How sure of that are you? according to two sources, the song copyright is given as "Copyright: (P) 1991 Volcano Entertainment, III, L.L.C."
This guy and another wrote it. The article lists them as the owners of Rude Music Inc., unrelated to Volcano as far as I can read. It also says they copyrighted the song in 1982.
He copyrighted the song, but Volcano owns the copyright to the actual recording, which Journey did.
If I want to cover it, I have to ask Rude Music Inc. But if I want to play the recording, I have to ask Volcano. Or just pay into one of the blanket jukebox style license agreements and don't ask anyone.
Nice point, but he went way round the bushes to make it. Immigration is bad after 1914, or whatever date you choose, because we're full.
We're not really "full", but we're past the point of allowing unlimited immigration.
The issue of legal vs. illegal immigration is a separate point, validly suggesting welfare as a key difference. It is just one of many reasons why we are "full", and without the welfare state we would likely remain full.
How to you get to the conclusion that slashdot hates copyright?
A lot of people here own copyrights (registered or not) and would appreciate some protection. Very few people have said "screw it, download everything".
GPL is advertised as fighting copyright with copyright, and it would be unimportant without copyright. But without copyright, all you have is public domain and trade secrets. There is no requirement to release code changes unless you personally contract with everyone who wants to download your code. Hosting a tarball with a license and expecting people to follow the license does not exist, because there is no basis of enforcement. A license with a public domain download is not enforceable.
I believe the maximum copyright should be no more than 28 years, and several people have come up with 14 as the optimal length. Copyright is only evil because 1) it is excessively long, effectively infinite 2) enforcement such as DRM abridges fair use, especially if the DRM has not been broken when something that uses it is in the public domain.
Copyright is to be respected, at least for a little while.
Interesting. I was doing some Christmas shopping out of season, basically wandering around aimlessly. A security guard type walked from the employees only area straight to me, on the other side of the store, and asked me if I needed any help.
I just looked at him and said, "No?" with a question mark, implying "And why do you ask?" The response was something like "Well if you need help with someone, you can ask me or anyone else out here."
I said, "I used to work here, in this very store, you'd think I would know that." No reaction, just went back to looking at his clipboard and wandered back where he came from.
I always wondered if I looked like a banned shopper, now I know I can't go to Target unless I know what I want already. Thanks.
The guy who can't get anything done because Republicans are the party of NO.
Regardless, they are all bad. I don't know who is pulling the strings, but every move seems to be an outright power grab to maintain the status quo. Inventing reasons to drop military equipment in dusty nations, so they have to buy more, and shaving away the Constitution seem to be at the top of the list no matter who is in charge. And since the start of the FBI it has been a matter of controlling the people rather than governing them.
...But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these States; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present government of the United States of America is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.
An ignorant consumer is the opposite of a free market. Or another way, a truly free market depends on informed consumers. Either way, I don't know what the hell a Neato XV-12 is or why I would want one. The fact that you know this offhand is extremely unusual. Well known to whom?
Target is explicitly depending on keeping people ignorant of such things, and unless they go out of their way to learn, or someone makes an app to do just that, this will work. Until it pisses people off, of course, when it becomes common knowledhat you pay more at Target.
As it is, however, there is a cult mentality among people who believe Walmart is evil and Target is the place to buy stuff, that it doesn't have all of the cheap Chinese crap, and the general atmosphere is better. These people will continue to shop there, and not figure out the models are just renamed.
"The paradox of choice" - I too have buyer's paralysis. I make a database of overy known option, mark them 'deleted' one by one, and eventually come up with at least 20 alternatives which would be as good as any other. Typically there will be features I don't know I want until I start using it.
And that's when I realized I could go to the library and read up using Consumer Reports and be done with it. It's well worth it, if you buy a major appliance every year (tv one year, bed, replacement microwave, computer) - especially for things you don't already have.
I know someone who has the opposite problem. Large vocabulary and excellent grammar, but because she reads a lot and doesn't get the chance to talk to people who use those words, she mispronounces a relatively large number of otherwise impressive words. you might call her uneducated if you didn't think about it - how else can someone know large words but be unable to pronounce them?
It's fairly easy to tell when people learned things aurally, and when they never saw it in writing enough to correct their mistake. For all intensive purposes, escape goat, "The thing is, is..." If you read enough, you will recognize where the things in your head don't match what is on the paper. Or if you read a lot and are not well educated, you may not make the connection that what you say is wrong.
Language evolves, and idioms like "begging the question" are commonly misused even by people who do read a lot. Both because they learn by context and don't understand it in the context presented, and because it is so common. But it does not have a discoverable meaning, if you take the words one at a time. "Should of" on the other hand does not make any grammatical sense, and an otherwise educated person would have to question whether that is the correct usage.
I am all for allowing language to evolve, otherwise we would be speaking Old English, or some sort of German maybe, or even no language at all. But that does not preclude gaining insight into a personality through such misuses. Dating and hiring are good places to do this, and you can ask the person how much they read, and what they read last. On the internet, this conversation is less interactive.
You're right, it's not very good. "Not for resale" usually means it doesn't have the required nutritional info or similar. Nothing to do with first sale at all, just labeling info that companies are required to provide.
I could put that info back on and re-sell them, although it would cost me more than just getting them from the distributor.
I used to think that people wanted American products without American price tags. Apple has convinced me that the problem is a lot more difficult to define. People will pay outrageous prices for certain things, but everything else has to be dirt cheap.
Just searching for "apple margin iphone" shows that they are taking maybe 35%, down from 60% earlier. I find it hard to believe that hiring US workers would bring it down considerably. The design and development cost wouldn't change, just the profit margin.
Of course, the stock is ridiculously high due to these margins, so some Americans are benefitting. The ones who already have money to invest, that is.
Sure you could. And expect a lawsuit. Most likely, 30s will cover enough of the song that you could just copy, paste, and have almost the whole thing. And 30 seconds of a 4.5 minute song is a much larger percentage of a 22.5 minute broadcast (if it was the 30-minute nightly news).
No commercial would just use music without asking, it's just not worth the legal trouble, which is guaranteed. I assume you are bring facetious, but just in case someone reads and think, yeah, why not? I thought I should reply.
His defense claims fair use. But what about Brokaw's right to protect his public image? Especially since he has gone out of his way to remain neutral in politics?
NBC might be unable to pull the ad due to equal airtime requirements, or may be enjoying payment as long as other networks are doing the same. But Romney's defense don't cover the whole scenario, which may get this taken down everywhere, not just at NBC.
Maybe that's because they were largely for it? You can't change your mind to against unless you were for it. I don't have numbers, but here's a picture with a source attached. It doesn't look all that clear to me.
What is clear is that Democrats are typically not on the censorship bandwagon that Republicans have to be to establish their evangelical bona fides and get the Good Christian vote. So Hollywood supports Demorats, California Republicans (and CA has a lot of Congress people), and people like Reagan and Arnie who have been part of the entertainment industry. That's the only reason Hollywood supports one side, and if that side fights back the support dries up.
Republicans did not flip due to support, they flipped because someone got it through their heads that they were passing a law that would really piss off a lot of their voters. Not the ones who contribute this time, but people who would go register to vote in order to save their WikiPedia so they could copy and paste college assignments.
I am embarrassed to say, this is the most interesting comment I have seen on this site in well over X;X3 years. You know the changes in the Tetris engine, and links to a strategy guide for playing Tetris infinitely.
Screw mod points, I salute you, sir or madam or intermediate.
NoScript and Firebug are not memory eating extensions. Firebug doesn't do anything unless it's enabled, and NoScript tends to reduce memory because scripts don't load unnecessary objects. The whitelist, even if very large, typically consumes less memory than what it blocks. Especially if it is preventing Flash from even being loaded (no plugin-container overhead).
I don't use AdBlock Plus, but I would suggest it probably uses a lot more memory than one might think, based on what I know of its workings.
You insist these are only "one guy". You should have left that out if you wanted to prove your point. I'm not sure if you're familiar with filing bugs, but if one guy reports something, and another guy reports the same thing, one of those will be closed as a duplicate. If one guy is having that issue, it most likely means more than one guy is seeing it, and either not noticing, not reporting, or watching that bug report because either he found it was already reported or his was closed as a dupe.
Also, the fact that there is no reply doesn't mean it's not an issue. Effectively no insight can be had, it does not prove there are or are not memory leaks.
Given the history of FireFox, where devs insisted for *years* that there were no problems, and then suddenly a pile of memory allocation problems got fixed, I give no more credence to a developer saying it's "probably" not an issue than a user reporting it as an issue. It's a dead split in terms of reputation, and as long as it remains open I give the reporter the benefit of the doubt. I think that's fair.
It sounds like you believe FireFox is rock-solid, and are looking for any evidence to bolster your case, rather than being dispassionate and accepting and evaluating evidence on its own merits. Maybe if you try again, you might be able to re-phrase this in a way that might away someone who does not already agree with you.
Why are you talking about people? It's irrelevant. I don't think you know what topic we're on. If a company blurs the lines of operation such that some work is done in the United States, US law applies where that line is crossed.
If you use an Australian company that houses e-mail in a Gmail server in the US, that e-mail can be snooped. Even if no one from the US is administering that server, its physical presence is what determines the law, not the person doing the work, or which company owns it.
This is really no different from shipping something that is only illegal in the US through the US to get from Mexico to Canada. It is not allowed in the US, so it is confiscated and people probably go to prison. Or a Canada-to-Canada phone call where the wires go through some part of the US, those can be tapped if someone decides it's necessary. Sovereignity is completely irrelevant.
Sure, doing these things might cause "a bit of bother" but that will pass and back to business as usual. Don't touch the US or you will be subject to its laws in some fashion.
This is par for the course in international business. I work for a Fortune 20 Or Less company, and we have data centers all around the world specifically to accomodate contractual language such as this. Support teams are made up of people from different countries to ensure we can meet the requirement of who can and cannot see the data.
Each country is organized as its own subsidiary. This was probably expensive, but we can say "Go talk to the subsidiary in that country" because we don't have the data. International law is tricky, and you can be sure there are some very weasly lawyers at the top making sure everything is deniable.
Short version, yes it's possible, but you have to organize things correctly. The whole point of the article is that it's easy to miss something and there goes your privacy.
You took the dictionary meaning of the word, when gp post was talking more about the label. Politics is all about corrupting the meaning of words so they don't apply any more. Orwell taught us that, if you didn't learn it anywhere else.
"U.S. conservatives" are more than happy with this type of thing. Looking at voting history, the "U.S. conservatives" typically vote for such things en masse, with maybe a few consistent dissenters like Ron Paul. The liberals vote for it too, but support is more spotty and this group is the one that goes on record with opposition sound bites.
Basically, Republicans will vote for anythng that gives police or military more power, because they appear to believe in small government everywhere but the military. And they would grant the military and/or police the authorization to go into your bedroom and make sure you're not having gay sex, sex for pleasure, using contraception, or doing anythhg that makes them feel "icky". That is the perspective of "U.S. conservatives".
They all want the same thing, big government, they just don't agree which parts to shrink or embiggenate.
Slashdot Mirror
Knowingly how?
http://entertainment.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2647101&cid=38881893
How sure of that are you? according to two sources, the song copyright is given as "Copyright: (P) 1991 Volcano Entertainment, III, L.L.C."
This guy and another wrote it. The article lists them as the owners of Rude Music Inc., unrelated to Volcano as far as I can read. It also says they copyrighted the song in 1982.
He copyrighted the song, but Volcano owns the copyright to the actual recording, which Journey did.
If I want to cover it, I have to ask Rude Music Inc. But if I want to play the recording, I have to ask Volcano. Or just pay into one of the blanket jukebox style license agreements and don't ask anyone.
Nice point, but he went way round the bushes to make it. Immigration is bad after 1914, or whatever date you choose, because we're full.
We're not really "full", but we're past the point of allowing unlimited immigration.
The issue of legal vs. illegal immigration is a separate point, validly suggesting welfare as a key difference. It is just one of many reasons why we are "full", and without the welfare state we would likely remain full.
How to you get to the conclusion that slashdot hates copyright?
A lot of people here own copyrights (registered or not) and would appreciate some protection. Very few people have said "screw it, download everything".
GPL is advertised as fighting copyright with copyright, and it would be unimportant without copyright. But without copyright, all you have is public domain and trade secrets. There is no requirement to release code changes unless you personally contract with everyone who wants to download your code. Hosting a tarball with a license and expecting people to follow the license does not exist, because there is no basis of enforcement. A license with a public domain download is not enforceable.
I believe the maximum copyright should be no more than 28 years, and several people have come up with 14 as the optimal length. Copyright is only evil because 1) it is excessively long, effectively infinite 2) enforcement such as DRM abridges fair use, especially if the DRM has not been broken when something that uses it is in the public domain.
Copyright is to be respected, at least for a little while.
http://www.teleread.com/copy-right/dumb-by-the-numbers-optimal-copyright-term-of-14-years-time-to-kill-all-the-economists/
Interesting. I was doing some Christmas shopping out of season, basically wandering around aimlessly. A security guard type walked from the employees only area straight to me, on the other side of the store, and asked me if I needed any help.
I just looked at him and said, "No?" with a question mark, implying "And why do you ask?" The response was something like "Well if you need help with someone, you can ask me or anyone else out here."
I said, "I used to work here, in this very store, you'd think I would know that." No reaction, just went back to looking at his clipboard and wandered back where he came from.
I always wondered if I looked like a banned shopper, now I know I can't go to Target unless I know what I want already. Thanks.
The guy who can't get anything done because Republicans are the party of NO.
Regardless, they are all bad. I don't know who is pulling the strings, but every move seems to be an outright power grab to maintain the status quo. Inventing reasons to drop military equipment in dusty nations, so they have to buy more, and shaving away the Constitution seem to be at the top of the list no matter who is in charge. And since the start of the FBI it has been a matter of controlling the people rather than governing them.
...But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these States; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present government of the United States of America is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.
An ignorant consumer is the opposite of a free market. Or another way, a truly free market depends on informed consumers. Either way, I don't know what the hell a Neato XV-12 is or why I would want one. The fact that you know this offhand is extremely unusual. Well known to whom?
Target is explicitly depending on keeping people ignorant of such things, and unless they go out of their way to learn, or someone makes an app to do just that, this will work. Until it pisses people off, of course, when it becomes common knowledhat you pay more at Target.
As it is, however, there is a cult mentality among people who believe Walmart is evil and Target is the place to buy stuff, that it doesn't have all of the cheap Chinese crap, and the general atmosphere is better. These people will continue to shop there, and not figure out the models are just renamed.
"The paradox of choice" - I too have buyer's paralysis. I make a database of overy known option, mark them 'deleted' one by one, and eventually come up with at least 20 alternatives which would be as good as any other. Typically there will be features I don't know I want until I start using it.
And that's when I realized I could go to the library and read up using Consumer Reports and be done with it. It's well worth it, if you buy a major appliance every year (tv one year, bed, replacement microwave, computer) - especially for things you don't already have.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Paradox_of_Choice:_Why_More_Is_Less
The author of "Common Errors in English Usage" happens to agree.
http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/intensive.html
I know someone who has the opposite problem. Large vocabulary and excellent grammar, but because she reads a lot and doesn't get the chance to talk to people who use those words, she mispronounces a relatively large number of otherwise impressive words. you might call her uneducated if you didn't think about it - how else can someone know large words but be unable to pronounce them?
It's fairly easy to tell when people learned things aurally, and when they never saw it in writing enough to correct their mistake. For all intensive purposes, escape goat, "The thing is, is ..." If you read enough, you will recognize where the things in your head don't match what is on the paper. Or if you read a lot and are not well educated, you may not make the connection that what you say is wrong.
Language evolves, and idioms like "begging the question" are commonly misused even by people who do read a lot. Both because they learn by context and don't understand it in the context presented, and because it is so common. But it does not have a discoverable meaning, if you take the words one at a time. "Should of" on the other hand does not make any grammatical sense, and an otherwise educated person would have to question whether that is the correct usage.
I am all for allowing language to evolve, otherwise we would be speaking Old English, or some sort of German maybe, or even no language at all. But that does not preclude gaining insight into a personality through such misuses. Dating and hiring are good places to do this, and you can ask the person how much they read, and what they read last. On the internet, this conversation is less interactive.
You're right, it's not very good. "Not for resale" usually means it doesn't have the required nutritional info or similar. Nothing to do with first sale at all, just labeling info that companies are required to provide.
I could put that info back on and re-sell them, although it would cost me more than just getting them from the distributor.
I used to think that people wanted American products without American price tags. Apple has convinced me that the problem is a lot more difficult to define. People will pay outrageous prices for certain things, but everything else has to be dirt cheap.
Just searching for "apple margin iphone" shows that they are taking maybe 35%, down from 60% earlier. I find it hard to believe that hiring US workers would bring it down considerably. The design and development cost wouldn't change, just the profit margin.
Of course, the stock is ridiculously high due to these margins, so some Americans are benefitting. The ones who already have money to invest, that is.
Sure you could. And expect a lawsuit. Most likely, 30s will cover enough of the song that you could just copy, paste, and have almost the whole thing. And 30 seconds of a 4.5 minute song is a much larger percentage of a 22.5 minute broadcast (if it was the 30-minute nightly news).
http://thelister.blogspot.com/2011/07/average-pop-song-length-by-decade.html
No commercial would just use music without asking, it's just not worth the legal trouble, which is guaranteed. I assume you are bring facetious, but just in case someone reads and think, yeah, why not? I thought I should reply.
His defense claims fair use. But what about Brokaw's right to protect his public image? Especially since he has gone out of his way to remain neutral in politics?
NBC might be unable to pull the ad due to equal airtime requirements, or may be enjoying payment as long as other networks are doing the same. But Romney's defense don't cover the whole scenario, which may get this taken down everywhere, not just at NBC.
Maybe that's because they were largely for it? You can't change your mind to against unless you were for it. I don't have numbers, but here's a picture with a source attached. It doesn't look all that clear to me.
What is clear is that Democrats are typically not on the censorship bandwagon that Republicans have to be to establish their evangelical bona fides and get the Good Christian vote. So Hollywood supports Demorats, California Republicans (and CA has a lot of Congress people), and people like Reagan and Arnie who have been part of the entertainment industry. That's the only reason Hollywood supports one side, and if that side fights back the support dries up.
Republicans did not flip due to support, they flipped because someone got it through their heads that they were passing a law that would really piss off a lot of their voters. Not the ones who contribute this time, but people who would go register to vote in order to save their WikiPedia so they could copy and paste college assignments.
http://s3.amazonaws.com/propublica/assets/images/sopa-opera-count.png
Bill contributed to an AIDS fund, not a "Stop AIDS" fund. Windows viruses were just the start of his reign of terror!
Welcome to Slashdot :) The story doesn't matter, it's just an excuse to spout your opinion. Everyone here is an expert on everything.
Fortunately, the people who aren't posting inane gibberish are reading and learning. The silent majority appreciates the effort, be assured of that.
And yes, I know you've been here before, but if you hadn't gotten a sense of the place before, sounds like you have now.
I am embarrassed to say, this is the most interesting comment I have seen on this site in well over X;X3 years. You know the changes in the Tetris engine, and links to a strategy guide for playing Tetris infinitely.
Screw mod points, I salute you, sir or madam or intermediate.
We are LIVING in the FUTURE, people! Now we can have x-rays of sharks with x-ray lasers strapped to their fricken heads.
Now I'm waiting for that one guy to claim you're a shill for Reading Rainbow.
NoScript and Firebug are not memory eating extensions. Firebug doesn't do anything unless it's enabled, and NoScript tends to reduce memory because scripts don't load unnecessary objects. The whitelist, even if very large, typically consumes less memory than what it blocks. Especially if it is preventing Flash from even being loaded (no plugin-container overhead).
I don't use AdBlock Plus, but I would suggest it probably uses a lot more memory than one might think, based on what I know of its workings.
You insist these are only "one guy". You should have left that out if you wanted to prove your point. I'm not sure if you're familiar with filing bugs, but if one guy reports something, and another guy reports the same thing, one of those will be closed as a duplicate. If one guy is having that issue, it most likely means more than one guy is seeing it, and either not noticing, not reporting, or watching that bug report because either he found it was already reported or his was closed as a dupe.
Also, the fact that there is no reply doesn't mean it's not an issue. Effectively no insight can be had, it does not prove there are or are not memory leaks.
Given the history of FireFox, where devs insisted for *years* that there were no problems, and then suddenly a pile of memory allocation problems got fixed, I give no more credence to a developer saying it's "probably" not an issue than a user reporting it as an issue. It's a dead split in terms of reputation, and as long as it remains open I give the reporter the benefit of the doubt. I think that's fair.
It sounds like you believe FireFox is rock-solid, and are looking for any evidence to bolster your case, rather than being dispassionate and accepting and evaluating evidence on its own merits. Maybe if you try again, you might be able to re-phrase this in a way that might away someone who does not already agree with you.
Why are you talking about people? It's irrelevant. I don't think you know what topic we're on. If a company blurs the lines of operation such that some work is done in the United States, US law applies where that line is crossed.
If you use an Australian company that houses e-mail in a Gmail server in the US, that e-mail can be snooped. Even if no one from the US is administering that server, its physical presence is what determines the law, not the person doing the work, or which company owns it.
This is really no different from shipping something that is only illegal in the US through the US to get from Mexico to Canada. It is not allowed in the US, so it is confiscated and people probably go to prison. Or a Canada-to-Canada phone call where the wires go through some part of the US, those can be tapped if someone decides it's necessary. Sovereignity is completely irrelevant.
Sure, doing these things might cause "a bit of bother" but that will pass and back to business as usual. Don't touch the US or you will be subject to its laws in some fashion.
This is par for the course in international business. I work for a Fortune 20 Or Less company, and we have data centers all around the world specifically to accomodate contractual language such as this. Support teams are made up of people from different countries to ensure we can meet the requirement of who can and cannot see the data.
Each country is organized as its own subsidiary. This was probably expensive, but we can say "Go talk to the subsidiary in that country" because we don't have the data. International law is tricky, and you can be sure there are some very weasly lawyers at the top making sure everything is deniable.
Short version, yes it's possible, but you have to organize things correctly. The whole point of the article is that it's easy to miss something and there goes your privacy.
You took the dictionary meaning of the word, when gp post was talking more about the label. Politics is all about corrupting the meaning of words so they don't apply any more. Orwell taught us that, if you didn't learn it anywhere else.
"U.S. conservatives" are more than happy with this type of thing. Looking at voting history, the "U.S. conservatives" typically vote for such things en masse, with maybe a few consistent dissenters like Ron Paul. The liberals vote for it too, but support is more spotty and this group is the one that goes on record with opposition sound bites.
Basically, Republicans will vote for anythng that gives police or military more power, because they appear to believe in small government everywhere but the military. And they would grant the military and/or police the authorization to go into your bedroom and make sure you're not having gay sex, sex for pleasure, using contraception, or doing anythhg that makes them feel "icky". That is the perspective of "U.S. conservatives".
They all want the same thing, big government, they just don't agree which parts to shrink or embiggenate.