Maybe, but how about the European Union and European Commission?
Even if those (or NATO) use their own comms system, many employees will have personal phones.
Portuguese here too, and this quote ought to be translated:
O DIAP considera "lícita" a reprodução para uso privado, "ainda que colocando-se neste tipo de redes a questão de o utilizador agir simultaneamente no ambiente digital em sede de upload e download dos ficheiros a partilhar". in publico.pt
DIAP considers reproduction for private use "legal", adding "even though there is the issue of a user acting simultaneously as uploader and downloader of the shared files."
This is a great example of media spinning towards the opposite side, look at the full quote from another source:
[...] even though there is the issue of a user acting simultaneously as uploader and downloader of the shared files, we understand as legitimate the use of P2P networks by their users for private use -- articles 75-2a and 81-b of the Code of Author's Rights and Associated Rights -- even though one can gather that once the copy is done the user does not stop being part of the sharing process.
So what sounded like a warning to change the law was actually them specifying that the download vs. upload issue is irrelevant for this particular case. A really strong point, and the rightsholder associations are fuming like mad (especially since they were the ones that caused this following a silly charge of 2000 IP addresses.)
Considering the conservative tendency of the current government and the current political shitstorm here, it wouldn't be shocking to see a change to the law try to slip through Parliament. Also, if the EU someday decides for a copyright directive that outlaws private copying (lobbies are powerful, remember), it's bye bye for our downloader's paradise here.
It's not so terrible if you use a more recent version -- right now, 1.4.0rc1 is the one to go for.
And regarding the quality of the output, it's good enough to make a magazine with*. Granted, there's a hiccup here and there, but you'll also get that with InDesign -- only with prettier error messages.
If you RTFA, and maybe if you read the artists' statements on this work, you'll find out it's obviously meant to pull things to an extreme in order to make a point. Which is the big problem of having so much personal information centralised and controlled by a private company, as well as the very foggy status of such information -- you're crying out for seeing it on a (fake, in case you missed it) dating site, but having that information relayed to ad companies almost never elicits strong reactions such as yours.
tl;dr: it's not a dating site, it's an art project, don't create straw men.
There's already something very close to Processing using Python, BSD licensed, even though it's OSX only: Nodebox (http://www.nodebox.net/).
On the other hand, there's a GPL fork/port of this project that works on GNU/Linux and Windows -- Shoebot (http://www.tinkerhouse.net/shoebot) (Disclosure: i'm one of the authors)
Nodebox uses Cocoa as its graphics back-end, while Shoebot uses Cairo (http://www.cairographics.org/); our plans for it are to implement other graphics back-ends including OpenGL (via Pyglet or Pygame), so seeing the parent open-source their Python/OpenGL project would be a godsend to us. Hey, there's common goals and all, so no reason to keep it closed, right?;-)
(do pardon me if the links come out wrong, it's my first post over here -- bonjour to all)
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe, but how about the European Union and European Commission? Even if those (or NATO) use their own comms system, many employees will have personal phones.
O DIAP considera "lícita" a reprodução para uso privado, "ainda que colocando-se neste tipo de redes a questão de o utilizador agir simultaneamente no ambiente digital em sede de upload e download dos ficheiros a partilhar". in publico.pt
Rushed translation from that original article in portuguese:
DIAP considers reproduction for private use "legal", adding "even though there is the issue of a user acting simultaneously as uploader and downloader of the shared files."
This is a great example of media spinning towards the opposite side, look at the full quote from another source:
[...] even though there is the issue of a user acting simultaneously as uploader and downloader of the shared files, we understand as legitimate the use of P2P networks by their users for private use -- articles 75-2a and 81-b of the Code of Author's Rights and Associated Rights -- even though one can gather that once the copy is done the user does not stop being part of the sharing process.
So what sounded like a warning to change the law was actually them specifying that the download vs. upload issue is irrelevant for this particular case. A really strong point, and the rightsholder associations are fuming like mad (especially since they were the ones that caused this following a silly charge of 2000 IP addresses.) Considering the conservative tendency of the current government and the current political shitstorm here, it wouldn't be shocking to see a change to the law try to slip through Parliament. Also, if the EU someday decides for a copyright directive that outlaws private copying (lobbies are powerful, remember), it's bye bye for our downloader's paradise here.
It's not so terrible if you use a more recent version -- right now, 1.4.0rc1 is the one to go for.
And regarding the quality of the output, it's good enough to make a magazine with*. Granted, there's a hiccup here and there, but you'll also get that with InDesign -- only with prettier error messages.
* Disclosure: I'm one of the designers.
Don't be silly.
If you RTFA, and maybe if you read the artists' statements on this work, you'll find out it's obviously meant to pull things to an extreme in order to make a point. Which is the big problem of having so much personal information centralised and controlled by a private company, as well as the very foggy status of such information -- you're crying out for seeing it on a (fake, in case you missed it) dating site, but having that information relayed to ad companies almost never elicits strong reactions such as yours.
tl;dr: it's not a dating site, it's an art project, don't create straw men.
Doh, you're totally right. Knee-jerk reaction to the first sentence without reading the summary properly. Facepalming now.
Since when is video streaming a "Web 2.0" thing? That term seems to be tacked into everything web-related nowadays.
There's already something very close to Processing using Python, BSD licensed, even though it's OSX only: Nodebox (http://www.nodebox.net/).
;-)
On the other hand, there's a GPL fork/port of this project that works on GNU/Linux and Windows -- Shoebot (http://www.tinkerhouse.net/shoebot) (Disclosure: i'm one of the authors)
Nodebox uses Cocoa as its graphics back-end, while Shoebot uses Cairo (http://www.cairographics.org/); our plans for it are to implement other graphics back-ends including OpenGL (via Pyglet or Pygame), so seeing the parent open-source their Python/OpenGL project would be a godsend to us. Hey, there's common goals and all, so no reason to keep it closed, right?
(do pardon me if the links come out wrong, it's my first post over here -- bonjour to all)