How does copyright past death do anything but imply "just stop working and expect everyone to keep me" (especially the children that very well haven't created anything)?
Also, there was more to the sentence you quoted that makes it a much more accurate account of my feelings on the issue (though I think 7 - 25 years is a more reasonable amount of time for copyright)
I suppose a pure text file cannot, but at the expense of other meta-data. Why not require PDFs to have word position OCR done (part of Acrobat Pro, so hardly a chore), and keep info like page number and position on page for scans. For non-scans it would take effort to destroy the text data.
Hell, even in ASCII I could use something like figlets to generate large letters (for easy reading), and destroy assessibility.
This sounds like bozo official had a scanned hard-copy in PDF, ran into trouble, and blamed the format (even though it would offer a good way to handle the situation built in) rather than the other bozo that scanned it, and didn't use the built in OCR function. I'm pretty sure these people would do the same with HTML, OOXML or ODF; it's not the formats fault.
Unless copyright transfers to the murderer, there isn't a lot of money to be made killing them.
I mean, who would commit murder to be allowed to buy a book for cheaper (as once the person was dead everyone would be able to publish at just over printing cost, taking the profit away).
I only know this as I foolishly stated the same on this very forum in the past, but the logic holds as far as I can tell. The bumping off can only reduce cost slightly for any given person (to just over cost), and does nothing but decrease profits (allowed by the artificial monopoly over a work created by copyright). Nobodies profit increases without copyright (there are arguments to be made that an artists could at the expense of the publisher if they can ride popularity due to increased exposure to profit in other ways, but that's not really relevant to the bumping off of said artist, and more speculative),
Someone else's right to withhold culture from society for nobodies benefit?
Legality aside (and I assume this is indeed illegal), I don't support the artists in this situation. They have long sense reaped any reward their gift to society was going to offer them, and now it is time for society as a whole to get what value we can before the work totally fades into the realm of unobtainable. I hope that the republishing of the works allows the artists to achieve a second wave of recognition that they can gain some value from, but either way a monopoly on the culture ones create is not a right (even if labeled as such), and is instead a gift from society as a whole.
Lets not put copyright (the right of publishers to be the only ones making copies when the term was invented) on the same level as something like free speech. It is a method to funnel more money from consumers to artists than the natural state of things would allow (I am not passing judgement on the concept as a whole, as I enjoy the artists/producers getting said unnatural benefit as encouragement, I simply don't see how it is a right in the way you implied it, or that the laws make any sense for society as a whole as they now stand).
Note, I do think Project Gutenberg should stay legal, I simply don't elevating copyright to the level of "Right" as your post implied is fair (I do note that you didn't capitalize it). I don't really think Project Gutenberg "wholesale kidnapping of works that are under copyright protection" (most likely any kidnapping was done by publishers, that want exclusive right), nor is something being under copyright mutually exclusive with it being orphaned (this is one of the biggest problems with our current law, that something can be locked in a bankrupt publishers vault with nobody, including the artist, able to do anything about it). The definition of orphaned work even states that it is still under copyright protection.
I guess I feel if nobody is exploiting the monopoly granted by copyright, and nobody has done it for a long time, then the flow of culture to the public (enriching society) even when illegal is a lesser evil than it left in a situation where it enriches nobody. I feel more strongly though that Project Gutenberg specifically should play shit strait by the book, as there is plenty of stuff to archive legally, and leave the fights to a project with less to lose (Project Gutenberg Australia for the most recent old stuff).
Google's cloud may not be taking hold in the enterprise, which isn't shocking as it doesn't even have an offline mode now. I also find it useless beyond the very basics (the word processor is good for quick letters, and collaborative text editing, but little else, and I often copy paste into word when the editing is done. The spread sheet is very lacking, I can't even specify format of cells manually). I can't imagine how bad a Presentation would look.
The email may not be taking over in the enterprise, but a lot of educational institutions are using it (this is most likely off of unix tools, but is revenue MS won't be gaining), and the small-medium businesses appear to like it too (being free, and easy to manage). I know a couple businesses that moved from a hosted outlook situation to google application, and are happy with the results (though I imagine if they were into the calendaring part in a big way the retraining would have altered that).
I don't see MS's services unseating google in these arenas, and it wouldn't shock me if companies that grow to be enterprises in 10 years are still content using the google applications (paid version) instead of Outlook and Exchange. The reliability on the email is high enough, and email is a place people are very comfortable with the cloud (we've had hotmail for nearly 15 years).
Was there a Montgomery bus denial of service in history I am unaware of?
Because in the history I learned nobodies use of the bus was blocked by the protesters, and the bus companies resources weren't wasted by them.
There was public defiance of unjust rules, and then there was later a boycott of the buses, but again, history in school does tend to make stuff up, making it quite possible that actually the protesters tried to make it so others couldn't use the buses in reality. And maybe Rosa Parks was an alias, and actually someone else hiding their identity when breaking the unjust rule.
Civil disobedience is generally regarded as breaking the unjust law.
To fight the unjust laws supporting the RIAA etc, would require flagrant breaking of the copyright laws and hoping for support when unfairly punished.
A DDoS could be equated to a protest, but it could also be regarded as an act of aggression against a company.
As for Rosa Parks she refused to follow the rule that was not fair, she did not then go and block others from using the bus, or wasting the bus companies resources (both of which an effective DDoS do). It eventually lead to a bus boycott, not a bus denial of service.
Tree sitting tree huggers are causing a denial of service, but again it is public, it is open, and it is against an act, not a company.
I think the key difference is that civil disobedience involves acting in the open, to high-lite injustice and suffer the consequences to make a point (Rosa Parks didn't hid, Gandhi didn't hide, tree sitters don't hide, acknowledgement and recognition, and suffering the consequences are how they succeed, or hope to at least.
Just looked at their prices too, they've gotten worse.
And the crappy displays on the iMacs (maybe this has improved) kill them for serious use, leaving the cheapest desktop at $2500, and it's only one CPU.
But trying to match their 5k computer at Dell runs 6k.
From what I've seen in forums nouveau is not so bad actually.
I like that the team is working hard on using Gallium effectively (for example they used it to make VA-API work using VDPAU (decode only)).
As far as I can tell the nouveau driver is more feature complete than the open source ATI driver, though maybe not as performant (I'm waiting for Open Source VA-API support for h.264 with encoding and decoding, I am not too concerned about the overall performance if it can run compiz).
Intel appears to be the closest/already there, but I have hopes for the others. I really want one of these AMD APU's for a media center, but at the very least I need the playback. And I have enough patients to wait for OSS drivers and vote with my wallet. The progress on nouveau I find quite interesting, as it does not have the same type of backing as ATI is giving, yet appears to be moving along very well.
I'd really like to see VA-API supported more broadly, as it is not purely a playback solution. In doing such I think Intel made the write call. I additionally like that it is not locked into certain codecs at all, and a GPU accelerated solution using just GPU hardware (not the special chip that VDPAU has for example) will theoretically work across all Gallium cards that support the same version of OpenGL (though not as well as using the dedicated hardware on the card).
There was GPL glue to get them working on AMD64 pretty quick in my memory, It worked fine, and was pretty easy.
I actually can't verify it as faster than 1 year, but it was available when i purchased my computer in sept '04, with the first clawhammer released sept '03.
Not an official driver, just a little fragment to make the official one work (it was a patched NVIDIA installer, so easy to do).
Are you referring to the reference to falcon, which was cancelled and replaced with swift (5 Watt), which was then cancelled and replaced with bobcat (9 Watt)?
I look forward to it (9 Watt including a gpu that's good enough (today's low mid range, in 6 months)), but it is not the super mobile chip they were hoping for.
It will find a place under my TV if the lnux support for h.264 is there (allegedly it will be)
Except to compete with google, you need not only as good or better algorythms, as good or better other services (e-mail etc). you need as good or better database too.
Google has years of peoples habits to make itself much more profitable for an eye than the others (they place ads better). Using their decade of accumulated data they can best a new entry that is better in every way, because the new entry can't gain the traction to get the data google has. In a way this is harder than a high cost for entry, as no amount of money can acquire it.
Slashdot Mirror
How does copyright past death do anything but imply "just stop working and expect everyone to keep me" (especially the children that very well haven't created anything)?
Also, there was more to the sentence you quoted that makes it a much more accurate account of my feelings on the issue (though I think 7 - 25 years is a more reasonable amount of time for copyright)
So can a webpage, or a word document.
I suppose a pure text file cannot, but at the expense of other meta-data. Why not require PDFs to have word position OCR done (part of Acrobat Pro, so hardly a chore), and keep info like page number and position on page for scans. For non-scans it would take effort to destroy the text data.
Hell, even in ASCII I could use something like figlets to generate large letters (for easy reading), and destroy assessibility.
This sounds like bozo official had a scanned hard-copy in PDF, ran into trouble, and blamed the format (even though it would offer a good way to handle the situation built in) rather than the other bozo that scanned it, and didn't use the built in OCR function. I'm pretty sure these people would do the same with HTML, OOXML or ODF; it's not the formats fault.
Why?
Unless copyright transfers to the murderer, there isn't a lot of money to be made killing them.
I mean, who would commit murder to be allowed to buy a book for cheaper (as once the person was dead everyone would be able to publish at just over printing cost, taking the profit away).
I only know this as I foolishly stated the same on this very forum in the past, but the logic holds as far as I can tell. The bumping off can only reduce cost slightly for any given person (to just over cost), and does nothing but decrease profits (allowed by the artificial monopoly over a work created by copyright). Nobodies profit increases without copyright (there are arguments to be made that an artists could at the expense of the publisher if they can ride popularity due to increased exposure to profit in other ways, but that's not really relevant to the bumping off of said artist, and more speculative),
Someone else's right to withhold culture from society for nobodies benefit?
Legality aside (and I assume this is indeed illegal), I don't support the artists in this situation. They have long sense reaped any reward their gift to society was going to offer them, and now it is time for society as a whole to get what value we can before the work totally fades into the realm of unobtainable. I hope that the republishing of the works allows the artists to achieve a second wave of recognition that they can gain some value from, but either way a monopoly on the culture ones create is not a right (even if labeled as such), and is instead a gift from society as a whole.
Lets not put copyright (the right of publishers to be the only ones making copies when the term was invented) on the same level as something like free speech. It is a method to funnel more money from consumers to artists than the natural state of things would allow (I am not passing judgement on the concept as a whole, as I enjoy the artists/producers getting said unnatural benefit as encouragement, I simply don't see how it is a right in the way you implied it, or that the laws make any sense for society as a whole as they now stand).
Note, I do think Project Gutenberg should stay legal, I simply don't elevating copyright to the level of "Right" as your post implied is fair (I do note that you didn't capitalize it).
I don't really think Project Gutenberg "wholesale kidnapping of works that are under copyright protection" (most likely any kidnapping was done by publishers, that want exclusive right), nor is something being under copyright mutually exclusive with it being orphaned (this is one of the biggest problems with our current law, that something can be locked in a bankrupt publishers vault with nobody, including the artist, able to do anything about it). The definition of orphaned work even states that it is still under copyright protection.
I guess I feel if nobody is exploiting the monopoly granted by copyright, and nobody has done it for a long time, then the flow of culture to the public (enriching society) even when illegal is a lesser evil than it left in a situation where it enriches nobody. I feel more strongly though that Project Gutenberg specifically should play shit strait by the book, as there is plenty of stuff to archive legally, and leave the fights to a project with less to lose (Project Gutenberg Australia for the most recent old stuff).
Google's cloud may not be taking hold in the enterprise, which isn't shocking as it doesn't even have an offline mode now. I also find it useless beyond the very basics (the word processor is good for quick letters, and collaborative text editing, but little else, and I often copy paste into word when the editing is done. The spread sheet is very lacking, I can't even specify format of cells manually). I can't imagine how bad a Presentation would look.
The email may not be taking over in the enterprise, but a lot of educational institutions are using it (this is most likely off of unix tools, but is revenue MS won't be gaining), and the small-medium businesses appear to like it too (being free, and easy to manage). I know a couple businesses that moved from a hosted outlook situation to google application, and are happy with the results (though I imagine if they were into the calendaring part in a big way the retraining would have altered that).
I don't see MS's services unseating google in these arenas, and it wouldn't shock me if companies that grow to be enterprises in 10 years are still content using the google applications (paid version) instead of Outlook and Exchange. The reliability on the email is high enough, and email is a place people are very comfortable with the cloud (we've had hotmail for nearly 15 years).
Not really.
Whenever I've heard "five nines" it has (is that it's also?) 99.999%.
I feel the us's choice to use 110 volt service is going to be problematic in the coming years.
Also, a house using gas and /or oil for heat and hotwater is likely to have 100 amps. This makes your 15 amp 1/3 of the houses capacit.
Most circuits are 15 amp, but it's less than half the watts here.
Except when shopping they do provide extra information. I would simply recommend people using the product search. It conveniently has a seller rating.
Was there a Montgomery bus denial of service in history I am unaware of?
Because in the history I learned nobodies use of the bus was blocked by the protesters, and the bus companies resources weren't wasted by them.
There was public defiance of unjust rules, and then there was later a boycott of the buses, but again, history in school does tend to make stuff up, making it quite possible that actually the protesters tried to make it so others couldn't use the buses in reality. And maybe Rosa Parks was an alias, and actually someone else hiding their identity when breaking the unjust rule.
Civil disobedience is generally regarded as breaking the unjust law.
To fight the unjust laws supporting the RIAA etc, would require flagrant breaking of the copyright laws and hoping for support when unfairly punished.
A DDoS could be equated to a protest, but it could also be regarded as an act of aggression against a company.
As for Rosa Parks she refused to follow the rule that was not fair, she did not then go and block others from using the bus, or wasting the bus companies resources (both of which an effective DDoS do). It eventually lead to a bus boycott, not a bus denial of service.
Tree sitting tree huggers are causing a denial of service, but again it is public, it is open, and it is against an act, not a company.
I think the key difference is that civil disobedience involves acting in the open, to high-lite injustice and suffer the consequences to make a point (Rosa Parks didn't hid, Gandhi didn't hide, tree sitters don't hide, acknowledgement and recognition, and suffering the consequences are how they succeed, or hope to at least.
Aside from ice picks I don't see why picks would be prohibited.
When I can't bring reading materials on the plane I know who to blame.
Just looked at their prices too, they've gotten worse.
And the crappy displays on the iMacs (maybe this has improved) kill them for serious use, leaving the cheapest desktop at $2500, and it's only one CPU.
But trying to match their 5k computer at Dell runs 6k.
From what I've seen in forums nouveau is not so bad actually.
I like that the team is working hard on using Gallium effectively (for example they used it to make VA-API work using VDPAU (decode only)).
As far as I can tell the nouveau driver is more feature complete than the open source ATI driver, though maybe not as performant (I'm waiting for Open Source VA-API support for h.264 with encoding and decoding, I am not too concerned about the overall performance if it can run compiz).
Intel appears to be the closest/already there, but I have hopes for the others. I really want one of these AMD APU's for a media center, but at the very least I need the playback. And I have enough patients to wait for OSS drivers and vote with my wallet. The progress on nouveau I find quite interesting, as it does not have the same type of backing as ATI is giving, yet appears to be moving along very well.
I'd really like to see VA-API supported more broadly, as it is not purely a playback solution. In doing such I think Intel made the write call. I additionally like that it is not locked into certain codecs at all, and a GPU accelerated solution using just GPU hardware (not the special chip that VDPAU has for example) will theoretically work across all Gallium cards that support the same version of OpenGL (though not as well as using the dedicated hardware on the card).
Last time I specced an Apple desktop vs any others is was the cheapest.
It had to be compared to workstations. As there were no other brands matching Apple's in the desktop range.
There was GPL glue to get them working on AMD64 pretty quick in my memory, It worked fine, and was pretty easy.
I actually can't verify it as faster than 1 year, but it was available when i purchased my computer in sept '04, with the first clawhammer released sept '03.
Not an official driver, just a little fragment to make the official one work (it was a patched NVIDIA installer, so easy to do).
I agree, my point is if they are paying the market wage (on paper) there is no way to make them pay the difference as a tax.
The problem is that they pay the fair wage. If the didn't they couldn't get the visa.
If a system was in place to demonstrate they didn't, they wouldn't be able to get the h1 b anyway.
Are you implying China is a free market?
But can the other networks handle it?
Because maybe AT&T can offer better plans rates/more GB to keep customers, even with the loss of exclusivity.
Are you referring to the reference to falcon, which was cancelled and replaced with swift (5 Watt), which was then cancelled and replaced with bobcat (9 Watt)?
I look forward to it (9 Watt including a gpu that's good enough (today's low mid range, in 6 months)), but it is not the super mobile chip they were hoping for.
It will find a place under my TV if the lnux support for h.264 is there (allegedly it will be)
Exactly, that was my point.
You can't give it away for free without the better database, and no amount of money can get you that.
Except to compete with google, you need not only as good or better algorythms, as good or better other services (e-mail etc). you need as good or better database too.
Google has years of peoples habits to make itself much more profitable for an eye than the others (they place ads better). Using their decade of accumulated data they can best a new entry that is better in every way, because the new entry can't gain the traction to get the data google has. In a way this is harder than a high cost for entry, as no amount of money can acquire it.
WebM has been reported on before.
The great thing about the internet is watch engines. Or even the ducking g article enlightens I bet.
I don't need summaries to be longer to define things like webm, whether I know the meaning or not.
I had to remove flash from my android 2.2
It broke more sits than it fixed (it would stay on top, blocking things I wanted to see ). Additionally, the only thong it reliably ran were the ads.