Hypertext links are just the beginning. We must close the analog hole! Every time someone chats with a friend about the day's news, a poor, helpless newspaper loses money. And God kills a kitten.
The First Amendment protects freedom of speech from government intrusion, including the freedom to write an.html document that contains a fair-use summary of and/or links to copyrighted content, which itself is protected from outright theft by the Copyright Clause in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. Unauthorized reproduction is already covered by the law, and no additional protection needed, IMHO.
Banning links to copyrighted material is plainly asinine. If I link to a news item from a news source (NYT, CRN, whomever) that supports its online presence through ad revenue, and if people follow my link and read the news item, I have helped generate traffic, and therefore revenue, for the news source. If the judge's idea is to help newspapers survive in the internet era, perhaps he should first understand internet economics a little better.
Do you propose that infringing on personal rights to privacy, liberty, and self-defense does not have an *actual* effect on people, either as individuals or together as a whole?
Consider this - the abuse and repression of Iranians by their government is being facilitated by technology and infrastructure that didn't *actually* seem to hurt their quality of life until now, when it is too late to do anything about it.
Choosing comfort over freedom sounds like a poor choice to me.
Ahem, you might want to RTFS... Salon and HuffPo were the ones caught serving this crap. Arianna is gonna slap the hell out of you for confusing her site with Fox.
Do they require any special hunting license to go kill humans for fun and entertainment? I have no problem destroying those who go after innocents, but when tourists go trolling for that kind of trouble, it seems to me that they've earned any that comes their way.
When it comes to music, I am an admitted idiot, and unable to easily express this idea that is banging around my head right now. But I'll try.
This guy explains part of it nicely. Granted, the page is speaking about string rather than wind instruments, but the ideas of harmonics is the important part. Basically, the frequency of harmonic notes will be mathematically related in some fashion.
Now, there is nothing absolute about a musical note. Sure, in western scales, notes are defined as having a particular frequency, but that is largely arbitrary. "A" is defined as a multiple of 27.5 hz, (double the frequency, you go up an octave) but I could tune my guitar's A string to an arbitrary frequency - say a multiple of 26 hz. Then, if I tune the rest of my guitar to that string, the chords I play would sound fine... as long as no one else isn't playing with me, because then we wouldn't be in harmony.
Now, if they tuned their A string to match mine, and so on with the rest of their instrument, we could play together and sound fine to anyone listening, because we would be in harmony, that is, the fundamental and harmonic tones of the notes on our instruments would be in sync.
To me, that is the amazing thing about this discovery. If I read the article correctly, this thing came out of the ground with a tuning that is closely related to the scale we use now, even though the frequencies are essentially arbitrary.
I suppose I could argue against some of the factual errors and the one-sided nature of the half-truths and exaggerations you use here, but frankly, I couldn't care less. I am most offended not as an American, but as an english major, and not by your intended message, but by that rambling paragraph of a run-on sentence. Did you consider breaking that up a bit? It might help with the flow. At the very least you could have listed all those comma-delimited phrases as bullet points.
He was probably modded flamebait because what he wrote was perceived to be against the prevailing opinions on slashdot. Most readers, writers, and mods around here have no problem with anti-government conspiracy sentiments, so the word that must have set them off was "guns".
If you are naive enough to believe that 2nd Amendment rights are freely available to all law-abiding, qualified, rational, sane, and otherwise okay US citizens, I would suggest you travel around a bit, or at least do some research. For instance, here is Massachusetts, we have "may-issue" set of laws for gun permits (ironically, considering we're home to the "shot heard 'round the world", and all that). Local police chiefs have the final say. Let me emphasize that - an unelected official may deny a qualified citizen's legal right to exercise a Constitutional right. If you live in a city or town whose chief of police opposes guns (and here in MA, that is a sizeable number) it is damn near impossible, and in some cases actually impossible, to receive the permit necessary to exercise that right without breaking the law. I live in such a place. Why do we allow this? I don't require a permit from my police chief to exercise my 5th amendment rights... why should I for my 2nd amendment rights?
What I don't understand is the pervasive silence. When our other Constitutionally protected rights (free speech, freedom from unreasonable search & seizure, habeas corpus, etc) are abridged, there is righteous outrage. Slashdot, in fact, is a hotbed of rebellion when issues of censorship, free speech, and other human rights come up... unless the right in question is the right to own a gun.
Americans and the American press fought harder to extend American-style rights to the detainees in Gitmo (I'm not trying to open up a Gitmo debate, just offering a comparison) than we have to defend the rights of US citizens in our nation's capitol, or MA, or any of the other areas where the 2nd amendment has effectively been repealed.
How many guns have been denied to qualified individuals because of the government? From my point of view, I think it reasonable to include those in the total of "legal guns taken away" you mention, and it would be a large number.
The President and VP have both expressed strong anti-gun sentiment. Ditto for Obama's nominee for SCOTUS. The government is interested in taking guns.
In theory, yes, but then how would you keep this "inter-network" of which you speak secure? Heck, you'd probably need a whole new govt agency just to handle it.
I think you miss the point. The old flute sounds close to modern flutes. When you consider the broad range of instruments and musical scales (think "non-western") in the world, having prehistoric and modern instruments whose notes are "quite harmonic" falls somewhere between interesting and amazing.
When you say "... most people find pleasant...", you are right on the edge of a rather profound idea. The laws of physics haven't changed, but people certainly have. Does this mean that what they found pleasant and what we find pleasant are similar? Does that mean that musical perception is largely unchanged in the last 35 millenia?
You're right about the plan - "in case of emergency, go even faster", and you're right that it worked. I was just putting in my 2 cents about the radar signature.
IIRC, towards the end of its life, there were SAM missiles that could threaten it, theoretically. The Mig 25 could possibly have posed a threat, assuming that early warning radars gave it enough time to scramble to an altitude close to the Blackbird, and that a missile launched from the Mig could hit it.
Money aside, I wish we still had them flying. They are absolutely beautiful aircraft. I've visited the one in the Smithsonian Air & Space museum a few times, and I'm always thrilled to be around it. For some reason, it seems a lot smaller in person than I expected. It's long, but the fuselage and cockpit seem small compared to the other Mach 2+ aircraft like the Phantom and Tomcat.
It's not about copyright, it's about attribution. Most folks on Slashdot generally support giving credit where credit is due.
I wonder if he didn't cite Wikipedia as a source because he was embarrassed to admit he cribbed from a source that even 7th graders are told not to use on school research assignments.
The SR-71 was one of the easiest planes to spot on radar. No matter how stealthy the body might have been, the heat plume itself at Mach 3+ was easily detectable on radar, despite the special fuel formulation to reduce its heat signature.
Your analogy assumes that a) The site makes good revenue from ads, which is not exactly a common experience for most websites, and b) The leech is hosted in a country that gives a damn about the DMCA.
Sorry if I was too subtle. I was making a facetious joke about the relevance of state court decisions, not bragging about our power generating prowess. I've always thought Ted Kennedy was a damned idiot, and his opposition to the proposed wind power project off Cape Cod proves it. He's putting us behind the curve compared to other states like Texas which have embraced wind power.
Mass leading the way? No, not this time.
Re:Duct Tape is a Bad Idea--Use Magnets!
on
Best eSATA JBOD?
·
· Score: 1
You're overthinking the whole thing. The drives themselves have even more powerful magnets already inside, so there is no need to bother with the speakers. Just crack open each drive, and remove one (only one!) of the two neodymium magnets. The drive only needs one... the other is there for redundancy. Since you are doing RAID somethingorother, you will already have enough redundancy in your storage, and the extra magnets can be used elsewhere.
Massachusetts' SC is relevant to the rest of the US. Look at all the other states that have started allowing gay marriage after we got the ball rolling.
Relax. The AC GP cut/pasted this from an earlier comment in a similar discussion about Iran's post-election communications.
GP: Please don't crib other people's posts. If you aren't original enough to come up with your own well-thought troll, don't bother. Maybe practice on your own for awhile, and start posting when you someday (hopefully) have a fresh thought pop into your head, and can muster the brainpower to write a coherent sentence or two on your own. Plagiarism is such an ugly thing.
Slashdot Mirror
Hypertext links are just the beginning. We must close the analog hole! Every time someone chats with a friend about the day's news, a poor, helpless newspaper loses money. And God kills a kitten.
The First Amendment protects freedom of speech from government intrusion, including the freedom to write an .html document that contains a fair-use summary of and/or links to copyrighted content, which itself is protected from outright theft by the Copyright Clause in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. Unauthorized reproduction is already covered by the law, and no additional protection needed, IMHO.
Banning links to copyrighted material is plainly asinine. If I link to a news item from a news source (NYT, CRN, whomever) that supports its online presence through ad revenue, and if people follow my link and read the news item, I have helped generate traffic, and therefore revenue, for the news source. If the judge's idea is to help newspapers survive in the internet era, perhaps he should first understand internet economics a little better.
What good is ideology if not put into practice?
Do you propose that infringing on personal rights to privacy, liberty, and self-defense does not have an *actual* effect on people, either as individuals or together as a whole?
Consider this - the abuse and repression of Iranians by their government is being facilitated by technology and infrastructure that didn't *actually* seem to hurt their quality of life until now, when it is too late to do anything about it.
Choosing comfort over freedom sounds like a poor choice to me.
Ahem, you might want to RTFS ... Salon and HuffPo were the ones caught serving this crap. Arianna is gonna slap the hell out of you for confusing her site with Fox.
Do they require any special hunting license to go kill humans for fun and entertainment? I have no problem destroying those who go after innocents, but when tourists go trolling for that kind of trouble, it seems to me that they've earned any that comes their way.
See, I told you I was an idiot when it comes to music. I read that wrong, I guess.
I completely missed that you used that as a template. I certainly can't argue with your choice of inspiration.
When it comes to music, I am an admitted idiot, and unable to easily express this idea that is banging around my head right now. But I'll try.
... as long as no one else isn't playing with me, because then we wouldn't be in harmony.
This guy explains part of it nicely. Granted, the page is speaking about string rather than wind instruments, but the ideas of harmonics is the important part. Basically, the frequency of harmonic notes will be mathematically related in some fashion.
Now, there is nothing absolute about a musical note. Sure, in western scales, notes are defined as having a particular frequency, but that is largely arbitrary. "A" is defined as a multiple of 27.5 hz, (double the frequency, you go up an octave) but I could tune my guitar's A string to an arbitrary frequency - say a multiple of 26 hz. Then, if I tune the rest of my guitar to that string, the chords I play would sound fine
Now, if they tuned their A string to match mine, and so on with the rest of their instrument, we could play together and sound fine to anyone listening, because we would be in harmony, that is, the fundamental and harmonic tones of the notes on our instruments would be in sync.
To me, that is the amazing thing about this discovery. If I read the article correctly, this thing came out of the ground with a tuning that is closely related to the scale we use now, even though the frequencies are essentially arbitrary.
I suppose I could argue against some of the factual errors and the one-sided nature of the half-truths and exaggerations you use here, but frankly, I couldn't care less. I am most offended not as an American, but as an english major, and not by your intended message, but by that rambling paragraph of a run-on sentence. Did you consider breaking that up a bit? It might help with the flow. At the very least you could have listed all those comma-delimited phrases as bullet points.
He was probably modded flamebait because what he wrote was perceived to be against the prevailing opinions on slashdot. Most readers, writers, and mods around here have no problem with anti-government conspiracy sentiments, so the word that must have set them off was "guns".
... why should I for my 2nd amendment rights?
... unless the right in question is the right to own a gun.
If you are naive enough to believe that 2nd Amendment rights are freely available to all law-abiding, qualified, rational, sane, and otherwise okay US citizens, I would suggest you travel around a bit, or at least do some research. For instance, here is Massachusetts, we have "may-issue" set of laws for gun permits (ironically, considering we're home to the "shot heard 'round the world", and all that). Local police chiefs have the final say. Let me emphasize that - an unelected official may deny a qualified citizen's legal right to exercise a Constitutional right. If you live in a city or town whose chief of police opposes guns (and here in MA, that is a sizeable number) it is damn near impossible, and in some cases actually impossible, to receive the permit necessary to exercise that right without breaking the law. I live in such a place. Why do we allow this? I don't require a permit from my police chief to exercise my 5th amendment rights
What I don't understand is the pervasive silence. When our other Constitutionally protected rights (free speech, freedom from unreasonable search & seizure, habeas corpus, etc) are abridged, there is righteous outrage. Slashdot, in fact, is a hotbed of rebellion when issues of censorship, free speech, and other human rights come up
Americans and the American press fought harder to extend American-style rights to the detainees in Gitmo (I'm not trying to open up a Gitmo debate, just offering a comparison) than we have to defend the rights of US citizens in our nation's capitol, or MA, or any of the other areas where the 2nd amendment has effectively been repealed.
How many guns have been denied to qualified individuals because of the government? From my point of view, I think it reasonable to include those in the total of "legal guns taken away" you mention, and it would be a large number.
The President and VP have both expressed strong anti-gun sentiment. Ditto for Obama's nominee for SCOTUS. The government is interested in taking guns.
In theory, yes, but then how would you keep this "inter-network" of which you speak secure? Heck, you'd probably need a whole new govt agency just to handle it.
The only duty the USPS seems to do at my house is deliver dead-tree spam.
I think you miss the point. The old flute sounds close to modern flutes. When you consider the broad range of instruments and musical scales (think "non-western") in the world, having prehistoric and modern instruments whose notes are "quite harmonic" falls somewhere between interesting and amazing.
When you say "... most people find pleasant...", you are right on the edge of a rather profound idea. The laws of physics haven't changed, but people certainly have. Does this mean that what they found pleasant and what we find pleasant are similar? Does that mean that musical perception is largely unchanged in the last 35 millenia?
More like:
"35,000 year old flute found, RIAA proposes extending copyrights to protect original composer's intellectual property"
And I was all set to give you major geek cred. Norelco + a few Panasonics + nics = Beowulf cluster?
You're right about the plan - "in case of emergency, go even faster", and you're right that it worked. I was just putting in my 2 cents about the radar signature.
IIRC, towards the end of its life, there were SAM missiles that could threaten it, theoretically. The Mig 25 could possibly have posed a threat, assuming that early warning radars gave it enough time to scramble to an altitude close to the Blackbird, and that a missile launched from the Mig could hit it.
Money aside, I wish we still had them flying. They are absolutely beautiful aircraft. I've visited the one in the Smithsonian Air & Space museum a few times, and I'm always thrilled to be around it. For some reason, it seems a lot smaller in person than I expected. It's long, but the fuselage and cockpit seem small compared to the other Mach 2+ aircraft like the Phantom and Tomcat.
1) IF ... big if. If all works are derivative, where did they all derive from?
2) Lifting sizeable chunks of text verbatim is stretching the definition of "derivative"
3) Even if a work is derived from others, the proper thing to do is state the source of any unoriginal material.
4) Never underestimate the entertainment value of poop-throwing.
It's not about copyright, it's about attribution. Most folks on Slashdot generally support giving credit where credit is due.
I wonder if he didn't cite Wikipedia as a source because he was embarrassed to admit he cribbed from a source that even 7th graders are told not to use on school research assignments.
The SR-71 was one of the easiest planes to spot on radar. No matter how stealthy the body might have been, the heat plume itself at Mach 3+ was easily detectable on radar, despite the special fuel formulation to reduce its heat signature.
Your analogy assumes that a) The site makes good revenue from ads, which is not exactly a common experience for most websites, and b) The leech is hosted in a country that gives a damn about the DMCA.
Sorry if I was too subtle. I was making a facetious joke about the relevance of state court decisions, not bragging about our power generating prowess. I've always thought Ted Kennedy was a damned idiot, and his opposition to the proposed wind power project off Cape Cod proves it. He's putting us behind the curve compared to other states like Texas which have embraced wind power.
Mass leading the way? No, not this time.
You're overthinking the whole thing. The drives themselves have even more powerful magnets already inside, so there is no need to bother with the speakers. Just crack open each drive, and remove one (only one!) of the two neodymium magnets. The drive only needs one ... the other is there for redundancy. Since you are doing RAID somethingorother, you will already have enough redundancy in your storage, and the extra magnets can be used elsewhere.
[/brilliant advice]
Massachusetts' SC is relevant to the rest of the US. Look at all the other states that have started allowing gay marriage after we got the ball rolling.
Relax. The AC GP cut/pasted this from an earlier comment in a similar discussion about Iran's post-election communications.
GP: Please don't crib other people's posts. If you aren't original enough to come up with your own well-thought troll, don't bother. Maybe practice on your own for awhile, and start posting when you someday (hopefully) have a fresh thought pop into your head, and can muster the brainpower to write a coherent sentence or two on your own. Plagiarism is such an ugly thing.