There isn't anything inherently wrong with other aesthetics. Form should follow function, but that doesn't mean you can't embellish things a bit.
Inherently? No. Pragmatically? Whenever the form affects the cost of the function, some may object (e.g. switching off "Aero" on Vista. Switching to "Classic View" on early XP).
If the use of that design costs (in implementation) the host an arm and a leg (e.g. in terms of CPU and memory), I might have an issue with it. Remember what effect had disabling the Aero UI on Vista? Or switching the desktop to "Classic View" on early XP?
Say whatever one may, no-one - maybe not even the author - can "improve" on a specific artistic creation
That's an interesting stance to try to defend. Do you realise that taking that idea literally would make entire genres of art impossible?
By doing whatever you want from the list above, you are at best transforming the original art (if not plainly deconstructing it and reusing parts of it). Now transforming:
1. is not similar with improving 2. may be allowed by the original creator (in most of the cases), but I don't think the exclusion of NC/ND needs to be make a law that doesn't admit exceptions - that is, I don't think the exclusion of NC/ND will make a better context for creative efforts resulting in works to be released under CC.
I already admitted that NC/ND are not offering the entire liberty/freedom one may want, but asking that a work be "fully free or not a Creative Commons work" sounds a bit like extremist - a NC/ND work is offered "as it is" to the commons, even if it is offered "as it is only".
Eliminating NC/ND from CC coms with the risk of the authors (that would still want them) to adopt the position like if you don't want my creation to be called CC because I don't allow the full freedom, go f*** yourself and take your licence with you: I'll create a license on my own. As an author, I have the right to do it and I consider my art more important than your extremist license. Just who has anything to win from this?
Say whatever one may, no-one - maybe not even the author - can "improve" on a specific artistic creation
What about video games? Clearly they can transmit and produce emotions, tell a story, etc, etc, as good as any other art form. But just as clearly, they can be patched, modified, and may have to synch to technical advances. Was Portal an artistic creation or an engineering creation?
Brilliant example. I haven't thought of it and it doesn't seem a trivial questions. From the top of my head, it seems games are mostly licensed as software (i.e. engineering), but... how much should it be so, I can't tell. I'll have to sit on it for some time.
My apologies, when reading TFA, I missed the conditional in the phrase of:
For example, if Wikipedia were under a NC license, it would be impossible to sell printed or CD copies of Wikipedia and reach communities without internet access because every single editor of Wikipedia would need to give permission for their work to be sold.
Since when has hydrogen peroxide been toxic?
To this day, I still pour it on my cuts to help clean the wound before applying antibiotic ointment and bandages.
A concentrated solution of alcohol would also act as disinfectant (highly hygroscopic, extracts water from cells, kill germs)... but would still be toxic ingested in certain amounts or injected straight into the blood stream.
As to why hydrogen peroxide is toxic - capable of generating atomic oxygen and free radicals. While on external wounds it's beneficial (degrades the proteins, accelerates coagulation), one wouldn't like this to happen inside the body.
Thanks. TFS's link had nothing more than some British woman's voice to offer.
He's got something special going on there, but saying he can go 2 octaves below a normal bass voice is a probably pushing it, let alone 8 octaves below the end of a piano's range.
Based on what my ear was able to hear (highly unreliable, I know), I say he can do at least as low as 24-30 Hz (one octave lower that the power network hum).
One of these days and just from curiosity, I'll try to rip the sound from the YouTube videos, pass it through a FFT and see what it'll show.
(eg distributing Wikipedia on offline media, in communities without internet access), what's wrong with contacting the author to ask for another license, to be granted (or not) on a case by case basis?
Can you think of any practical way to ask the thousand of contributors of Wikipedia for an exception?
Well... though luck... what would you find preferable:
1. not have a Wikipedia at all (not even online) because a less restrictive license would not have attracted the same participation
2. have an online version and no offline version.
Before jumping up with the accusation of "false dichotomy", note that I am not excluding
a. an attempt to still try to "negotiate" a more liberal distribution license with Wikipedia as an organisation... It may or may not be successful... but, as the "SOPA blackout protest" demonstrate, there are chances for the Wikipedia to act as an organisation rather than a heterogeneous group of authors (that is to say: it is not me to push the problem in a "false dichotomy")
b. would point a. fail, nobody stops anyone in starting Wikipedia (under another name) with a more liberal license.... you know? Just to check if the level of participation...
In my mind, the request to drop NC/ND from CC is akin to asking the Open Source community to abolish GPL and use only BSD derived licences.
No it is not. It is akin to abolish any field-of-use terms in the GPL or the BSD (which they not have). NC and ND basically say: That work is free but only if you are not using it for Xxxx and Zzzz. Which means it is not free at all.
The cited resource define the term in the "patent license" genus. Are you sure the same apply for the copyright protection?
I'm one of the guys behind an open source music hardware project (meeblip.com) and strongly against NC/ND restrictions. They exist out of fear and stand counter to the central tenant of open source (*anyone* should be able to study, modify, distribute, make and sell the design or a derivative work based on that design).
Sorry,
The key assumption in your argumentation: "open source software/hardware" and "open artistic creation" are identical. I assert that there's a fundamental difference between the two:
1. software/hardware is an engineering problem, and the results can be improved, polished, maintained over time in sync with technological advances.
2. By contrast, an artistic creation is meant to transmit/produce emotions/feelings/sensations etc... For some creations, the author may feel that any change in the expression would alter too much the intentions s/he had when creating it Say whatever one may, no-one - maybe not even the author - can "improve" on a specific artistic creation
Yes, you can try to use an existing creation to build something equally appealing to the people, but in doing so you are going to dilute the original authors intentions (if not outright destroying them entirely).
Pink Floyd's attorney Robert Howe describes the band's albums as "seamless pieces." No-one who's heard 'The Dark Side Of The Moon' would quibble with that.
You know, I do agree with that and not only in respect with The Dark side of the moon.
My opinion is: the "open source" or "closed license" character for an artistic creation is irrelevant - the creator's wish is to be respected. Anything else would show a lack of respect for the original creative act, which I would say is more dangerous for society than the potential loss of another derivative creation.
I fail to see how dropping NC/ND types from CC v4.0 would be a benefit.
If the authors would really want a license that amounts to one/both of the NC/ND and there's none to reference on the CC site, they'll specify them expressly; so "hiding" them from the CCv4.0 set of licenses won't bring more "liberty" for the community.
Also, if an author releases the creation with NC/ND clauses, it doesn't make their creation "absolutely non-Commons" - granted, not the same degree of freedom, but neither completely "private". If, for some purposes, somebody needs exceptions (eg distributing Wikipedia on offline media, in communities without internet access), what's wrong with contacting the author to ask for another license, to be granted (or not) on a case by case basis?
In my mind, the request to drop NC/ND from CC is akin to asking the Open Source community to abolish GPL and use only BSD derived licences.
New things? Really? Wake me up when they managed to teach me string theory in my sleep so well that I can recall it with a smell or tone while awake.
My point: they discovered that, while asleep, the brain is able to reinforce and create relations between the things/experiences learned while awake? If so, how is this new?
Reflective should be easy. Just make it white. You could probably adapt the makeup used by clowns - just make it longer-lasting, non-melting and flame-retardant.
Be quick... go patent your idea! See... zinc oxide is white and guaranteed to stay on your face up to 1975 C. Also, used for quite a long time in Sun screens. So stupid of USM not trying that first.
(hint: what you want for firefighting is a paint that is reflecting in IR - you care less how "white" it is in UV-Vis. And IR radiation is only one side of the protection; the other one is non-radiative heat transfer - direct contact with hot objects and hot gasses. For this, low thermal conductivity - aka thermal insulation - is the key. But anyway, in both cases, heat absorption will hurt rather than help).
Can somone explain why this is modded 'funny'? It should be informative. Eliminating attack vectors is the only sure-fire defense.
Hmmm... seems you are right... the maximum security for a computer is achieved by uninstalling the OS and keeping the computer powered off.
(I'm not saying you advice this, but just to put into evidence that security is not the objective that anyone would like maximized).
As a firefighter, I don't really see what benefit this stuff will really bring to us, given that we're already supposed to be covered completely by our turnout gear.
What if the turnout gear can be made lighter by using the gel is some form? Would it be an advantage?
Why would firefighters need clear? So what if they painted their faces with some particular color?
Then you'd not know by the color of their skin if it's something wrong with their face.
Plus would clear actually work as well? Opaque would seem to be a better blocker than transparent or translucent?
The protection derives from reflective properties of the paint, not from absorption of the radiation. You certainly don't want the protection layer to absorb the heat.
Isn't this sorta like what's going on in the US with the Tea Party?
Naaah... the Tea Party is maintained by private initiative astroturfers - there's nothing better for efficiency than the free market... or so they say.
Why... pedaling of course. It makes a good business case for using the lower class to power the cars of the middle class (the upper class will continue to use oil powered cars). And also a boon for fast-food joints: cheap and rich "fuel" for the "pedallers" - I tell ye, US should try it instead of marching on the "trickle economy". Just imagine to get paid for actually exercising at the gym.
"The motivation behind the hack, the group claims, is to protest against banks, politicians and the hackers who have been captured by law enforcement agencies."
Banks, politicians, and hackers were captured by law enforcement agencies?
Because, in Sweden, they can't charge him until he's present.
Also, they cannot charge him until the investigation is complete which is the very reason for the arrest warrant. For the moment, the most Ny (the prosecutor) can say is that she intends to prosecute.
Slashdot Mirror
Why has nobody mentioned the penultimate in skeumorphic design, Microsoft BOB?
Made me curious: what is the ultimate in skeumorphic design (originated or not from MS)?
There isn't anything inherently wrong with other aesthetics. Form should follow function, but that doesn't mean you can't embellish things a bit.
Inherently? No. Pragmatically? Whenever the form affects the cost of the function, some may object (e.g. switching off "Aero" on Vista. Switching to "Classic View" on early XP).
I don't see the issue
It's just design.
If the use of that design costs (in implementation) the host an arm and a leg (e.g. in terms of CPU and memory), I might have an issue with it. Remember what effect had disabling the Aero UI on Vista? Or switching the desktop to "Classic View" on early XP?
Say whatever one may, no-one - maybe not even the author - can "improve" on a specific artistic creation
That's an interesting stance to try to defend. Do you realise that taking that idea literally would make entire genres of art impossible?
By doing whatever you want from the list above, you are at best transforming the original art (if not plainly deconstructing it and reusing parts of it). Now transforming:
1. is not similar with improving
2. may be allowed by the original creator (in most of the cases),
but I don't think the exclusion of NC/ND needs to be make a law that doesn't admit exceptions - that is, I don't think the exclusion of NC/ND will make a better context for creative efforts resulting in works to be released under CC.
I already admitted that NC/ND are not offering the entire liberty/freedom one may want, but asking that a work be "fully free or not a Creative Commons work" sounds a bit like extremist - a NC/ND work is offered "as it is" to the commons, even if it is offered "as it is only".
Eliminating NC/ND from CC coms with the risk of the authors (that would still want them) to adopt the position like if you don't want my creation to be called CC because I don't allow the full freedom, go f*** yourself and take your licence with you: I'll create a license on my own. As an author, I have the right to do it and I consider my art more important than your extremist license.
Just who has anything to win from this?
Say whatever one may, no-one - maybe not even the author - can "improve" on a specific artistic creation
What about video games? Clearly they can transmit and produce emotions, tell a story, etc, etc, as good as any other art form. But just as clearly, they can be patched, modified, and may have to synch to technical advances. Was Portal an artistic creation or an engineering creation?
Brilliant example. I haven't thought of it and it doesn't seem a trivial questions. From the top of my head, it seems games are mostly licensed as software (i.e. engineering), but ... how much should it be so, I can't tell. I'll have to sit on it for some time.
For example, if Wikipedia were under a NC license, it would be impossible to sell printed or CD copies of Wikipedia and reach communities without internet access because every single editor of Wikipedia would need to give permission for their work to be sold.
Thanks for the correction.
Since when has hydrogen peroxide been toxic? To this day, I still pour it on my cuts to help clean the wound before applying antibiotic ointment and bandages.
A concentrated solution of alcohol would also act as disinfectant (highly hygroscopic, extracts water from cells, kill germs)... but would still be toxic ingested in certain amounts or injected straight into the blood stream.
As to why hydrogen peroxide is toxic - capable of generating atomic oxygen and free radicals. While on external wounds it's beneficial (degrades the proteins, accelerates coagulation), one wouldn't like this to happen inside the body.
Thanks. TFS's link had nothing more than some British woman's voice to offer.
He's got something special going on there, but saying he can go 2 octaves below a normal bass voice is a probably pushing it, let alone 8 octaves below the end of a piano's range.
Based on what my ear was able to hear (highly unreliable, I know), I say he can do at least as low as 24-30 Hz (one octave lower that the power network hum). One of these days and just from curiosity, I'll try to rip the sound from the YouTube videos, pass it through a FFT and see what it'll show.
(eg distributing Wikipedia on offline media, in communities without internet access), what's wrong with contacting the author to ask for another license, to be granted (or not) on a case by case basis?
Can you think of any practical way to ask the thousand of contributors of Wikipedia for an exception?
Well... though luck... what would you find preferable:
1. not have a Wikipedia at all (not even online) because a less restrictive license would not have attracted the same participation
2. have an online version and no offline version.
Before jumping up with the accusation of "false dichotomy", note that I am not excluding
a. an attempt to still try to "negotiate" a more liberal distribution license with Wikipedia as an organisation... It may or may not be successful... but, as the "SOPA blackout protest" demonstrate, there are chances for the Wikipedia to act as an organisation rather than a heterogeneous group of authors (that is to say: it is not me to push the problem in a "false dichotomy")
b. would point a. fail, nobody stops anyone in starting Wikipedia (under another name) with a more liberal license.... you know? Just to check if the level of participation...
In my mind, the request to drop NC/ND from CC is akin to asking the Open Source community to abolish GPL and use only BSD derived licences.
No it is not. It is akin to abolish any field-of-use terms in the GPL or the BSD (which they not have). NC and ND basically say: That work is free but only if you are not using it for Xxxx and Zzzz. Which means it is not free at all.
The cited resource define the term in the "patent license" genus. Are you sure the same apply for the copyright protection?
I'm one of the guys behind an open source music hardware project (meeblip.com) and strongly against NC/ND restrictions. They exist out of fear and stand counter to the central tenant of open source (*anyone* should be able to study, modify, distribute, make and sell the design or a derivative work based on that design).
Sorry,
The key assumption in your argumentation: "open source software/hardware" and "open artistic creation" are identical. I assert that there's a fundamental difference between the two:
1. software/hardware is an engineering problem, and the results can be improved, polished, maintained over time in sync with technological advances.
2. By contrast, an artistic creation is meant to transmit/produce emotions/feelings/sensations etc... For some creations, the author may feel that any change in the expression would alter too much the intentions s/he had when creating it
Say whatever one may, no-one - maybe not even the author - can "improve" on a specific artistic creation
Yes, you can try to use an existing creation to build something equally appealing to the people, but in doing so you are going to dilute the original authors intentions (if not outright destroying them entirely).
Another example
Pink Floyd's attorney Robert Howe describes the band's albums as "seamless pieces." No-one who's heard 'The Dark Side Of The Moon' would quibble with that.
You know, I do agree with that and not only in respect with The Dark side of the moon.
My opinion is: the "open source" or "closed license" character for an artistic creation is irrelevant - the creator's wish is to be respected . Anything else would show a lack of respect for the original creative act, which I would say is more dangerous for society than the potential loss of another derivative creation.
Apparently he can (use good headphones or sub-woofer - otherwise is futile).
I really dislike that wikipedia won't accept NC stuff, though.
Why? What's wrong with this?
If the authors would really want a license that amounts to one/both of the NC/ND and there's none to reference on the CC site, they'll specify them expressly; so "hiding" them from the CCv4.0 set of licenses won't bring more "liberty" for the community.
Also, if an author releases the creation with NC/ND clauses, it doesn't make their creation "absolutely non-Commons" - granted, not the same degree of freedom, but neither completely "private".
If, for some purposes, somebody needs exceptions (eg distributing Wikipedia on offline media, in communities without internet access), what's wrong with contacting the author to ask for another license, to be granted (or not) on a case by case basis?
In my mind, the request to drop NC/ND from CC is akin to asking the Open Source community to abolish GPL and use only BSD derived licences.
My point: they discovered that, while asleep, the brain is able to reinforce and create relations between the things/experiences learned while awake? If so, how is this new?
Reflective should be easy. Just make it white. You could probably adapt the makeup used by clowns - just make it longer-lasting, non-melting and flame-retardant.
Be quick... go patent your idea! See... zinc oxide is white and guaranteed to stay on your face up to 1975 C. Also, used for quite a long time in Sun screens. So stupid of USM not trying that first.
(hint: what you want for firefighting is a paint that is reflecting in IR - you care less how "white" it is in UV-Vis.
And IR radiation is only one side of the protection; the other one is non-radiative heat transfer - direct contact with hot objects and hot gasses. For this, low thermal conductivity - aka thermal insulation - is the key. But anyway, in both cases, heat absorption will hurt rather than help).
Can somone explain why this is modded 'funny'? It should be informative. Eliminating attack vectors is the only sure-fire defense.
Hmmm... seems you are right... the maximum security for a computer is achieved by uninstalling the OS and keeping the computer powered off. (I'm not saying you advice this, but just to put into evidence that security is not the objective that anyone would like maximized).
So strong that the pasty-white /. basement-dwellers will finally be able to emerge from their man-cave.
That's racist and sexist (as it implies that basement-dwelling geeks come in Caucasian male flavor only).
As a firefighter, I don't really see what benefit this stuff will really bring to us, given that we're already supposed to be covered completely by our turnout gear.
What if the turnout gear can be made lighter by using the gel is some form? Would it be an advantage?
Why would firefighters need clear? So what if they painted their faces with some particular color?
Then you'd not know by the color of their skin if it's something wrong with their face.
Plus would clear actually work as well? Opaque would seem to be a better blocker than transparent or translucent?
The protection derives from reflective properties of the paint, not from absorption of the radiation. You certainly don't want the protection layer to absorb the heat.
tell me, what good is ability to read if you lack access to the library of the new age?
'scuse me for pointing out, but the ability to read is largely irrelevant in the library of the new age...
Isn't this sorta like what's going on in the US with the Tea Party?
Naaah... the Tea Party is maintained by private initiative astroturfers - there's nothing better for efficiency than the free market... or so they say.
What will be the ripple effects of this? Where is the next tipping point?
Clathrate gun going off?
And they're going to compress the air with??
Why... pedaling of course. It makes a good business case for using the lower class to power the cars of the middle class (the upper class will continue to use oil powered cars) .
And also a boon for fast-food joints: cheap and rich "fuel" for the "pedallers" - I tell ye, US should try it instead of marching on the "trickle economy". Just imagine to get paid for actually exercising at the gym.
"The motivation behind the hack, the group claims, is to protest against banks, politicians and the hackers who have been captured by law enforcement agencies."
Banks, politicians, and hackers were captured by law enforcement agencies?
The best line would have been "who captured who?"
Because, in Sweden, they can't charge him until he's present.
Also, they cannot charge him until the investigation is complete which is the very reason for the arrest warrant. For the moment, the most Ny (the prosecutor) can say is that she intends to prosecute.