Well, it's not a "no option"... it's just not a preferred option. Acrobat 9 still has a native 32-bit Linux release. Its the 32-bit aspect that I don't care for, more than the security risks (practically all of which wouldn't even be applicable to me anyways, since most of the pdf attack vectors only affect windows, and the kinds of documents that I would need a pdf reader with layers for anyways typically wouldn't have such malware bundled into it, because I know where they originate from, and I do not download them from an unauthorized source.
My point remains. It would be nice if somebody one of the many other pdf readers for Linux did support pdf layers... a feature that has been part of the PDF spec for about 10 years now.
I see your point, but actually feel fairly comfortable with the author excluding paywalls and the "dark" web.
So do I, but the author said, referring to the estimated 14+ billion individual pages on the web, "Like actors in Hollywood connected by Kevin Bacon, from every single one of these pages you can navigate to any other in 19 clicks or less." (emphasis mine). If he had meant most, or even "practically all", he should have said that.
... this one is quite obviously false. And illustrates one of the dangers about assuming that extrapolation is equivalent to actual supporting data.
I mean, there are objects behind paywalls that, all by themselves, can be more than 19 clicks away from a highly unrelated web page elsewhere online There are objects which are online that have no external links to them at all. And those are just the obvious ones.
I just tried Firefox 19 with one of the many pdfs that I have that use layers. I even picked a very simple one. It did not render it correctly *AT ALL*.
Acrobat still remains the only workable option... unsupported or not.
Google Search had only just launched in September 1997, and this guy initially started using the term as far back as that.
Of course, Python existed as a programming language for an additional 6 years before that, so really, this is just about somebody not doing a little bit of homework.
I don't give a crap whether or not Monsanto cares.... they are taking an action that will, when, and not if, contamination occurs, compromise world food supplies in a extremely negative way.
It is, in my opinion, tantamount to biological weaponry, and should be penalized accordingly.
The situation that Monsanto is in a position to institute is absolutely nothing short of an unconscionable crime against the human race. That they don't even care should be grounds for immediate dissolution of the organization and summary execution of the people who would ever advocate it, The number of people that this sort of choice could kill is *STAGGERING*. It's like if some independent company found a way to cheaply make biological weapons and was selling them to whoever wanted to buy them.
Right... sorry, I was thinking of something else. Still, the worldwide consequences if cross contamination should occur could be HUGE... this is almost like an independent company offering to build and sell nuclear weapons to anybody... regardless of where they are from. It's just a colossally stupid idea that can't possibly end well.
I'm suggesting that taking down the laws that give corporations power will only make them create *MORE* laws that give them more power. If you think they need copyright to shove shit down the general public's throat, think again. Oh... and of course, the public will happily swallow it.
Wouldn't it be even better if they just didn't produce seeds at all?
Because if they produce seeds, even sterile ones, there's still the possibility of accidental contamination. While this might not pose any great threat to Monsanto, because of the seeds' strerility, the outcome could well be a potentially highly *reduced* crop count for places that were not ever intending to use Monsanto's seeds, spelling disaster on a global scale that could well result in the deaths of thousands, if not millions.
Without it at least absurdities like outlawing measures to work around DRM won't exist
You really believe that, don't you?
DRM will continue to exist long after copyright has dissolved. The only thing that won't exist is that it won't be illegal to distribute the work if it's not protecteded. Of course, getting at the unprotected content may prove to be a bit of a bitch and a half, and probably beyond the ability of most people other than the highly technically competent. Even more restrictive laws than the DMCA will be drafted to govern so-called "authorized decryption", and people engaging in it without authorization would probably be heavily fined and have all of their home computer equipment destroyed, necessitating starting over... possibly even being prohibited from utilizing such technology entirely (which they sometimes do to people who have been found guilty of certain computer crimes). Taking pains to ensure that you never lost all your data while knowingly defying such laws would amount to playing a high-stakes game of hide and seek with the corporate powers and the governments which has been bought to serve them for the rest of your life. You can move to another country, but it's unlikely to be significantly different. The only permanent escape from such governments would be to get in a spaceship and find another planet you could live on.
I'm sort of suprised by this... I always thought that the universe, at 13.8 billion years, probably had several trillion to go. Now I find out that it's really just middle aged?
I use Acrobat for Linux because it's the only pdf reader I've ever seen that actually works correctly with pdf layers, which is very nice when used with map PDF's, because you can choose which features you want to see on the map.
But here's the real killer - if I wrote a song and distributed it, the odds are fairly good that I would be sued by a copyright holder.
Only if you copied somebody. People create new songs all the time that aren't copies of pre-existing works. Are you saying you are not imaginative enough to come up with something original?
*ANYTHING* that a person is exposed to will have some influence on that person. It only stands to reason, regardless of what sort of thing they are exposed to, that t sufficient frequency of exposure is going to have a profound impact on what sort of person they become. This does not mean that environment determines behavior in any sort of absolute sense, but it is somewhere between naive and completely ignorant to assert that human beings are not ever going to be affected by what they are exposed to. Bad or good. And yes... that even includes playing video games.
Actually I argue that the positive effects of banishing copyright on both would be by far greater than the negative ones.
This premise is unsubstantiated. Sure there's lots of trash out there that is corporately distributed, but the percentage of low-quality works that is self-published is even highe than that. High quality self-published works in absence of copyright would have an even *MORE* difficult time of getting noticed.
And when copyright cannot protect corporate interests, other means will be employed, and those means are certain to result in a reduced availability of content overall. We are already starting to see it with publishers resorting to DRM to protect their interests, which ends up limiting the availability of the content for consumers. If copyright ever completely fails to satisfy content makers interests, it is certain that they will be resorting to even more elaborate measures, lobbying for laws to protect them, and getting them passed, thanks to the omnipotent power of the dollar to manipulate the lawmakers into passing whatever laws most please the people with the most money. Of course, the highly highly technically competent will remain fine, because they can reverse engineer the mechanisms involved, but in the presence of laws forbidding the distribution of technologies which might allow everybody to freely utilize such works, such technically competent people will be faced with going far enough underground that their activities are not noticed by law enforcement, which would similarly reduce public visibility, and in turn reduce the number of people that would benefit, or else simply grudgingly following the law.
And again... this is something that has already started to happen. And it's only going to get a whole lot worse as long as widespread disrespect for copyright continues. You can go right on ahead and believe that it's somehow going to get better if you want... but I can't help but think that in suggesting that my impressions are somehow based on wishful thinking, that you may be accusing me of something you are actually doing yourself.
If there was no big publishers what is good would automatically come to evidence and it would be much easier for capable artists trying to live from their own work.
You assert that without any basis in actuality.... and you seem to completely ignore the human factor of greed... which would not disappear, even if copyright did.
News flash for you.... people haven't changed since yesterday. They still have the same lack of imagination. The loss of copyright is probably inevitable, but given the universal quality of human greed, the resulting world is *NOT* going to be one where information is going to be as free as what you seem to believe.
Copying audible and theatrical works by ear and memory was always sufficiently inconvenient and error prone, coupled with the limited audience that such reproductions would typically receive before the modern age, that it did not typically present any threat to content creators. The latter aspect of it is probably best likened to the modern notion of "fair use".
Slashdot Mirror
My point remains. It would be nice if somebody one of the many other pdf readers for Linux did support pdf layers... a feature that has been part of the PDF spec for about 10 years now.
So do I, but the author said, referring to the estimated 14+ billion individual pages on the web, "Like actors in Hollywood connected by Kevin Bacon, from every single one of these pages you can navigate to any other in 19 clicks or less." (emphasis mine). If he had meant most, or even "practically all", he should have said that.
Yes, I'm being pedantic. But this is slashdot.
I mean, there are objects behind paywalls that, all by themselves, can be more than 19 clicks away from a highly unrelated web page elsewhere online There are objects which are online that have no external links to them at all. And those are just the obvious ones.
It's an interesting notion, but it's incorrect.
Actually, no....
I just tried Firefox 19 with one of the many pdfs that I have that use layers. I even picked a very simple one. It did not render it correctly *AT ALL*.
Acrobat still remains the only workable option... unsupported or not.
Fine... whatever. Believe what you want. Tell me I'm wrong again once copyright is gone and things are all magically better for everybody. I'm done.
Google Search had only just launched in September 1997, and this guy initially started using the term as far back as that.
Of course, Python existed as a programming language for an additional 6 years before that, so really, this is just about somebody not doing a little bit of homework.
The article seems to end on a cliffhanger. What outcome is the article writer referring to? There are many that spring to mind.
Yeah, I know. For some reason I was thinking of fruit when I started talking about not producing seeds.
I don't give a crap whether or not Monsanto cares.... they are taking an action that will, when, and not if, contamination occurs, compromise world food supplies in a extremely negative way.
It is, in my opinion, tantamount to biological weaponry, and should be penalized accordingly.
The situation that Monsanto is in a position to institute is absolutely nothing short of an unconscionable crime against the human race. That they don't even care should be grounds for immediate dissolution of the organization and summary execution of the people who would ever advocate it, The number of people that this sort of choice could kill is *STAGGERING*. It's like if some independent company found a way to cheaply make biological weapons and was selling them to whoever wanted to buy them.
Right... sorry, I was thinking of something else. Still, the worldwide consequences if cross contamination should occur could be HUGE... this is almost like an independent company offering to build and sell nuclear weapons to anybody... regardless of where they are from. It's just a colossally stupid idea that can't possibly end well.
Hmmm... true, that. I'd still be very worried about what cross-contamination could do to world food supplies, however.
I was referring to the byproduct seeds produced by growing the product, not the seeds that Monsanto sells themselves.
I'm suggesting that taking down the laws that give corporations power will only make them create *MORE* laws that give them more power. If you think they need copyright to shove shit down the general public's throat, think again. Oh... and of course, the public will happily swallow it.
Wouldn't it be even better if they just didn't produce seeds at all?
Because if they produce seeds, even sterile ones, there's still the possibility of accidental contamination. While this might not pose any great threat to Monsanto, because of the seeds' strerility, the outcome could well be a potentially highly *reduced* crop count for places that were not ever intending to use Monsanto's seeds, spelling disaster on a global scale that could well result in the deaths of thousands, if not millions.
You really believe that, don't you?
DRM will continue to exist long after copyright has dissolved. The only thing that won't exist is that it won't be illegal to distribute the work if it's not protecteded. Of course, getting at the unprotected content may prove to be a bit of a bitch and a half, and probably beyond the ability of most people other than the highly technically competent. Even more restrictive laws than the DMCA will be drafted to govern so-called "authorized decryption", and people engaging in it without authorization would probably be heavily fined and have all of their home computer equipment destroyed, necessitating starting over... possibly even being prohibited from utilizing such technology entirely (which they sometimes do to people who have been found guilty of certain computer crimes). Taking pains to ensure that you never lost all your data while knowingly defying such laws would amount to playing a high-stakes game of hide and seek with the corporate powers and the governments which has been bought to serve them for the rest of your life. You can move to another country, but it's unlikely to be significantly different. The only permanent escape from such governments would be to get in a spaceship and find another planet you could live on.
I'm sort of suprised by this... I always thought that the universe, at 13.8 billion years, probably had several trillion to go. Now I find out that it's really just middle aged?
I use Acrobat for Linux because it's the only pdf reader I've ever seen that actually works correctly with pdf layers, which is very nice when used with map PDF's, because you can choose which features you want to see on the map.
Only if you copied somebody. People create new songs all the time that aren't copies of pre-existing works. Are you saying you are not imaginative enough to come up with something original?
*ANYTHING* that a person is exposed to will have some influence on that person. It only stands to reason, regardless of what sort of thing they are exposed to, that t sufficient frequency of exposure is going to have a profound impact on what sort of person they become. This does not mean that environment determines behavior in any sort of absolute sense, but it is somewhere between naive and completely ignorant to assert that human beings are not ever going to be affected by what they are exposed to. Bad or good. And yes... that even includes playing video games.
This premise is unsubstantiated. Sure there's lots of trash out there that is corporately distributed, but the percentage of low-quality works that is self-published is even highe than that. High quality self-published works in absence of copyright would have an even *MORE* difficult time of getting noticed.
And when copyright cannot protect corporate interests, other means will be employed, and those means are certain to result in a reduced availability of content overall. We are already starting to see it with publishers resorting to DRM to protect their interests, which ends up limiting the availability of the content for consumers. If copyright ever completely fails to satisfy content makers interests, it is certain that they will be resorting to even more elaborate measures, lobbying for laws to protect them, and getting them passed, thanks to the omnipotent power of the dollar to manipulate the lawmakers into passing whatever laws most please the people with the most money. Of course, the highly highly technically competent will remain fine, because they can reverse engineer the mechanisms involved, but in the presence of laws forbidding the distribution of technologies which might allow everybody to freely utilize such works, such technically competent people will be faced with going far enough underground that their activities are not noticed by law enforcement, which would similarly reduce public visibility, and in turn reduce the number of people that would benefit, or else simply grudgingly following the law.
And again... this is something that has already started to happen. And it's only going to get a whole lot worse as long as widespread disrespect for copyright continues. You can go right on ahead and believe that it's somehow going to get better if you want... but I can't help but think that in suggesting that my impressions are somehow based on wishful thinking, that you may be accusing me of something you are actually doing yourself.
You assert that without any basis in actuality.... and you seem to completely ignore the human factor of greed... which would not disappear, even if copyright did.
Fine... you're right. Whatever. I'm done.
News flash for you.... people haven't changed since yesterday. They still have the same lack of imagination. The loss of copyright is probably inevitable, but given the universal quality of human greed, the resulting world is *NOT* going to be one where information is going to be as free as what you seem to believe.
Copying audible and theatrical works by ear and memory was always sufficiently inconvenient and error prone, coupled with the limited audience that such reproductions would typically receive before the modern age, that it did not typically present any threat to content creators. The latter aspect of it is probably best likened to the modern notion of "fair use".