But if I rolled in at 13:00, I wouldn't have to work at all...
No, start and leave times have to ADD UP to 13:00. So if you come in and leave at 13:00, that would be 26. In order to add up to 13, you'd have to work until 00:00.;)
I often hear: "Why don't they make $X to do $Z like $Y" or "they should make $ABC, that would make it better for me". - But Linux (as an example) is no product. It is just an aggregate of tools other made for themselves.
Exactly. And what's so nice about FOSS is that anyone with the inclination can make $X do $Z like $Y for themselves and/or for others.
I use Debian, because it fits my needs.
Me too! I also help create Debian, because it already fits my needs pretty well, but I enjoy making it better. But what I really love is that if some other FOSS distribution became a better fit for me, I can either switch to that, or I can try to improve Debian to match/exceed it.
For anything real (try to publish to a peer reviewed journal using.doc!) use latex.
Well, I really *wish* you were right about this, but unfortunately, most genuinely reputable[1] peer reviewed journals outside of math and sciences demand.doc format. And sadly, some scientific and engineering journals are starting to ask for it as well.
On a different note, I love LaTeX, but I wish it had better support for Unicode. I know there is some support for it, but last time I tried, it wasn't great...
[1] (You can argue, and I agree, that if they were really reputable, they wouldn't ask for.doc; but they are at least respected in their field.)
1) Micky Mouse is not going into the public domain. the earliest Mickey Mouse shorts would be going into public domain, not the character himself
If the earliest Micky Mouse work was in the PD, Micky himself would be as well. Other works with him in it that were still under copyright wouldn't be affected, but anyone could make a new work with Micky in it as long as they were derived from the PD version of Micky from those shorts.
2) extending copyrights is more evil than dumping toxins into drinking water? destroying local economies? exploiting slave-like and child labor to produce tennis shoes? profiting off of warmongering in the US and around the globe? yeah, that stuff's kinda bad... but trying to stop their IP from going into the public domain? THAT'S SO TEH EVIL!!!!!!1
(First of all, let me just point out that I agree with almost everything you said from a *legal* standpoint. My main point could be summarized as "law != morality.") Anyway, here are some thoughts:
If you want to try and make a case in front of anyone - judge, jury, or otherwise . ..
So judges and juries define morality? Sure, their job is to interpret the law, but laws != morals.
The assumption of immorality comes from the same thing. You have no right to steal someone else's belongings, right? You have no moral right to take without permission, right? The law clearly establish copyrights, even if some areas are unclear.
Again, making generalizations and assumptions. To answer the questions, no, it's not always wrong to take someone else's belongings. If given the chance, I think most people would rightly hasten to take away the firearm belonging to the person who is aiming it at them. And no, taking without permission isn't instrinsically wrong either--it depends on the circumstances.
Copying something doesn't take it away from someone else. Violating copyright is not stealing, by any definition, or in any legal sense. Violating copyright isn't even always illegal--for instances, in call cases covered by "fair use", or in countries that don't have laws against it. Copyrights are not "posessions", but are artificial monopolies granted by government, which had better reflect at all times the will of the people, or it is itself immoral.
But, even given that stealing things is *usually* immoral and *usually* illegal, and violating copyright is *usually* illegal and *sometimes* immoral, your statement is still non-sequetor: law != morality.
So from a moral, social, and legal perspective, you're doing something wrong. It doesn't get any clearer than that. If you want to change society and the law, go for it - but you'll certainly have to convince people that it's moral for you to take their work without paying them in return.
No. From a legal perspective, you may indeed be doing something wrong. From a social perspective, it's pretty divided. From a moral perspective, it may be perfectly fine; it certainly depends on circumstances. Society doesn't define morality.
You may not agree, but just think about it. I'm not proposing that everyone should break laws just to get what they want--but more often than not the "law" is just a kludge upon true justice.
I don't really have time to argue about it more--I don't know if we really disagree or if we're just nitpicking different aspects. Anyway, if you reply, I'll read it, but I won't have time to post in this thread again. See ya around. =)
So in that, it is possible to make a fair use case in personal use; but I suspect you'd lose because of the immorality of the
thing.
Sure, if you a priori assume that it is immoral. What is your basis for saying it's immoral? "So in that, it is possible to make a case for jaywalking; but I suspect you'd lose because of the immorality of the thing." Yeah, so copying is absolutely an immoral thing, just like jaywalking. If you make baseless assumptions,you're going to come to baseless conclusions.
There is a reasonable expectation that you would have to pay for the album, because that's how the world works.
Oh, this is a jewel. I suppose if you lived in the middle ages, you'd say there is a reasonable expectation that you would have to give up your lands and freedom and swear fealty to the King, and anything else was immoral, because that's how the world works. The world "works" however we, the people, make it work.
Sure, assuming there aren't city ordinances about the percentage of your property that can have grass on it, regulations limiting watering, and covenants restricting the amount and kind of activity you perform publicly in your neighborhood.
. . . with my hair on fire . ..
Actually, it is most likely against several federal and local laws to light your own hair on fire.
. . . screaming about whatever it is I believe . ..
Creating a public disturbance is a misdemeanor in most justidictions . . .
...but you can't really afford to ignore any other people who ignore your copyright, lest your copyright go "poof" due to failure to enforce, thus putting your code in the public domain...
Sorry, Copyright doesn't work that way; maybe it should, but it absolutely does not as it exists currently. Perhaps you're thinking of trademarks, which can be invalidated? No matter how much you ignore copyright violations, your copyright will never[1] go "poof".
[1] Never: meaning not in your lifetime + 90 years or so...
The posted MD5 did match the source I got from another source, though.
I saw a torrent posted, but it wasn't modded up (maybe it is by now). In any case, I'll mention it here so folks are browsing this thread might notice it. =)
Doing a diff on the two, I see additional files (from loading it in an IDE, it looks) but no changes to actual source code. So still no conspiracy to report, darn it.:-(
I agree a conspiracy would have been much more fun...
...only 7% of scientists believe in a personal god.
Yeah, good ol' meaningless statistics.
Guess what? I'm a scientist, I believe in God, and I've *never been surveyed* about it. In fact, most scientists I work with have never been surveyed either, and many of them believe in God as well.
Maybe they should consult with themselves to see how they can better leverage Adaptive Enterprise technology to integrate their business practices and IT services. That should help them adapt in "real-time," after all.
Slashdot Mirror
No, start and leave times have to ADD UP to 13:00. So if you come in and leave at 13:00, that would be 26. In order to add up to 13, you'd have to work until 00:00. ;)
I often hear: "Why don't they make $X to do $Z like $Y" or "they should make $ABC, that would make it better for me". - But Linux (as an example) is no product. It is just an aggregate of tools other made for themselves.
Exactly. And what's so nice about FOSS is that anyone with the inclination can make $X do $Z like $Y for themselves and/or for others.
I use Debian, because it fits my needs.
Me too! I also help create Debian, because it already fits my needs pretty well, but I enjoy making it better. But what I really love is that if some other FOSS distribution became a better fit for me, I can either switch to that, or I can try to improve Debian to match/exceed it.
For anything real (try to publish to a peer reviewed journal using .doc!) use latex.
Well, I really *wish* you were right about this, but unfortunately, most genuinely reputable[1] peer reviewed journals outside of math and sciences demand .doc format. And sadly, some scientific and engineering journals are starting to ask for it as well.
On a different note, I love LaTeX, but I wish it had better support for Unicode. I know there is some support for it, but last time I tried, it wasn't great...
[1] (You can argue, and I agree, that if they were really reputable, they wouldn't ask for .doc; but they are at least respected in their field.)
Is it really fair that a taller student's vote counts more than a shorter student's?
[...]At the count of three, each student either points the north pole of their magnet to the front of the room (for yes) or the rear of the room (for no).
What about the poor students who can't count to three? How heartless...
Ah, my petard is hoist by my lack of literal interpretation. Oh well...
Your lack of literal interpretation is launching your explosives into the air? =)
1) Micky Mouse is not going into the public domain. the earliest Mickey Mouse shorts would be going into public domain, not the character himself
If the earliest Micky Mouse work was in the PD, Micky himself would be as well. Other works with him in it that were still under copyright wouldn't be affected, but anyone could make a new work with Micky in it as long as they were derived from the PD version of Micky from those shorts.
2) extending copyrights is more evil than dumping toxins into drinking water? destroying local economies? exploiting slave-like and child labor to produce tennis shoes? profiting off of warmongering in the US and around the globe? yeah, that stuff's kinda bad... but trying to stop their IP from going into the public domain? THAT'S SO TEH EVIL!!!!!!1
The most nefarious evil is also the most subtle.
(First of all, let me just point out that I agree with almost everything you said from a *legal* standpoint. My main point could be summarized as "law != morality.") Anyway, here are some thoughts:
If you want to try and make a case in front of anyone - judge, jury, or otherwise . . .
So judges and juries define morality? Sure, their job is to interpret the law, but laws != morals.
The assumption of immorality comes from the same thing. You have no right to steal someone else's belongings, right? You have no moral right to take without permission, right? The law clearly establish copyrights, even if some areas are unclear.
Again, making generalizations and assumptions. To answer the questions, no, it's not always wrong to take someone else's belongings. If given the chance, I think most people would rightly hasten to take away the firearm belonging to the person who is aiming it at them. And no, taking without permission isn't instrinsically wrong either--it depends on the circumstances.
Copying something doesn't take it away from someone else. Violating copyright is not stealing, by any definition, or in any legal sense. Violating copyright isn't even always illegal--for instances, in call cases covered by "fair use", or in countries that don't have laws against it. Copyrights are not "posessions", but are artificial monopolies granted by government, which had better reflect at all times the will of the people, or it is itself immoral.
But, even given that stealing things is *usually* immoral and *usually* illegal, and violating copyright is *usually* illegal and *sometimes* immoral, your statement is still non-sequetor: law != morality.
So from a moral, social, and legal perspective, you're doing something wrong. It doesn't get any clearer than that. If you want to change society and the law, go for it - but you'll certainly have to convince people that it's moral for you to take their work without paying them in return.
No. From a legal perspective, you may indeed be doing something wrong. From a social perspective, it's pretty divided. From a moral perspective, it may be perfectly fine; it certainly depends on circumstances. Society doesn't define morality.
You may not agree, but just think about it. I'm not proposing that everyone should break laws just to get what they want--but more often than not the "law" is just a kludge upon true justice.
I don't really have time to argue about it more--I don't know if we really disagree or if we're just nitpicking different aspects. Anyway, if you reply, I'll read it, but I won't have time to post in this thread again. See ya around. =)
So in that, it is possible to make a fair use case in personal use; but I suspect you'd lose because of the immorality of the thing.
Sure, if you a priori assume that it is immoral. What is your basis for saying it's immoral? "So in that, it is possible to make a case for jaywalking; but I suspect you'd lose because of the immorality of the thing." Yeah, so copying is absolutely an immoral thing, just like jaywalking. If you make baseless assumptions,you're going to come to baseless conclusions.
There is a reasonable expectation that you would have to pay for the album, because that's how the world works.
Oh, this is a jewel. I suppose if you lived in the middle ages, you'd say there is a reasonable expectation that you would have to give up your lands and freedom and swear fealty to the King, and anything else was immoral, because that's how the world works. The world "works" however we, the people, make it work.
I use a trashcan at my job. Does that make me a sanitation worker?
No, stupid. It makes you a sanitation engineer . ;)
+5 Ironic =)
I have every right . . .
Not necessarily . . .
. . . to stand on my lawn . . .
Sure, assuming there aren't city ordinances about the percentage of your property that can have grass on it, regulations limiting watering, and covenants restricting the amount and kind of activity you perform publicly in your neighborhood.
. . . with my hair on fire . . .
Actually, it is most likely against several federal and local laws to light your own hair on fire.
. . . screaming about whatever it is I believe . . .
Creating a public disturbance is a misdemeanor in most justidictions . . .
PNG is not widely supported by browsers.
Riiiight. The only browser that doesn't support them is lynx.
. . . and add on-line license verification to finally defeat those pesky pirates, while only mildly inconveniencing their legitimate buyers.
I think you meant: "finally defeat their legitimate buyers, while only mildly inconveniencing those pesky pirates."
MS has released the source for its .net system
It's not the whole system; it doesn't include any libraries. It's basically worthless for development.
Just as opensource, just as free..
Wha..? You didn't read the license, did you?
who would have thought that would happen?
People who are misguided and don't have all the facts?
Sorry, Copyright doesn't work that way; maybe it should, but it absolutely does not as it exists currently. Perhaps you're thinking of trademarks, which can be invalidated? No matter how much you ignore copyright violations, your copyright will never[1] go "poof".
[1] Never: meaning not in your lifetime + 90 years or so...
The posted MD5 did match the source I got from another source, though.
I saw a torrent posted, but it wasn't modded up (maybe it is by now). In any case, I'll mention it here so folks are browsing this thread might notice it. =)
Doing a diff on the two, I see additional files (from loading it in an IDE, it looks) but no changes to actual source code. So still no conspiracy to report, darn it. :-(
I agree a conspiracy would have been much more fun...
Because they don't match.
Yeah, good ol' meaningless statistics.
Guess what? I'm a scientist, I believe in God, and I've *never been surveyed* about it. In fact, most scientists I work with have never been surveyed either, and many of them believe in God as well.
If that logic held, Slashdot would owe me millions of dollars by now.
I didn't realize their subscription service was that expensive!
* "piracy" means "sea piracy" idiots will be ignored.
You're right: piracy could just as easily happen on a lake or a river; maybe even in a swimming pool!
Or, if you realize that the boy is really Draco Malfoy. Slicked-back blonde-almost-white hair, smarmy-smug expression; it's him, all right.
$799 seems quite expensive. All the emacs I've ever used have been free.
I, for one, won't believe it until netcraft confirms it.
Why SHIFT ; UNSHIFT w q SHIFT ! UNSHIFT ENTER
instead of SHIFT z z UNSHIFT ENTER
?
Sounds like a waste of keystrokes to me... ;)
HP, the choice is yours, adapt or die.
Maybe they should consult with themselves to see how they can better leverage Adaptive Enterprise technology to integrate their business practices and IT services. That should help them adapt in "real-time," after all.