If I record my own karaoke and share it out, does it count?
I believe it does actually, technically, yes. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but unless you're the copyright holder, you can karaoke for personal use, but you're not allowed to distribute. You could claim "parody" and "fare use" depending on the situation, but if they deem it to go beyond that, it could be treated as a "cover" of the song. And you must get permission to do a cover. Not to mention the fact that the background music you are singing over is most definitely under copyright.
But in reality, it's very doubtful they'd go after a fan distributing bad karaoke.
Altruistic as the space race may seem, China will soon be a much larger influence in the world than today. Currently, their middle class is larger than the entire population of the USA, and the rest of the population is catching up fast.
If they have a well developed space program, it's all the more leverage if they start to flex their muscles. You can bet their bureaucracy knows of the military benefits of space. Everyone and their mother already has surveillance satellites up. The US government wants a powerful presence up there as well.
The race for power is underpinning this race for space, just as it did in the time of Sputnik. Only this time, bankrupting China (like the US bankrupt the USSR) doesn't seem to be an option.
First, please look at 2 posts below this, called: "I'm going to be unpopular here, but...". It points out many things including that Lieberman was working for NASA and was being paid by his university to do research.
However, the question is an interesting one (although it doesn't pertain to this situation).
I guess it could be oversimplified like this: I pay you to teach me how to build computers. You go out and buy $2,000 worth of parts and show me how to build it. What I purchased was the education, which you gave. I can't just walk away with the computer I built. Because it's made up of your resources.
So the question with universities is, "what exactly are we paying for?" We can't use their resources indiscriminately. We can't sell pieces of their buildings for example. Students pay to use resources in as much as it provides an education. Unless given permission, they're usually not allowed to freely use resources outside of that scope.
The above guy said: "They only get it, when I choose to apply for the patent through the university." Sounds like the student's choice to me. The summary didn't make it sound like it was the student's choice. But the July article says:
Lieberman and other iShoe team members have applied for a patent on the technology, to be jointly held by MIT, Harvard and NASA.
Sounds like he went the university route. He ('they' actually) should've read the fine print.
This is true in the states too. For many sciences, postgrads are paid, doctoral candidates get a stipend, but master's get nothing. If he was a going for his Ph.D. or was already postgrad, Lieberman probably got paid, or got a free ride.
We should be careful here. The system may be best left as is. The idea is that:
most universities own inventions created by students that were developed using a 'significant' amount of schools resources.
This is to protect universities against people taking 99% of the university's idea/invention, adding 1%, and then using the university's research to make money while the university keeps begging for donations. Some universities may be fine monetarily, but some need all the money they can get to keep up their standards.
Onto this case. Perhaps MIT & NASA already had the equipment and a similar algorithm that Lieberman simply added an elegant flourish to. If that's the case, he should get some joint arrangement going, but he shouldn't be allowed to pass it off as if he developed the entire thing himself. But what it actually sounds more like, is they both sides significantly contributed, which makes things difficult.
He can try to prove that the university's contribution to the project was "insignificant", but that's going to be a hard sell. If I were him, I'd see what friends I still have in the MIT bureaucracy, see what they can do, and then (while trying to not to ostrichsize them) try to get as much media attention as possible so that MIT can make a good-will announcement that they're giving him the rights.
Actually, if you map button combos you can have a lot more.
Forgetting the analog sticks, and using them only for movement and camera you've now got: face (4) + shoulder (4) + D-pad (8 [diagonals included]) = 16 single buttons.
Then combos with the 8 D-Pad directions and 1 of the other 8 buttons gives you 64 more.
Then combos using just 2 regular buttons (face + shoulder) gives you 28 more.
So now you've got 16 + 64 + 28 = 108 possibilities.
If you take out the diagonals of the D-Pad then you lose 4 (single) + 32 (combos) = 68 possibilities, which is still very viable. If you don't want to use 2 face or 2 shoulder buttons at the same time, but only 1 face + 1 shoulder (easier), then the number goes down to 56 possibilities.
And this is before you have any "movement" combos (e.g. Street Fighter combos). It would probably be very easy to incorporate every single WoW ability onto a control pad like that as the possibilities are in the thousands. But the learning curve would be high compared to setting up a bar and mouse clicking (or 1-9 keyboarding) it.
The question wasn't which is better. It was, 'Is Lotus Symphony forked code from OpenOffice'. I knew the answer was yes, so I just googled "open office lotus symphony" and skimmed an article to find someone else saying it, so that the answer was backed up by something.
Forked code doesn't make one thing better than another. Firefox & Seamonkey, OOo & Symphony, or heck, any distribution of Linux for that matter, are all things that build off of the same code. They just make different flavors for different users and functionalities.
I hadn't intended it to be inferred as a OOo vs Symphony issue. But if you want to see other people compare the two, just do the same google search I did, "lotus symphony open office" and you'll get a LOT of opinions either way.
But in retrospect, you're probably right for inferring what you did from my post. I'll have to take more notice of the bias in an article before I link next time.
Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong, Australia, Israel, Singapore, and Taiwan are rich, developing cutting edge technology, and are not geographically in the West.
I feel strange using "Western" to describe "1st world" areas now. I agree with your message completely though.
Using "to table something" meaning to put it off, here I thought he was saying, "I just keep hoping that well-intentioned people would be willing to stop the academic questions about what's causing global warming until we've achieved the goals I think we mostly agree on; to stop crapping up our planet."
I thought he meant, 'Stop questioning that humans are causing it, and let everyone think we are, so that people clean up the environment'. I jumped to conclusions about it, and was wrong (which I found out when he posted back).
However, I don't think he was encouraging the asking of academic questions in this case. I found now that "to table something" can be used in 2 ways (@_@)
The technical word at the United Nations is to "table" a resolution -- which, unlike in the Congress, when you table something you put it off. At the United Nations, when you table something, you put it on.
Okay good (^_^) I did misunderstand your point then, and I agree with you.
Perhaps the main problem then is, people can't agree on what has been established as "pollution" in this case. But I agree. It hasn't been established. We don't know how much specific dosages of CO2 effect temperature. We don't know how much the Earth's buffers compensate. We don't know how much everything else factors into the overall temperature. And as you said, we don't even know if we want to change the course. All of this, while we could be working on the other stuff that has been established and there is little to no debate about.
Reading the articles, it appears the size is nice, but it isn't the biggest deal here. They're projecting a bit smaller than 10nm, which is twice as small as next-generation flash drives that "projections show... will reach its limit of 20nm by around 2012."
The biggest deal here seems to be power management.
What distinguishes graphene from other next-generation memories is the on-off power ratio - the amount of juice a circuit holds when it's on, as opposed to off. "It's huge - a million-to-one," said Tour. "Phase change memory, the other thing the industry is considering, runs at 10-to-1. That means the 'off' state holds, say, one-tenth the amount of electrical current than the 'on' state."
Current tends to leak from an "off" that's holding a charge. "That means in a 10-by-10 grid, 10 'offs' would leak enough to look like they were 'on.' With our method, it would take a million 'offs' in a line to look like 'on,'" he said. "So this is big. It allows us to make a much larger array."
I just keep hoping that well-intentioned people would be willing to table the academic questions about what's causing global warming until we've achieved the goals I think we mostly agree on; to stop crapping up our planet.
This sent shivers down my spine.
Because:
1) You are well spoken and seem to be an educated and intelligent person, and
2) You are advocating that spreading misinformation is the prefered way to get beneficial change.
3) Not only that, you're essentially asking scientists to stop doing science, to stop questioning, and to stop learning.
I agree that the climate scare had the silver lining of getting people more interested in environmentalism. But what if we've slowed down aid to the infrastructure of 3rd world countries, and humans weren't actually in control of this warming trend? What if it slowed funding to 3rd world hospitals so they couldn't get proper shelter and electricity? And what if we've slowed down scientific research? There are a large number of possible negative implications. Yes there are a large number of possible positive implications too. Which is why we should hesitate to act drastically until all avenues have been explored thoroughly. And anyone who thinks that all avenues have been explored thoroughly is either arrogant or ignorant to the enormous scope of factors that can actually influence global temperature.
What kind of environmentalists do you want keeping the earth clean? Uninformed masses that follow trends? Or educated, informed people that have the information to make intelligent decisions?
Controlling the masses through misinformation is too susceptible to corruption and tyranny, and doing it on this scale (even with good intentions) can have horrible consequences.
Sounds like a story the government could feed the press in order to catch people. Similar to government run websites that look like terrorist or kiddy porn sites.
Slashdot Mirror
Now it's time to see how many moderators are from Oceania =p
Tooth Regeneration Coming Thoon
If I record my own karaoke and share it out, does it count?
I believe it does actually, technically, yes. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but unless you're the copyright holder, you can karaoke for personal use, but you're not allowed to distribute. You could claim "parody" and "fare use" depending on the situation, but if they deem it to go beyond that, it could be treated as a "cover" of the song. And you must get permission to do a cover. Not to mention the fact that the background music you are singing over is most definitely under copyright.
But in reality, it's very doubtful they'd go after a fan distributing bad karaoke.
Hahaha!
Oh well... -1 for me and my spellcheck =p
Altruistic as the space race may seem, China will soon be a much larger influence in the world than today. Currently, their middle class is larger than the entire population of the USA, and the rest of the population is catching up fast.
If they have a well developed space program, it's all the more leverage if they start to flex their muscles. You can bet their bureaucracy knows of the military benefits of space. Everyone and their mother already has surveillance satellites up. The US government wants a powerful presence up there as well.
The race for power is underpinning this race for space, just as it did in the time of Sputnik. Only this time, bankrupting China (like the US bankrupt the USSR) doesn't seem to be an option.
First, please look at 2 posts below this, called: "I'm going to be unpopular here, but...". It points out many things including that Lieberman was working for NASA and was being paid by his university to do research.
However, the question is an interesting one (although it doesn't pertain to this situation).
I guess it could be oversimplified like this: I pay you to teach me how to build computers. You go out and buy $2,000 worth of parts and show me how to build it. What I purchased was the education, which you gave. I can't just walk away with the computer I built. Because it's made up of your resources.
So the question with universities is, "what exactly are we paying for?" We can't use their resources indiscriminately. We can't sell pieces of their buildings for example. Students pay to use resources in as much as it provides an education. Unless given permission, they're usually not allowed to freely use resources outside of that scope.
Lieberman and other iShoe team members have applied for a patent on the technology, to be jointly held by MIT, Harvard and NASA.
Sounds like he went the university route. He ('they' actually) should've read the fine print.
This is true in the states too. For many sciences, postgrads are paid, doctoral candidates get a stipend, but master's get nothing. If he was a going for his Ph.D. or was already postgrad, Lieberman probably got paid, or got a free ride.
Are you implying that life was better before the industrial revolution?
We should be careful here. The system may be best left as is. The idea is that:
most universities own inventions created by students that were developed using a 'significant' amount of schools resources.
This is to protect universities against people taking 99% of the university's idea/invention, adding 1%, and then using the university's research to make money while the university keeps begging for donations. Some universities may be fine monetarily, but some need all the money they can get to keep up their standards.
Onto this case. Perhaps MIT & NASA already had the equipment and a similar algorithm that Lieberman simply added an elegant flourish to. If that's the case, he should get some joint arrangement going, but he shouldn't be allowed to pass it off as if he developed the entire thing himself. But what it actually sounds more like, is they both sides significantly contributed, which makes things difficult.
He can try to prove that the university's contribution to the project was "insignificant", but that's going to be a hard sell. If I were him, I'd see what friends I still have in the MIT bureaucracy, see what they can do, and then (while trying to not to ostrichsize them) try to get as much media attention as possible so that MIT can make a good-will announcement that they're giving him the rights.
Actually, if you map button combos you can have a lot more.
Forgetting the analog sticks, and using them only for movement and camera you've now got: face (4) + shoulder (4) + D-pad (8 [diagonals included]) = 16 single buttons.
Then combos with the 8 D-Pad directions and 1 of the other 8 buttons gives you 64 more.
Then combos using just 2 regular buttons (face + shoulder) gives you 28 more.
So now you've got 16 + 64 + 28 = 108 possibilities.
If you take out the diagonals of the D-Pad then you lose 4 (single) + 32 (combos) = 68 possibilities, which is still very viable. If you don't want to use 2 face or 2 shoulder buttons at the same time, but only 1 face + 1 shoulder (easier), then the number goes down to 56 possibilities.
And this is before you have any "movement" combos (e.g. Street Fighter combos). It would probably be very easy to incorporate every single WoW ability onto a control pad like that as the possibilities are in the thousands. But the learning curve would be high compared to setting up a bar and mouse clicking (or 1-9 keyboarding) it.
The question wasn't which is better. It was, 'Is Lotus Symphony forked code from OpenOffice'. I knew the answer was yes, so I just googled "open office lotus symphony" and skimmed an article to find someone else saying it, so that the answer was backed up by something.
Forked code doesn't make one thing better than another. Firefox & Seamonkey, OOo & Symphony, or heck, any distribution of Linux for that matter, are all things that build off of the same code. They just make different flavors for different users and functionalities.
I hadn't intended it to be inferred as a OOo vs Symphony issue. But if you want to see other people compare the two, just do the same google search I did, "lotus symphony open office" and you'll get a LOT of opinions either way.
But in retrospect, you're probably right for inferring what you did from my post. I'll have to take more notice of the bias in an article before I link next time.
Well, it does go up every year. Doesn't it?
Doesn't Lotus Symphony use forked code from an older release of OpenOffice?
Yes
Why were you modded as a troll?! Piracy actually DOES happen near Somalia right now, and it's a serious problem. Do people not know it's going on? Did some moderator not get it?
Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong, Australia, Israel, Singapore, and Taiwan are rich, developing cutting edge technology, and are not geographically in the West.
I feel strange using "Western" to describe "1st world" areas now. I agree with your message completely though.
The only problem? Their conversion rate seems to be $1 per 1 euro
Converting currency properly isn't Freeman.
Then perhaps just:
"Spore's DRM is Half-life'd"?
It is an improvement, after all...
>.>
The fight against DRM gains Steam.
Using "to table something" meaning to put it off, here I thought he was saying, "I just keep hoping that well-intentioned people would be willing to stop the academic questions about what's causing global warming until we've achieved the goals I think we mostly agree on; to stop crapping up our planet."
I thought he meant, 'Stop questioning that humans are causing it, and let everyone think we are, so that people clean up the environment'. I jumped to conclusions about it, and was wrong (which I found out when he posted back).
However, I don't think he was encouraging the asking of academic questions in this case. I found now that "to table something" can be used in 2 ways (@_@)
The technical word at the United Nations is to "table" a resolution -- which, unlike in the Congress, when you table something you put it off. At the United Nations, when you table something, you put it on.
Okay good (^_^) I did misunderstand your point then, and I agree with you.
Perhaps the main problem then is, people can't agree on what has been established as "pollution" in this case. But I agree. It hasn't been established. We don't know how much specific dosages of CO2 effect temperature. We don't know how much the Earth's buffers compensate. We don't know how much everything else factors into the overall temperature. And as you said, we don't even know if we want to change the course. All of this, while we could be working on the other stuff that has been established and there is little to no debate about.
Reading the articles, it appears the size is nice, but it isn't the biggest deal here. They're projecting a bit smaller than 10nm, which is twice as small as next-generation flash drives that "projections show ... will reach its limit of 20nm by around 2012."
The biggest deal here seems to be power management.
What distinguishes graphene from other next-generation memories is the on-off power ratio - the amount of juice a circuit holds when it's on, as opposed to off. "It's huge - a million-to-one," said Tour. "Phase change memory, the other thing the industry is considering, runs at 10-to-1. That means the 'off' state holds, say, one-tenth the amount of electrical current than the 'on' state."
Current tends to leak from an "off" that's holding a charge. "That means in a 10-by-10 grid, 10 'offs' would leak enough to look like they were 'on.' With our method, it would take a million 'offs' in a line to look like 'on,'" he said. "So this is big. It allows us to make a much larger array."
I just keep hoping that well-intentioned people would be willing to table the academic questions about what's causing global warming until we've achieved the goals I think we mostly agree on; to stop crapping up our planet.
This sent shivers down my spine.
Because:
1) You are well spoken and seem to be an educated and intelligent person, and
2) You are advocating that spreading misinformation is the prefered way to get beneficial change.
3) Not only that, you're essentially asking scientists to stop doing science, to stop questioning, and to stop learning.
I agree that the climate scare had the silver lining of getting people more interested in environmentalism. But what if we've slowed down aid to the infrastructure of 3rd world countries, and humans weren't actually in control of this warming trend? What if it slowed funding to 3rd world hospitals so they couldn't get proper shelter and electricity? And what if we've slowed down scientific research? There are a large number of possible negative implications. Yes there are a large number of possible positive implications too. Which is why we should hesitate to act drastically until all avenues have been explored thoroughly. And anyone who thinks that all avenues have been explored thoroughly is either arrogant or ignorant to the enormous scope of factors that can actually influence global temperature.
What kind of environmentalists do you want keeping the earth clean? Uninformed masses that follow trends? Or educated, informed people that have the information to make intelligent decisions?
Controlling the masses through misinformation is too susceptible to corruption and tyranny, and doing it on this scale (even with good intentions) can have horrible consequences.
And http://www.wesnoth.org/ has been slashdotted into oblivion...
Sounds like a story the government could feed the press in order to catch people. Similar to government run websites that look like terrorist or kiddy porn sites.
Maybe, maybe not