While they do *now*, they didn't at one time. I mean, with my first example, he had a computer engineering degree. In order for him to get any job other than computer engineering, he was "untrained cross-discipline" for a while. It's not like they go letting people design airplanes all alone, with no checking from anyone else of any kind. Even if he had graduated with an AE degree, he wouldn't be designing mission-critical systems with no oversight.
Go right ahead. I know someone whose degree reads "Computer Engineering", yet he designs mechanical components for Lockheed Martin's aerospace division. I know someone else who has an "Electrical Engineering" degree, yet he wrote software that runs the International Space Station's main computer. I know an "Aerospace Engineer" who now designs bridges.
As to the other poster who was surprised to see a self-professed "geek" not caring. Not only that, but I was an Aerospace Engineering major myself, so I *AM* a "space geek". (Or, as the T-Shirt I had read: "Why, yes, I am a rocket scientist.")
No, I was not trolling. And it's not that I don't recognize that specialization is a good thing in a lawyer. (I have a "family law" lawyer for my family law issues, a "corporate law" for my business issues, and a "trademark attorney" for my trademark issues.)
It's the fact that the college is making a big deal out of this. Again, I'm SURE that there have been "space law" specialists in the past. The fact that this college decided to start offering it doesn't mean that this guy is the FIRST "space lawyer", it just means he's the first guy to graduate from THIS COLLEGE with THIS DEGREE.
In the states I've looked up, "specializing" as a lawyer means nothing. Every lawyer is on 100% equal footing with regard to the law. The "family law" lawyer has exactly the same legal standing as a "criminal defense attorney", wether the trial is a messy divorce or a murder trial.
While I suppose it's good to have specialized training in law for a specific field, this just seems silly. I mean, I'm sure there have been lawyers before (working for NASA, Lockheed, Boeing, etc,) that have "specialized" in space law. Who cares if the diploma lists "space law", really?
Good point. They probably did re-write the APIs, since NT was originally written as cross-platform (indeed, the original code was written on and for a platform that never had any version of NT officially released for it,) whereas Windows 1.0 and its spawn were coded specifically for x86.
Not to mention the fact that Win32 was a brand-new API with NT, and Vista 64 loses ALL 16-bit compatibility.
Do you mean the oldest code that still exists in "modern" applications? If so, then some of the small snippets of code in Windows Vista surely dates back to Windows 1.0. (Mac OS X was enough of a break that I doubt there are any remaining bits of the Mac OS Toolbox in it anymore.)
Theo Gray has posited that some of the code in the latest Mathematica is likely the original algorithms he wrote in the '80s.
If you're talking about 'oldest code in any system', then others have given ideas like space probes, nuclear reactors, etc.
You are correct. That's why the GPL is specifically written to be "viral", to prevent this sort of thing from happening.
"Public Domain" means that the original work is 100% free from any claim of copyright, for any use whatsoever. NOBODY "owns" it.
However, in order to qualify for copyright, there has to be "substantially different" from another work. Merely "cleaning up" would likely not qualify. (That's why if you were to publish a photograph of a public domain painting, for example, if your photograph is EXACTLY of the painting, with no extra artistic work added, then your photograph is not copyrightable. But if you take it from an angle, then you can claim that your angle is an artistic addition, therefore placing your photograph under copyright.)
So the raw act of cleaning the footage probably didn't add copyright, but all of the other stuff did. (Performing color balancing and other tasks other than pure physical 'cleaning' of the film stock.)
I understand your quip, but my point is that most of my BitTorrenting is unquestionably legal, official torrents by the rights holders. I'm not saying that 100% of my BitTorrenting is legal, except for the not legal parts. I'm saying that 75% of the use is 100% legal. (The use of a percent was probably not the best choice, I now admit. Saying "Most of my BitTorrenting is unquestionably legal" would have been better.)
The remaining is what should be legal under fair use, but may not be. My example of downloading a non-free OS install disc is one. I have the legal right to possess the content, so while the letter of the law may being broken, the spirit is not. (And, for that matter, distributing Windows discs is probably 100% legal, since by Microsoft's own definition, the license lies with the Product Key code sticker, not with the disc.)
So most of my use is 100% legal, and the rest is what I would call "90% legal".
I have never used BitTorrent to download anything that I did not already have the legal right to possess. That is basically what the OP did. He had a legal right to possess the file, just the technical inability to get it officially.
Most of my BitTorrenting is "100% legal" (Linux distros, UBCD, publicly released media (new NIN, Star Trek fan films,) etc.) Those I make sure to seed to at least a 2:1 ratio, often more. But some of it is to download items that I have the legal right to have, but do not have ready access to. (My closed-source OS install CD when I'm not at home, for example.) Those I make sure to stay as close to the line of legality as possible by, unfortunately, seeding as little as possible.
I always found these "confirmed!" stories that are still just rumors funny. Yeah, it may very well be a rumor that is true, but at this point, it's still a rumor.
I won't take it as anything other than a rumor until I see indisputable photographic proof, or a press release from Microsoft.
To ensure adequate services, we require liquor stores to be open a minimum of eight hours a day, except Sundays and legal holidays. Stores must be open between 12 noon and 6 p.m., but cannot open before 7 a.m. or close later than 10 p.m. Agents have the option of being open on Sundays and legal holidays. Hours of operation, if applicable, vary from store to store.
There is no law against being open on Sunday, it is purely up to the individual store. The only actual 'thou shalt not' is no being open between 10 PM and 7 AM. There are at least 3 liquor stores open on Sundays in Portland that I know of off the top of my head.
And, unlike the other state I've lived in, Arizona, which sells hard liquor at grocery stores, beer and wine can be sold at all hours. (AZ has hard liquor at any store, but all alcohol sales must be stopped at 2 AM.)
I do agree that it's silly for Oregon to be so restrictive. Then again, I'm a 'legalize all vices, then tax them' type of person...
As others have said, Oregon has very strong free speech protections.
For that matter, Oregon is one of the most "libertarian" (small 'L',) states out there. We've got nearly unlimited free speech, (for example, anti-abortion groups are allowed to carry banners showing aborted fetuses in front of baseball games!) We have (tied for) the most legal marijuana, we have legal doctor-assisted suicide, etc. We've had the state Attorney General come out against the RIAA, we've had our local police refuse to participate in federal anti-terrorism probes because the probes were too invasive, and more.
Yes, the parents did have to nominally give consent up front. That means that it is THEIR account, just as if they had created the account for themselves in the first place, and lost the password.
While there have been multiple instances in the past of providers such as AOL and MSN refusing to give passwords to next of kin under the auspices that the account was licensed to the deceased, and the license does not survive death; you can always bring up that the deceased was a minor, therefore the account is legally licensed to the parents, not to the minor, so the parents, being the licensee, should be able to get the passwords reset.
I mean, every minor little Windows Update makes my machine reboot. I am so sick of starting up Parallels, having updates immediately run and require a reboot. (But there's no way I'm letting my machine go without the updates.) Yeah, it probably doesn't help that I only load Windows once a month, so there are invariably a bunch of updates waiting. But still...
They do tell us that the $1.00/gal is based on 100% efficiency, and that right now we're only at 50% efficiency.
What they don't tell us is that at 50% efficiency, it will cost $10.00 per gallon, and even at 98% efficiency, it will be $5.00 a gallon. It's that last 2% that's a killer.
However, because I was uncertain on of the new "SteveNovick" user was really him, I commented that he should follow the "official procedure" for answering them, and he stopped posting.
Steve: You can start posting again! Feel free to respond to the responses, or even go back and answer other questions that the official moderators didn't pass along!
Unfortunately, both of your points are untrue any more.
The tech industry in Oregon is in shambles, and Bend has had some of the highest cost-of-living increases in the state in recent years. It may be lower than some places (New York, LA) still, but it's not low. (I think big-city Portland has a lower cost of living than Bend now!)
Not to mention that it has already been shown that the money from file-sharing lawsuits has gone to the "music industry", not "musicians". At least some miniscule fraction of a cent of a CD sale or legal digital purchase (iTunes, Amazon, etc,) goes to the musicians.
I can just see this as the music industry's way of making money, while telling individual musicians "Hey, sales of your album are down..."
Safari 3.1 is the latest 'stable release' of the WebKit core.
You can download 'unstable nightly releases' from webkit.org, and as of 6:55 pm (in whatever timezone WebKit.org uses,) the latest nightly release gets 100/100.
Which means they one-up Opera, since the Opera beta that gets 100/100 isn't available to the public. (And, from their own screenshot, isn't even a functional browser the way WebKit is. The WebKit nightly builds are essentially the Safari browser interface using the latest WebKit core.)
Heck, I am a huge Beatles fan, but have, for reasons unknown even to myself, never purchased a Beatles album.
The moment the Fab Four appears on a legal digital download store, I'll probably buy up the entire collection. Hopefully iTunes will have a DRM-free version of the 'box set' they did with U2 a few years ago. (If iTunes doesn't have them DRM-free, I'll go with Amazon.)
Hey, Pudge, never knew you were a Seattleite. I go to OSCON every year here in P-town. I'll have to buy you a local microbrew (root seems to be your preferred variety, and there are plenty microbrew roots around here,) after your lecture.
I see that this Slashdot account started posting today, just after this "Ask Slashdot" question was posted.
Slashdot has a process for 'verifying' certain 'celebrity' names to make certain that someone posting as a certain name is actually that person. In addition, the "Ask Slashdot" style is that they collect up the highest rated and/or best questions, then present them to the subject 'offline', for 'offline' answer. They don't expect the subject to actually reply in-thread.
So what I'm really asking is that if you (Slashdot user "SteveNovick", user number 1258404,) are really the Oregon Senate candidate Steve Novick, please go through 'proper channels' so that we know that your posts really are you. (In addition, if this account is "official", I would like to know if it is candidate Novick himself, or a staffer, that is posting these answers.)
(P.S. I'm an Oregon Democrat, and from what I have seen, it is almost guaranteed that I will vote for you.)
Couldn't it be said that EVERY person who voted for it provided the tie-breaking vote? I mean, was he the last person to cast a vote, and the vote was exactly 50-50 before he cast his? I believe that if you wanted to be literal, then the last person to cast a vote would be the only person who could be considered to have 'cast the tie-breaking vote'; which would require that a tie existed before he cast it. i.e. if the 'Yes'es were ahead 51-39 with 10 votes to cast, and the last ten were all 'no', there was no 'tie-breaking' vote.
Slashdot Mirror
On their "How It Works" page, they do mention that they offer DRM-free MP3s "for your iPod or other portable device" for $0.89. (Well, "79Â more"...)
While they do *now*, they didn't at one time. I mean, with my first example, he had a computer engineering degree. In order for him to get any job other than computer engineering, he was "untrained cross-discipline" for a while. It's not like they go letting people design airplanes all alone, with no checking from anyone else of any kind. Even if he had graduated with an AE degree, he wouldn't be designing mission-critical systems with no oversight.
Go right ahead. I know someone whose degree reads "Computer Engineering", yet he designs mechanical components for Lockheed Martin's aerospace division. I know someone else who has an "Electrical Engineering" degree, yet he wrote software that runs the International Space Station's main computer. I know an "Aerospace Engineer" who now designs bridges.
As to the other poster who was surprised to see a self-professed "geek" not caring. Not only that, but I was an Aerospace Engineering major myself, so I *AM* a "space geek". (Or, as the T-Shirt I had read: "Why, yes, I am a rocket scientist.")
No, I was not trolling. And it's not that I don't recognize that specialization is a good thing in a lawyer. (I have a "family law" lawyer for my family law issues, a "corporate law" for my business issues, and a "trademark attorney" for my trademark issues.)
It's the fact that the college is making a big deal out of this. Again, I'm SURE that there have been "space law" specialists in the past. The fact that this college decided to start offering it doesn't mean that this guy is the FIRST "space lawyer", it just means he's the first guy to graduate from THIS COLLEGE with THIS DEGREE.
In the states I've looked up, "specializing" as a lawyer means nothing. Every lawyer is on 100% equal footing with regard to the law. The "family law" lawyer has exactly the same legal standing as a "criminal defense attorney", wether the trial is a messy divorce or a murder trial.
While I suppose it's good to have specialized training in law for a specific field, this just seems silly. I mean, I'm sure there have been lawyers before (working for NASA, Lockheed, Boeing, etc,) that have "specialized" in space law. Who cares if the diploma lists "space law", really?
Good point. They probably did re-write the APIs, since NT was originally written as cross-platform (indeed, the original code was written on and for a platform that never had any version of NT officially released for it,) whereas Windows 1.0 and its spawn were coded specifically for x86.
:-p
Not to mention the fact that Win32 was a brand-new API with NT, and Vista 64 loses ALL 16-bit compatibility.
Okay, remove Vista.
Do you mean the oldest code that still exists in "modern" applications? If so, then some of the small snippets of code in Windows Vista surely dates back to Windows 1.0. (Mac OS X was enough of a break that I doubt there are any remaining bits of the Mac OS Toolbox in it anymore.)
Theo Gray has posited that some of the code in the latest Mathematica is likely the original algorithms he wrote in the '80s.
If you're talking about 'oldest code in any system', then others have given ideas like space probes, nuclear reactors, etc.
You are correct. That's why the GPL is specifically written to be "viral", to prevent this sort of thing from happening.
"Public Domain" means that the original work is 100% free from any claim of copyright, for any use whatsoever. NOBODY "owns" it.
However, in order to qualify for copyright, there has to be "substantially different" from another work. Merely "cleaning up" would likely not qualify. (That's why if you were to publish a photograph of a public domain painting, for example, if your photograph is EXACTLY of the painting, with no extra artistic work added, then your photograph is not copyrightable. But if you take it from an angle, then you can claim that your angle is an artistic addition, therefore placing your photograph under copyright.)
So the raw act of cleaning the footage probably didn't add copyright, but all of the other stuff did. (Performing color balancing and other tasks other than pure physical 'cleaning' of the film stock.)
The remaining is what should be legal under fair use, but may not be. My example of downloading a non-free OS install disc is one. I have the legal right to possess the content, so while the letter of the law may being broken, the spirit is not. (And, for that matter, distributing Windows discs is probably 100% legal, since by Microsoft's own definition, the license lies with the Product Key code sticker, not with the disc.)
So most of my use is 100% legal, and the rest is what I would call "90% legal".
I have never used BitTorrent to download anything that I did not already have the legal right to possess. That is basically what the OP did. He had a legal right to possess the file, just the technical inability to get it officially.
Most of my BitTorrenting is "100% legal" (Linux distros, UBCD, publicly released media (new NIN, Star Trek fan films,) etc.) Those I make sure to seed to at least a 2:1 ratio, often more. But some of it is to download items that I have the legal right to have, but do not have ready access to. (My closed-source OS install CD when I'm not at home, for example.) Those I make sure to stay as close to the line of legality as possible by, unfortunately, seeding as little as possible.
I always found these "confirmed!" stories that are still just rumors funny. Yeah, it may very well be a rumor that is true, but at this point, it's still a rumor.
I won't take it as anything other than a rumor until I see indisputable photographic proof, or a press release from Microsoft.
There is no law against being open on Sunday, it is purely up to the individual store. The only actual 'thou shalt not' is no being open between 10 PM and 7 AM. There are at least 3 liquor stores open on Sundays in Portland that I know of off the top of my head.
And, unlike the other state I've lived in, Arizona, which sells hard liquor at grocery stores, beer and wine can be sold at all hours. (AZ has hard liquor at any store, but all alcohol sales must be stopped at 2 AM.)
I do agree that it's silly for Oregon to be so restrictive. Then again, I'm a 'legalize all vices, then tax them' type of person...
As others have said, Oregon has very strong free speech protections.
For that matter, Oregon is one of the most "libertarian" (small 'L',) states out there. We've got nearly unlimited free speech, (for example, anti-abortion groups are allowed to carry banners showing aborted fetuses in front of baseball games!) We have (tied for) the most legal marijuana, we have legal doctor-assisted suicide, etc. We've had the state Attorney General come out against the RIAA, we've had our local police refuse to participate in federal anti-terrorism probes because the probes were too invasive, and more.
If anything, Oregon has gotten in trouble for not protecting enough
Yes, the parents did have to nominally give consent up front. That means that it is THEIR account, just as if they had created the account for themselves in the first place, and lost the password.
While there have been multiple instances in the past of providers such as AOL and MSN refusing to give passwords to next of kin under the auspices that the account was licensed to the deceased, and the license does not survive death; you can always bring up that the deceased was a minor, therefore the account is legally licensed to the parents, not to the minor, so the parents, being the licensee, should be able to get the passwords reset.
I mean, every minor little Windows Update makes my machine reboot. I am so sick of starting up Parallels, having updates immediately run and require a reboot. (But there's no way I'm letting my machine go without the updates.) Yeah, it probably doesn't help that I only load Windows once a month, so there are invariably a bunch of updates waiting. But still...
They do tell us that the $1.00/gal is based on 100% efficiency, and that right now we're only at 50% efficiency.
What they don't tell us is that at 50% efficiency, it will cost $10.00 per gallon, and even at 98% efficiency, it will be $5.00 a gallon. It's that last 2% that's a killer.
(Yes, this post is a joke.)
However, because I was uncertain on of the new "SteveNovick" user was really him, I commented that he should follow the "official procedure" for answering them, and he stopped posting.
Steve: You can start posting again! Feel free to respond to the responses, or even go back and answer other questions that the official moderators didn't pass along!
Unfortunately, both of your points are untrue any more.
The tech industry in Oregon is in shambles, and Bend has had some of the highest cost-of-living increases in the state in recent years. It may be lower than some places (New York, LA) still, but it's not low. (I think big-city Portland has a lower cost of living than Bend now!)
Not to mention that it has already been shown that the money from file-sharing lawsuits has gone to the "music industry", not "musicians". At least some miniscule fraction of a cent of a CD sale or legal digital purchase (iTunes, Amazon, etc,) goes to the musicians.
I can just see this as the music industry's way of making money, while telling individual musicians "Hey, sales of your album are down..."
Safari 3.1 is the latest 'stable release' of the WebKit core.
You can download 'unstable nightly releases' from webkit.org, and as of 6:55 pm (in whatever timezone WebKit.org uses,) the latest nightly release gets 100/100.
Which means they one-up Opera, since the Opera beta that gets 100/100 isn't available to the public. (And, from their own screenshot, isn't even a functional browser the way WebKit is. The WebKit nightly builds are essentially the Safari browser interface using the latest WebKit core.)
Heck, I am a huge Beatles fan, but have, for reasons unknown even to myself, never purchased a Beatles album.
The moment the Fab Four appears on a legal digital download store, I'll probably buy up the entire collection. Hopefully iTunes will have a DRM-free version of the 'box set' they did with U2 a few years ago. (If iTunes doesn't have them DRM-free, I'll go with Amazon.)
Hey, Pudge, never knew you were a Seattleite. I go to OSCON every year here in P-town. I'll have to buy you a local microbrew (root seems to be your preferred variety, and there are plenty microbrew roots around here,) after your lecture.
I see that this Slashdot account started posting today, just after this "Ask Slashdot" question was posted.
Slashdot has a process for 'verifying' certain 'celebrity' names to make certain that someone posting as a certain name is actually that person. In addition, the "Ask Slashdot" style is that they collect up the highest rated and/or best questions, then present them to the subject 'offline', for 'offline' answer. They don't expect the subject to actually reply in-thread.
So what I'm really asking is that if you (Slashdot user "SteveNovick", user number 1258404,) are really the Oregon Senate candidate Steve Novick, please go through 'proper channels' so that we know that your posts really are you. (In addition, if this account is "official", I would like to know if it is candidate Novick himself, or a staffer, that is posting these answers.)
(P.S. I'm an Oregon Democrat, and from what I have seen, it is almost guaranteed that I will vote for you.)
Couldn't it be said that EVERY person who voted for it provided the tie-breaking vote? I mean, was he the last person to cast a vote, and the vote was exactly 50-50 before he cast his? I believe that if you wanted to be literal, then the last person to cast a vote would be the only person who could be considered to have 'cast the tie-breaking vote'; which would require that a tie existed before he cast it. i.e. if the 'Yes'es were ahead 51-39 with 10 votes to cast, and the last ten were all 'no', there was no 'tie-breaking' vote.