Religion doesn't put people up to that, they do it on their own. Islam, Christianity and Buddhism in particular do not allow for that sort of behavior as a route to the goal. It's something which the ignorant amongst them do, and if you actually study up on the theological aspect it's really clear that such individuals are not in keeping with the religion.
If you claim the ignorant is 90%, maybe. Christianity and Catholicism in particular has been doing it for 1500 years at least with absolution of your sins. And if you think being a good Buddhist is easy, try following the Eightfold Path and you'll quite quickly see it's near impossible to be that good. So to offset that you haven't been a living saint, you donate to the Tibetan monks or whatever. When you add up the collective guilt of a people you get a lot of money and a lot of power. You do know a fairly central part of the Lord's Prayer is "and forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us," - it's pretty clear you need to seek the Lord's forgiveness and often too. And don't get me started on Islam, between halal and haraam and prayers and pilgrimages and then some there's more than enough to give the average Muslim guilt too. Of course on the flip side you could say this is simply religion asking us to better ourselves, but in practice the bar is such that almost no one feels pious enough.
Because religion puts you up to being a busybody. As individuals I mind my business and you mind yours as long as it doesn't have too ill effects on each other. But if you're seeing this as a sin and an offense against god, then it's not just my choice and your choice but a Right and a Wrong choice.
To religious nuts it's like trying to say that a cancer cell isn't better or worse than other cells, just different. They want a society that encourages people to make the Right choice and discourages them from making the Wrong choice. They want to push their way of life, their moral systems and their belief on you. They want to cleanse society of sin and taint and if you like your sinning ways that's a problem that needs solving, not a choice to be respected.
As for why pornography? Because lust is such a basic feeling in people, I doubt there's any religious man who isn't at least feeling somewhat guilty for having naughty thoughts. That's the hook that makes people work for religion, they give you guilt then let you work towards forgiveness. Religion is a bit like evolution, it doesn't care how it survives it's only about numbers - births and converts.
Most major Swedish ISPs (Telia, etc) say they will start giving everyone both IPv4 and IPv6 in 2013, and drop IPv4 by 2015.
I can believe the first part, I don't believe the second part at all. Because turning off IPv4 *will* break stuff, and Swedes can afford to pay their way to an IPv4 address like most of the Western world. I suspect it will only be cheap internet connections in the third world that'll get a IPv6 only internet.
It's not simply a matter of reality TV shows being more popular... They are really cheap to make. My impression is that they can cancel a typical (non-reality) television show, and replace it with a reality show, and still be more profitable even if the reality show gets less viewers.
This. Low paid participants who don't need any acting skills, simple camera work and almost no retakes just broadcast whatever happens. Take something like Paradise Hotel. Rent a luxury hotel, find a few good-looking guys and girls and give them skimpy swimwear and free booze. That's pretty much all the props you need for the entire season, the rest is just gossip and intrigue.
Even if you just compare it to some drama series you still need fairly known actors, script, clothing, props, scenery, you need to do many takes per scene and so on . There's just no doubt that reality shows is much, much cheaper to produce. I once saw some numbers but I've completely forgotten, the difference was stunning though.
I don't really see it being that good for them, either. Oracle isn't going to have much trouble reverse-engineering the patches back out, but RedHat now ends up in a more difficult position: fewer of their patches will be incorporated upstream, so they have to spend more work porting them into each new release; they'll have less community review and bugfixes in their patches; and they're going to alienate the community.
I very much doubt Red Hat has any plans to change the way they work on the kernel master branch. This seems to be about their cherrypicking and backporting of patches to RHEL kernels. They want other distros - particularly Oracle it seems - to either do that work themselves or admit they are just rebranding Red Hat's work. For example in that big mega-patch they can simply add a few whitespace changes, if the same changes show up in Unbreakable Linux you know they started with the Red Hat kernel and worked from there. To be honest, I'm somewhat ambivalent about the whole thing. Making it a bit harder to cooperate is bad but making sure credit goes where credit is due is important so that people do the "invisible" work too.
For those who have no idea what I'm talking about, note that most GPL'd software is available from the authors with other licenses.
Really? It was my impression that copyright assignment was fairly rare, except maybe to the FSF who don't do commercial licensing and a few corporations doing dual licensing as a business model. They and projects that only have one or a few developers can do that, but anything actually community driven is likely to have a pages long contributor list and you'll need a license from all of them. So my impression is that most open source software can't practically be licensed under any other terms.
GPL is like promoting free speech until someone saids something YOU don't like. True freedom is letting people do what they want.
The GPL requires that whoever you give the code to - in source or binary form - is just as free to use the code as you were. The way you are "more free" with the BSD is to make others less free, obviously you are more free if your right to swing your fist doesn't end at my nose. Being able to own slaves is a freedom for the slave holder. Except we don't want those kinds of freedoms, because they make others less free. BSD makes Apple more free and OS X users less free than under the GPL. The GPL may not be the absolute and total freedom, but it is the equal and fair freedom.
This is also true... have you ever tried to properly license a song for a small product? They ask for thousands of dollars and treat you as if you're going to be making money on the project. They don't even like to call you back unless you're some super-huge corporation. (...) Just put in a system that allows you to pay $20 to license a song for a personal-use video, youtube, whatever and people will pay that as well.
Well, unless they're set up for volume with a very streamlined process it's probably not worth it. Just the fact that they can't just fire volleys of C&D letters but rather have to check it against a huge DB of licensees, who no doubt will use it in many different ways and places is complicated. Even if they demand to send all works you want to license to them for addition to their hash database even a single bit flip will bring it up as a false positive. Then people start complaining that they do have a license or that they used it in a clip or compilation or similiar video that should be covered by the license. It takes extremely little to for overhead to eat all the profit of a one-time $20 bill.
And every time someone calls it DNF, I think Did Not Finish. I'm surprised they actually had the balls to announce a release date unless they were 110% sure they could hold it.
That said Twitter doesn't have to do anything just because it's legal. If NYT says "please stop doing X" then Twitter doesn't have to comply but they also don't have to refuse. They may find it's good business to make some kind of exemption for NYT - or not. After all nothing forces NYT to put their links on twitter either, if they don't like it they can take their ball and go play elsewhere. Personally I think Twitter should just tell NYT to shove it, but then I'm not always thinking with a sound business mind.
It's a win-win for the company and the reporter if they can file it as business expenses rather than increased salary, but it comes from the same income. No income and they can't eat on or off the job...
From what I've gathered most full disk encryption will overwrite the disk with random data anyway (unless you specifically ask it not to) so you can't tell what's encrypted data and what is random junk. If it was encrypted data and the rest all zeros, that would be stupid.
Yeah, they could at least pick one that is a bit negative yet not utter crap and flamebait - but I guess it drives hits. If you go to news on BBC it says:
Millions download latest Firefox Mozilla celebrates more than five million downloads of its latest browser, however Firefox's market share is declining.
The article goes on to say that the 5.5 million downloads is short of the 8 million downloads Firefox 3 saw, that it has gone from a peak of 24% to 21% now etc. Those are at least reasonably supported facts, until the ZDNet crap which in one sentence goes
It took Google only a bit more than two years to ship Chrome 9 last month, and it was replaced by version 10 just a little over four weeks later.
then a bit later
Itâ(TM)s also easy to be skeptical about Mozillaâ(TM)s ambitious roadmap that has them shipping versions 5, 6, and 7 before the end of this year.
So Google shipping monthly releases, no problem but Firefox shipping quarterly releases is overly ambitious. It's a wonder this guy can tie his shoelaces in the morning...
Of course. I was just responding to the argument that the first amendment makes copyright unconstitutional or invalid or whatever. There's no doubt "limited times" has become seriously perverted, on the other hand there's little evidence to suggest that reducing copyright back to 14 years would stop people from pirating the latest hit music and blockbusters. You might argue that's just because people see the copyright deal as broken anyway, but I doubt that would mend things.
A person who downloads unlicensed media deprives nobody of anything. There is no guarantee that the person would have bought the media had it not been available online. There is no such thing as a potential sale, or potential profit.
Back in the real world, if you turned off the tap water the sale of bottled water would increase even if people could drink milk or juice or soda or beer. Maybe if people had to pay for water they'd drink less or drink something else, but trying to argue it would have no effect is burying your head deeply in the sand.
You do know there's a copyright clause in the original consitituion right? Among the enumerated powers of government is "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.â
These are the very same founding fathers who are writing both the consitution and the bill of rights. If they didn't see a crash here, they probably didn't think there was one. Even if they made the first amendment as simple as possible, I assume they had some sort of (* except libel, slander, yelling fire in a crowded theater, false advertising, death threats etc etc etc). They can't possibly have missed that "the exclusive Right to their respective Writings" would mean others can't freely repeat their writings.
A rocket scientist would probably say it's not, not since the launch in 2009. And the people who built and operate the satellite probably know very little about rockets...
It sure would be nice if all those works weren't effectively dead (and their knowledge lost) just because my local bookstore or library can't get them.
They are not lost. Pretty much every work has to be deposited in the Library of Congress or similar institutions (Nasjonalarkivet here in Norway). If you truly wanted copyright to expire earlier you could easily make some kind of process where abandoned works would enter the public domain.
In fact that was the case in the US up to 1992. The problem was that a lot of active holders failed to realize and erroneously let their works expire. Plus there's as far as I know no good international system of renewal so really only the big corporations with procedures would get it done worldwide. It's a less than ideal system yet still massively better than letting Google just grab it underhandedly.
Google infringed on a few books. The $125M was to make it okay for them to infringe on all books. If they were just going to stop infringing and compensate the people they've already infringed, their offer would be like $1.98.
Nope, this is the RIAA lawsuits in reverse... 750$-150,000$ statutory damages per work. That does require your work to be registered with the US copyright office, but I imagine that even fairly obscure authors do that as part of the publishing process.
I do get the point of class actions, but it should be an essential requirement in such settlements that the defendant cease the activity hurting the plaintiffs. Just because Toyota settles a class action over faulty brakes don't mean they now have a perpetual legal indemnity to continue shipping faulty brakes. Yet Google wants to retain the right to continue using all these works, it's a licensing scheme not a damage settlement. Just because I happen to be part of a class doesn't mean that class should be able to license my work at will. That is a grant, not a settlement.
Slashdot Mirror
Religion doesn't put people up to that, they do it on their own. Islam, Christianity and Buddhism in particular do not allow for that sort of behavior as a route to the goal. It's something which the ignorant amongst them do, and if you actually study up on the theological aspect it's really clear that such individuals are not in keeping with the religion.
If you claim the ignorant is 90%, maybe. Christianity and Catholicism in particular has been doing it for 1500 years at least with absolution of your sins. And if you think being a good Buddhist is easy, try following the Eightfold Path and you'll quite quickly see it's near impossible to be that good. So to offset that you haven't been a living saint, you donate to the Tibetan monks or whatever. When you add up the collective guilt of a people you get a lot of money and a lot of power. You do know a fairly central part of the Lord's Prayer is "and forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us," - it's pretty clear you need to seek the Lord's forgiveness and often too. And don't get me started on Islam, between halal and haraam and prayers and pilgrimages and then some there's more than enough to give the average Muslim guilt too. Of course on the flip side you could say this is simply religion asking us to better ourselves, but in practice the bar is such that almost no one feels pious enough.
Because religion puts you up to being a busybody. As individuals I mind my business and you mind yours as long as it doesn't have too ill effects on each other. But if you're seeing this as a sin and an offense against god, then it's not just my choice and your choice but a Right and a Wrong choice.
To religious nuts it's like trying to say that a cancer cell isn't better or worse than other cells, just different. They want a society that encourages people to make the Right choice and discourages them from making the Wrong choice. They want to push their way of life, their moral systems and their belief on you. They want to cleanse society of sin and taint and if you like your sinning ways that's a problem that needs solving, not a choice to be respected.
As for why pornography? Because lust is such a basic feeling in people, I doubt there's any religious man who isn't at least feeling somewhat guilty for having naughty thoughts. That's the hook that makes people work for religion, they give you guilt then let you work towards forgiveness. Religion is a bit like evolution, it doesn't care how it survives it's only about numbers - births and converts.
And fezes, fezes are cool.
*draws blaster*
I guess you haven't seen the MacBook Air....
Well hopefully not tomorrow, I have a dentist's appointment.
Personally I would be more like "On the bright side, I don't have to go to that dentist's appointment.."
Most major Swedish ISPs (Telia, etc) say they will start giving everyone both IPv4 and IPv6 in 2013, and drop IPv4 by 2015.
I can believe the first part, I don't believe the second part at all. Because turning off IPv4 *will* break stuff, and Swedes can afford to pay their way to an IPv4 address like most of the Western world. I suspect it will only be cheap internet connections in the third world that'll get a IPv6 only internet.
It's not simply a matter of reality TV shows being more popular... They are really cheap to make. My impression is that they can cancel a typical (non-reality) television show, and replace it with a reality show, and still be more profitable even if the reality show gets less viewers.
This. Low paid participants who don't need any acting skills, simple camera work and almost no retakes just broadcast whatever happens. Take something like Paradise Hotel. Rent a luxury hotel, find a few good-looking guys and girls and give them skimpy swimwear and free booze. That's pretty much all the props you need for the entire season, the rest is just gossip and intrigue.
Even if you just compare it to some drama series you still need fairly known actors, script, clothing, props, scenery, you need to do many takes per scene and so on . There's just no doubt that reality shows is much, much cheaper to produce. I once saw some numbers but I've completely forgotten, the difference was stunning though.
I don't really see it being that good for them, either. Oracle isn't going to have much trouble reverse-engineering the patches back out, but RedHat now ends up in a more difficult position: fewer of their patches will be incorporated upstream, so they have to spend more work porting them into each new release; they'll have less community review and bugfixes in their patches; and they're going to alienate the community.
I very much doubt Red Hat has any plans to change the way they work on the kernel master branch. This seems to be about their cherrypicking and backporting of patches to RHEL kernels. They want other distros - particularly Oracle it seems - to either do that work themselves or admit they are just rebranding Red Hat's work. For example in that big mega-patch they can simply add a few whitespace changes, if the same changes show up in Unbreakable Linux you know they started with the Red Hat kernel and worked from there. To be honest, I'm somewhat ambivalent about the whole thing. Making it a bit harder to cooperate is bad but making sure credit goes where credit is due is important so that people do the "invisible" work too.
For those who have no idea what I'm talking about, note that most GPL'd software is available from the authors with other licenses.
Really? It was my impression that copyright assignment was fairly rare, except maybe to the FSF who don't do commercial licensing and a few corporations doing dual licensing as a business model. They and projects that only have one or a few developers can do that, but anything actually community driven is likely to have a pages long contributor list and you'll need a license from all of them. So my impression is that most open source software can't practically be licensed under any other terms.
GPL is like promoting free speech until someone saids something YOU don't like. True freedom is letting people do what they want.
The GPL requires that whoever you give the code to - in source or binary form - is just as free to use the code as you were. The way you are "more free" with the BSD is to make others less free, obviously you are more free if your right to swing your fist doesn't end at my nose. Being able to own slaves is a freedom for the slave holder. Except we don't want those kinds of freedoms, because they make others less free. BSD makes Apple more free and OS X users less free than under the GPL. The GPL may not be the absolute and total freedom, but it is the equal and fair freedom.
This is also true... have you ever tried to properly license a song for a small product? They ask for thousands of dollars and treat you as if you're going to be making money on the project. They don't even like to call you back unless you're some super-huge corporation. (...) Just put in a system that allows you to pay $20 to license a song for a personal-use video, youtube, whatever and people will pay that as well.
Well, unless they're set up for volume with a very streamlined process it's probably not worth it. Just the fact that they can't just fire volleys of C&D letters but rather have to check it against a huge DB of licensees, who no doubt will use it in many different ways and places is complicated. Even if they demand to send all works you want to license to them for addition to their hash database even a single bit flip will bring it up as a false positive. Then people start complaining that they do have a license or that they used it in a clip or compilation or similiar video that should be covered by the license. It takes extremely little to for overhead to eat all the profit of a one-time $20 bill.
I know, it's soooo time for a dupe. The editors have gotten really sloppy about it, nothing like in the good old days.
And every time someone calls it DNF, I think Did Not Finish. I'm surprised they actually had the balls to announce a release date unless they were 110% sure they could hold it.
That said Twitter doesn't have to do anything just because it's legal. If NYT says "please stop doing X" then Twitter doesn't have to comply but they also don't have to refuse. They may find it's good business to make some kind of exemption for NYT - or not. After all nothing forces NYT to put their links on twitter either, if they don't like it they can take their ball and go play elsewhere. Personally I think Twitter should just tell NYT to shove it, but then I'm not always thinking with a sound business mind.
It's a win-win for the company and the reporter if they can file it as business expenses rather than increased salary, but it comes from the same income. No income and they can't eat on or off the job...
From what I've gathered most full disk encryption will overwrite the disk with random data anyway (unless you specifically ask it not to) so you can't tell what's encrypted data and what is random junk. If it was encrypted data and the rest all zeros, that would be stupid.
Yeah, they could at least pick one that is a bit negative yet not utter crap and flamebait - but I guess it drives hits. If you go to news on BBC it says:
Millions download latest Firefox
Mozilla celebrates more than five million downloads of its latest browser, however Firefox's market share is declining.
The article goes on to say that the 5.5 million downloads is short of the 8 million downloads Firefox 3 saw, that it has gone from a peak of 24% to 21% now etc. Those are at least reasonably supported facts, until the ZDNet crap which in one sentence goes
It took Google only a bit more than two years to ship Chrome 9 last month, and it was replaced by version 10 just a little over four weeks later.
then a bit later
Itâ(TM)s also easy to be skeptical about Mozillaâ(TM)s ambitious roadmap that has them shipping versions 5, 6, and 7 before the end of this year.
So Google shipping monthly releases, no problem but Firefox shipping quarterly releases is overly ambitious. It's a wonder this guy can tie his shoelaces in the morning...
Movies aren't that bad in my opinion, TV series are much worse. Fortunately, I'm not bothered too much with this problem.
Of course. I was just responding to the argument that the first amendment makes copyright unconstitutional or invalid or whatever. There's no doubt "limited times" has become seriously perverted, on the other hand there's little evidence to suggest that reducing copyright back to 14 years would stop people from pirating the latest hit music and blockbusters. You might argue that's just because people see the copyright deal as broken anyway, but I doubt that would mend things.
A person who downloads unlicensed media deprives nobody of anything. There is no guarantee that the person would have bought the media had it not been available online. There is no such thing as a potential sale, or potential profit.
Back in the real world, if you turned off the tap water the sale of bottled water would increase even if people could drink milk or juice or soda or beer. Maybe if people had to pay for water they'd drink less or drink something else, but trying to argue it would have no effect is burying your head deeply in the sand.
You do know there's a copyright clause in the original consitituion right? Among the enumerated powers of government is "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.â
These are the very same founding fathers who are writing both the consitution and the bill of rights. If they didn't see a crash here, they probably didn't think there was one. Even if they made the first amendment as simple as possible, I assume they had some sort of (* except libel, slander, yelling fire in a crowded theater, false advertising, death threats etc etc etc). They can't possibly have missed that "the exclusive Right to their respective Writings" would mean others can't freely repeat their writings.
A rocket scientist would probably say it's not, not since the launch in 2009. And the people who built and operate the satellite probably know very little about rockets...
It sure would be nice if all those works weren't effectively dead (and their knowledge lost) just because my local bookstore or library can't get them.
They are not lost. Pretty much every work has to be deposited in the Library of Congress or similar institutions (Nasjonalarkivet here in Norway). If you truly wanted copyright to expire earlier you could easily make some kind of process where abandoned works would enter the public domain.
In fact that was the case in the US up to 1992. The problem was that a lot of active holders failed to realize and erroneously let their works expire. Plus there's as far as I know no good international system of renewal so really only the big corporations with procedures would get it done worldwide. It's a less than ideal system yet still massively better than letting Google just grab it underhandedly.
Google infringed on a few books. The $125M was to make it okay for them to infringe on all books. If they were just going to stop infringing and compensate the people they've already infringed, their offer would be like $1.98.
Nope, this is the RIAA lawsuits in reverse... 750$-150,000$ statutory damages per work. That does require your work to be registered with the US copyright office, but I imagine that even fairly obscure authors do that as part of the publishing process.
I do get the point of class actions, but it should be an essential requirement in such settlements that the defendant cease the activity hurting the plaintiffs. Just because Toyota settles a class action over faulty brakes don't mean they now have a perpetual legal indemnity to continue shipping faulty brakes. Yet Google wants to retain the right to continue using all these works, it's a licensing scheme not a damage settlement. Just because I happen to be part of a class doesn't mean that class should be able to license my work at will. That is a grant, not a settlement.