: AVOIDTRIP ( -- )
legs blocked? IF stop walking ! THEN ;
This assumes that legs and walking are I/O ports of some kind and stop is some control bit pattern. The operation of blocked is obvious (ie @ BLOCKFLAG AND)
CD quality is so good that the vast majority of people simply could not care less that there is something better which requires new equipment.
All this talk about hearing ranges of 20Hz to 20KHz is bollocks: look at the results of testing groups of people aged 20+; very few will get outside the 50Hz to 18Khz range. My girlfriend can't hear over 14KHz!
I'm a bit of a music nut in that CD's do bug me, but it's not the frequency range, it's the dynamic range that I'd like to see extended, particularly for the little classical music that I listen to.
These systems should be built as they are now and then the source code should be released. Since the code is paid for by taxes, it's only fair that any good ideas sould be given back to the community.
The programs could still be audited and controlled as they are now but patches could be submitted after the initial release, increasing the speed at which bugs are fixed.
Working this way, air traffic control is a place where open source can work, and IMHO work well.
People may not be happy with using ATC which has been built by the open source community (esp if they've used Mozilla) but who could object to an extra few thousand people checking/fixing the code after release?
In an anarchy like the net leaders are only followed when they are the right ones for the current situation; pass performance, like Divine-Right or patrilinear descent, are of no importance. In this case the EFF were wrong - mainly from fear that the hackers would fail I think, and were ignored. This is good. Once we blindly follow people, no matter how well they have led in the past, we will be in BIG trouble.
If congress wanted to say simply "unauthorized reproduction is prohibited", they could have said so in those four words. But they didn't.
No, they used the words:
the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize
any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
which is more than 4 but it means the same thing. The following section (107) then lists exceptions which I covered in the previous answer and revolve around a) educational use, and b) use which is not likely to reduce the market for the work.
I believe that under some circumstances photocopying a book might run afoul of the law, even if you didn't get money for that;
Every UK library has to have (by law) a notice posted above the photocopiers stating that copying >5% of a work (maps have a special section) is illegal. Have a look in your local library; perhaps US ones have a similar notice. In any case copying a whole work (which you do not own a copy of) for non-educational/research use seems very clearly against the combined statements of 106 and 107. If you copy a book from the library, say, you have reduced the market for that book by 1. This is not allowed.
the fact it doesn't explicitly prevent me from making copies is in my favor.
But 106 does specifically say you need the author's permission. Copying it without permission is the very first thing section 106 says you can't do. Therefore its up to you to show that you fall under one of the exceptions.
...because they couldn't make their case under copyright.
Well, could be, but I suspect that in fact the reason was that they were unsure if copyright covered software (it didn't in the US until quite recently).
I will send a more detailed reply via email this weekend.
I did mean 106. I was looking at 107 when I typed the paragraph.
DA has the right to prevent you copying his work. That is granted to him by Congress.
Books do come with a licence: its printed on the page with the copyright notice (this book is sold under the condition...). The bookseller is bound by this and the conditions of ownership normally include a price to the bookseller. S/he may then give away the book, but s/he can't copy it and sell or give the copies away.
As regards 107, the exceptions listed are for portions of a work, the bigger the portion the less "fair" it is. The bit about "commercial nature" is actually saying that the judge should be more generous on the interpretation of fair use if it is not for commercial use, which is in line with para 4 which says that the more you affect the value of the work the more likely you are to fall foul of the law. But saying that non-commercial use gets you off the hook completly is too much to hope for in court. Which is where the discussion started.
Read that section again and think about what it would mean under your system - can it really be saying that quoting small parts of a work is less "fair use" than larger parts or the entire work? It doesn't make sense.
It says that these are factors to be considered, not that these factors are ones which can be used only by the defense.
In short, it is fair use to quote portions, to use a text for education or to make other uses which do not, in the judge's opinion, affect the value of, or market for, the work. Giving the work away for free is definately going to affect both of those. but, again, the judge can be lenient if the effect is small, if s/he chooses.
LaMacchia was charged with the wrong crime and, under the Wire Fraud Statute, found not-guilty. The decision specifically states that it is not a copyright decision, only a fraud one. Indeed, it is hard to see how giving things away can be any sort of fraud.
I can't find UK copyright law on line, with a quick search on Google, but I'll have another look tonight.
Copyright law simply doesn't guarantee that Douglas Adams gets paid for every copy of his work that comes into existence;
I did not mean to imply that DA is guaranteed by law to get paid, but he does have the right to place restrictions on who is allowed to copy his work and in the case of most professional authors one requirement is that the copier pays the author some money.
The GPL is an example where copyright holds but does not require payment.
Lack of payment does not negate copyright, as it says in Title 17 section 107 paragraph 1 (the exclusive right to make or allow copies - no mention of selling or giving away the copy: a copy is a copy) and in para 3 (phonorecords) it specifically states "by sale or other transfer of ownership" of copies.
The flaw in your argument is that you are suggesting that copyright law has nothing to do with copying and is instead about selling. I know that there are some differences in the US copyright law compared to the UK but I doubt that they are as fundimental as that.
And, once again, the Seat of Democracy® can't even get a third of eligible voters to vote.
Acording to those figures Europe had over 48% and, since the UK is currently part of Europe, we were well over a third, and I can't remember a general election ever being below 40% so I don't see where the "once again" comes from either.
A spelling checker wouldn't catch that. Most grammar checkers wouldn't either. Perhaps eyes would be best.
TWW
Re:Just something else I know nothing about...
on
Does P = NP?
·
· Score: 1
Most introductory CS books cover this. Computer Science, Goldschlager and Lister, Prenice Hall 1988 is the nearst book to my keyboard that covers it. It also covers transistors and gates, if that's your cup of tea.
Basically, the issue is are there any problems (which have solutions at all) that can't be solved in, at worst, polynomial time? Ie, the time taken to solve for a "sample" of n is proportional to n^(some constant). I seem to recall that's it anyway.
The main issue here is the removal of rights people have had for decades, not the ability to steal. The DMCA won't, and is not intended to, make it harder to break copyright. What it is designed to do is to increase the scope of copyright to a level whereby the consumer will no longer own any material they buy. They will not be allowed to make compilation tapes for the car/walkman from their CD collection. They will not be (and are not) allowed to watch their DVD's unless they pay an extra cut to a cartel of DVD makers (ie the ones they already paid for the material on the DVD). Books would, if exceptions are not made, no longer be available for library loans. etc. etc. etc.
Copyright theives will always exist (and fuck 'em) but I'm not one just because I want to watch a DVD which I bought legally on my own computer.
What the hell is the difference between an "amature pirate" and a "professional pirate" ?
In many countries there is a legal difference, a bit like the difference between a user who shares with friends and a pusher that sells on the street.
you shouldn't imply that uncompensated file copying is in anyway illegal.
Why? It can be. If I give you a file with the contents of The Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy in it I've broken the copyright whether you pay me or not. My involvement makes no difference to the fact that you have a copy of Douglas Adams' work and he hasn't been paid for it. It's not hard to follow, surely.
I wish I had my mod points now. This has to be the single most idiotic, useless, unconstructive, narrow-minded, bigotted, stupid, load of crap I've ever read on/. (and that's up against pretty stiff competition). To quote Greg Stafford, you know very little, and what you know is wrong.
Yeah, yeah, it's all anecdotes. Of course it is; just like saying the sky's blue is anecdotal. When I look at my uptime and see numbers like 43 days (since the last hardware upgrade) it's just an anecdote. Trouble is, it's also true.
Who cares if you need "proof", I've got my proof in front of me at work (and downstairs in the Windows area I have lots more proof of the lack of Windows stability). If you need proof, you go and get it. After all, you're the one with something to prove; I already know how stable my computer is.
You know enough about Enigma to pay out thousands of quid for it but you haven't heard that one's been stolen from BP itself. Get the bastards and stick them in gaol where they belong.
While this proposal would seem to help, will it really? After all the PO is passing patents in the face of existing laws (non-obvious, non-software, original, working models are all requirements in law which are a distant memory in fact).
Either the patent system needs scrapped or the US is going to have to realise that one rouge/idiot judge making a decision to allow something is not on the same legal or moral footing as a law passed by Congress.
When a Judge makes a decision on a case it should have no effect on other cases; this system means that all laws gradually degrade as a judge here or there makes an incorrect decision for one reason or another and those mistakes are carried into future cases.
As I understand it, in the UK cases can be used as guidance but there is no binding requirement to follow another judge's decision in another case.
In theory; in practice the price of CD'ed books is a lot higher than the 8p VAT on a blank CD would suggest. I assume someone somewhere is being ripped-off.
As I recall the scope of i in the example is actually legal 2nd edition C++, as defined in Stroustrup's (very badly written) book. The requirement to restrict the scope to the for loop only came in in the 3rd edition, so this isn't an "extension", it's the opposite - a feature that has been left behind by the changing spec.
Slashdot Mirror
FORTH programmers don't burn out; they just factorise until they slip through your fingers.
TWW
legs blocked? IF stop walking ! THEN
This assumes that legs and walking are I/O ports of some kind and stop is some control bit pattern. The operation of blocked is obvious (ie @ BLOCKFLAG AND)
TWW
All this talk about hearing ranges of 20Hz to 20KHz is bollocks: look at the results of testing groups of people aged 20+; very few will get outside the 50Hz to 18Khz range. My girlfriend can't hear over 14KHz!
I'm a bit of a music nut in that CD's do bug me, but it's not the frequency range, it's the dynamic range that I'd like to see extended, particularly for the little classical music that I listen to.
TWW
The programs could still be audited and controlled as they are now but patches could be submitted after the initial release, increasing the speed at which bugs are fixed.
Working this way, air traffic control is a place where open source can work, and IMHO work well.
People may not be happy with using ATC which has been built by the open source community (esp if they've used Mozilla) but who could object to an extra few thousand people checking/fixing the code after release?
TWW
TWW
If congress wanted to say simply "unauthorized reproduction is prohibited", they could have said so in those four words. But they didn't.
No, they used the words:
which is more than 4 but it means the same thing. The following section (107) then lists exceptions which I covered in the previous answer and revolve around a) educational use, and b) use which is not likely to reduce the market for the work.
I believe that under some circumstances photocopying a book might run afoul of the law, even if you didn't get money for that;
Every UK library has to have (by law) a notice posted above the photocopiers stating that copying >5% of a work (maps have a special section) is illegal. Have a look in your local library; perhaps US ones have a similar notice. In any case copying a whole work (which you do not own a copy of) for non-educational/research use seems very clearly against the combined statements of 106 and 107. If you copy a book from the library, say, you have reduced the market for that book by 1. This is not allowed.
the fact it doesn't explicitly prevent me from making copies is in my favor.
But 106 does specifically say you need the author's permission. Copying it without permission is the very first thing section 106 says you can't do. Therefore its up to you to show that you fall under one of the exceptions.
Well, could be, but I suspect that in fact the reason was that they were unsure if copyright covered software (it didn't in the US until quite recently).
I will send a more detailed reply via email this weekend.
Okay, I look forward to it.
TWW
TWW
DA has the right to prevent you copying his work. That is granted to him by Congress.
Books do come with a licence: its printed on the page with the copyright notice (this book is sold under the condition...). The bookseller is bound by this and the conditions of ownership normally include a price to the bookseller. S/he may then give away the book, but s/he can't copy it and sell or give the copies away.
As regards 107, the exceptions listed are for portions of a work, the bigger the portion the less "fair" it is. The bit about "commercial nature" is actually saying that the judge should be more generous on the interpretation of fair use if it is not for commercial use, which is in line with para 4 which says that the more you affect the value of the work the more likely you are to fall foul of the law. But saying that non-commercial use gets you off the hook completly is too much to hope for in court. Which is where the discussion started.
Read that section again and think about what it would mean under your system - can it really be saying that quoting small parts of a work is less "fair use" than larger parts or the entire work? It doesn't make sense.
It says that these are factors to be considered, not that these factors are ones which can be used only by the defense.
In short, it is fair use to quote portions, to use a text for education or to make other uses which do not, in the judge's opinion, affect the value of, or market for, the work. Giving the work away for free is definately going to affect both of those. but, again, the judge can be lenient if the effect is small, if s/he chooses.
LaMacchia was charged with the wrong crime and, under the Wire Fraud Statute, found not-guilty. The decision specifically states that it is not a copyright decision, only a fraud one. Indeed, it is hard to see how giving things away can be any sort of fraud.
I can't find UK copyright law on line, with a quick search on Google, but I'll have another look tonight.
TWW
I did not mean to imply that DA is guaranteed by law to get paid, but he does have the right to place restrictions on who is allowed to copy his work and in the case of most professional authors one requirement is that the copier pays the author some money.
The GPL is an example where copyright holds but does not require payment.
Lack of payment does not negate copyright, as it says in Title 17 section 107 paragraph 1 (the exclusive right to make or allow copies - no mention of selling or giving away the copy: a copy is a copy) and in para 3 (phonorecords) it specifically states "by sale or other transfer of ownership" of copies.
The flaw in your argument is that you are suggesting that copyright law has nothing to do with copying and is instead about selling. I know that there are some differences in the US copyright law compared to the UK but I doubt that they are as fundimental as that.
Acording to those figures Europe had over 48% and, since the UK is currently part of Europe, we were well over a third, and I can't remember a general election ever being below 40% so I don't see where the "once again" comes from either.
TWW
Is not the most insightful comment I've ever seen. Vapourware always looks impressive.
TWW
Basically, the issue is are there any problems (which have solutions at all) that can't be solved in, at worst, polynomial time? Ie, the time taken to solve for a "sample" of n is proportional to n^(some constant). I seem to recall that's it anyway.
TWW
Copyright theives will always exist (and fuck 'em) but I'm not one just because I want to watch a DVD which I bought legally on my own computer.
If you can't understand the debate shut up.
TWW
That's illegal, that's why it's wrong.
Shouldn't that be the other way 'round?
TWW
In many countries there is a legal difference, a bit like the difference between a user who shares with friends and a pusher that sells on the street.
you shouldn't imply that uncompensated file copying is in anyway illegal.
Why? It can be. If I give you a file with the contents of The Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy in it I've broken the copyright whether you pay me or not. My involvement makes no difference to the fact that you have a copy of Douglas Adams' work and he hasn't been paid for it. It's not hard to follow, surely.
TWW
BTW, we're all tools of the Illuminati. Some of us just haven't been told.
I wish I had my mod points now. This has to be the single most idiotic, useless, unconstructive, narrow-minded, bigotted, stupid, load of crap I've ever read on /. (and that's up against pretty stiff competition). To quote Greg Stafford, you know very little, and what you know is wrong.
Who cares if you need "proof", I've got my proof in front of me at work (and downstairs in the Windows area I have lots more proof of the lack of Windows stability). If you need proof, you go and get it. After all, you're the one with something to prove; I already know how stable my computer is.
TWW
Unknowingly, indeed!
TWW
I will.
If you give galeon a try, you won't
No, thanks: I want to use my RAM for other things.
see any need for this proprietary stuff....
There is always a need for quality software, open or closed. Good closed is better than open crap, but open crap is better than closed crap.
and it integrates with gnome
I take it you have a gig of RAM. And are blind.
TWW
Either the patent system needs scrapped or the US is going to have to realise that one rouge/idiot judge making a decision to allow something is not on the same legal or moral footing as a law passed by Congress.
When a Judge makes a decision on a case it should have no effect on other cases; this system means that all laws gradually degrade as a judge here or there makes an incorrect decision for one reason or another and those mistakes are carried into future cases.
As I understand it, in the UK cases can be used as guidance but there is no binding requirement to follow another judge's decision in another case.
TWW
Because laws are passed by people, and people can be bought. How much do you think M$, HP, IBM, etc. have paid out to EU politicians on this topic?
Voters get their say every 4-5 years, companies can have theirs every day of the week.
TWW
In theory; in practice the price of CD'ed books is a lot higher than the 8p VAT on a blank CD would suggest. I assume someone somewhere is being ripped-off.
TWW