Sigh, does your two year old use books ONLY for reading?
as I pointing out, reading does come on the list, its just not always at the top, and children certainly dont treat delicate electronic devices with respect that their cost and complexity would warrant.
Or do you disagree with that?
It is quite obvious that Ms.Potters approach to making a book was exactly the opposite of an e-book....
Young children dont *read* books, that is about the 5th to 6th use of them. #1 is they eat books (chew on them whenever possible) #2 is they use books as hammers (apparently hitting things with large flat objects is fun!) #3 is they throw them the moment they are more than 5 inches above the ground
Can someone lend me a kindle (/ipad/whatever) and a stopwatch? I have an experiment in mind...
I suspect Ms.Potters idea was more about making books MORE disposable, not less (the foldups could be printed more cheaply, as no binding).
What complete rubbish. a non-compete does not stop someone from working, it stops someone from working in a competing area! Small difference? that depends. If (and I say if..) a company has spent years and a lot of its money training someone up to be highly valuable in a specific area, what happens to the investment that company has made when the employee jumps straight to their competitor?
The only other solution is not to train staff, to make them train themselves, to only employ staff with existing experience and training (and never to then grow the), etc - all very bad things.
A lot of staff seem to forget that it is a give and take situation, and a balance is required. Especially in a small company the investment and trust placed in an employee, especially a senior one, can be substantial..
Stop trying to paint companies as always bad, and employees as always good - I have twice seen employees near the critical point in large contracts suddenly present offers from other companies, and in effect try and blackmail massive payments from their current company, because they hold information entrusted to them by the company...
If you want to drink their coolaid, feel free, but the fact remains that the local ecologies are much better off on average than without the accident. Of course the gains are because people on the whole are removed, which massively outweighs the small reductions from the remaining radiation.
What they are doing is claiming that is prople were removed, AND there had been no accident, the ecology would be (slightly) even better off, well duh!.
The interesting detail I picked up from this was that Chernobyl continued operation (on other reactors) for 14 years after this disaster. The popular view of the accident would be that the area was unusable, and most probably lethal - it would seem not. Of course, the wildlife in the area also shows this, however it is interesting how reality gets buried in popular belief.
You are ignoring the thing that makes a difference.
Are you writing the application yourself then offering it to the client (contracted sale). Are they contracting you to write the application (contracted service) Or are they employing you to develop the software.
The first two are down to the contract between yourselves, the last one is pretty solidly with them.
If you are *employed* to do work what you say is generally correct, and I had exactly the same situation with a photograher, however that is because they are not employed, but contracted to provide a service, so the contract can be whatever they wish - and they often wish to try and hammer you to the wall;).
Interestingly, in television production of an event the cameramen dont try this little trick, funny that.
It all comes down to the nature of the agreement for the creator, and employment is a pretty solid hammer there (the employer gets the copyright, in general), however sale of items/services is VERY different, and that is what is being considered here, so it is down to the contracts.
Bullshit: "Since modification to the house is a change to the copyrighted article, the copyright owner should be consulted."
No, modifications to the ARCHITECTS BLUEPRINTS could well be, however modifications to the HOUSE are most certainly not.
And ignoring that, short of work of art type buildings (for which notable architects often negotiate interesting contracts) anyone who contracts an architect for the production of a design without copyright transfer would have a number of problems, not limited to the requirement to supply unrestricted copies to the councils/government agencies, etc required.
If copyright stuck in the way you are trying to imply, then a photograph of a busy street would be covered by literally thousands of copyrights - all the clothes being worn, the buildings, the cars in the image, everything that was covered by such IP. It is not, and neither is the house - the copyright only attaches to the specific item, the plans produced. Someone could quite happily product new plans by, say, measuring the building, and modify those, or just modify the building without plans, or with a modification plan, etc.
So anyway, back to the matter at hand, stop spouting bullshit, any such limitation would need to be specifically contracted.
There are many cyclists who are capable of traveling at or above the urban speed limits, and around here do. Should they be banned from the bike lanes? what exactly is the bike lane speed limit?
I would love to see what would happen if someone did try and enforce a nice and slow and safe limit on them, i bet a rather vocal group of riders would go nuts.
Also, to address your other BS.
Have you looked in the rear vision mirror of a parked car when bikes are coming past? they are VERY hard to spot, especially when going fast (as they often are), that is why riders must take care - I ride motorcycles, and we get the same problem, except hitting something much faster, attached to something much heavier, kills us more often... you know what we do? take care!
And there is NO moped in the world that makes more pollution than an SUV, you are just showing everyone your own personal bias and one eyed view of transportation. Stop thinking you are so perfect and deal with the real world, as the rest of us do.
I ride a motorbike (and at times a pushbike) on the road, and have learned one thing very well.
It is the job of the more at-risk to protect themselves!
Anything else is just a stupid unrealistic dream.
Reality is that I must avoid cars pulling in front of me, cutting me off, and at times trying to drive through me when I am stationary. This is life. Every day (I commute through an area of main road loved by cyclists) I see them 'downhilling' down a lethal bit of road - not to commut but for fun, and high speed (often above the speed limit), taking wide corners, and without the ability to quickly stop. I have seen several very serious accidents there, however I have never seen a car-on-car accident there as it is a safe bit of road, the usual accident is a bike into the back of a car, or once into the front when taking a corner WAY too wide.
The road is not a playground, it is there for transportation, and it is dangerous. Many drivers are borderline incompetent, so you must weight up the risks, and make some serious decisions.
Go and do a little learning and see exactly how much of the nitrogen present condenses at his output temperatures, and then how much of that is bio avaiable? didnt bother to do that? I thought not. Now, care to apologise for your slight knowledge? hmm, seems unlikely.
Sigh.
Of course, he had good crops this year, and it happened to rain well this year, hmmm, it must be the exhaust.
And even ignoring that, you fertilise mainly to add NITROGEN (compounds, bio available..), not carbon which plants quite happily get from the air ANYWAY.
In other words, the whole thing is pure BS, and very very slighly bad for the crops, and there are many many rather nasty chemicals in diesel exhaust.
You know, that annoying little detail in the copyright law that states once the copyright lapses the content becomes public property? The price we are supposed to get for our taxes paying for the protection of their rights?
Oh, they didnt think of that? Their intention is for us to never own the content? Hmm.....
Although the DMCA has tried to remove that 'right' already, of course through making it illegal to be able to remove such protection.
That hole there was the first hydrogen bomb test - it used to be an island. The hole is approx. 2km by 1km. Castle Bravo shot. 15MT.
Most modern ICBMs have much less yield, however it is certainly still 'enough'. These are city killers, a ship no matter how large is an easy target.
If someone drops something big on a carrier group then nothing survives - modern weapons have no problem being programmed for ground proximity detonation, and would leave very very little.
Luckily the people with the ability to deliver such weapons accurately enough are unlikely to actually want to...
From my first pass over it this actually looks like a very strange way to describe a rather simple approach.
More generically they could achieve the same, if not more, by using a differential PPM or LZ method, which is very simple to design/implement, needs zeto knowledge of what data it is handling, and is in no way a new idea.
I suspect whomever designed this had a good idea but not that enough compression experience to know solutions were already on hand.
In effect the new binary should be compressed with a dictionary compresser pre-initialised with the contents of the old binary as an initial seed and everything needed is achieved - the initial compression time can be large for a large binary, however as this is a single compress, millions of decompress situation, it would not matter at all (and by large I mean minutes, not days).
Still, their more complex description/implementation sounds much more whizzy and gets more attention, no doubt.
Yes, writing too fast in the middle of working on things so got some of the terminology wrong..
So tell me, as I would be technically guilty if say someone hacked my computer and left such files there, or hacked the WEB on my wireless router and transfered such data, why should I not be able to also get such protection?
The issue here is that the data on computers is a LONG way from under the control of their owner - there are many many ways that data can both arrive and leave without the owner knowing, and no suitable defensive measures for the owner.
Why should there not be? if these filters are so good that they can provide the ISPs with legal protection (of course they are not as they are tirivial to bypass..) then why are they not good enough to also provide myself with protection from other third parties?
this is my whole point, the systems are so full of holes they are worthless - and yet they provide protection only for a select subset of entities at risk from prosecution. Where is the equivalent protection for end users?
If I am to be 100% responsible for all content on my home computer/network, then why are the ISPs not responsible for theirs? is them having a business model more important than me being ABLE to act legally?
And as we all know, it is meant to be 'a get out of jail free' for the ISPs - they simply complain that they cannot be held responsible, and they are given this - why is the same not available to normal people who are also willing to try and follow such rules?
Or perhaps you can explain how I can feasible guarantee not to offend with a home computer attached to the internet? (not attempt.. guarantee.)
Do you want to be held responsible for anything done with a computer you own? you you have children and their friends who ever use that computer? friends and family who visit? have you ever got a virus on your computer? do you use a wireless access point?
The way this is usually done is by offering ISPs a safe harbour whereby they are not responsible for their users traffic if they follow the 'rules'.
My question is, why is this not available to ordinary people?
ie: if you run govt selected filtering software on your computer, you should be immune to prosecution for content accessed from that computer - much the same way as the ISPs are.
In NZ I believe posession of child pornography is automatically an offense with no defense (ie: even if you did not know it was present due to someone else accessing it) - so such an arrangement would have the advantage of protecting individuals who chose to opt in.
Of course this wont happen as its only the corps that get the 'get out of jail free' option, but it seems like a fair idea, no?
As it is easier for right handed people to have a cigarette to someone on their right, this would make quite a simple answer here also - easily enough to skew statistics.
Of course it is very common these days to ignore other cause/effect possibilities in 'proving' ones theory.
I almost all countries selling goes without reasonably availability of parts and service is against the law.
For cars there are even often quite specific laws - same for consumer electronics in many countries.
In the 'good old days' before such laws it was very common for the repair of such items to cost *nearly* as much as a new item, and only be allowed through a 'licensed' repairer, these days (in some countries and for some goods) we have better protection for that.
A lot of this came about from people paying hundreds of dollars for a 10 cent replacement component in TVs.
Not that I disagree at all (I myself believe that to a very large extend a brain is a brain is a brain, its how its nurtured and cared for that matters).
But, what you just said here is the bottom of both barrels are just as low, which tells us very little.
I've reduced the copyright duration I'm willing to observe to 0 years.
How would you feel if your boss decided to do the same with your paycheck? Or are you trying to tell us that your work deserves compensation while the work of others does not?
No, you are wrong.
The equivalent of this is your boss deciding that your current pay check is halved, but you must continue to work for him.
In fact, with then indefinite copyright extensions in effect through corporate ownership of copyrighted items, it is as if your boss decided to withhold your paycheck for ever, but continued to expect you to turn up and work..
Copyright is an agreement between the public, and the copyright holders - but the intention of the agreement is now being violated by the holders, so is in effect voided by them.
I am actually a big copyright supporter, however I strongly believe that the media organisations and the govt. have destroyed the goodwill and meaning of the original concept, which is a disaster for all parties as all respect and meaning is lost.
Slashdot Mirror
That must have been in basic yes?
A 6502, in assembly language, can sort 256 adjacent byte, faster than that.
Even with a trivial bubble sort.
they are not fast,
Sigh, does your two year old use books ONLY for reading?
as I pointing out, reading does come on the list, its just not always at the top, and children
certainly dont treat delicate electronic devices with respect that their cost and complexity
would warrant.
Or do you disagree with that?
It is quite obvious that Ms.Potters approach to making a book was exactly the opposite of an e-book....
These people obviously dont have young children.
Young children dont *read* books, that is about the 5th to 6th use of them.
#1 is they eat books (chew on them whenever possible)
#2 is they use books as hammers (apparently hitting things with large flat objects is fun!)
#3 is they throw them the moment they are more than 5 inches above the ground
Can someone lend me a kindle (/ipad/whatever) and a stopwatch? I have an experiment in mind...
I suspect Ms.Potters idea was more about making books MORE disposable, not less (the foldups could be printed more cheaply, as no binding).
What complete rubbish. a non-compete does not stop someone from working, it stops someone from working in a competing area!
Small difference? that depends. If (and I say if..) a company has spent years and a lot of its money training someone up to be
highly valuable in a specific area, what happens to the investment that company has made when the employee jumps straight
to their competitor?
The only other solution is not to train staff, to make them train themselves, to only employ staff with existing experience and
training (and never to then grow the), etc - all very bad things.
A lot of staff seem to forget that it is a give and take situation, and a balance is required. Especially in a small company the investment
and trust placed in an employee, especially a senior one, can be substantial..
Stop trying to paint companies as always bad, and employees as always good - I have twice seen employees near the critical point in
large contracts suddenly present offers from other companies, and in effect try and blackmail massive payments from their current
company, because they hold information entrusted to them by the company...
If you want to drink their coolaid, feel free, but the fact remains that the local ecologies are much better off on average than without the accident.
Of course the gains are because people on the whole are removed, which massively outweighs the small reductions from the remaining radiation.
What they are doing is claiming that is prople were removed, AND there had been no accident, the ecology would be (slightly) even better off, well duh!.
The interesting detail I picked up from this was that Chernobyl continued operation (on other reactors) for 14 years after this disaster.
The popular view of the accident would be that the area was unusable, and most probably lethal - it would seem not.
Of course, the wildlife in the area also shows this, however it is interesting how reality gets buried in popular belief.
You are ignoring the thing that makes a difference.
Are you writing the application yourself then offering it to the client (contracted sale).
Are they contracting you to write the application (contracted service)
Or are they employing you to develop the software.
The first two are down to the contract between yourselves, the last one is pretty solidly with them.
Close..
If you are *employed* to do work what you say is generally correct, and I had exactly the same situation with a photograher, however that is because they are not employed, but contracted to provide a service, so the contract can be whatever they wish - and they often wish to try and hammer you to the wall ;).
Interestingly, in television production of an event the cameramen dont try this little trick, funny that.
It all comes down to the nature of the agreement for the creator, and employment is a pretty solid hammer there (the employer gets the copyright, in general), however sale of items/services is VERY different, and that is what is being considered here, so it is down to the contracts.
Bullshit:
"Since modification to the house is a change to the copyrighted article, the copyright owner should be consulted."
No, modifications to the ARCHITECTS BLUEPRINTS could well be, however modifications to the HOUSE are most certainly not.
And ignoring that, short of work of art type buildings (for which notable architects often negotiate interesting contracts) anyone who contracts an architect for the production of a design without copyright transfer would have a number of problems, not limited to the requirement to supply unrestricted copies to the councils/government agencies, etc required.
If copyright stuck in the way you are trying to imply, then a photograph of a busy street would be covered by literally thousands of copyrights - all the clothes being worn, the buildings, the cars in the image, everything that was covered by such IP. It is not, and neither is the house - the copyright only attaches to the specific item, the plans produced.
Someone could quite happily product new plans by, say, measuring the building, and modify those, or just modify the building without plans, or with a modification plan, etc.
So anyway, back to the matter at hand, stop spouting bullshit, any such limitation would need to be specifically contracted.
Funny enough we currently have 4 channels of winter olympics running.
Talk to your broadcaster, they have the option.
There are many cyclists who are capable of traveling at or above the urban speed limits, and around here do.
Should they be banned from the bike lanes? what exactly is the bike lane speed limit?
I would love to see what would happen if someone did try and enforce a nice and slow and safe limit on them, i bet a rather vocal group of riders would go nuts.
Also, to address your other BS.
Have you looked in the rear vision mirror of a parked car when bikes are coming past? they are VERY hard to spot, especially when going fast (as they often are), that is why riders must take care - I ride motorcycles, and we get the same problem, except hitting something much faster, attached to something much heavier, kills us more often... you know what we do? take care!
And there is NO moped in the world that makes more pollution than an SUV, you are just showing everyone your own personal bias and one eyed view of transportation. Stop thinking you are so perfect and deal with the real world, as the rest of us do.
I ride a motorbike (and at times a pushbike) on the road, and have learned one thing very well.
It is the job of the more at-risk to protect themselves!
Anything else is just a stupid unrealistic dream.
Reality is that I must avoid cars pulling in front of me, cutting me off, and at times trying to drive through me when I am stationary. This is life.
Every day (I commute through an area of main road loved by cyclists) I see them 'downhilling' down a lethal bit of road - not to commut but for fun, and high speed (often above the speed limit), taking wide corners, and without the ability to quickly stop. I have seen several very serious accidents there, however I have never seen a car-on-car accident there as it is a safe bit of road, the usual accident is a bike into the back of a car, or once into the front when taking a corner WAY too wide.
The road is not a playground, it is there for transportation, and it is dangerous. Many drivers are borderline incompetent, so you must weight up the risks, and make some serious decisions.
Go and do a little learning and see exactly how much of the nitrogen present condenses at his output temperatures, and then how much of that is bio avaiable? didnt bother to do that? I thought not.
Now, care to apologise for your slight knowledge? hmm, seems unlikely.
Sigh.
Of course, he had good crops this year, and it happened to rain well this year, hmmm, it must be the exhaust.
And even ignoring that, you fertilise mainly to add NITROGEN (compounds, bio available..), not carbon which plants quite happily get from the air ANYWAY.
In other words, the whole thing is pure BS, and very very slighly bad for the crops, and there are many many rather nasty chemicals in diesel exhaust.
You know, that annoying little detail in the copyright law that states once the copyright lapses the content becomes public property?
The price we are supposed to get for our taxes paying for the protection of their rights?
Oh, they didnt think of that? Their intention is for us to never own the content? Hmm.....
Although the DMCA has tried to remove that 'right' already, of course through making it illegal to be able to remove such protection.
You people really really really have no understanding of the forces involved in a thermonuclear explosion do you?
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&q=Bikini+Atoll,+Marshall+Islands&ie=UTF8&cd=1&geocode=FaxhsAAdTJ7bCQ&split=0&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=23.875,57.630033&ll=11.696365,165.273685&spn=0.069928,0.062056&t=h&z=14
That hole there was the first hydrogen bomb test - it used to be an island. The hole is approx. 2km by 1km. Castle Bravo shot. 15MT.
Most modern ICBMs have much less yield, however it is certainly still 'enough'. These are city killers, a ship no matter how large is an easy target.
If someone drops something big on a carrier group then nothing survives - modern weapons have no problem being programmed for ground proximity detonation, and would leave very very little.
Luckily the people with the ability to deliver such weapons accurately enough are unlikely to actually want to...
Umm, Python runs just fine on the e71?
http://wiki.opensource.nokia.com/projects/PyS60_applications
http://nocivus.posterous.com/python-on-my-e71-sweet
http://www.forum.nokia.com/Tools_Docs_and_Code/Tools/Runtimes/Python_for_S60/
I find my E71 just great, of course would now love the new N900, but that will wait.
Ever seen a good old paper-white grayscale CRT?
Simply adjust your monitor to suit - it aint that hard (except of course many LCDs have very poor spectra..)
A lot of people run their monitor eye-burningly bright, then complain of eye strain - a book doesnt actually have that much contrast!
From my first pass over it this actually looks like a very strange way to describe a rather simple approach.
More generically they could achieve the same, if not more, by using a differential PPM or LZ method, which is very simple to design/implement, needs zeto knowledge of what data it is handling, and is in no way a new idea.
I suspect whomever designed this had a good idea but not that enough compression experience to know solutions were already on hand.
In effect the new binary should be compressed with a dictionary compresser pre-initialised with the contents of the old binary as an initial seed and everything needed is achieved - the initial compression time can be large for a large binary, however as this is a single compress, millions of decompress situation, it would not matter at all (and by large I mean minutes, not days).
Still, their more complex description/implementation sounds much more whizzy and gets more attention, no doubt.
Yes, writing too fast in the middle of working on things so got some of the terminology wrong..
So tell me, as I would be technically guilty if say someone hacked my computer and left such files there, or hacked the WEB on my wireless router and transfered such data, why should I not be able to also get such protection?
The issue here is that the data on computers is a LONG way from under the control of their owner - there are many many ways that data can both arrive and leave without the owner knowing, and no suitable defensive measures for the owner.
Why should there not be? if these filters are so good that they can provide the ISPs with legal protection (of course they are not as they are tirivial to bypass..) then why are they not good enough to also provide myself with protection from other third parties?
this is my whole point, the systems are so full of holes they are worthless - and yet they provide protection only for a select subset of entities at risk from prosecution. Where is the equivalent protection for end users?
If I am to be 100% responsible for all content on my home computer/network, then why are the ISPs not responsible for theirs? is them having a business model more important than me being ABLE to act legally?
And as we all know, it is meant to be 'a get out of jail free' for the ISPs - they simply complain that they cannot be held responsible, and they are given this - why is the same not available to normal people who are also willing to try and follow such rules?
Or perhaps you can explain how I can feasible guarantee not to offend with a home computer attached to the internet? (not attempt.. guarantee.)
Do you want to be held responsible for anything done with a computer you own? you you have children and their friends who ever use that computer? friends and family who visit? have you ever got a virus on your computer? do you use a wireless access point?
The way this is usually done is by offering ISPs a safe harbour whereby they are not responsible for their users traffic if they follow the 'rules'.
My question is, why is this not available to ordinary people?
ie: if you run govt selected filtering software on your computer, you should be immune to prosecution for content accessed from that computer - much the same way as the ISPs are.
In NZ I believe posession of child pornography is automatically an offense with no defense (ie: even if you did not know it was present due to someone else accessing it) - so such an arrangement would have the advantage of protecting individuals who chose to opt in.
Of course this wont happen as its only the corps that get the 'get out of jail free' option, but it seems like a fair idea, no?
Quite.
As it is easier for right handed people to have a cigarette to someone on their right, this would
make quite a simple answer here also - easily enough to skew statistics.
Of course it is very common these days to ignore other cause/effect possibilities in 'proving' ones
theory.
Actually you are very wrong.
I almost all countries selling goes without reasonably availability of parts and service is against the law.
For cars there are even often quite specific laws - same for consumer electronics in many countries.
In the 'good old days' before such laws it was very common for the repair of such items to cost *nearly* as much as a new item, and only be allowed through a 'licensed' repairer, these days (in some countries and for some goods) we have better protection for that.
A lot of this came about from people paying hundreds of dollars for a 10 cent replacement component in TVs.
Consumer Guarantees can be a good thing.
Not that I disagree at all (I myself believe that to a very large extend a brain is a brain is a brain, its how its nurtured and cared for that matters).
But, what you just said here is the bottom of both barrels are just as low, which tells us very little.
Not perhaps look at the middle and top?
I've reduced the copyright duration I'm willing to observe to 0 years.
How would you feel if your boss decided to do the same with your paycheck? Or are you trying to tell us that your work deserves compensation while the work of others does not?
No, you are wrong.
The equivalent of this is your boss deciding that your current pay check is halved, but you must continue to work for him.
In fact, with then indefinite copyright extensions in effect through corporate ownership of copyrighted items, it is as if your boss decided to withhold your paycheck for ever, but continued to expect you to turn up and work..
Copyright is an agreement between the public, and the copyright holders - but the intention of the agreement is now being violated by the holders, so is in effect voided by them.
I am actually a big copyright supporter, however I strongly believe that the media organisations and the govt. have destroyed the goodwill and meaning of the original concept, which is a disaster for all parties as all respect and meaning is lost.