Or at least close to bingo. If I mod a texture on a UT level and *distribute the level* I am a pirate.
If I distribute the *texture* with a routine to install it in an existing UT installation I have in no way violated the UT ip.
Similarly if I rip a copy of a picture of Bill Gates from the Microsoft website, draw a mustache on it, and redistribute it, I *may* ( yes, only may) be guilty of violating their ip, but if I sell you a Sharpie(tm) with directions on how to add a mustache to Bill's picture I absolutely am not. My instructions are *my* original ip.
It's called *copy*right people. Copyright. Not "total control"right.
If you don't want people to fuck with your hardware there's a simple way to prevent it . . . *don't sell it to them.*
This post was either totally doofey. . . or the slickest troll I've ever seen.:)
As has been pointed out already Linux needs Norton Utilities like a fish needs a man, or something like that.
But VisiCalc doesn't need Wine. It's an obsolete *DOS* program that only a few of us hardcore old timers have used in the last *decade.* Hell, most of the "kids" today have never even heard of VisiCalc. It's not only obsolete, but by definition is the *most* obsolete a spreadsheet can possibly be. . . and runs great under DOS emulation or FreeDos anyway.
And did for years before Wine even existed.
As for the purpose of Wine, . . . you're wrong.
KFG
Without getting into the politics. . .
on
Dealing with the RIAA?
·
· Score: 5, Informative
the first thing you have to realize is that it *isn't the RIAA's music.* They are just a trade orginization representing the interests of their members.
*You* are not its customer. Its members are. You absolutely can't understand anything that's going on in this whole issue until you get that absolutely clear in your head.
They are a PR/Legal/Lobbying entity, they don't even do marketing, that is left up to the individual copyright holders and they certainly don't do sales. They represent, ummmmmmm, interests. Of their members. Not you. Their members.
Remember that music is *published,* so look at it this way, if you wanted to publish copies of your favorite bit of abandonware who would you contact? Not a software trade group. You'd contact the publisher. The idea is pretty straightforward. You would have to contact them directly, have their lawyers talk to your lawyers, negotiate terms, draw up a contract, etc..
That's exactly what you have to do with any published work, including music.
With one caveat. Congress recognized that music was somehow different from most copyrighted works and established the idea of a *statutory* license. This license cannot be denied. It's terms are set by the Federal Government, not the copyright holder. These terms include the payment of a *mechanical* royalty.
If your use of a published piece of music meets the terms set forth by the statute for payment of mechanical royalties negotiation of an individual contract is unnecessary. The contract terms are stipulated by law. You must, however, still contract by filling the proper forms with the copyright holder ( *or its representative* ).
Now in some bizarre twist of fate the RIAA has been designated as the admistrator of internet related *mechanical* royalties, and ONLY mechanical royalties, any use that does not meet the statute must still be individually negotiated with the actual copyright holder, which is NOT the RIAA, it is one of its members ( unless the copyright holder is not an RIAA member, then you must still contact and make arangements with the actual copyright holder).
This put the RIAA in an interesting position. They aren't an orinization suited for this purpose. What to do? Start a new orginization of course. THIS is that orginization:
http://www.soundexchange.com/
These are the people you need to contact to arrange the payment of mechanical royalties to those copyright holders who have designated the RIAA as their representative in such matters. Some of them apparently even gone so far as to designate Soundexchange as the representative to negotiate nonmechanical royalties as well, but my guess is that's only the smaller recording companies who do not retain their own lawyers for that purpose.
You'll find the site contains a wealth of information and even copies of the appropriate forms.
The people you talked to at the RIAA should have simply refered you to them, but they're all administrative PR types, i.e., dickheads.
IANAL, but I have been the owner of a small music publishing company, although of the pre-internet variety. With all this RIAA/DMCA crap who knows, I might just get back into the "biz" as a small independant specializing in small artists/labels who also think the RIAA are dickheads.
I doubt it though. The entire industry is too filthy for my tastes these days.
Orginally a working model of the invention was one of the required submissions to the patent office. This caused something of a logistical problem and so the requirement was eventually dropped, but it shows that the writers of the original patent laws ( Jefferson primarily) understood the problems the current system faces.
"The Patent Act of 1790 (H.R. 41, introduced February 16, 1790, passed March 10, 1790) was crafted in part by Thomas Jefferson. As a result, it incorporated many of his beliefs including requirements for patents to have models submitted with all applications. Jefferson believed that ideas should not be patentable, rather patents should be issued only for physical inventions that have been reduced to practice."
This is precisely what Henry Ford had in mind. Alcohol produced locally from locally grown corn.
Standard Oil saw things differently however.
Henry also posited that cars should be made of plastic rather than metal and produced a plastic Model T in the late 20's. Where did he get his feed stock for making the plastic? Locally grown soybeans.
US Steel and Standard Oil saw things differently.
By the way, you can get sugar, and make alcohol from it, from beets, quite growable anywhere in the US.
One of the hurdles to pass now though is that the radical "enviromentalists" now oppose any such renewable resources for fuel. Go figure. They have the idea that every ear of corn you feed to a car means some human is going hungry.
Simpletons.
KFG
Run Logan, run!
on
The Aging Gamer
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Gee, who woulda thunk that *old* people might like playing games? It's unseemly I tell you. Next thing you know 35 year olds will expect to be *real* racing drivers, mercenaries, adventurers, golfers, fighter pilots and, ummmm. . . Tertroids.
We have to put a stop to this. Kill 'em. Kill 'em at 30. Kill 'em all!
Here's another hot newsflash from the blindingly obvious findings desk, your parents still " do it." Not only that, they "do it" more often, and *better,* than you do.
"Lots of people have won the Nobel Prize, but to win it with an IQ of only 124, now *that's* an accomplishment!"
He always took great pride in being a "dumb" winner.
Of course there are many who would consider 124 pretty damned smart, but Feynman hung out with people like Hans Bethe, Neils Bohr, Albert Einstien and those other "dummies."
There is a difference between rare and unheard off. I'd also point out that stating the events were apparently unrelated indicates not only some curiosity, but that some investigation due to that curiosity had occured.
Being dealt a Royal Flush is rare, it is notable, it happens. Why, and why on *that* hand?
Because shit like that happens. By chance.
What were the odds of being dealt that last hand you got that wasn't a Royal Flush?
Ah! If you knew the anwer to that you'ld know a lot more about "coincidence" than you apparently do now.
By the way, why do you suppose they call it "astronomical" odds?
I can't quickly find any references relating explicitly to the use of sound sensing on glass, which ruling was quite recent, but I've found several links to the unbrella decision just over a year ago that set the framework on which this decision was based.
Note that this decision says that the mere infrared mapping of a private residence is intrusion and contra fourth ammendment protections. Note also that the further one gets from a "residential" setting the less the fourth ammendment applies, but has already been extended to business conversations and closed phone booths.
As for counter measures I guess expense is a relative measure. Your suggested technique would work quite well, but the mere cost of double paned glass throughout a house might seem excesive to some, although the people who make it claim repayment in the reduction of heating losses. The double paned glass itself would be largely effective at preventing such surviellence and the inclusion of "subterfuge noise" into the cavity would make it completely effective.
However, the direct mechanical introduction of "subterfuge noise" to a single pane itself would be equally effective and could be accomplished for about $10/window by the technologically savvy.
The simplest protection is the common padded drape, although these themselves are expensive, but have the advantage of being a common household item and thus don't raise any "triggers" of suspicion. The disadvantage being the loss of the use of the window as a window.
I rather strongly suspect that glazing with acrylic ( plexiglas ) in a nonridged mounting ( felt gasket rather than putty ) would also nullify such surviellence techniques. Acrylic lacks the exteme ridgidity of glass that makes such techiques possible, and due to its molecular makeup is also vibration self damping.
It is perfectly legal to stick a microphone out your window and record everything that happens to make sound. In NYS it is perfectly legal to record a private conversation so long as *one* of the actual participants knows it is happening.
I also happens to be legal to record the image of anything, by still or moving pictures, that happens in a public setting.
This is why the cops don't just arrest everyone with a camera.
There is an assumption, like it or not, that when you appear in public you are appearing. . . ummmmm, in public.
This is true even for celebraties who have trademarked their image.
If you don't want to be seen don't stand up from behind the bush.
Look, you can have the slim and sexy Swiss Army knife. ..*or* you can have the one with all the doodads. What's more, to get all the doodads you want you might even have to have *two* of big mothers, each for a special range of abilities.
That's just the way it is. I canna change the laws of physics Cap'n.
"If you wanted to condemn a country for ignoring UN resolutions, having weapons of mass destruction, expanding its territory through violence and bloodshed, and treating ethnic groups badly, not to mention being lead by a nasty man, you could have picked the US itself."
You understand, don't you, that this sentence of yours only *strengthens* the parent post's argument?
Allow me to reproduce a 'cracked' copy of a digitally available text, right here, right now:
Now is the winter of our discontent made glorious summer by this sun of York, and all the clouds that lowered upon our house in the deep busom of the ocean buried. Now our brows are bound with vitorious wreaths, our brusied arms hung up for monuments, our stern alarums changed to merry meetings, our dreadful marches to delightful measures. Grim visaged war hath smoothed his wrinkled front, and now, instead of mounting barbed steads to fright the souls of fearful adversaries, he capers nimbly in a ladies chamber to the lacivious pleasing of a lute.
etc., etc., etc..
How did I accomplish this grand task? I *memorized it.* Yes, the whole frickin' play, from start to finish and I'm not exactly the only one. I personally know dozens of others who have done the same thing. It's actually not that difficult once you've decided to do it.
But wait, don't buy now, there's MORE!
Oh sure, a 4 hour Shakespeare play, anyone can memorize that, but what about. ..the Bible?
Sure, across the world there are literally thousands of people who have actually managed to commit the entire Bible to memory. And these people have nothing on the Indian Pandits who memorize the Vedic texts. These people memorize them, then memorize every other word, then every third, etc.. Then they repeat the process *backwards.*
So, is every digital device capable of storing at least 256 bits of data going to have to have an installed database of every text in the known universe to compare against what I manually enter into it? Nevermind this digital to analog conversion device I can interface directly with my brain called. . . a pen.
The fact that I can, and may have to, rely on the circumvention device of Farenheit 451 gives you some idea of the whole moral temperature of digitally locking books. It ain't bookburning but it's treading powerfully close on its heels. In fact, the only way for e-books to ever triumph will be. ..to burn all the books.
Slashdot Mirror
Or at least close to bingo. If I mod a texture on a UT level and *distribute the level* I am a pirate.
If I distribute the *texture* with a routine to install it in an existing UT installation I have in no way violated the UT ip.
Similarly if I rip a copy of a picture of Bill Gates from the Microsoft website, draw a mustache on it, and redistribute it, I *may* ( yes, only may) be guilty of violating their ip, but if I sell you a Sharpie(tm) with directions on how to add a mustache to Bill's picture I absolutely am not. My instructions are *my* original ip.
It's called *copy*right people. Copyright. Not "total control"right.
If you don't want people to fuck with your hardware there's a simple way to prevent it . . . *don't sell it to them.*
KFG
Actually I was refering to something a bit more obscure. It's from a Stan Freeberg satire of the recording session of "Rock Island Line."
KFG
Switch to Windows, more Microsoft employees chose it than any other brand!
KFG
I fu'ed you, I fu'ed you?
(And anybody who can accurately identify my comedic reference wins a prize)
KFG
This post was either totally doofey. . . or the slickest troll I've ever seen. :)
As has been pointed out already Linux needs Norton Utilities like a fish needs a man, or something like that.
But VisiCalc doesn't need Wine. It's an obsolete *DOS* program that only a few of us hardcore old timers have used in the last *decade.* Hell, most of the "kids" today have never even heard of VisiCalc. It's not only obsolete, but by definition is the *most* obsolete a spreadsheet can possibly be. . . and runs great under DOS emulation or FreeDos anyway.
And did for years before Wine even existed.
As for the purpose of Wine, . . . you're wrong.
KFG
the first thing you have to realize is that it *isn't the RIAA's music.* They are just a trade orginization representing the interests of their members.
*You* are not its customer. Its members are. You absolutely can't understand anything that's going on in this whole issue until you get that absolutely clear in your head.
They are a PR/Legal/Lobbying entity, they don't even do marketing, that is left up to the individual copyright holders and they certainly don't do sales. They represent, ummmmmmm, interests. Of their members. Not you. Their members.
Remember that music is *published,* so look at it this way, if you wanted to publish copies of your favorite bit of abandonware who would you contact? Not a software trade group. You'd contact the publisher. The idea is pretty straightforward. You would have to contact them directly, have their lawyers talk to your lawyers, negotiate terms, draw up a contract, etc..
That's exactly what you have to do with any published work, including music.
With one caveat. Congress recognized that music was somehow different from most copyrighted works and established the idea of a *statutory* license. This license cannot be denied. It's terms are set by the Federal Government, not the copyright holder. These terms include the payment of a *mechanical* royalty.
If your use of a published piece of music meets the terms set forth by the statute for payment of mechanical royalties negotiation of an individual contract is unnecessary. The contract terms are stipulated by law. You must, however, still contract by filling the proper forms with the copyright holder ( *or its representative* ).
Now in some bizarre twist of fate the RIAA has been designated as the admistrator of internet related *mechanical* royalties, and ONLY mechanical royalties, any use that does not meet the statute must still be individually negotiated with the actual copyright holder, which is NOT the RIAA, it is one of its members ( unless the copyright holder is not an RIAA member, then you must still contact and make arangements with the actual copyright holder).
This put the RIAA in an interesting position. They aren't an orinization suited for this purpose. What to do? Start a new orginization of course. THIS is that orginization:
http://www.soundexchange.com/
These are the people you need to contact to arrange the payment of mechanical royalties to those copyright holders who have designated the RIAA as their representative in such matters. Some of them apparently even gone so far as to designate Soundexchange as the representative to negotiate nonmechanical royalties as well, but my guess is that's only the smaller recording companies who do not retain their own lawyers for that purpose.
You'll find the site contains a wealth of information and even copies of the appropriate forms.
The people you talked to at the RIAA should have simply refered you to them, but they're all administrative PR types, i.e., dickheads.
IANAL, but I have been the owner of a small music publishing company, although of the pre-internet variety. With all this RIAA/DMCA crap who knows, I might just get back into the "biz" as a small independant specializing in small artists/labels who also think the RIAA are dickheads.
I doubt it though. The entire industry is too filthy for my tastes these days.
KFG
Orginally a working model of the invention was one of the required submissions to the patent office. This caused something of a logistical problem and so the requirement was eventually dropped, but it shows that the writers of the original patent laws ( Jefferson primarily) understood the problems the current system faces.
"The Patent Act of 1790 (H.R. 41, introduced February 16, 1790, passed March 10, 1790) was crafted in part by Thomas Jefferson. As a result, it incorporated many of his beliefs including requirements for patents to have models submitted with all applications. Jefferson believed that ideas should not be patentable, rather patents should be issued only for physical inventions that have been reduced to practice."
http://www.m-cam.com/~watsonj/usptohistory.html
KFG
This is precisely what Henry Ford had in mind. Alcohol produced locally from locally grown corn.
Standard Oil saw things differently however.
Henry also posited that cars should be made of plastic rather than metal and produced a plastic Model T in the late 20's. Where did he get his feed stock for making the plastic? Locally grown soybeans.
US Steel and Standard Oil saw things differently.
By the way, you can get sugar, and make alcohol from it, from beets, quite growable anywhere in the US.
One of the hurdles to pass now though is that the radical "enviromentalists" now oppose any such renewable resources for fuel. Go figure. They have the idea that every ear of corn you feed to a car means some human is going hungry.
Simpletons.
KFG
Gee, who woulda thunk that *old* people might like playing games? It's unseemly I tell you. Next thing you know 35 year olds will expect to be *real* racing drivers, mercenaries, adventurers, golfers, fighter pilots and, ummmm. . . Tertroids.
We have to put a stop to this. Kill 'em. Kill 'em at 30. Kill 'em all!
Here's another hot newsflash from the blindingly obvious findings desk, your parents still " do it." Not only that, they "do it" more often, and *better,* than you do.
KFG
Really. And my ethical IQ must be ok because Slashdot says my karma is excellent!
KFG
"Lots of people have won the Nobel Prize, but to win it with an IQ of only 124, now *that's* an accomplishment!"
He always took great pride in being a "dumb" winner.
Of course there are many who would consider 124 pretty damned smart, but Feynman hung out with people like Hans Bethe, Neils Bohr, Albert Einstien and those other "dummies."
KFG
There is a difference between rare and unheard off. I'd also point out that stating the events were apparently unrelated indicates not only some curiosity, but that some investigation due to that curiosity had occured.
Being dealt a Royal Flush is rare, it is notable, it happens. Why, and why on *that* hand?
Because shit like that happens. By chance.
What were the odds of being dealt that last hand you got that wasn't a Royal Flush?
Ah! If you knew the anwer to that you'ld know a lot more about "coincidence" than you apparently do now.
By the way, why do you suppose they call it "astronomical" odds?
KFG
you could have just anylized that white powder. You certainly had a few "chemists" available to you to do the work.
KFG
legs. Which are, by the way, always exuding water. . . containing small amounts of sodium chloride.
make fertilizer, so we can grow more plants, so we can make more fertilizer, so we can. . .
Isn't this what the ad said was wrong with cocaine?
KFG
And anyone who works in the "plant industry" could tell you ignorant scientists in the mineral industry that plant roots *disturb the soil.*
In fact, that's kind of their job.
KFG
I can't quickly find any references relating explicitly to the use of sound sensing on glass, which ruling was quite recent, but I've found several links to the unbrella decision just over a year ago that set the framework on which this decision was based.
. ZS .html
M C: a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/11june20011200/ww w.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/00pdf/99-8508.pdf+ky llo&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
Note that this decision says that the mere infrared mapping of a private residence is intrusion and contra fourth ammendment protections. Note also that the further one gets from a "residential" setting the less the fourth ammendment applies, but has already been extended to business conversations and closed phone booths.
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-8508
http://www.crmdaily.com/perl/story/11196.html
And here's the actual decision:
http://216.239.37.100/search?q=cache:ulKyO3lrso
As for counter measures I guess expense is a relative measure. Your suggested technique would work quite well, but the mere cost of double paned glass throughout a house might seem excesive to some, although the people who make it claim repayment in the reduction of heating losses. The double paned glass itself would be largely effective at preventing such surviellence and the inclusion of "subterfuge noise" into the cavity would make it completely effective.
However, the direct mechanical introduction of "subterfuge noise" to a single pane itself would be equally effective and could be accomplished for about $10/window by the technologically savvy.
The simplest protection is the common padded drape, although these themselves are expensive, but have the advantage of being a common household item and thus don't raise any "triggers" of suspicion. The disadvantage being the loss of the use of the window as a window.
I rather strongly suspect that glazing with acrylic ( plexiglas ) in a nonridged mounting ( felt gasket rather than putty ) would also nullify such surviellence techniques. Acrylic lacks the exteme ridgidity of glass that makes such techiques possible, and due to its molecular makeup is also vibration self damping.
KFG
Yes, and I'm also aware that the US Supreme Court has already ruled this as illegal without a warrant.
It doesn't mean it won't be done, but at least they won't be able to admit to it or use the recording as court evidence, in the US. YMMV.
There are also fairly easy and inexpensive means of thwarting this technique, but few will apply them.
KFG
It is perfectly legal to stick a microphone out your window and record everything that happens to make sound. In NYS it is perfectly legal to record a private conversation so long as *one* of the actual participants knows it is happening.
I also happens to be legal to record the image of anything, by still or moving pictures, that happens in a public setting.
This is why the cops don't just arrest everyone with a camera.
There is an assumption, like it or not, that when you appear in public you are appearing. . . ummmmm, in public.
This is true even for celebraties who have trademarked their image.
If you don't want to be seen don't stand up from behind the bush.
KFG
it should fit on a single floppy.
.*or* you can have the one with all the doodads. What's more, to get all the doodads you want you might even have to have *two* of big mothers, each for a special range of abilities.
Look, you can have the slim and sexy Swiss Army knife. .
That's just the way it is. I canna change the laws of physics Cap'n.
KFG
"If you wanted to condemn a country for ignoring UN resolutions, having weapons of mass destruction, expanding its territory through violence and bloodshed, and treating ethnic groups badly, not to mention being lead by a nasty man, you could have picked the US itself."
You understand, don't you, that this sentence of yours only *strengthens* the parent post's argument?
KFG
Allow me to reproduce a 'cracked' copy of a digitally available text, right here, right now:
.the Bible?
.to burn all the books.
Now is the winter of our discontent made glorious summer by this sun of York, and all the clouds that lowered upon our house in the deep busom of the ocean buried. Now our brows are bound with vitorious wreaths, our brusied arms hung up for monuments, our stern alarums changed to merry meetings, our dreadful marches to delightful measures. Grim visaged war hath smoothed his wrinkled front, and now, instead of mounting barbed steads to fright the souls of fearful adversaries, he capers nimbly in a ladies chamber to the lacivious pleasing of a lute.
etc., etc., etc..
How did I accomplish this grand task? I *memorized it.* Yes, the whole frickin' play, from start to finish and I'm not exactly the only one. I personally know dozens of others who have done the same thing. It's actually not that difficult once you've decided to do it.
But wait, don't buy now, there's MORE!
Oh sure, a 4 hour Shakespeare play, anyone can memorize that, but what about. .
Sure, across the world there are literally thousands of people who have actually managed to commit the entire Bible to memory. And these people have nothing on the Indian Pandits who memorize the Vedic texts. These people memorize them, then memorize every other word, then every third, etc.. Then they repeat the process *backwards.*
So, is every digital device capable of storing at least 256 bits of data going to have to have an installed database of every text in the known universe to compare against what I manually enter into it? Nevermind this digital to analog conversion device I can interface directly with my brain called. . . a pen.
The fact that I can, and may have to, rely on the circumvention device of Farenheit 451 gives you some idea of the whole moral temperature of digitally locking books. It ain't bookburning but it's treading powerfully close on its heels. In fact, the only way for e-books to ever triumph will be. .
KFG
Yeah, it's probably well thought out and designed beforehand, simple, and works.
Hardly commercial quality.
KFG
Sure, but I think it would be more appropriate if someone who speaks the language does it.
KFG
From the headline I was hoping we'd finally gotten software in Romansch!
KFG