tesla did nothing of the sort and just created wild electromagnetic fields which then were no big deal but now would render some equipment useless and additionally destroy some other equipment. The resonating frequency in this case can be much lower and thus less volatile, but when "stacked" it still produces the same result.
This one will probably bring a very interesting court case into the patent world. Technically it is a patentable idea, but when it comes down to it the courts will probably see how general what they are claiming really is as it is the start of a whole new field of study. It will be interesting to see what happens.
But creating a blanket statement like "DRM won't work" is wholly false.
Non-DRM content is very important to have and DRM content will never encompass the entire market, that is true. But there is a market for DRM content. I'm sure most people here have been to a cafe or bar with the Jukebox sitting in the corner. The reason this gets used is because sometimes consumers are willing to only listen and not own the music they wish to listen to for a much discounted price. In the Jukebox example you never actually own the music, but the reason it gets used is consumers are willing to pay a quarter or so just to listen.
I agree that DRM in it's current form is very flawed and companies employing only DRM methods for transmitting "property" are seeing large backlash from consumers, but such backlash wouldn't exist if they employed both methods and gave DRM content at a discounted price.
Slashdot Mirror
or alternatively a RAmen
Long story short:
A long time ago (6 years) the supreme court ruled that if a company wishes to reproduce works done by freelance photographers, they should inform and pay them for royalties for the new use
Much more recently the supreme court changed its own decision and said that if the work was a freelance production that if the company decided to reproduce it for a similar cause they don't need to (inform/ask permission/pay) the photographer.
Essentially they redefined what is a similar use of a photograph. It used to be that if they wanted to do anything but reprint the old article or ad (or whatever the picture was involved in) they needed to make it crystal clear their new intention and give the photographer their due.
In a lot of senses, this is much like converting from DRM to non-DRM for the corperations that use freelance in that they don't have to induce a pay-per-use scheme and instead pay once for rights to the photo. While photographers may now be paid less frequently (probably once) for an individual work, they will probably be able to negotiate a higher price under the new scheme. So there is pro and con to this decision.
P2P (while actually a mix of several types of protocols) by default is 1000 - 1000000 times as bulky as most HTTP transfers are (unless you're downloading files off an HTTP file server) Most of the time though it's just text and pics. I think the article is just reaffirming what /. users already knew.
I agree that OSI has very little ground to stand upon at this point, but it seems they are under the false advertising aspect which someone should stand up for. While they have a very strict definition of open source, there has been code labeled "open source" that I have wanted to get my grubby little paws on in the past and after an exhaustive search through the vendors site first then the internet in general have found no hits. Some of these solutions I began using strictly because they were open source and I knew if I had some minor problem or difference of preference with the software I may be able to go through and see what can be changed.
OSI may be wrong to assume they can push around vendors to adapt to a very strict sense of "open source" but they're just as wrong as vendors trying to edge out some more sales by misleadingly labeling their software "open source."
Considering inkjet printers are sold at or sometimes below cost. The only profit made is on the cartridges themselves. I don't like their solution of making people think they're on empty far before that actually happens, but in no way does this shock me.
Maybe then you'll realize my argument is simple: Give credit where it's due, but if the idea is sat upon and not developed in the time frame where it's still pertinent than let the public take it from there.(aka. far shorter patent terms)
As a side note, there can be no "peer reviewed study" as we don't have a mirror USA in a plastic bubble for study upon. Likewise all information you hear concerning the true benefits or drawbacks of the patent system will be anecdotal no matter what side of the fence you're on.
at least you can patent your "slightly better breadbox"
of the "perfect" device of any sort and it would require appropriate licensing (or wrongful patent lawsuits is some unfortunate cases) to develop. That is true.
It does allow the little guy to get credit where it is due though and it requires true innovation in the field and not plagiarism of an idea. I do agree that it is relatively ridiculous that 20 year patents are allowed in technological fields where the idea itself will be obsolete in 5, but a lot of the Slashdot community tends to overlook the good that is also done.
While this does not deal specifically with the patriot act, this will hopefully help set a precedent that a lot of the rights we "gave up" with respect to wiretapping in the patriot act will not be tolerated.
oh... and don't forget the phishermen!
Even if they had the information off the ram, there's no way to tell what context they're running the information in.
1001011010100100 - Well with this information I have no choice but to rule the defendant innocent... oh wait...
1001011010100101!! That changes everything! - I have no choice but to rule the defendant guilty !
If this does fly it could produce a method to invent and earn money by paying attention to the up-and-coming games and investing when they're undervalued or overvalued and additionally, their popularity. Unfortunately this will also prompt an age minimum and consumer taxes, but it would be interesting to see if it would even fly on a global level.
Actually by Links, I do mean Links. It's a text based web browser with support for frames that's been around for quite a time now... but you're probably too busy using IE to care.
Pfft...
You youngins and your fancy graphical internet browsers.
It's all about Links running in my terminal screen!
But now you've gone and given lessons to the entire Slashdot community!
You're right... he should finish the machine, then go back and tell himself to never start it!
It's (sort of) news because despite the fact that Microsoft's own management found that the price which would turn the most profit for Xbox and also give consumers a nice discount overall is much lower than what they're selling them for, Microsoft is practicing bad management skills by not lowering the price. The reason this is news is the documentation stating this price is public and Microsoft chooses to poorly manage this department.
Why did you post story X?
Slashdot is many things to many people. Some people think it's a Linux site. To others, it's a geek hangout. I've always worked very hard to make sure that Slashdot matches up with my interests and the interests of my authors. We think we're pretty typical Slashdot readers... but that does mean that occasionally one of us might post something that you think is inappropriate. You might be interested in my Omelette rant.
Personally, I have a pet peeve when people post comments saying things like "That's not News For Nerds!" and "That's not Stuff that Matters!" Slashdot has been running for almost 5 years, and over that time, I have always been the final decision maker on what ends up on the homepage. It turns out that a lot of people agree with me: Linux, Legos, Penguins, Sci (both real and fiction). If you've been reading Slashdot, you know what the subjects commonly are, but we might deviate occasionally. It's just more fun that way. Variety Is The Spice Of Life and all that, right? We've been running Slashdot for a long time, and if we occasionally want to post something that someone doesn't think is right for Slashdot, well, we're the ones who get to make the call. It's the mix of stories that makes Slashdot the fun place that it is.
Slashdot is meant to be a giant mixing bowl of stories. They focus primarily on the tech but there are some things that pop up other than tech or sci-fi stories that are worth notingUntil Microsoft actually reveals the patents that are being "violated" it really can't be judged what patents (if any) do and don't violate Microsoft patents. Until this happens, all we are being fed is hearsay and speculation.
I'm sure that most level-headed people would agree that actually terminating a pregnancy due to very small unfavorable genetic traits such as those you mentioned is completely wrong. The benefit to this will come when we can use methods of gene-therapy in order to eliminate most life-threatening diseases entirely.
please note a lossy codec was used for paraphrasing
Doesn't sound like it was very intelligently designed
buh-da-chingThe major breakthrough though is the ability to select which device will be powered. Tesla did nothing of the sort and just created wild electromagnetic fields which then were no big deal but now would render some equipment useless and additionally destroy some other equipment. The resonating frequency in this case can be much lower and thus less volatile, but when "stacked" it still produces the same result.
This one will probably bring a very interesting court case into the patent world. Technically it is a patentable idea, but when it comes down to it the courts will probably see how general what they are claiming really is as it is the start of a whole new field of study. It will be interesting to see what happens.
But creating a blanket statement like "DRM won't work" is wholly false.
Non-DRM content is very important to have and DRM content will never encompass the entire market, that is true. But there is a market for DRM content. I'm sure most people here have been to a cafe or bar with the Jukebox sitting in the corner. The reason this gets used is because sometimes consumers are willing to only listen and not own the music they wish to listen to for a much discounted price. In the Jukebox example you never actually own the music, but the reason it gets used is consumers are willing to pay a quarter or so just to listen.
I agree that DRM in it's current form is very flawed and companies employing only DRM methods for transmitting "property" are seeing large backlash from consumers, but such backlash wouldn't exist if they employed both methods and gave DRM content at a discounted price.