The upshot is that no works produced in the United States after the 1920's will ever go out of copyright.
Some wrongs can not be resolved by the courts. I think the most poignant quote during the hearing of the case was from Sandra Day O'Connor.
"I can find a lot of fault with what Congress did," Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said. "This flies directly in the face of what the framers of the Constitution had in mind. But is it unconstitutional?"
Time to educate the public--and change Congress's mind. Hard, but not impossible.
P.S. Washington Post has an AP article up and some links to background on the case.
The Washington Post had an online chat with Mitnick a month or two back.
(Bitterness continues long after submission!;-) )
Interesting read, but I really enjoyed this part:
"Per the terms of his parole agreement, Mitnick is barred from using nearly all computers except a court-approved laptop. He is also prohibited from sending e-mail or surfing the Internet. As such, Mitnick dictated his responses to a washingtonpost.com staffer who transcribed."
That said, I wonder, was this the last book every written without a computer?;-). Or maybe he could use his court-approved laptop.;-)
Re:Computers Teaching UI to Humans = Bad
on
Palm Kills Off Graffiti
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Whenever humans have to train themselves to adapt to a computer^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H UI, this is an example of poor design
Ah yes, the failure of the pen and keyboard. Some of of the silliest inventions.
One would think that by now someone could make a device that read minds--but apparently that is hard.
(And probably not desirable anyway. "Computer: I wanted a spreadsheet not a girl spreading on the sheets. I don't care what I was thinking this is my office! )
The prototype vehicle cost between $500,000 and $1 million, Fuller said, although she said it is tough to estimate precisely because it involved partnerships with several firms.
The military said it has no plans to produce the truck any time soon, although Bran Ferren, a designer of SmarTruck II, said that if an order came through it could be put in production in a year.
As I read it, after Sept. 11 some military command folks said--wow, that changes a lot.
They concluded the military might need some new ideas for lightweight vehicles and told some researches to play around with what they could come up with.
This isn't going to the battlefield--it's a prototype of a number of new ideas. And if one of those ideas can save an American soldiers life it's well worth it in U.S. Military (as well as Political) economics.
Soldiers are expensive to train (and thus lose) and its even more expensive to explain their death to the public.
I hope though that Micropayments AND Subscriptions become readily available. Subscriptions if I'm a regular user, but micropayments for quick first look etc.
I occasionally think about subscribing to salon, but I can never see it in full if I don't put up for a year. In the long run, it seems micropayments could make subscriptions viable.
but if your goal is for information to be free for everyone, I don't think micropayments are going to work either.
ummm. The point of micropayments is to have information not free information. THEY are mutually exclusive.
I was critiquing the free information idea.
The most obvious solution to this problem is to charge different amounts depending on the economy of the viewer. (regarding poor people in India)
No, no no. You charge so as to have profitability (or perhaps maintainability). The person in India CAN'T AFFORD the information. It can be "given" (read exchanged for something of lesser value), but that's it. This is sad, but there are many things Indians cannot afford. One of them may be sophisticated U.S./EU internet delivered information.
Information may want to be free. But, in fact, it's really the only thing that has value.
Free the web...free the internet...I pay enough for the bandwidth to be on the web, never mind paying to use sites. Its bad enough that just doing a search these days turns up more sites that want to sell you a book or something with the information your looking for...than sites that actually dispense the information.
That's a joke right?
As far as I can tell your argument is:
Problem: There is no good information on the web. People only want to sell it to you. Solution: Information should be free.
Information takes time, effort and money to create, interpret and distribute. For **quantity** (let alone **quality** one needs a viable system to move money (how society transfers work/effort) from the reader etc. to the creator.
Advertising is one--but has proven only minimally successful at best. Micropayments would reward directly reward what people want and would make it much easier to say... not have slashdot lose money.
It didn't happen. Google has nothing on it, which I find highly unlikely, but possible. So I headed to Lexis-Nexis, which also failed to turn up anything.
Unless you saw it yourself... I'm not really gonna go along with this one;-)
Yahoo is one of Google's biggest customers--not only in the somewhat significant "hits" catagory, but the more important "licensing" catagory. Yahoo pays Google real cash--and this helps Google.
However, Yahoo is also one of Google's biggest customers. Eventually this was going to come to and end--and it just did IMO.
I'm sure many if not most of people looking to search will head to Google, but the Yahoo partnership was/is a boon for Google.
Regulation of print journalism was necessary because the barriers to entry were so high; it was not reasonable to expect Joe Sixpack to purchase his own printing press and retaliate against libellous allegations. The Internet does away with all that.
I actually modded you up, but wanted to reply (sorry;-) ).
This is a very good point, but there are very interesting legal and ethical questions. If, say the Drudge Report slanders me--is it also libel as it would be in print?
Sure, I can respond with my own web page, but no one will see it. In other words, I don't have an equal chance to make my point and defend myself. This can cause actual monetary and emotional damages.
I think such protection should be required or else large internet media outlets could abuse their power.
However, if I slander someone on my web page--only my family and a few friends will ever really know. It would clearly be restrictive if we all needed libel insurance to publish a web page.
I think the answer--as it does in the print world---will have to lie in page views. After a certain amount of people have seen it--it goes from slander to libel.
Andrewsullivan.com: Subject to libel laws Talkingpointsmemo.com: Subject to libel laws Livejournal.com/~aneng: Not subject
This is all sort of a side point anyway. The article mostly deals with people getting fired for breaking company policies. (First rule of fight club, don't talk about your company;-)
All file formats are safe, it's just the programs that read them.
The correct phrasing of that is: File formats don't kill programs. Programs kill programs.
Re:Why not just use cell towers for radar?
on
DOD vs. 802.11b
·
· Score: 1
Exactly
Re:Why not just use cell towers for radar?
on
DOD vs. 802.11b
·
· Score: 2
From my understanding, folks would simply watch the Stealth figher's come in and call in reports of the planes. Highly low tech, but moderatley effective.
You don't think that the GE engineers making lightbulbs sit around and have lunch with the ones making high performance jet engines, do you?
More like, you don't thinkt he GE engineers making lightbulbs sit around with the ones making power plants to see how they can make a lightbulb emit less light and use more electricity.
Turns out the best way to run a business is usually to just make each product the best it can be instead of concentrating on "the big picture"
Thank god. (not that it prevents many from trying)
Slashdot Mirror
Some wrongs can not be resolved by the courts. I think the most poignant quote during the hearing of the case was from Sandra Day O'Connor.
Time to educate the public--and change Congress's mind. Hard, but not impossible.
P.S. Washington Post has an AP article up and some links to background on the case.
The Washington Post had an online chat with Mitnick a month or two back.
;-) )
;-). Or maybe he could use his court-approved laptop. ;-)
(Bitterness continues long after submission!
Interesting read, but I really enjoyed this part:
"Per the terms of his parole agreement, Mitnick is barred from using nearly all computers except a court-approved laptop. He is also prohibited from sending e-mail or surfing the Internet. As such, Mitnick dictated his responses to a washingtonpost.com staffer who transcribed."
That said, I wonder, was this the last book every written without a computer?
Whenever humans have to train themselves to adapt to a computer^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H UI, this is an example of poor design
Ah yes, the failure of the pen and keyboard. Some of of the silliest inventions.
One would think that by now someone could make a device that read minds--but apparently that is hard.
(And probably not desirable anyway. "Computer: I wanted a spreadsheet not a girl spreading on the sheets. I don't care what I was thinking this is my office! )
The Post also has a video (real) up with interviews and some views inside the building.
e ch/010603-20v.htm
k amai.com/920/washtech/010603-20v.ram
Web page
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/mmedia/washt
Direct Link
http://mfile.akamai.com/920/rm/thepost.download.a
The prototype vehicle cost between $500,000 and $1 million, Fuller said, although she said it is tough to estimate precisely because it involved partnerships with several firms.
The military said it has no plans to produce the truck any time soon, although Bran Ferren, a designer of SmarTruck II, said that if an order came through it could be put in production in a year.
As I read it, after Sept. 11 some military command folks said--wow, that changes a lot.
They concluded the military might need some new ideas for lightweight vehicles and told some researches to play around with what they could come up with.
This isn't going to the battlefield--it's a prototype of a number of new ideas. And if one of those ideas can save an American soldiers life it's well worth it in U.S. Military (as well as Political) economics.
Soldiers are expensive to train (and thus lose) and its even more expensive to explain their death to the public.
Agreed ;-)
I hope though that Micropayments AND Subscriptions become readily available. Subscriptions if I'm a regular user, but micropayments for quick first look etc.
I occasionally think about subscribing to salon, but I can never see it in full if I don't put up for a year. In the long run, it seems micropayments could make subscriptions viable.
but if your goal is for information to be free for everyone, I don't think micropayments are going to work either.
ummm. The point of micropayments is to have information not free information. THEY are mutually exclusive.
I was critiquing the free information idea.
The most obvious solution to this problem is to charge different amounts depending on the economy of the viewer. (regarding poor people in India)
No, no no. You charge so as to have profitability (or perhaps maintainability). The person in India CAN'T AFFORD the information. It can be "given" (read exchanged for something of lesser value), but that's it. This is sad, but there are many things Indians cannot afford. One of them may be sophisticated U.S./EU internet delivered information.
Information may want to be free. But, in fact, it's really the only thing that has value.
Free the web...free the internet...I pay enough for the bandwidth to be on the web, never mind paying to use sites. Its bad enough that just doing a search these days turns up more sites that want to sell you a book or something with the information your looking for...than sites that actually dispense the information.
That's a joke right?
As far as I can tell your argument is:
Problem: There is no good information on the web. People only want to sell it to you.
Solution: Information should be free.
Information takes time, effort and money to create, interpret and distribute. For **quantity** (let alone **quality** one needs a viable system to move money (how society transfers work/effort) from the reader etc. to the creator.
Advertising is one--but has proven only minimally successful at best. Micropayments would reward directly reward what people want and would make it much easier to say... not have slashdot lose money.
I finally get it!
;-)
(Score:5, Troll) = Stupid question, needs to be answered
(No Offense KaltKalt) I wish my stupid remarks had value.
Accident yes, but beheading... no.
;-)
It didn't happen. Google has nothing on it, which I find highly unlikely, but possible. So I headed to Lexis-Nexis, which also failed to turn up anything.
Unless you saw it yourself... I'm not really gonna go along with this one
I'm calling your bluff
What "infamous space mountain beheading"
This screams urban legend to me
will be ready for yet another format change by 2010. Somehow I doubt it
If HDTV is really coming, they may be
Seems like everyone thinks the V in DVD stands for video.
I think it stands for vapor now
"Yahoo is one of Google's biggest customers"..."However, Yahoo is also one of Google's biggest customers"
So you're saying that Yahoo is one of Google's biggest customers?
no. you have me all wrong.
I was saying saying I'm a nitwit.
[explitive]
Which is approximately as news-worthy.
Yahoo is one of Google's biggest customers--not only in the somewhat significant "hits" catagory, but the more important "licensing" catagory. Yahoo pays Google real cash--and this helps Google.
However, Yahoo is also one of Google's biggest customers. Eventually this was going to come to and end--and it just did IMO.
I'm sure many if not most of people looking to search will head to Google, but the Yahoo partnership was/is a boon for Google.
To me, Yahoo just called for a fight.
Regulation of print journalism was necessary because the barriers to entry were so high; it was not reasonable to expect Joe Sixpack to purchase his own printing press and retaliate against libellous allegations. The Internet does away with all that.
;-) ).
;-)
I actually modded you up, but wanted to reply (sorry
This is a very good point, but there are very interesting legal and ethical questions. If, say the Drudge Report slanders me--is it also libel as it would be in print?
Sure, I can respond with my own web page, but no one will see it. In other words, I don't have an equal chance to make my point and defend myself. This can cause actual monetary and emotional damages.
I think such protection should be required or else large internet media outlets could abuse their power.
However, if I slander someone on my web page--only my family and a few friends will ever really know. It would clearly be restrictive if we all needed libel insurance to publish a web page.
I think the answer--as it does in the print world---will have to lie in page views. After a certain amount of people have seen it--it goes from slander to libel.
Andrewsullivan.com: Subject to libel laws
Talkingpointsmemo.com: Subject to libel laws
Livejournal.com/~aneng: Not subject
This is all sort of a side point anyway. The article mostly deals with people getting fired for breaking company policies. (First rule of fight club, don't talk about your company
sorry unicorn. Sometimes I'm an idiot.
DRM is like an SUV... it isn't by definition a bad thing. Only current implementations.
DRM is bad because it causes problems with fair use and long term archiving.
SUV's are bad because people use them for the wrong tasks (people moving) and manufacturers prefer huge profit margins to efficient vehicles.
May they have certain (albeit limited) acceptable uses? Of course!
All file formats are safe, it's just the programs that read them.
The correct phrasing of that is: File formats don't kill programs. Programs kill programs.
Exactly
From my understanding, folks would simply watch the Stealth figher's come in and call in reports of the planes. Highly low tech, but moderatley effective.
You know you just want prices to go down--Biatch!
Orbitz
X10
Face it: You're wierd. Two very successful pop up ad campaigns
Well, obviously we just need more people.
You go Taco! You have some sweet ass timing. Make like a rabbit!
Sorry Kathleen!
<bad joke>
(You just have a sweet ass I guess.. ba-dumb-dumb!)
</bad joke>
You don't think that the GE engineers making lightbulbs sit around and have lunch with the ones making high performance jet engines, do you?
More like, you don't thinkt he GE engineers making lightbulbs sit around with the ones making power plants to see how they can make a lightbulb emit less light and use more electricity.
Turns out the best way to run a business is usually to just make each product the best it can be instead of concentrating on "the big picture"
Thank god. (not that it prevents many from trying)