Why is anyone worried about the quality of videos your going to watch in your browser? The vast majority of those videos are not going to be interesting enough to want to see them in full HD glory. I would rather see Ogg because it's a free standard, and if we lose quality in order to save bandwidth I don't really care when it comes to the type of videos that I watch via my browser.
I read this yesterday. The 5 minute DNA extraction guide mentioned is awesome. It's incredibly simple. I think I might give it a try sometime this week.
http://www.instructables.com/id/5_minute_DNA_Extraction_in_a_Shot_Glass/
Hopefully we're on the cusp of big breakthroughs in biology that will eventually (and soon) give us the science to stay healthy for much longer than we have been able to in the past.
What I was trying to get at is that the initial reaction that people in our culture have to, say for example, seeing a piece of art they made, on someone elses website, is to immediately feel annoyed by this and want them to remove it.
We feel like this, even in situations where if we'd been asked first, we would have just said yes.
To me this just seems irrational, it's acting based upon emotion. Now perhaps in our culture it would simply be seen as polite to have asked in the first place, but I think that a good part of the reason why that is seen as polite is because we automatically think that we should maintain tight control over our artwork, and I think that this automatic response we have has been shaped by the increasingly strict copyright laws that we have.
I think that if our culture had developed along a path with more liberal copyrights at the start, we wouldn't automatically act this way. We'd first ask ourselves, do I have any real problem with my art/images being used in this way? If yes, then lets get that sorted.
I think that if things had developed that way, we'd be living in a society where people don't feel like they have to check with their lawyers first about whether they can make a calendar based upon photos of cars that they are the owners of!
We would probably have come to a more sensible equilibrium that allowed more freedom for personal use, and where copyright law was mainly involved in commercial regulation.
Anyway, what I was trying to say is that I think their response was probably not rational. Though as it's being used commercially, perhaps they would have prefered some kind of finanicial arrangement.
Also, musicians do not stop making music without being able to release their music under strict copyright licenses... See jamendo.com for example, music has been made since long before copyright laws ever existed. And a lot of it was a lot better than the shit produced now, though I think that's an issue not so much related to copyright law.
Well I myself just wouldn't care if this was a photo of me, it's not being used in any way that I'd have a problem with. I also being a Free software (GPL) type person (and hence on slashdot) am not against my work or images helping the rich, I don't have a moral problem with that, especially if they were to use code I wrote as they're in a better position to get it used in more areas, and as a result I would hope, help to improve society. I do have issue with large corporations, but them using code or an image of me in a way I wouldn't object to a local veggie store using it, I have no problem with.
Also, my point was that I suspect that the knee jerk reaction is the result of the influence that copyright law has on our society... Like some copyright lawyer hearing kids singing some christmas song, and they're initial reaction is that there is something inherently wrong with that.
What I was trying to say is that the reaction here I think has been influenced by copyright and how we treat stuff like music, art and software that we make. That the typical response is to want complete control over it.
If our culture had developed the other way, I think that is this situation there wouldn't have been any problem as it wasn't being used in a way that I think the people would have objected to if they'd been asked first.
The examples that you gave I think are different, because people are fairly obviously more likely to not want their photos used for those things even if they were asked in the first place.
I'm just saying that it would be nice if we didn't have this automatic reaction to "Oh they didn't ask for my permission to use that, so I'm going to demand they remove it, even though I have no other objection to it."
Copyrights being used predominantly in a restrictive fashion is common in every country I know of. I'm not American myself, and here in NZ copyright laws are used in the typical restrictive fashion 99.9% of the time.
Eh, I don't see the problem really. If our culture had instead developed along the lines of liberal copyrights, such as the creative commons licenses, rather than the restrictive copyrights that are common, I don't think anyone would care about this. It's a nice photo and wasn't being used in any malicious way. I don't see what is creepy about this.
Well at least with the constelations becoming hard to see, we might see a decline in astrology.
Though it's an incredible lose to not be able to go outside and just gaze up at the cosmos, with it's billions and billions of stars and galaxies, and to just feel awed by the beauty of nature.
I have found with Gnome though at least, that you can't push a window up past the top of the screen, which has on one occassion been a huge pain when a massive unresizeable window opened with the next button at the bottom and off the screen. You can though of course use alt + a suitable letter to activate the buttons usually, but that requires knowing the correct char.
You might argue that the firmware they're running is a modified official version, which is under a restrictive copyright license. That probably is the case in this specific instance. But you're not thinking clearly if you think that people who run unofficial firmware on their own hardware, are also committing copyright violations.
I made it incredibly clear that I was talking about the specific case of running unofficial firmware, nothing more. I then went on and said that I agreed it was likely in this case that the firmware this article was about was a modified version of the official firmware, which is likely to be under a restrictive license. I did not think I would have to further point out, that if that were the case, as it seems to be, that that would indeed be copyright infringement. But the comment I was replying to was equating running unofficial firmware, on hardware that you own, with copyright infringement.
Now as to whether you should be allowed to hack firmware or software that you've paid for even if it's under a restrictive license, that's another issue. I myself think that you bloody well should be allowed to do this, as you have handed over your money for it and should be allowed to tinker with it all you like. I am not though saying that you should be allowed to distribute your modified firmware though if it's based on firmware under a restrictive license, that's another issue which I've not considered much.
Personally though, I simply avoid using software that is under a restrictive license and stick to only Free software as I think it is much better if one can do as they please without breaking the law.
Indeed. Also, if we allow ourselves to imagine beings with technology with allows them to create weapons that work at or close to the speed of light, we're not going to know about it until it hits us, as it'll arrive at the same time as the light from it arrives.
Sorry, are you really that incapable of clear thinking? This is not about copyright infringement, nor would your hypothetical situation be. If I purchased cisco hardware, I think I should absolutely have the right to run alternative firmware on it. I run OpenWRT on my Linksys WRT54GL, which I'm fairly certain is legal, but even if it weren't legal it would be the law that is the problem, not the people who were illegally running OpenWRT on hardware that they owned.
Now this unofficial PSP firmware may largely be used by people intent on violating copyright law. Whether they're right or wrong to do this though, it is a separate issue from being allowed to run unofficial firmware on your own property.
You might argue that the firmware they're running is a modified official version, which is under a restrictive copyright license. That probably is the case in this specific instance. But you're not thinking clearly if you think that people who run unofficial firmware on their own hardware, are also committing copyright violations.
What really sucks with regards to this whole area of tinkering is the DMCA and other laws that make it illegal to tinker with your own property. Companies can do all the want to try to hinder it if they want to waste time and money on that, it certainly provides a nice challenge for the people that like trying to crack these things. But when the law just makes it illegal, that's bullshit. It ends up making the most curious and intelligent of us, into criminals.
Personally I feel that the fact that they don't seem to be going lawsuit happy over this incident is a good thing. The teacher screwed up and now I think we can be sure is never going to do something so stupid again. Lesson learnt, luckily no-one was permenantly harmed. Why the child had to be up on a table I have no idea though. The rope should have been long enough for the child to stand on the ground.
I never suggested that you release it for free as in no cost, simply as Free software, which is often called by its more business friendly name of open source.
If you don't want to do that though, that's your choice of course, you wrote the code. But if you wanted to see it implemented in other games, the easiest way would be to give access to the code under a Free license. Either way I don't care too much as I'm not much into computer games.
No I don't actually, I play computer games maybe once every 2 months at the most. You do also realize that when I say Free software, I mean Free as in freedom (what is commonly called Open Source)? As a nerd, and also a comp sci major, I would be more interested in the implementation details.
He could also simply release the code as Free software, and have the artwork as something to purchase.
I'm very open to talking about anything and everything to do with the design I used, as I think it's a viable new approach to AI to explore in games, and I'd like to see other developers potentially carry it even further."
If you're serious about this, then release it under a Free software license.
Slashdot Mirror
Why is anyone worried about the quality of videos your going to watch in your browser? The vast majority of those videos are not going to be interesting enough to want to see them in full HD glory. I would rather see Ogg because it's a free standard, and if we lose quality in order to save bandwidth I don't really care when it comes to the type of videos that I watch via my browser.
Great, thank you for this.
I read this yesterday. The 5 minute DNA extraction guide mentioned is awesome. It's incredibly simple. I think I might give it a try sometime this week.
http://www.instructables.com/id/5_minute_DNA_Extraction_in_a_Shot_Glass/
Hopefully we're on the cusp of big breakthroughs in biology that will eventually (and soon) give us the science to stay healthy for much longer than we have been able to in the past.
Okay, I'll try to explain more fully.
What I was trying to get at is that the initial reaction that people in our culture have to, say for example, seeing a piece of art they made, on someone elses website, is to immediately feel annoyed by this and want them to remove it.
We feel like this, even in situations where if we'd been asked first, we would have just said yes.
To me this just seems irrational, it's acting based upon emotion. Now perhaps in our culture it would simply be seen as polite to have asked in the first place, but I think that a good part of the reason why that is seen as polite is because we automatically think that we should maintain tight control over our artwork, and I think that this automatic response we have has been shaped by the increasingly strict copyright laws that we have.
I think that if our culture had developed along a path with more liberal copyrights at the start, we wouldn't automatically act this way. We'd first ask ourselves, do I have any real problem with my art/images being used in this way? If yes, then lets get that sorted.
I think that if things had developed that way, we'd be living in a society where people don't feel like they have to check with their lawyers first about whether they can make a calendar based upon photos of cars that they are the owners of!
We would probably have come to a more sensible equilibrium that allowed more freedom for personal use, and where copyright law was mainly involved in commercial regulation.
Anyway, what I was trying to say is that I think their response was probably not rational. Though as it's being used commercially, perhaps they would have prefered some kind of finanicial arrangement.
Also, musicians do not stop making music without being able to release their music under strict copyright licenses... See jamendo.com for example, music has been made since long before copyright laws ever existed. And a lot of it was a lot better than the shit produced now, though I think that's an issue not so much related to copyright law.
You're being an idiot. No you did not understand what I meant at all. You have also made so many stupid assumptions in that comment.
You completely misunderstood my point, which I've further explained in other comments in reply to replies to this post. Not that it really matters.
Well I myself just wouldn't care if this was a photo of me, it's not being used in any way that I'd have a problem with. I also being a Free software (GPL) type person (and hence on slashdot) am not against my work or images helping the rich, I don't have a moral problem with that, especially if they were to use code I wrote as they're in a better position to get it used in more areas, and as a result I would hope, help to improve society. I do have issue with large corporations, but them using code or an image of me in a way I wouldn't object to a local veggie store using it, I have no problem with.
Also, my point was that I suspect that the knee jerk reaction is the result of the influence that copyright law has on our society... Like some copyright lawyer hearing kids singing some christmas song, and they're initial reaction is that there is something inherently wrong with that.
What I was trying to say is that the reaction here I think has been influenced by copyright and how we treat stuff like music, art and software that we make. That the typical response is to want complete control over it.
If our culture had developed the other way, I think that is this situation there wouldn't have been any problem as it wasn't being used in a way that I think the people would have objected to if they'd been asked first.
The examples that you gave I think are different, because people are fairly obviously more likely to not want their photos used for those things even if they were asked in the first place.
I'm just saying that it would be nice if we didn't have this automatic reaction to "Oh they didn't ask for my permission to use that, so I'm going to demand they remove it, even though I have no other objection to it."
Copyrights being used predominantly in a restrictive fashion is common in every country I know of. I'm not American myself, and here in NZ copyright laws are used in the typical restrictive fashion 99.9% of the time.
Eh, I don't see the problem really. If our culture had instead developed along the lines of liberal copyrights, such as the creative commons licenses, rather than the restrictive copyrights that are common, I don't think anyone would care about this. It's a nice photo and wasn't being used in any malicious way. I don't see what is creepy about this.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/picturesoftheday/5513461/Pictures-of-the-day-12-June-2009.html
There you go.
Well that what about the HAL exoskeleton? That doesn't require the umbilical cord. http://www.cyberdyne.jp/English/robotsuithal/index.html
I of course wasn't being serious... Anyone that believes in astrology in this day and age is nigh beyond hope.
Well at least with the constelations becoming hard to see, we might see a decline in astrology.
Though it's an incredible lose to not be able to go outside and just gaze up at the cosmos, with it's billions and billions of stars and galaxies, and to just feel awed by the beauty of nature.
I have found with Gnome though at least, that you can't push a window up past the top of the screen, which has on one occassion been a huge pain when a massive unresizeable window opened with the next button at the bottom and off the screen. You can though of course use alt + a suitable letter to activate the buttons usually, but that requires knowing the correct char.
Ermm...? I'm in agreement with what you said. I was replying to Goffee71 and his silly Cisco analogy.
Good job on not reading what I wrote.
You might argue that the firmware they're running is a modified official version, which is under a restrictive copyright license. That probably is the case in this specific instance. But you're not thinking clearly if you think that people who run unofficial firmware on their own hardware, are also committing copyright violations.
I made it incredibly clear that I was talking about the specific case of running unofficial firmware, nothing more. I then went on and said that I agreed it was likely in this case that the firmware this article was about was a modified version of the official firmware, which is likely to be under a restrictive license. I did not think I would have to further point out, that if that were the case, as it seems to be, that that would indeed be copyright infringement. But the comment I was replying to was equating running unofficial firmware, on hardware that you own, with copyright infringement.
Now as to whether you should be allowed to hack firmware or software that you've paid for even if it's under a restrictive license, that's another issue. I myself think that you bloody well should be allowed to do this, as you have handed over your money for it and should be allowed to tinker with it all you like. I am not though saying that you should be allowed to distribute your modified firmware though if it's based on firmware under a restrictive license, that's another issue which I've not considered much.
Personally though, I simply avoid using software that is under a restrictive license and stick to only Free software as I think it is much better if one can do as they please without breaking the law.
Indeed. Also, if we allow ourselves to imagine beings with technology with allows them to create weapons that work at or close to the speed of light, we're not going to know about it until it hits us, as it'll arrive at the same time as the light from it arrives.
Sorry, are you really that incapable of clear thinking? This is not about copyright infringement, nor would your hypothetical situation be. If I purchased cisco hardware, I think I should absolutely have the right to run alternative firmware on it. I run OpenWRT on my Linksys WRT54GL, which I'm fairly certain is legal, but even if it weren't legal it would be the law that is the problem, not the people who were illegally running OpenWRT on hardware that they owned.
Now this unofficial PSP firmware may largely be used by people intent on violating copyright law. Whether they're right or wrong to do this though, it is a separate issue from being allowed to run unofficial firmware on your own property.
You might argue that the firmware they're running is a modified official version, which is under a restrictive copyright license. That probably is the case in this specific instance. But you're not thinking clearly if you think that people who run unofficial firmware on their own hardware, are also committing copyright violations.
What really sucks with regards to this whole area of tinkering is the DMCA and other laws that make it illegal to tinker with your own property. Companies can do all the want to try to hinder it if they want to waste time and money on that, it certainly provides a nice challenge for the people that like trying to crack these things. But when the law just makes it illegal, that's bullshit. It ends up making the most curious and intelligent of us, into criminals.
I'm still waiting for the price of a PS3 to come down to a ridiculous price, right now they have a ludicrous price.
Personally I feel that the fact that they don't seem to be going lawsuit happy over this incident is a good thing. The teacher screwed up and now I think we can be sure is never going to do something so stupid again. Lesson learnt, luckily no-one was permenantly harmed. Why the child had to be up on a table I have no idea though. The rope should have been long enough for the child to stand on the ground.
I never suggested that you release it for free as in no cost, simply as Free software, which is often called by its more business friendly name of open source.
If you don't want to do that though, that's your choice of course, you wrote the code. But if you wanted to see it implemented in other games, the easiest way would be to give access to the code under a Free license. Either way I don't care too much as I'm not much into computer games.
No I don't actually, I play computer games maybe once every 2 months at the most. You do also realize that when I say Free software, I mean Free as in freedom (what is commonly called Open Source)? As a nerd, and also a comp sci major, I would be more interested in the implementation details.
He could also simply release the code as Free software, and have the artwork as something to purchase.
I'm very open to talking about anything and everything to do with the design I used, as I think it's a viable new approach to AI to explore in games, and I'd like to see other developers potentially carry it even further."
If you're serious about this, then release it under a Free software license.